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.
​

 

[fuindordm]

Wow, this is getting deep. It's been an interesting conversation.

I think the spell/alignment interaction has also become more problematic because D&D has evolved from a PRIME + outer realms cosmology to a MULTIVERSE + outer realms cosmology. Consider: the alignment system sprang from literature (especially Tolkien
and Moorcock) where the human world was being actively manipulated by supernatural beings of good/evil/law/chaos. It makes perfect sense for Elric to cast Detect Law/Chaos on himself or other beings, as a pH test for supernatural threats and human agents using magic granted by higher powers. The spells just mean "detect the source of power", not "detect ethos". In a more typical D&D world, the Detect spells can still be used as "detect allied god/power source" without problems, and the KA spell used as "detect ethos" (a sort of mind reading). Elric detects as Chaotic but Know Alignment might reveal him to be neutral in character. The Grand Inquisitor of the Silver Flame detects as Good but Know Alignment reveals him to be evil because he doesn't care one whit about individual lives--only the purity of the church and his own power.

In the multi-prime cosmology, it's a little harder to justify epic battles between existential sources of power across every conceivable D&D world. Alignment-as-ethos is culturally dependent, blurring the edges of alignment-as-power-source. In this cosmology it's more natural to treat the outer realms and their Powers as manifestations of prime material belief, but what detects as LG in Hyperborea might detect as LN in Oerth. Frankly, this is why I rarely use the Great Wheel cosmology--but if I did I would run it as a place where alignment and even planar affinities are fluid and driven by the balance of power in the multitude of PRIMES, not absolutes using the PRIMES as battleground.

Anyway, that's how I run it--and how the structure of the cosmology informs my choice for what the alignment spells do in the world.

 

[pemerton]

I think the spell/alignment interaction has also become more problematic because D&D has evolved from a PRIME + outer realms cosmology to a MULTIVERSE + outer realms cosmology. Consider: the alignment system sprang from literature (especially Tolkien and Moorcock) where the human world was being actively manipulated by supernatural beings of good/evil/law/chaos. It makes perfect sense for Elric to cast Detect Law/Chaos on himself or other beings, as a pH test for supernatural threats and human agents using magic granted by higher powers. The spells just mean "detect the source of power", not "detect ethos".

<snip>

In the multi-prime cosmology, it's a little harder to justify epic battles between existential sources of power across every conceivable D&D world.

Interesting interpretation of Detect Evil etc (as detect power source).

I also agree that the "mulitversification" of D&D makes that approach harder to run with.

the KA spell used as "detect ethos" (a sort of mind reading).

In an old Rolemaster campaign we had mind-reading spells that worked like this.

 

[pemerton]

In Sauron's case, this benefit was most likely not just for himself (which would be CE), but rather in the service of what he must have conceived as "the Greater Good".

Two thoughts in response.

The first is a more-or-less scholastic point of AD&D alignment interpretation: in his DMG Gygax says of evil that it "does not concern itself with rights or happiness; purpose is the determinant". So if Sauron is serving something that he conceives of as "the greater good", but detects as evil, then whatever he is serving it is not rights or happiness. What is it, then? And while presumably he agrees it is not rights, does he also agree that it is not happiness? And if he does, what greater good does he think there is in which neither rights nor happiness figure?

The second point is not about D&D scholasticism but about the LotR. What is Sauron actually doing that could remotely be conceived as contributing to any sort of greater good, however conceived? He is not building any cities. He is not promoting any economic development. He is not even attempting to increase agricultural production. He seems to have no social or economic policies at all. That is why I say that I've always been somewhat puzzled by his motivations. He clearly want to exercise control over people, but doesn't seem to have anything in mind as the purpose for that exercise of control.

 

[I'm A Banana]

What is the difference between "X is a virtue from this perspective but not that perspective" and "some people believe that X is a virtue, but others disagree?" It seems important to PS that the first be different from the second - otherwise there is no "consensus reality", there is just majority and dissident belief. But it is hard for me to grasp the difference.

I don't know that I appreciate that there needs to be a distinction. Consensus reality is formed out of the majority belief so that the former aligns with what a character with the latter would expect. In D&D, and thus in PS, most instances of generosity are seen as things that should gather the Good-aligned mana, and so they do. Someone who disagreed with that consensus would be someone who wanted to change it - who believed generosity is mostly about power exchange, and so should be included in the category of mana that is concerned with power and balance (neutrality, perhaps law) rather than the category of mana that is concerned with selflessness (which is not a part of most generosity according to them). If they succeeded in their missions, the consensus would eventually align with theirs and so someone who is generous would perhaps detect as lawful most of the time, rather than as good, just as they believe it should be.

 

[Hriston]

Two thoughts in response.

