Alignment Sucks

[Draco_Argentum]

Its not that they have to all like each other. But they do have to have a common objective force to follow. If they don't they aren't an alignment, they're a personality type.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

RC: I have yet to see anyone propose a description of Chaotic that suggests they work well together. How do they constitute a "Team"?

-Desdan

[RandomCasualty]

1154840855[/unixtime]]RC: I have yet to see anyone propose a description of Chaotic that suggests they work well together. How do they constitute a "Team"?

Well, they constitute a team in that a lot of people here seem to want some kind of Law versus Chaos war going on, where people will kill you because you happen to be on the Chaos team and they're on the law team.

This is not a good idea in my opinion because you want to give PCs some leeway with alignment. It's okay to say non-evil but now we're saying non-chaotic or non-lawful too. And that will greatly reduce people's possible choices for alignments.

Not to mention that the chaos/law war is not well understood by players and thus will be really tough to roleplay. I

[Crissa]

Lawfuls get along because... They're lawful - they use courts and torts and contracts to deal with each other and spend endless hours filing things alphabetically. They make sure what comes around goes around, or at least, as it they perceive it.

Chaotics get along 'cause they know that the best way not to bug someone is to not, ya know, invade their space, golden rule of treat as wanted to be treated and bad actions provide bad results. Karma. What comes around will go around, at least, they expect it will.

Of course, Evil doesn't care, and Good does, but that's neither here nor there.

-Crissa

[squirrelloid]

Honestly, i don't care if alignments describe characters at all. If all characters were True N, that would be fine by me. (I tend to strip all classes of alignment requirements anyway).

What i do care about is we have beings of pure unadulterated Law floating around out there, and i don't have a fucking clue what that means. Alignment isn't a character creation tool, its a fundamental force in the universe because there are beings who are totally owned by those compass points. So when i say 'L-C as negative-positive entropy would be cool', i mean, this is something that could plausibly work to describe outsiders allegiance. It doesnt have to make sense to the characters - its even better if it doesnt. Pure good and pure evil for their own sakes probably doesnt make any fucking sense to the characters either. A Solar doesnt do good things because they're beneficial or helpful, he does them because they're good, and he's [Good], and has no fucking choice about the matter. So a [Lawful] being just does lawful things. It doesnt even understand there's another way to do things, it can't help itself. And thus we need to know what the fuck we mean when we say lawful things.

Basically, the fact that outsiders are beings of pure alignment means that alignment has to be a cosmic fundamental force in the universe. Alignment needs strict defining because these beings aren't going to consider consequences, they're going to act as extensions of those fundamental forces. It would be like having outsiders that were [gravity] [electro-magnetism] [weak nuclear] [strong nuclear]. We don't have a fucking clue why those and only those forces exist in our world, but they do, and they behave in strictly defined (if not perfectly understood) ways. So just like a graviton gets the [gravity] descriptor, a solar gets the [good] descriptor, and is just as much a force of unabashed reality as the graviton is.

So unless you're a cleric dedicated to one of these forces, i could care less what your alignment is, and cannot reconcile the idea of alignment as a personality descriptor with the idea of alignment as a fundamental force in the universe.

[RandomCasualty]

1154887318[/unixtime]] Pure good and pure evil for their own sakes probably doesnt make any fvcking sense to the characters either. A Solar doesnt do good things because they're beneficial or helpful, he does them because they're good, and he's [Good], and has no fvcking choice about the matter.

Actually, no not quite.

Angels aren't above moral choices, given that the angel mythology contains references to fallen angels. Angels apparently do have a choice in the matter.

In fact, you can't really be good without choosing to be good, as performing actions solely because it goes along with your programming is a lawful act and not a good one. Being good requires some concern for life, which requires free will. Similarly being evil requires a choice as well.

Now, purely lawful creatures may end up being like robots, unable to think outside the box of their own internal programming.

I'm not really sure what a purely chaotic creature would be like. Most likely it'd be totally batshit insane.

[squirrelloid]

1154894127[/unixtime]]

1154887318[/unixtime]] Pure good and pure evil for their own sakes probably doesnt make any fvcking sense to the characters either. A Solar doesnt do good things because they're beneficial or helpful, he does them because they're good, and he's [Good], and has no fvcking choice about the matter.

