D&D 5E What is the opposite of a Modron?

[Panda-s1]

@Gradine - is that Frankenstein's practice monster, before he built the real one?

what? no that's Q from star trek, c'mon....

 

[Gradine]

what? no that's Q from star trek, c'mon....

It's pretty wild how accurate this is actually is

 

[plisnithus8]

This is great group-think. I live the idea of anti-modrons being a mutagenic aberrations, amorphous disease, or a Tyrranocancer.

• Each instance has a unique form, a random number of ho and AC, speed, etc.
• They corrupt creatures, able to change their race, gender, stronger versions effecting alignment or level.
• They corrupt the location they are in, creating danger, difficult terrain, maybe desecrating it and making it deadly if they stay long enough.
• They lack pattern of hierarchy, appear anywhere with a soul purpose of creating chaos.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In D&D canon, of course, as has been pointed out, it'd be the Slaadi, who lean more towards CE. There was even a recent thread about how Slaadi fail as exemplars of CN.

The polar opposite of the collectivist Modrons would be profoundly individualistic beings, perhaps even a single being - heck, whether there were more than one or not, each would probably deny having any philosophical/taxonomic/filial/whatever relation to the others, and probably deny being an 'exemplar' of anything other than, tautologically, itself...

...hm... that does sound ever so slightly familiar.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

In D&D canon, of course, as has been pointed out, it'd be the Slaadi, who lean more towards CE. There was even a recent thread about how Slaadi fail as exemplars of CN.

The polar opposite of the collectivist Modrons would be profoundly individualistic beings, perhaps even a single being - heck, whether there were more than one or not, each would probably deny having any philosophical/taxonomic/filial/whatever relation to the others, and probably deny being an 'exemplar' of anything other than, tautologically, itself...

...hm... that does sound ever so slightly familiar.

knocks
(John carpenter's "the thing" is outside)
I heard you were looking for a being(s) of pure primal chaos who also is possibly a disease and a god with which to join and experience the unity of contagious all consuming hyper-individuality with?

 

[Tony Vargas]

knocks
(John carpenter's "the thing" is outside)
I heard you were looking for a being(s) of pure primal chaos who also is possibly a disease and a god with which to join and experience the unity of contagious all consuming hyper-individuality with?

...nope, not it...

...in a sense, that's just Slaadi at a cellular level... no, wait, actually, since they collectively assume forms...

 

[Son of the Serpent]

...nope, not it...

...in a sense, that's just Slaadi at a cellular level... no, wait, actually, since they collectively assume forms...

Oh. I didnt think it was. But some of what you said coukd fit it.

What were you referring to though btw?

 

[Tony Vargas]

What were you referring to though btw?

It really is just a vague sense I have, I can't quite place it.
(...wonder if it could've been something in an old Twilight Zone episode...?)

Anyway, speaking of awkward segues, a true exemplar of chaos would be a completely unique being. A completely unique being would have nothing at all in common with any other being, so no frame of reference to interact with or even be perceived by them.
So there is an exemplar of perfect chaos, but you don't need to worry about it's CR.

Or not.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Hmmm

"Completely unique" is actually an orderly restriction.

It could randomly have a few (likely very few) traits that were in common with at least a few other beings traits.

I would not apply the word "should". But "could" i definitely would apply. I dont think it would be out of the cards.

Perfect chaos would likely include a set with no defined parameters. Therefore non unique traits wouldnt be excluded but there would be no actual tendancy for them to be present either.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Hmmm

"Completely unique" is actually an orderly restriction.

Hey, we're trying to use logic to speculate about the nature of an exemplar of chaos.

But, yeah, an ultimate embodiment of individuality would have no way of interacting with other individuals, any common ground would render it not quite so ultimately individual, right?

(Oh, and it was an old TV episode I was being reminded of: Space 1999, "Immunity Syndrome")

Perfect chaos would likely include a set with no defined parameters. Therefore non unique traits wouldnt be excluded but there would be no actual tendancy for them to be present either.

Metaphysical chaos isn't just being all stochastic, either, as much as EGG liked to use 'randomness' in describing it.