The 'Wonderland'-Inspired Faces of the RAGE OF DEMONS

Take a peek at some of the art from D&D's upcoming Rage of Demons storyline. This art is by Richard Whitters, who is the art director for D&D and used to work as a concept artist for Magic: the Gathering. WotC's Chris Perkins has indicated that one of the influences on Rage of Demons was Alice in Wonderland, and I think the influence is clear when you look at the characters below.

OUGALOP, kuo-toa cave cricket catcher extraordinaire.

YUK YUK and SPIDERBAIT, goblin adrenaline junkies.

THE SOCIETY OF BRILLIANCE, the Mensa of the Underdark.

GLABBAGOOL, awakened gelatinous cube.

RUMPADUMP and STOOL, myconid followers.

PRINCE DERENDIL, a quaggoth who thinks he's elven royalty.

TOPSY and TURVY, svirfneblin wererat siblings.

THE PUDDING KING, svirfneblin devotee (i.e., flunky) of Juiblex the Faceless Lord.

D&D's "Legion of Doom." What a wonderful bunch of malcontents.
​

 

[Imaro]

Well, not delve into politics or religion, I will just say with no fear of exaggeration, across the board, that every belief system and philosophy ever subscribed to by actual human beings (not figuratively; literally every single one) is more coherent than the nine-point alignment setup. It is crazy incoherent when actually scrutinized, hence why this discussion always devolves this way. But, it makes a very interesting short hand for acting, which is useful for creating a quick and dirty character...until it doesn't or you get a player who thinks Chaotic Neutral is grounds for being an in game rapist or something...

IMO, what we always get are a couple of posters who go on and on about how incoherent it is... and how it's horrible for what we're using it for... without actually showing why and how it's inoherent or explaining convincingly why it shouldn't be working for the people who are actually using it...

 

[Shasarak]

Well, not delve into politics or religion, I will just say with no fear of exaggeration, across the board, that every belief system and philosophy ever subscribed to by actual human beings (not figuratively; literally every single one) is more coherent than the nine-point alignment setup. It is crazy incoherent when actually scrutinized, hence why this discussion always devolves this way. But, it makes a very interesting short hand for acting, which is useful for creating a quick and dirty character...until it doesn't or you get a player who thinks Chaotic Neutral is grounds for being an in game rapist or something...

Even the ones fueled by Marijuana and/or with "science" in their name?

I am going to have to go with, yeah nah.

 

[Fralex]

Well, not delve into politics or religion, I will just say with no fear of exaggeration, across the board, that every belief system and philosophy ever subscribed to by actual human beings (not figuratively; literally every single one) is more coherent than the nine-point alignment setup. It is crazy incoherent when actually scrutinized, hence why this discussion always devolves this way. But, it makes a very interesting short hand for acting, which is useful for creating a quick and dirty character...until it doesn't or you get a player who thinks Chaotic Neutral is grounds for being an in game rapist or something...

I always find Lawful Neutral a little hard to visualize. I mean, what does it say about the alignment that the creatures living on its plane of origin are souless automatons following rules you can't even explain? Lawful Good people want to give structure to the world so that things are more fair and just, Lawful Evil people want to give structure to the world for personal gain and subjugation, so Lawful Neutral people just kind of... want structure? But don't want to do anything with it? They sound more like comical bureaucrats to me than real people, because Lawful Neutral says nothing about what they do believe structure and rules are for. I can't think of any society that enforces generic neutrality.

 

[Hussar]

I just purchased the Planescape boxed set PDF off DND classics... though I had it when I was much younger but lost it... and am re-reading it now. Haven't finished up all 3 books in the set yet but so far I honestly am not seeing why D&D (at least 5e) isn't a good system for it... maybe it's something I haven't read or remembered yet that makes D&D horrible for Planescape... could you elaborate?

Because of alignment. It's that simple for me. Alignment is objective in DND. There's no subjectivity at all. The universe says that if you generally do X then you are alignment Y. What you believe doesn't matter and no amount of belief changes that any more than trying to believe that rain is not wet.