Actually, no not quite.

Angels aren't above moral choices, given that the angel mythology contains references to fallen angels. Angels apparently do have a choice in the matter.

In fact, you can't really be good without choosing to be good, as performing actions solely because it goes along with your programming is a lawful act and not a good one. Being good requires some concern for life, which requires free will. Similarly being evil requires a choice as well.

Now, purely lawful creatures may end up being like robots, unable to think outside the box of their own internal programming.

I'm not really sure what a purely chaotic creature would be like. Most likely it'd be totally batshit insane.

Thats where you're wrong. This isn't Milton. The Solar is inherently good. Everything it does is automatically good. There are no such thing as fallen angels in any D+D cosmology. Devils and Demons are strictly different. Satan is not a former Solar.

And what makes that lawful to automatically do things. Following programming is clearly not 'lawful' because constructs are all N. We don't even know what lawful means, because its never clearly defined, so to say something is lawful presumes much. The only thing we know is that [lawful] beings always act lawfully. How they act is currently at the sole discretion of DMs because they never defined what that means. Hence you can't really call any course of behaviour lawful.

Finally, that constructs are true N means that action can only have an alignment descriptor if (1) there was free will to choose that action, (2) the being has no will but is that alignment.

Hence all attacks by a devil are Lawful and Evil - its not that its willing itself to attack are those alignments, its that its a being of purely those alignments that makes it so.

[RandomCasualty]

1154912727[/unixtime]]
Thats where you're wrong. This isn't Milton. The Solar is inherently good. Everything it does is automatically good. There are no such thing as fallen angels in any D+D cosmology. Devils and Demons are strictly different. Satan is not a former Solar.

Rumor in the underworld tells that the first erinyes were angels who fell from their lofty heights because of some temptation or misdeed.

Fallen angels exist in D&D, whether you choose to believe it or not.

[Draco_Argentum]

One of the Lords of the Nine is explicitly called a fallen angel. Baalzebul IIRC.

[squirrelloid]

1154915035[/unixtime]]

1154912727[/unixtime]]
Thats where you're wrong. This isn't Milton. The Solar is inherently good. Everything it does is automatically good. There are no such thing as fallen angels in any D+D cosmology. Devils and Demons are strictly different. Satan is not a former Solar.

Rumor in the underworld tells that the first erinyes were angels who fell from their lofty heights because of some temptation or misdeed.

Fallen angels exist in D&D, whether you choose to believe it or not.

You mean: "Fallen angels exist, if you decide the rumor is true." Thats hardly definite evidence of such, its an option.

And stuff like that is only tossed in because they read Milton, not because they stopped to consider what it meant for something to be [good].

I suppose it could be possible through magic to transform something that was [good] to [evil], but i reject the notion that any [good] being can choose to act, much less choose to act in ways that aren't [good] - it doesnt make any sense with the notion that Solars are inherently and constitutionally pure good - which is what that [good] tag means. If it loses that tag, its no longer a Solar.

Heck, if it becomes [evil] it stops being an angel. Quote SRD Angel entry: "Angels can be of any good alignment. Regardless of their alignment, angels never lie, cheat, or steal. They are impeccably honorable in all their dealings and often prove the most trustworthy and diplomatic of all the celestials." Thus, anything that lies, cheats, or steals is not an angel by definition. So you might be able to stop being an angel (via magic presumably, since you can't choose to act against your alignment), but angels cannot technically fall.

[Fwib]

Saying angels can't fall because if they do, they aren't angels anymore is like saying trees cant be made into furniture because if they are, they aren't trees anymore.

[User3]

One of the mightiest of the archdevils, Baalzebul is known as the Lord of the Flies, Lord of Lies, the Fallen One, and, more recently, the Slug Archduke. Originally an archon named Triel who dwelt in the good-aligned planes, Baalzebul succumbed to temptation, craving more power and authority than Heaven would grant him. His quest for perfection took him too far, and he was blinded by ambition. Soon he found himself in hell in a new form: a tall, powerful, dark-skinned humanoid with the compound eyes of a fly.

there you go, Triel the Fallen/Baalzebul. Straight from official 3rd edition. The fallen DO exist in 3rd edition. end of discussion.