The first is a more-or-less scholastic point of AD&D alignment interpretation: in his DMG Gygax says of evil that it "does not concern itself with rights or happiness; purpose is the determinant". So if Sauron is serving something that he conceives of as "the greater good", but detects as evil, then whatever he is serving it is not rights or happiness. What is it, then? And while presumably he agrees it is not rights, does he also agree that it is not happiness? And if he does, what greater good does he think there is in which neither rights nor happiness figure?

Giving the world its God-King? Presumably if you believe such a thing is destined, and Sauron knew much of the the Music of the Ainur, much more than his master, then it may be tempting, if not incumbent on you to bring it about by any means necessary. Sometimes, and I might say frequently, evil people have good reasons to do evil things. That doesn't make them good.

The second point is not about D&D scholasticism but about the LotR. What is Sauron actually doing that could remotely be conceived as contributing to any sort of greater good, however conceived? He is not building any cities. He is not promoting any economic development. He is not even attempting to increase agricultural production. He seems to have no social or economic policies at all. That is why I say that I've always been somewhat puzzled by his motivations. He clearly want to exercise control over people, but doesn't seem to have anything in mind as the purpose for that exercise of control.

What do you think feeds the armies of Southrons and Easterlings that have come from the four corners of the Earth to fight for him? He must be offering them something other than a promised place in the new world order he would establish. I would assume he is already the provider of some sort of stability. Maybe he offered to halt the plagues that were destroying their crops, which, of course, he had created in the first place, if they would only bow down and worship him. Once propitiated, doesn't the renewal of plentiful harvests prove that he is truly worthy of worship? Unfortunately for this discussion, LR doesn't reveal much about the mind of Sauron. Tolkien, in the novelistic style of LR, doesn't talk about such details. We don't see Aragorn, for example, planning the golden age that was to take place after he assumed the throne, and yet we can see by his actions that he is good. The devices of Sauron, in contrast, tell us he is evil.

But at the beginning of the Second Age he was still beautiful to look at, or could still assume a beautiful visible shape – and was not indeed wholly evil, not unless all 'reformers' who want to hurry up with 'reconstruction' and 'reorganization' are wholly evil, even before pride and the lust to exert their will eat them up.

So Sauron was a "reformer", someone who seeks to change the world for the better, it can be assumed. Keep in mind, however, that such a stance can be thought of as sinful, even blasphemous, in the Judeo-Christian tradition, or as hubris in Greek myth. Another purpose for which he may have sought control, and which seems to be at odds with his possible goals as a reformer, might be seen in the making of the Rings of Power. Their most obvious power, even that of the One, was to preserve that which would otherwise have perished from the world. In this work his interests coincided with those of the elves. It could be that the coming Age of Men was something that he saw as a destructive force that he meant to control, or eliminate altogether.

In spite of these goals, however well-meaning, I think that Sauron would have been comfortable self-identifying as evil. He was, after all, a disciple of the original evil. Evil, in this construction of it, accepts domination and oppression as the most expedient and, in fact, necessary means to achieve its goals, however lofty or debased they may be.

 

[pemerton]

What do you think feeds the armies of Southrons and Easterlings that have come from the four corners of the Earth to fight for him?

It's all a bit obscure, because Morder is presented as a barren wasteland, but one gather there are farms SE in Nurn. But did the Southrons and Easterlings not have functioning economies before they came to serve Sauron? My general impression is that they did, but the details are sparse.

He must be offering them something other than a promised place in the new world order he would establish.

<snip>

Unfortunately for this discussion, LR doesn't reveal much about the mind of Sauron. Tolkien, in the novelistic style of LR, doesn't talk about such details. We don't see Aragorn, for example, planning the golden age that was to take place after he assumed the throne, and yet we can see by his actions that he is good. The devices of Sauron, in contrast, tell us he is evil.

<snip>

So Sauron was a "reformer"

We agree that the LotR doesn't reveal much about Sauron. It does make it fairly clear that he is in some sense modernist or "reforming" in his aspirations, but it is somewhat left as an exercise for the reader to understand why that would make him evil.

The same issue doesn't arise for Aragorn, because the whole book is steeped in romantic notions of kingship - it is a fairy story, after all - and as long as Aragorn evokes those tropes, which he amply does, the reader can understand what it is that he promises.

But anti-modernity is not a fairy-tale trope that can be evoked in the same way, I don't think. As a reader knowing something of Tolkien's political and aesthetic views I can interpolate in elements of what Sauron may have been thinking, or promising, but I don't think that is quite the same as having this conveyed by the author.

 

[pemerton]

In D&D, and thus in PS, most instances of generosity are seen as things that should gather the Good-aligned mana, and so they do. Someone who disagreed with that consensus would be someone who wanted to change it - who believed generosity is mostly about power exchange, and so should be included in the category of mana that is concerned with power and balance (neutrality, perhaps law) rather than the category of mana that is concerned with selflessness (which is not a part of most generosity according to them).

