| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Jelennet |
Posted - 28 Mar 2011 : 11:03:00
A question about alignment. In FR wiki I read that eladrin are CG and CN and gnomes are NG, N and CN. What are the main alignments? Are there more CG or Cn eladrin? Are there more NG, G or CN gnomes? |
| 17 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 02 Apr 2011 : 20:56:50
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
There was an option for such a plane presented in the 2e planar sources -- 'twas in either The Guide to the Astral Plane or the one of the Ethereal Plane. Maybe that's what you're thinking about?
-I'd assume so. It came from somewhere, and where, I don't know, so... |
| Markustay |
Posted - 02 Apr 2011 : 20:27:59
Sorry, AFAIK there is no category of 'gender confused' Wiccans. Until the 2oth century catches up to them and they decide there are 'witchloks', you can't be the other.
Just like you can't have male chickens or female bulls.
If you are a guy, you are a WARLOCK (and not the silly D&D version - a REAL one). Embrace your inner Warlock, and go see the movie of the same name (it had some really cool ideas I've used).
Besides, Warlocks lead covens - they are more powerful then most witches (I say most, because you do have the epic Baba-Yaga variety). And they don't get warts - they are usually (but not always) very attractive. From folklore, BTW, not my own opinions on the matter.
If I were given a choice to write any 3e OGL sourcebook, I think Witchcraft might take precedence over the Fey one I'd love to do. 'Natural Talent' mages are under-appreciated in gaming. |
| Aryalómë |
Posted - 02 Apr 2011 : 19:33:15
Uhh, I'm a witch but I don't have any warts and am not a hag (I'm a guy!). I'm prettyneutral when it comes to spells. I do whatever I wan/need todo! Lol
That Wicked Witch of the West seriously need to got to a dermantologist and then get some plastic surgery! |
| The Sage |
Posted - 02 Apr 2011 : 07:43:51
quote:
Originally posted by Dagnirion
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I concur. I like the idea that some of the original fiends were fallen celestials, but I certainly see no reason for an alignment change to suddenly change the critter type for one of these guys.
I'd actually have a problem with it if such a change was mandated in the rules... "Hey, I suddenly have an overwhelming love for puppies, lollipops, and Girl Scout cookies!" (Booooooop, body changes to something new) "Hey, cool, now I have wings and I'm pretty!"
Yeah, I don't see many people buying that one. 
-I haven't looked at D&D books in over a year or so, but isn't there/wasn't there a plane that was basically that? You think it, it happens, similar to how Marvel Comics utilizes the psychic Astral Plane. I'm vaguely remembering Psionics and/or the Plane of Dreams, but it's all foggy.
-Rule wise, that'd be a pain in the ass.
There was an option for such a plane presented in the 2e planar sources -- 'twas in either The Guide to the Astral Plane or the one of the Ethereal Plane. Maybe that's what you're thinking about? |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 02 Apr 2011 : 05:56:40
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I concur. I like the idea that some of the original fiends were fallen celestials, but I certainly see no reason for an alignment change to suddenly change the critter type for one of these guys.
I'd actually have a problem with it if such a change was mandated in the rules... "Hey, I suddenly have an overwhelming love for puppies, lollipops, and Girl Scout cookies!" (Booooooop, body changes to something new) "Hey, cool, now I have wings and I'm pretty!"
Yeah, I don't see many people buying that one.
-I haven't looked at D&D books in over a year or so, but isn't there/wasn't there a plane that was basically that? You think it, it happens, similar to how Marvel Comics utilizes the psychic Astral Plane. I'm vaguely remembering Psionics and/or the Plane of Dreams, but it's all foggy.
-Rule wise, that'd be a pain in the ass. |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 01 Apr 2011 : 21:19:13
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I'd actually have a problem with it if such a change was mandated in the rules... "Hey, I suddenly have an overwhelming love for puppies, lollipops, and Girl Scout cookies!"
Well, only if they're made from real Girl Scouts. 
And don't get me started on puppies. (YUM!) 
Cheers |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 01 Apr 2011 : 20:56:02
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
But thats how it happens!
Witches only get warts on their noses if they are evil, otherwise they are pretty! Haven't you seen Wizard of Oz?
The same thing happens to people who cook for children - if they cook institution-slop they become cafeteria-ladies!!!
Who needs a paladin? You can SEE evil - If something has a wart, just kill it. It's obviously been touching a Batrachi.
"But she 'as got a wart!" "Burn her! Burn the witch!" |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 01 Apr 2011 : 19:48:34
lol, in a demented way that argument does have merit since good priests can cast cure warts while evil priests only cast cause warts. Unless you're an evil priest yourself, or can afford to pay for their services. So (just like in our world) many of the most evil, powerful, and rich people are able to hide their warts. Ergo, the need for paladins. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 01 Apr 2011 : 18:49:06
But thats how it happens!
Witches only get warts on their noses if they are evil, otherwise they are pretty! Haven't you seen Wizard of Oz?
The same thing happens to people who cook for children - if they cook institution-slop they become cafeteria-ladies!!!
Who needs a paladin? You can SEE evil - If something has a wart, just kill it. It's obviously been touching a Batrachi. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 01 Apr 2011 : 18:28:22
quote:
Originally posted by Dagnirion
quote:
Originally posted by MarkustayActually, there are a few canon 'oddities' here and there (and at least one in FR specifically) of 'good' fiends, and of 'bad' celestials.