[squirrelloid]

1154968796[/unixtime]]

One of the mightiest of the archdevils, Baalzebul is known as the Lord of the Flies, Lord of Lies, the Fallen One, and, more recently, the Slug Archduke. Originally an archon named Triel who dwelt in the good-aligned planes, Baalzebul succumbed to temptation, craving more power and authority than Heaven would grant him. His quest for perfection took him too far, and he was blinded by ambition. Soon he found himself in hell in a new form: a tall, powerful, dark-skinned humanoid with the compound eyes of a fly.

there you go, Triel the Fallen/Baalzebul. Straight from official 3rd edition. The fallen DO exist in 3rd edition. end of discussion.

I'm willing to go so far as to say the fluff evidence of fallen angels is irrelevant. Fluff can be rewritten. The mechanical reality of [alignment] tags means that those beings just are those alignments, everything they do is of those alignments, and there are no two ways about it. When fluff and crunch conflict, the crunch has to win or we just have to throw the whole alignment bathwater out with the baby.

I'm not going to pretend that WotC understands what [alignment] tags necessarily means, or even understands their own rules (anyone remember 3.0 polymorph other contradicting itself over ex abilities? - and that was within one spell description). And to expect the fluff writers, who are clearly borrowing from Milton here, to understand the crunch is asking for a miracle.

so either the [alignment] tags mean exactly what they say, or alignment is totally meaningless. Take your pick. And honestly, i'm fine either way.

[squirrelloid]

1154967644[/unixtime]]Saying angels can't fall because if they do, they aren't angels anymore is like saying trees cant be made into furniture because if they are, they aren't trees anymore.

I'm saying they can't even start to fall. The whole transition has to be instantaneous (eg, via magic), because they can't even get the ball rolling. They can't choose to do evil on their own. Period. It would be like the tree going from tree to furniture instantaneously.

At which point 'falling' is a really poor metaphor. More like magically transformed. And guaranteed to not be of their 'choosing', whatever that means for an [alignment] tagged being, since they were totally [good] before they were magically turned to [evil].

[Fwib]

The thing is, having the [good/evil] subtypes doesn't make it impossible to do things that are of the opposite alignment, that I know of.

Please cite stuff that says that alignment subtypes actually make it impossible (rather than difficult) to perform alignment-opposed acts.

[squirrelloid]

1154970895[/unixtime]]The thing is, having the [good/evil] subtypes doesn't make it impossible to do things that are of the opposite alignment, that I know of.

Please cite stuff that says that alignment subtypes actually make it impossible (rather than difficult) to perform alignment-opposed acts.

The rules never say anything about their actions. They merely say they may have other alignments.

What they do say is this:

A subtype usually applied only to outsiders native to the lawful-aligned Outer Planes. Most creatures that have this subtype also have lawful alignments; however, if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype. Any effect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature has a lawful alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is. The creature also suffers effects according to its actual alignment. A creature with the lawful subtype overcomes damage reduction as if its natural weapons and any weapons it wields were lawful-aligned (see Damage Reduction, above).

Yet alignments are defined entirely in terms of actions (and yet are somehow objective truths of reality at the same time). Eg, since alignment is defined in terms of action, actions have alignment. And (most) beings which have alignments have those because of actions they take.

What this means is that all of a [lawful] creatures actions would detect as [lawful] if magic can detect such a thing. Every attack they make is a [lawful] action. Every time they take a piss its a [Lawful] action. They are Law, regardless of what alignment is written on their monster sheet. So assuming a Solar is torturing innocents at the moment, and you detect good, the Solar lights up as Good.

At which point either alignment actually means something, and despite the fact that they grant such creatures to have other alignments, things with [$alignment] actually have to be $alignment, or alignment means nothing because beings who are 100% $alignment to the very molecules of their being can act as -$alignment whenever they feel like it. It would be like gravity suddenly deciding to act as magnetism.

The reason we keep having this discussion is because Wizards can't write coherent alignment rules. Alignment for players is based on actions, because the PCs aren't inherently any given alignment. Alignment for outsiders is structural, they are literally built of the fucking stuff, and thus are always treated as those alignments because the very fibers of their being are made of pure unadulterated alignment.

