Where it's never evil to kill orks and goblins

[tussock]

Anyway....


So in 3e, Evil is a thing where you are OK with harming innocents. Note: it's not a thing where you harm innocents, it's where you're OK with that after the fact. You can hurt innocents quite often if you show the appropriate amount of angst or make reparations or whatever.

If you were actually putting yourself at risk to protect other innocent people at the time you can even be outstandingly Good while doing it, instead of Neutrally doing it for money or whatever.


Paladins are a special case where they can't ever be Evil at all, so they have to have a little bit of angst before wiping out the kitchen staff of the invading Orcs so that it's not Evil. Feel bad about not finding another way. A little shameful about the big XP haul. Try to do better next time. Couldn't disobey Lawful orders anyway.




So ... if you want it to be never Evil to kill Orcs and Goblins, just always have the greenskins being a genuine threat to other innocent people. Then you're not killing them because they're green, or in team Evil (which is totally Evil, and just the sort of things Orcs do), but because they're actually plague rats and rabid dogs and need put down.

While it's nice that they have a culture and many of them aren't Evil, these ones you're interacting with are being very harmful of innocents right now. So go to it, and remember to feel bad for the nicer ones that just got in the way. That can never be Evil, per 3e. It's also how Good teams can end up in a war of defending each other's innocents.

[OgreBattle]

Pathfinder changed that so PFE only works if an evil guy tries to possess you

[RadiantPhoenix]

Pathfinder changed that so PFE only works if an evil guy tries to possess you

I'm pretty sure that you are the first person to bring up Pathfinder in this thread.

Furthermore, it still doesn't address the problem that Wizards don't get their spells from deities, they make them themselves or get them from other Wizards.

[Cyberzombie]

that doesn't happen. There are no rules or notable examples for spontaneously transforming because you're too nice for leathery bat wings. The only mentions of anything like that are long forgotten origin myths. Even in the "fallen angel" origin Asmodeus gets in some splats, he doesn't transform into a devil through committing evil deeds - he transforms into a devil through over-exposure to the abyssal creatures he is charged with fighting. I.e., he gets a nasty case of evil radiation poisoning from all those evilon-rich abyssals he's murdering, and then Celestia kicks him out for his newly acquired evil subtype (which, again, he did not acquire through evil actions, but rather through exposure to other creatures with the evil subtype).

There's not really any rules for creation of outsiders period. I don't really have rules for how one actually becomes an Erinyes or a pit fiend, so you have to take guesses. Flavor text speaks of fallen angels or of demons rising up the ranks, but to my knowledge, I've never seen any mechanics for changing from a marilith to a balor. Obviously they come from somewhere, but the rulebook never really goes into detail. I could make the same argument and say that pregnancy and birth doesn't exist in D&D because there's no mechanics for it.

As for the Asmodeus origin, I think it only further backs up the point I'm trying to make, where you've got a case where an outsider transforms from one type to another. I would think a similar thing should happen in the case of a demon turning good. The case of alignment radiation poisoning makes sense in the D&D sense, because you would have to get your goodness from somewhere. Demons and devils are literally made of evil and thus have no innate goodness by themselves, and the reverse is true of Angels. In that sense, a devil cannot normally choose to be good, and an angel cannot normally choose to be evil. Some external aligned power must affect them.

And there actually are ways to change a creature's alignment and nothing special happens when you do that to someone with an alignment subtype. Indeed, alignment subtypes very explicitly do not give a fuck about their holder's actual alignment: "Most creatures that have this subtype also have evil alignments; however, if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype. Any effect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature has an evil alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is."

Yeah, I'm aware. I mentioned the helm of opposite alignment as being one of those edge cases in my prior post. I know how the evil subtype works and that part isn't under question. The main question is if it's possible for an outsider to permanently change alignment without also becoming another type of outsider. In other words, is a fallen angel still an an angel? Or is it a demon/devil? Based on the majority of the stat blocks for fallen angels, it would seem that they lose the angel type, and the [good] alignment subtype.

