Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="John Morrow" data-source="post: 2218713" data-attributes="member: 27012">As the DM, you are the answer ATM for your setting.  While I'm normally one of those people who say role-playing games aren't books or movies, I do think that a principle from fiction writing does come into play here.  When an DM creates a setting with a Moral Problem like this, much as like when an author starts writing a story with a conflict, there is an implied promise that you'll answer it by the end.  If you don't, or if the answer isn't satisfying, players will respond like the little kid in The Princess Bride when the grandfather tells him that the prince won't die by the end.  Something along the lines of, "Why are you jerking me around with this stuff if I'm not going to like how it turns out?"  Your players are going to ask the questions we're asking.  Why?  Because if I'm out driving with a friend and he says that he's certain that a store closes at 5pm on Sunday but I'm certain that it's open until 7pm, both of us will likely question our certainty because that's what people do when confronted by other people who are certain that you are wrong.  We doubt.  If your Outsiders are all certain they are right yet can't all be right, why doesn't this make any of tehm uncertain?  Yes, you can claim that they are simply inscrutable and it's beyond the understanding of mere mortals but that's not a very satisfying answer.  And if you don't have an answer, the odds of you saying or doing something that's mutually exclusive and contradictory goes way up. Well, it ends their lives and the Good alignment, as per the RAW, does value life, not simply souls.A question is whether this "respects the dignity of sentient creatures" (part of being Good) or is a form of oppression (part of being Evil).  If they welcomingly embrace it, one could argue that it respects their dignity but oppression is still going to be arguable.Sure, but you can't make all of your Good Outsiders happy with both overbearing Law and overbearing Chaos.  So you aren't even talking about Good vs. Evil.  You are talking about every alignment for themselves.  And given the requirements of the Good alignment (which includes altruism), I still come back to finding it difficult to imagine every alignment, never mind every Good alignment, playing Russian Roulette with the universe with absolute certainty.  I can't see the Lawful alignment taking a gamble, for example, nor can I see any Good alignment being untroubled by the implications this will have on the other Good alignments or the Neutral alignments.And if every Outsider is equally convinced that to destroy the Prime Material Plane is to be triumphant, why don't they all simply join forced together and make it happen?  If you have enough certainty to put your entire stake on a single number on a roulette wheel, why not accept help from everyone and anyone who offers it?Part of the theme of the Dune series was to be careful of what you wish for in a messiah because they may not be what you expect them to be.  But rather than making it a Cthonian monstrosity, I'd suggest making it yet another "too much of a good thing".  For example, perhaps it believes in balance through eternal warfare or perhaps it stops souls from migrating to the Outer Planes, quickly reincarnating them instead (making Raise Dead or Reincarnate useless after a day or two because the soul will already be in a new body or, perhaps, about nine months, causing a miscarriage if you pull the soul back out of the new body before birth).  Think "too much of what you wanted" rather than "not what you wanted at all".There is another part of this that you may be missing.  While it could be argued that Good does not have to necessarily suffer the existence of Evil, Good may have to suffer the existence of Neutrality so long as the Neutral beings are "innocent" of any wrongdoing warranting their death or oppression.  While it can be argued that Good can smite Evil with impunity (after all, that's why Paladins get that ability), it would be difficult to argue that Good can smite Neutral with impunity, too.  The alignments are not symetrical and are not meant to be, in my opinion.I think that's a Lawful vs. Chaotic debate and another aspect is that the chaotic alignments probably value diversity (for diversity's sake) more than the Lawful alignments do and would likely consider a narrowing of alignments down to a single slice as something that is not (little-g) good from their perspective.  In other words, the idea of ending conflict, uncertainty, and disorder once and for all seems antithetical to the Chaotic alignments.Then those Paladins and Clerics who do have a deity should be following their deity.  Those that don't are more free.Then how does a Paladin get their power shut off for breaking the rules?But why would they care and on what grounds would it be blasphemy?In theory the Archons and the Paladins would try to convince each other that one or the other is right.  What's lacking here is the reason why your Archons are so certain that they'll come out victorious in the end.  That's the sort of thing that they would tell the Paladin.  One of them is not being Lawful Good and the would seek to know for certain which one is wrong.The problem is that by making your Outsiders inscrutable, you are robbing the players of their ability to take sides based on a rational assessment of the odds and stakes.  They might as well roll a die to pick sides unless you give them some clues about who is right and who is wrong.  Personally, as a player, that would leave me with a "who cares" attitude because to care, I have to have some emotional investment in how things turn out and it's difficult for me, anyway, to get emotionally invested in what is essentially a guess that can't be made on an informed basis.Well, without arguing the point in any depth, the theology of Christianity poses certain problems that have produced certain answers over the years (e.g., How can a good God allow bad things to happen?  Why does evil exist in the world?  etc.).  The standard polytheistic cosmology of D&D poses different problems that can produce very different answers.  And Good in D&D is not simply a contrast to Evil but something that can be defined by not only a yes and no checklist and also something that can be detected, like a color.  Does blue need to exist for there to be red?  Can one define red independent of knowing what blue?  Does red cease to be red if we eliminate blue?  If everyone in a setting is altruistic, peaceful, and respects others, then they are still Good, right?</blockquote>

Verification