And if this doesnt mean they have to (not compelled to, just necessarily) act that alignment, then the whole structure of the game breaks down. Alignment means nothing for PCs at that point, because the physical embodiment of good can torture people and sacrifice virgins to the unnamed Lords or Madness, and still be [good]. Eg, torture is suddenly a good action, because a Solar did it. And that creates a contradiction.

And finally, from the Good vs Evil section:

While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions

So good is an objective state, its not just an opinion, its a verifiable observable phenomena, just like gravity. Thus [good] creatures are objectively good, without possibility of it being otherwise.

The current D+D rules try to have both subjective and objective good and evil. This doesn't work. And if good is subjective, being [good] is impossible. If good is objective, [good] is a straightjacket that doesn't permit deviation. It is the subjective view of good which permits angels to fall. Because a fall necessitates allowance of the idea that what you are doing is good right up until the plunge (and the quote about Baalzebub describes exactly this). But if good is objective there is no deluding yourself. As a being of [good] every fiber of your being rejects actions which arent good.

[Fwib]

Can you cite a source for the idea that all actions performed by a creature with an alignment subtype are actions of that alignment? Because I don't believe that.

[edit]If you were to have it as a rule that [alignment] creatures could only perform [alignment] actions, then you'd either have a (hotly debated) list of actions for each alignment, or ten thousand years of debate and jihad before the action of any such creature - or both.

[squirrelloid]

1154979034[/unixtime]]Can you cite a source for the idea that all actions performed by a creature with an alignment subtype are actions of that alignment? Because I don't believe that.

[edit]If you were to have it as a rule that [alignment] creatures could only perform [alignment] actions, then you'd either have a (hotly debated) list of actions for each alignment, or ten thousand years of debate and jihad before the action of any such creature - or both.

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

This is entirely defined in terms of actions. Being good or evil is the sum of your past actions and your intended future actions. At which point the only way to define [good] and [evil] is in terms of actions.

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

All of these descriptions are descriptions about how you go about acting. Do you perform feats of bravery recklessly? Do you challenge those who oppose you with honor? Honor means nothing outside of action. Recklessness means nothing outside of action. At which point law and chaos only make sense in the context of action. Thus something which is [lawful] or [chaotic] can only be defined in terms of attitude and action.

Basically, the only descriptions of alignment are fundamentally determined by action.

Now, cosmologically speaking, the outerplanes and inner planes share an underlying platonic conceptualization. But where the inner planes are the platonic elements of matter in their pure forms, the outer planes are platonic ideology in pure form. Nirvana isn't just a plane where lawful things are, it is the very essence of Law. Every molecule native to the plane is pure Law. Its essential to its very being. And most of us just sort of smile and nod and go on with our day - but in reality this very concept that a sand grain could be made of pure Law is fucking batshit nuts. It doesn't make inherent sense - its impossible in our reality. This is the most wacked-out magic that is both inherent to the outerplanar system and forces us to think about outerplanar beings as not just humanoids/beasts/etc... living on another plane. Just like everything on the plane of Fire is either Fire or merely drifting through, everything on Nirvana is Law or merely drifting through. Modrons aren't just lawful, they are Law, just like fire elementals are Fire.

And since alignment is only defined through actions, something which is pure Law must act in a Lawful way or its being pure Law doesnt mean anything. Otherwise, the tag [Lawful] is meaningless, the spells that detect alignment are meaningless, and the very outerplanes themselves are meaningless.

Further:

good and evil are objective states

Which means that no, there isn't a Jihad. Alignments aren't subjective. There is one universal ideal of Good, one universal ideal of Evil, one universal ideal of Law, and one universal ideal of Chaos. These are objectively real things, personified, embodied, and incarnate on the outer planes, and the beings which are these idealologies can be nothing but hands which unerringly follow those objective ideals.

The alignment rules are unclear about a lot of things, but they are very clear that there is no room for alternate interpretation on what each alignment is. They just don't give us sufficiently good descriptions to actually arrive at this 'one true' interpretation.

So when before i said that a Paladin has a higher law they are serving, the _a_ is intentional - there aren't multiple higher laws, there is one. And every paladin is bound into its service.

