D&D 5E The Multiverse is back....

[The Shadow]

You may have a point as to mortal opinions (nobody does evil for Evil's sake, but then again I hold nobody does Good purely for good sake's either; a certain selfish element is necessary for both).

Purely? No. Our intentions are a mass of things that are never pure. But "good for its own sake" is definitely in there among possible intentions.

However, in the context of a Fantasy RPG, I certainly CAN believe in Evil for Evil's sake (and Good for Good's sake) when it comes to supernatural creatures. A demon is far more evil than an orc despite both being CE; the orc reflects a certain sociopathic mindset while the demon is an embodiment of evil; it cannot think in ways that does not spread evil. Nor would it want to. Evil permeates its every fiber. It seeks evil just to further evil's cause. It delights in pain and suffering not for any personal pleasure, but because it knows it's making the multiverse a worse place by doing it. The demon has not twisted sense of righteousness, it seeks no "greater good." It seeks evil to spread evil; something even an orc could not fathom doing (and they're pretty corrupt).

In the context of the game, its as easy to conceptualize a creature made of pure evil as it is to conceptualize one made of pure fire.

Moral gray areas are fine for kobolds and dragons, but I like my demons nonredeemable.

I'm all for demons being nonredeemable. But I really don't think even they pursue evil for its own sake. In a way, if they did, that would make them LESS evil, bizarrely enough - it would mean they valued something outside their own selfish hides.

My fiends are out for the main chance, pure and simple. They work together (if they do) solely out of self-preservation. Ever read 'The Screwtape Letters'? Lewis makes this same point in his preface.

Oh, and as for 'Han Shot First'? I lol'ed - great example!

 

[Savage Wombat]

I submit that, while in the real world "evil" is a matter of perspective and philosophy, in classic D&D evil was a real, physical (well, metaphysical) thing that could be detected, dispelled, smote, and suddenly visited on someone if you put the right helmet on them.

So conceiving of a creature made up of pure "evil" is no different than a monster made of "fear" or "hatred". In a magical world, this happens all the time.

 

[Nivenus]

I actually think the idea of fallen celestials and redeemed fiends is an interesting one, although I think it should definitely be the exception, rather than the rule. Fall-from-Grace in Planescape: Torment is a good example: a lawful neutral succubus (back when succubi were always chaotic evil demons) whose life experiences has shaped her into a non-evil (but not quite good) being. However, I think such character concepts are at their best when they're done within the confinements of the setting, with consideration for the norms. Fall-from-Grace works as a character specifically because of the fact that she's a contradiction; she wouldn't be interesting if demons could normally buck the trend of chaotic evilness.

On the other hand, I do kind of innately grate against the idea that orcs, goblins, lizardfolk, etc., which are "natural" denizens of the Prime, have no choice in their alignment.

 

[Hussar]

I do not subscribe to authorial intent for sure. Nor would I consider the 1e MorP to be anything other than a supplement. Certainly not core material at all.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I think we may be getting unnecessarily sidetracked.

As others have said, Planescape and the Great Wheel do not necessarily promote a moral equivalence between good and evil. It's one thing to say that cosmic good and cosmic evil are equal in power - that's more or less indicated by their equal standing in the Great Wheel. It's another thing to say that every good action results in an evil reaction (or vice versa). The former is (essentially) true in Planescape; the fiends and celestials of the multiverse exist in a stalemate (as do the devils and demons for that matter). The latter, however, is not.

It is, however, preached explicitly in Greyhawk, explicitly by the chief God of Good in Dragonlance, and maintained by Ao, the Overgod in the Forgotten Realms. It is therefore the standing assumption in all the largest D&D settings. Unless the Planescape Great Wheel is mysteriously different from all other Great Wheels in D&D Cosmology that is what the Great Wheel means. And why throughout this thread I've been saying that the Great Wheel is a terrible fit for Planescape (and to be fair for almost all other settings).

What's more, I don't really see how the World Axis of 4e is any different. The gods have defeated, destroyed, or imprisoned most of the primordials but a great number of them still exist or on the verge of escaping.