Now, I would personally prefer for that to be impossible, because I think if an angel falls it becomes a fiend, and vice-verse, but I suppose in an infinite setting (the D&D over-setting/cosmology) anything is possible (so long as there is a good explanation of how its violating what I consider 'Cosmic law').
-That's why I say, as long as there's an explanation as to why the norm is being broken, I see nothing wrong with it. Solars are universally good, but Malkizid is bad. Oh, Araushnee/Lolth corrupted him. Okay, that makes sense. Devils are universally bad, but [Random Devil] is good. Oh, a powerful conjurer placed a geas on it, and it's compelled to be good now. Okay, that makes sense.
I concur. I like the idea that some of the original fiends were fallen celestials, but I certainly see no reason for an alignment change to suddenly change the critter type for one of these guys.
I'd actually have a problem with it if such a change was mandated in the rules... "Hey, I suddenly have an overwhelming love for puppies, lollipops, and Girl Scout cookies!" (Booooooop, body changes to something new) "Hey, cool, now I have wings and I'm pretty!"
Yeah, I don't see many people buying that one. |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 01 Apr 2011 : 17:31:38
quote:
Originally posted by MarkustayActually, there are a few canon 'oddities' here and there (and at least one in FR specifically) of 'good' fiends, and of 'bad' celestials.
Now, I would personally prefer for that to be impossible, because I think if an angel falls it becomes a fiend, and vice-verse, but I suppose in an infinite setting (the D&D over-setting/cosmology) anything is possible (so long as there is a good explanation of how its violating what I consider 'Cosmic law').
-That's why I say, as long as there's an explanation as to why the norm is being broken, I see nothing wrong with it. Solars are universally good, but Malkizid is bad. Oh, Araushnee/Lolth corrupted him. Okay, that makes sense. Devils are universally bad, but [Random Devil] is good. Oh, a powerful conjurer placed a geas on it, and it's compelled to be good now. Okay, that makes sense. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 30 Mar 2011 : 18:55:18
Hey LK! long time no-see. 
Actually, there are a few canon 'oddities' here and there (and at least one in FR specifically) of 'good' fiends, and of 'bad' celestials.
Now, I would personally prefer for that to be impossible, because I think if an angel falls it becomes a fiend, and vice-verse, but I suppose in an infinite setting (the D&D over-setting/cosmology) anything is possible (so long as there is a good explanation of how its violating what I consider 'Cosmic law').
As for the concept of Alignments themselves; I think they work very well for 'monster types', and all things extra-planer (see above), BUT the entire concept of alignment for normal mortals is kinda silly, because every person is going to act completely different on a case-by-case basis.
In the movie Scarface, we see that Tony Montana is NOT a nice man. In fact, he is a VERY BAD man. I would say for most of the movie he wavered between CE and LE (depending if he were high or not). In the end, he was killed and his empire crumbled because he wouldn't kill children. Sooooo... what does that make him at the end of the day?
Nothing - That's why mortals are special; we have FREE WILL.
I also can mention some 'good' folks who don't think twice about blowing-up clinics full of people, but that's a bit too RW, eh? 
The point is that although it's wonderful mechanic for D&D, its completely artificial and really shouldn't be applied to people (as-in, Player Characters and important NPCs). Good and evil are highly subjective (except, of course, in the case of 'monsters', which are just as 'un-real' as alignments are).
Cars can get aligned. Thats why there is a 'neutral' on the shift-column. |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 30 Mar 2011 : 05:23:12
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Alignment of a race is a generalization. For example, most eladrin encountered will be CG or CN, but that doesn't mean you won't find the odd eladrin who's N, LG, or even CE.
-Generally speaking, I'd agree. The one caveat I'd add would be that certain extraplanar creatures are "manifestations", or whatever, of their particular alignment. In other words, Demons are Chaotic Evil incarnate, Devils are Lawful Evil incarnate, and so on- and, being those concepts incarnate, it'd be pretty hard to not represent those aliments, without specific explanations (like Malkizid, for example). |
| Aryalómë |
Posted - 28 Mar 2011 : 23:27:18
Yeah, that's mostly true. They even had Drow who were only listed as all of the evil alignments and that's far from true! Eladrn are mainly CG, CN, or NG. I don't conser Sun, Moon, and Star Elves as Eladrin though, but I love 4e's Eladrin. I just took the old Eadrin, slapped the new template on them and made them immortal. Lol |
| Galuf the Dwarf |
Posted - 28 Mar 2011 : 22:15:30
Honestly, Jelennet, take what you find on the FR Wiki with a grain of salt. All the information is peer-written, so it's not always very accurate, and is subject to change without warning. As far as the 4th Edition predisposed alignments for Eladrin, they're mostly Good or Unaligned, while Gnomes tend to be of Lawful Good or Good alignment. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 28 Mar 2011 : 14:23:25
quote:
Originally posted by Jelennet
A question about alignment. In FR wiki I read that eladrin are CG and CN and gnomes are NG, N and CN. What are the main alignments? Are there more CG or Cn eladrin? Are there more NG, G or CN gnomes?
The Main Alignments for 3e/v3.5 are:
Lawful Good
Neutral Good
Chaotic Good
---
Lawful Neutral
True Neutral
Chaotic Neutral
---
Lawful Evil
Neutral Evil
Chaotic Evil
The Main Alignments for 4E are:
Lawful Good
Good
---
Unaligned
---
Evil
Chaotic Evil
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 28 Mar 2011 : 11:31:08
Alignment of a race is a generalization. For example, most eladrin encountered will be CG or CN, but that doesn't mean you won't find the odd eladrin who's N, LG, or even CE. |
|
|