I can't really speak for the characters in Planescape: Torment because I haven't played it and thus don't know the character's backstories of how they came to be.

[OgreBattle]

This is one of those things you should decided with a campaign toggle, like the "How Black is the Night" with crawling darkness and so on.

[Grek]

Demons and devils are literally made of evil and thus have no innate goodness by themselves, and the reverse is true of Angels. In that sense, a devil cannot normally choose to be good, and an angel cannot normally choose to be evil. Some external aligned power must affect them.

This isn't actually true in D&D. [Evil] creatures can choose to do good and [Good] creatures can choose to do evil. The [Evil] tag designates that you are made out of evil parts, not that you are compelled to do evil. If a demon chooses to do good and does enough good, it will detect both as evil to Detect Evil and good to Detect Good because it is both evil and good.

[DSMatticus]

There's not really any rules for creation of outsiders period. I don't really have rules for how one actually becomes an Erinyes or a pit fiend, so you have to take guesses. Flavor text speaks of fallen angels or of demons rising up the ranks, but to my knowledge, I've never seen any mechanics for changing from a marilith to a balor. Obviously they come from somewhere, but the rulebook never really goes into detail. I could make the same argument and say that pregnancy and birth doesn't exist in D&D because there's no mechanics for it.

You are not making guesses, you are making shit up. D&D source material (I don't think it makes it into any of the 3.5 core books, but whatever) explicitly describes the whole demon/devil rebirth-as-increasingly-badass-outsiders thing as a thing that happens. There are no rules for it, but it is a thing with descriptions and examples (Bel, for example). Your erinyes example is "sometime in the distant past some angels turned evil somehow, and now there are erinyes." That is categorically different.

As for the Asmodeus origin, I think it only further backs up the point I'm trying to make, where you've got a case where an outsider transforms from one type to another.

"X did Y because of A" is not evidence of "X did Y because of B." That's completely and totally incoherent. You used fallen angels as an example of changing your alignment subtype through acting evil, and I pointed out that D&D's fallen angel stories actually involve changing your alignment subtype through exposure to evil magical mumbo jumbo. Asmodeus didn't get his evil subtype through being dickish; he got his evil subtype through exposure to other things with the evil subtype.

Demons and devils are literally made of evil and thus have no innate goodness by themselves, and the reverse is true of Angels. In that sense, a devil cannot normally choose to be good, and an angel cannot normally choose to be evil. Some external aligned power must affect them.

This is just begging the question. You are just asserting things as true that depend on your original premise, but there is still no reason at all to believe your original premise, and the things you are asserting as true explain absolutely nothing except how to deflect the weaknesses of your original premise. But also: factually false. Outsiders with the evil subtype explicitly do not have to have an evil alignment! I already quoted the rules text saying this. It's right there in the description of the evil subtype. There exist outsiders made of evil who do not have to behave evilly.

[Dogbert]

While one-dimensional enemies are indeed boring... -4 to inflict non-lethal damage with a weapon? AoO incurred for attacking unarmed? Non-crap non lethal weapons all requiring Exotic proficiencies? If a GM doesn't want me killing everything standing in the way of my goals, then they shouldn't use a system that penalizes the use of non-lethal force every step of the way.

[hyzmarca]

A Succubus who was sold by her mother as a slave in Baator, eventually won her freedom, and went to Sigil where she opened the Brothl for Slaking Intellectual Lusts

Yes. Those lazy pokemon are known for their intellectual lusts.

[Cyberzombie]

There exist outsiders made of evil who do not have to behave evilly.

We could go on arguing back and forth, so I'm going to focus specifically on this, because it's something factual.

If there exists outsiders with the evil subtype with a permanent non-evil alignment, then find me one such stat-block from an official 3.0 or 3.5 product. And by permanent I mean that the alignment isn't the result of a removable effect like a cursed item or a spell.