Since the Paladin is equally bound to good, and since all combinations of alignment exist (including beings who are both [Lawful] and [Evil]), it also means that whatever G/E/L/C are, the L/C axis is independent and distinct from the G/E axis and they never conflict. A being of pure Chaos and Evil can't choose evil over chaos - it must be a meaningless question.

Finally, the very idea of spells which detect alignment depend on there existing objective ideals that those labels refer to because the spell returns an objective answer. Otherwise the spells just fail to function.

[User3]

Leaving aside actions for a moment, why doesn't Baalzebub have the [good] subtype? Squirrelloid's quote from the SRD notes that creatures with an alignment subtype retain that subtype even if they change alignments. The implication is that something, divine intervention or whatever, changed Baalzebub's subtype.

Contrariwise, this means that a hypothetical solar that went in for torturing innocents and mass murder, changing its alignment to evil, would still show up as "good" to detect good, as long as no divine intervention took place; moreover, that same solar, because of its evil alignment, would show up as "evil" to detect evil.

I don't really know what that means. How can something be good and evil at the same time? Combining the idea of essential morality with morality determined by choices just doesn't work.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

Isn't there a "Fallen" Template to be applied to Celestials in the Fiend Folio?

Squirreloid, I don't really think you can say "I refuse to acknowaldge your evidence, so I am right", and expect people to take you seriously.

-Desdan

[squirrelloid]

1154989144[/unixtime]]Isn't there a "Fallen" Template to be applied to Celestials in the Fiend Folio?

Squirreloid, I don't really think you can say "I refuse to acknowaldge your evidence, so I am right", and expect people to take you seriously.

-Desdan

Read iaimeki's post above yours. And get off my lawn.

(And thats not refusing to acknowledge the *evidence*, thats refusing to acknowledge the evidence actually *means* something)

[Desdan_Mervolam]

1154989215[/unixtime]](And thats not refusing to acknowledge the *evidence*, thats refusing to acknowledge the evidence actually *means* something)

Same difference. Try proving something before you start calling out for pissing matches.

-Desdan

[squirrelloid]

1154990023[/unixtime]]

1154989215[/unixtime]](And thats not refusing to acknowledge the *evidence*, thats refusing to acknowledge the evidence actually *means* something)

Same difference. Try proving something before you start calling out for pissing matches.

-Desdan

Would you care to answer any of my arguments? Because i think i did prove something. Or you could try to answer Iaimeki's question about what it means when something detects as both Good and Evil. (Phrased much more succinctly than i did).

You can't reject the notion that [alignment] has to have something to do with alignment. You can't reject the notion that alignment is only sensibly defined in terms of actions. And you can't reject the notion that alignment is supposed to be objective. At which point a minor piece of fluff that contradicts the very framework of alignment must leave you in an uncomfortable position - either you reject the fluff, or you reject alignment as a useful concept because good and evil just stopped meaning anything.

And why doesn't Baalzebul have a [Good] descriptor?

So unless you'd like to actually address the issues about alignment rather than jump up and down on a small and basically irrelevant piece of fluff, you might as well not be participating in this discussion.

Edit: And FF has no Fallen template. Sorry. In fact, I didnt find a Fallen template in my index at all, including all monsters and templates from BoED, BoVD, ECS, ELH, FF, FP, FRCS, LEoF, LoM, MF, MM, MM2, MM3, MoF, UE, XPH

[Desdan_Mervolam]

That's an arguement I don't care to get involved in. What I'm talking about is your insistance that angels cannot fall in D&D through their own actions, and how whenever someone presents evidence for it (Eyrinies, Baalzelbub, Fallen template) you put your fingers in your ears and scream "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!". Angels can clearly fall in D&D. What happens afterwards I am content to leave to you guys to figure out. All I care about right now is the falling.

You continue to insist that Angels cannot fall through their own action. Evidence has been provided otherwise. Refute it or go home, but don't keep trying to tell us that your piss poor attempt at logical legerdemain has any value.

-Desdan

[Draco_Argentum]

Note that any reading of the rules that says angels can't fall is just like the 3.x fighter's power level. The rules don't match the fluff so they have to be changed. Fallen angels are a popular plot point, either they're in the game or it sucks.