In real-world social and moral discussion, the sorts of reasons that someone might put forward for thinking that generosity is not really selfless, and hence not so good as all its advocates make out, would themselves be primarily evaluative. Even debunkers generally have values - they are just diagnosing hypocrisy among the complacent majority.

It would be relatively unusual for someone - except, say, an anthropologist undertaking an analysis of gift-giving practices and other manifestations of reciprocal resepct - to discuss whether or not generosity was truly selfless or not purely as a taxonomic exercise.

But it seems in PS that the taxonomic reasoning is the only reasoning available, because the "consensus reality" removes the possibility of denying that generosity has the evaluative character that the consensus bestows upon it.

To put it in terms of an imagined dialogue, someone (call her X) denies that generosity is good. The interlocutor, Y, replies by saying that it most certainly is good, because the consensus says so. X then objects that the consensus is mistaken, and needs to change. Y asks "Why so?". At which point, it seems that X can only point to the taxonomical/analytical point - that so-called generosity is not selfless - but cannot add what I think nearly every version of X in the real world would want to add: and because it's not selfless, it's not really good.

I don't know that I appreciate that there needs to be a distinction.

I've tried to illustrate why I think there does need to be a distinction. In the real world, the fact that generosity is not selfless - were that a fact - would be a reason to think that it is not good. But that reason depends upon there being some connection between selfness and goodness that exists independently of any consensus.

(Contrast: there is no reason of the same sort why trees should be called "trees" rather than "les arbres". That really is just about consensus usage.)

 

[Fralex]

After taking this personality test (http://www.16personalities.com/personality-types) and finding it scarily accurate, I've started to wonder what it would be like if alignment were based off something more like that.

It takes into account five things: Introversion/Extroversion, Intuition/Observation, Thinking/Feeling, Judging/Prospecting, and Assertiveness/Turbulance.
(I got INFP-T, the "Mediator" group)

 

[I'm A Banana]

It would be relatively unusual for someone - except, say, an anthropologist undertaking an analysis of gift-giving practices and other manifestations of reciprocal resepct - to discuss whether or not generosity was truly selfless or not purely as a taxonomic exercise.

Well it's relatively unusual for someone to delve into dangerous dungeons for wealth and glory as well - the protagonists of our RPGs are relatively unusual people. In PS, one of their defining qualities tends to be a questioning of the existing consensus's value judgements on one thing or another. I don't think this qualifies as "purely a taxonomic exercise" from the perspective of the character.

To put it in terms of an imagined dialogue, someone (call her X) denies that generosity is good. The interlocutor, Y, replies by saying that it most certainly is good, because the consensus says so. X then objects that the consensus is mistaken, and needs to change. Y asks "Why so?". At which point, it seems that X can only point to the taxonomical/analytical point - that so-called generosity is not selfless - but cannot add what I think nearly every version of X in the real world would want to add: and because it's not selfless, it's not really good.

Every version of X in Planescape might not be able to say, literally, "it's not really good" (because it clearly does gather that alignment-mana and a character can prove this with the right magic), but they can say, literally "we should not regard this as good" (as in: it should not gather that alignment-mana, it should gather some other or none in particular), and by that mean largely the same thing as someone in the real world who says "it's not really good."

Certainly in the minds of a PS character, there is no source of "really good" outside of what people regard as good, so to change one is to change the other. It is only good because people say it is, and if we change what people say about it, it won't be good anymore (it won't gather that alignment-mana and so it won't respond to spells or effects that use that alignment-mana, such as detect good or the soul's journey through the Astral Plane to one of the upper planes).

 

[Parmandur]

It's all a bit obscure, because Morder is presented as a barren wasteland, but one gather there are farms SE in Nurn. But did the Southrons and Easterlings not have functioning economies before they came to serve Sauron? My general impression is that they did, but the details are sparse.



We agree that the LotR doesn't reveal much about Sauron. It does make it fairly clear that he is in some sense modernist or "reforming" in his aspirations, but it is somewhat left as an exercise for the reader to understand why that would make him evil.



The same issue doesn't arise for Aragorn, because the whole book is steeped in romantic notions of kingship - it is a fairy story, after all - and as long as Aragorn evokes those tropes, which he amply does, the reader can understand what it is that he promises.



But anti-modernity is not a fairy-tale trope that can be evoked in the same way, I don't think. As a reader knowing something of Tolkien's political and aesthetic views I can interpolate in elements of what Sauron may have been thinking, or promising, but I don't think that is quite the same as having this conveyed by the author.

Sauron's evil is obscure, but probably best seen in his servants and how they treat each other. The Orc dialogue is some of the most interesting in the book: they demonstrate values of friendship, courage, loyalty, but also distrust, betrayal and murder. They are held together by fear, not love or any other positive force.