The World Axis says "This is how the world is now." There's none of the essential symmetry that the Great Wheel mandates. The World Axis is inherently unstable.

Personally, I'm inclined to think mortals' understanding of the planes in any edition of D&D is probably a bit simplistic and flawed.

Indeed. Which is why I'm going by the word of Gygax, the word of an Overgod, and the word of the chief God of Good. Balance is King. And The Great Wheel is the sort of result where you get where balance and symmetry are in charge.

Quite right. I remember how shocked I was when reading the Gord the Rogue books (hey, I was young - and no, I can't recommend them now) and the protagonists were promoting 'Balance' between solars and demons. The sheer insanity of it took me aback.

The thing is that if we go by D&D's initial cosmology a pro-balance agenda makes sense. That was a straight Law vs Chaos. And both were inimical to humanity and certainly to adventurers. Good vs Evil is an entirely different sort of conflict.

It's interesting that you bring up Star Wars. I hadn't thought of it in this light before, but you're right - the Dark Side is all about unbridled passions, lack of control. It's the antithesis of balance. Of course, Jedi philosophy is so utterly incoherent in so many different ways, it's probably best to leave it there.

Hah, yes!

I must object to (some) of what Permeton and The Shadow said. Evil is not merely the absence of good, nor it it less real than good. If it were, it couldn't hurt us... it'd be illusionary.

That's like saying that vacuum can't hurt us. I happen to think it's wrong, and that the worst evil tends to be a corruption. A cancer. And that some degree of self interest and group identity is necessary for us - but most evil happens when one or other of those gets corrupted.

I must also point out that Aramis Erak's quote, if in fact from Planescape, would only reflect the viewpoint of a minority of characters, mostly petitioners from the Outlands and the Rilmani, who indeed are guilty of believing that good cannot exist without evil, etc. But the folks on the other sixteen planes of the Great Wheel sure don't agree.

So wait a minute. Paladine isn't in one of the sixteen planes of the Great Wheel? Right.

The Archons of Mount Celestia certainly don't think evil is a necessary part of the multiverse, or else they wouldn't bother striving again it.

I don't think that water can be stopped indefinitely. That's no reason to not build a dike and so let Holland flood.

(For the record, I have never subscribed to the idea that good needs evil to exist. I agree, it's as screwy to me as to Permeton and The Shadow.)

Indeed. than a monster made of "fear" or "hatred". In a magical world, this happens all the time.[/QUOTE]

 

[Desdichado]

I actually think the idea of fallen celestials and redeemed fiends is an interesting one, although I think it should definitely be the exception, rather than the rule. Fall-from-Grace in Planescape: Torment is a good example: a lawful neutral succubus (back when succubi were always chaotic evil demons) whose life experiences has shaped her into a non-evil (but not quite good) being. However, I think such character concepts are at their best when they're done within the confinements of the setting, with consideration for the norms. Fall-from-Grace works as a character specifically because of the fact that she's a contradiction; she wouldn't be interesting if demons could normally buck the trend of chaotic evilness.

I actually like the former more than the latter; or at least, I think the former situation should outnumber the latter. Fallen angels are a sufficiently common convention that they work quite well.

 

[ThirdWizard]

It is, however, preached explicitly in Greyhawk, explicitly by the chief God of Good in Dragonlance, and maintained by Ao, the Overgod in the Forgotten Realms. It is therefore the standing assumption in all the largest D&D settings. Unless the Planescape Great Wheel is mysteriously different from all other Great Wheels in D&D Cosmology that is what the Great Wheel means. And why throughout this thread I've been saying that the Great Wheel is a terrible fit for Planescape (and to be fair for almost all other settings).

I've never read anything from the Greyhawk, Dragonlance, or Forgotten Realms settings. I have, however, read just about everything published in the '90s concerning Planescape, and this is all news to me. It sounds like there may be baggage of the Great Wheel from other supplements? But, really, none of that applies to Planescape, and I've never had the slightest notion of what you're saying from anything I've read in any of the Planescape material. So, if what you're saying is accurate (and I have no way of really knowing one way or there other myself) then none of this is a criticism of Planescape, because Planescape does away with all that nonsense. The Great Wheel of Planescape, though, is awesome and I like it more than the Astral Sea of 4e (although I like the Elemental Chaos more than the Elemental Planes of 2e FWIW).