Which makes DND a very poor game for any sort of philosophical debate. There are other systems much better auited for this.

Note, I'm not making a general judgement here. Add the words "for me" to every statement.

 

[steeldragons]

Structure and rules are for one thing...establishing and enforcing Order! The universe must have Order. Without Order there is CHAOS!!! How can you NOT see a world of Order is the best and safest way for society and civilization to thrive?!

...is what a Lawful Neutral character would/should/could say. [MENTION=6785902]Fralex[/MENTION]

Lawyers. Judges...the PERFECT alignment one (of any alignment, really) wants for soldiers, really. Don't think about anything yourself, just follow orders.

I can see it for scholars, sages, diviners (be they clerics or mages), general seekers of "Truth/Order/Justice", anyone who prizes civilization or knowledge (in a neutral, for knowledge's sake/its own reward kind of way).

Lawful Neutral is a fairly common alignment among npcs of my campaign world. Granted, mostly in large/urban centers where having and enforcing order is highly regarded.

 

[Hussar]

Additionally, alignment detection in 3e is not fallible. Anyone believing they are good but detect as evil automatically knows he or she is wrong. There is no doubt or discussion.

 

[Parmandur]

IMO, what we always get are a couple of posters who go on and on about how incoherent it is... and how it's horrible for what we're using it for... without actually showing why and how it's inoherent or explaining convincingly why it shouldn't be working for the people who are actually using it...

It is pretty handy for a shorthand when creating a character; for analyzing complex moral problems.eeeeehhh, not so much. So, working as designed.

 

[Parmandur]

Even the ones fueled by Marijuana and/or with "science" in their name?



I am going to have to go with, yeah nah.

Even those, absolutely.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Well, that is exactly the issue with ontological discussion in philosophy: you can have something as solid as arithmetic or geometry, but throwing in a "Detect Mathematical Soundness" spell...radically changes the epistemological context. Which is what [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is saying.

No, it doesn't change anything important. Most important disagreements with non-idiots are over axioms and definitions, not logic. (This thread is a case in point.) I agree that pemerton is focusing on objective measures of soundness (to continue the analogy), and clearly you agree with that perspective, but all your spell is doing is reifying a particular metalogic. You don't seem to be conscious of the fact that you're relying on a metalogic but it doesn't change the fact that you are, and that other metalogics exist. In fact, you could have spells for other metalogics too--and you could have other goodness-detecting spells in D&D too! "Detect Virtue" = find virgins and those who never lie. Now some Lawful Evil people are objectively Virtuous and some Lawful Good people are objectively non-Virtuous. (In fact, you could even name the new spell Detect Good to be even more confusing.) Just because you have a detector for a phenomenon doesn't mean you have to venerate the quality which is getting detected.

Anyway, I didn't want to beat the dead horse any more, and the question-asker has declined to clarify whom he was addressing, so I'll bow out again right here...

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I always find Lawful Neutral a little hard to visualize. I mean, what does it say about the alignment that the creatures living on its plane of origin are souless automatons following rules you can't even explain? Lawful Good people want to give structure to the world so that things are more fair and just, Lawful Evil people want to give structure to the world for personal gain and subjugation, so Lawful Neutral people just kind of... want structure? But don't want to do anything with it? They sound more like comical bureaucrats to me than real people, because Lawful Neutral says nothing about what they do believe structure and rules are for. I can't think of any society that enforces generic neutrality.

Here's my model:

Extreme Lawful Neutral = Inspector Javert.

He's not cruel, he's not kind, he's not merciful, he's not evil. He's very dedicated and a decent fellow in his way, but he isn't any of the things that align you with "good" by D&D definitions. (Courage and integrity aren't on the radar, which of course is a value judgment by D&D and a perfect example of where someone could disagree with Know Alignment's value system.)

And BTW, Neutral Evil = Edmund Blackadder as personified during season 2 (Elizabethian era). The things he does to Baldrick are just awful. Funny, but awful.