 

[Remathilis]

Purely? No. Our intentions are a mass of things that are never pure. But "good for its own sake" is definitely in there among possible intentions.

The issue here is Objective vs. Subjective morality and that's stretching us into a realm beyond this board. Suffice to say its impossible to make "good/evil for its own sake" something unless their is an objective Good or Evil. D&D has generally accepted Objective Evil/Good as part of its cannon; its detectable by spells, whole planes are made of it, you can be harmed by magic because of it, etc.

I'm all for demons being nonredeemable. But I really don't think even they pursue evil for its own sake. In a way, if they did, that would make them LESS evil, bizarrely enough - it would mean they valued something outside their own selfish hides.

My fiends are out for the main chance, pure and simple. They work together (if they do) solely out of self-preservation. Ever read 'The Screwtape Letters'? Lewis makes this same point in his preface.

Oh, and as for 'Han Shot First'? I lol'ed - great example!

That is assuming evil is always selfish (and by extension, good is selfless). Part of D&D's supernatural evil is that they are more than merely self-serving, they seek to cause active harm. If they were just selfish and lacked moral qualms, they'd just be bigger orcs. By having them serve some greater objective ("Evil") that gives them a goal even larger than themselves which in turn makes them more dangerous, not less. It almost borders of fanaticism, which when bent in destructive ways makes evil all the more terrifying. Yeah, they have a healthy dose of greed, envy, lust, and other mortal sins in them as well, but the idea of creatures driven in their souls to do evil is what makes them different than say, red dragons.

And thanks, I figured I'd give two examples of where even original authorship hasn't stemmed the controversy regarding changes to the cannon, though I think Tolkien gets much less flack than Lucas does.

 

[Remathilis]

I actually think the idea of fallen celestials and redeemed fiends is an interesting one, although I think it should definitely be the exception, rather than the rule. Fall-from-Grace in Planescape: Torment is a good example: a lawful neutral succubus (back when succubi were always chaotic evil demons) whose life experiences has shaped her into a non-evil (but not quite good) being. However, I think such character concepts are at their best when they're done within the confinements of the setting, with consideration for the norms. Fall-from-Grace works as a character specifically because of the fact that she's a contradiction; she wouldn't be interesting if demons could normally buck the trend of chaotic evilness.

On the other hand, I do kind of innately grate against the idea that orcs, goblins, lizardfolk, etc., which are "natural" denizens of the Prime, have no choice in their alignment.

There is a certain story to be told when a creature fights its inner programming and strives toward goodness or falls to darkness; be it Grace or even a certain drow ranger. However, I'd like to think these characters have some spark that made them unique and that you could not, even with enough time and reprogramming, make a pit fiend redeemed. They had something more and more importantly the will to change.

The recent Doctor Who episode "Into the Dalek" dealt with that from a sci-fi standpoint; could you redeem a dalek (a creature programmed with pure hate; a perfect example of supernatural evil) and make him good? I won't ruin the story for those who haven't seen it, but it is a good example of how you can overcome certain elements of your nature, but not others.

In game, such individuals are rare, unique and must always fight their programmed inner nature. Doable? Yes, but success is one in a billion.

 

[Steely Dan]

It is, however, preached explicitly in Greyhawk, explicitly by the chief God of Good in Dragonlance, and maintained by Ao, the Overgod in the Forgotten Realms. It is therefore the standing assumption in all the largest D&D settings. Unless the Planescape Great Wheel is mysteriously different from all other Great Wheels in D&D Cosmology that is what the Great Wheel means. And why throughout this thread I've been saying that the Great Wheel is a terrible fit for Planescape (and to be fair for almost all other settings).

Biased, disingenuous, and incorrect, pay no attention to this baiting, people.