Otherwise, I don't really want to pursue the topic anymore, since it will just get into repeating things we've already said and regardless, we're way off topic from the point of the thread, which are ways to create black-and-white morality settings. Keep in mind that in a black-and-white setting, you'd definitely not want to allow demons or devils to ever choose a life of goodness, they must be irreparable evil for that type of setting to work.

[ishy]

If there exists outsiders with the evil subtype with a permanent non-evil alignment, then find me one such stat-block from an official 3.0 or 3.5 product. And by permanent I mean that the alignment isn't the result of a removable effect like a cursed item or a spell.

Otherwise, I don't really want to pursue the topic anymore, since it will just get into repeating things we've already said and regardless, we're way off topic from the point of the thread, which are ways to create black-and-white morality settings. Keep in mind that in a black-and-white setting, you'd definitely not want to allow demons or devils to ever choose a life of goodness, they must be irreparable evil for that type of setting to work.

Sure. Here a statblock of a Lawful Good Paladin Succubus wielding holy weapons: Eludecia

[Username17]

There exist outsiders made of evil who do not have to behave evilly.

We could go on arguing back and forth, so I'm going to focus specifically on this, because it's something factual.

If there exists outsiders with the evil subtype with a permanent non-evil alignment, then find me one such stat-block from an official 3.0 or 3.5 product. And by permanent I mean that the alignment isn't the result of a removable effect like a cursed item or a spell.

That's actually extremely trivial. However, I'm going to do you one better, I'm going to show you that it is the general rule that this happens on a regular basis. Obviously since you are in the process of moving goal posts, when I demonstrate a canonical Succubus Paladin (easy enough to do), you're presumably going to claim that any particular one-off character is a special snowflake who doesn't count for one of a thousand stupid reasons.

Evil Subtype
A subtype usually applied only to outsiders native to the evil-aligned Outer Planes. Evil outsiders are also called fiends. Most creatures that have this subtype also have evil alignments; however, if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype. Any effect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature has an evil alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is. The creature also suffers effects according to its actual alignment. A creature with the evil subtype overcomes damage reduction as if its natural weapons and any weapons it wields were evil-aligned (see Damage Reduction, above).

That's the universal rule. More than half of the definition of the Evil Subtype is ranting about what happens to outsiders who have it and aren't personally aligned to evil. It's the entire reason there's an actual subtype instead of just having a couple of special rules that kick in when an outsider happens to have an evil alignment.

-Username17

[DSMatticus]

If there exists outsiders with the evil subtype with a permanent non-evil alignment, then find me one such stat-block from an official 3.0 or 3.5 product.

I already gave you a quotation of rules text that acknowledges that 1) outsiders with the evil subtype are not all evil-aligned, and 2) outsiders with the evil subtype can change their alignment and keep their evil subtype. I have already met the evidentiary burden on that claim.

Now normally I'd end it there and tell you fuck off, but in this case the example is already in this thread - just google succubus paladin.

Also, I have been so completely ninja'd on everything I was typing.

[icyshadowlord]

Wait, there are people out there who do not know about the Succubus Paladin?

[OgreBattle]

What's the purpose of the [evil] subtype, does it add anything interesting to the game?

[Midnight_v]

What's the purpose of the [evil] subtype, does it add anything interesting to the game?

Its so you can kill things without moral quandary. You start this thread by suggesting that we give orcs the "evil" subtype. Making them "orcworts" or some such. . . which is actually a thing.

There's actually enough monsters in D&D without having to sentient
"slaughter" if you don't want to.

One of you're earlier posts got me to thinking. . .

Only asshole Dms take you back to the nest of the humanoids you killed and show's you the orphans.

In real life however, those are what historically been refereed to as "Slaves" and just as often as not "concubines" an if you look hard at it "food". All that's just dickery though.

Seriously, there's no way to make it okay to kill "ALL" of a race unless they have the "EVIL" tag.
Further what you really want is to fight against:
Orcworts

You can literally go to Kaelik's tome of trees for a BETTER background to why those things might be specifically attacking. Giving the Main tree awakening and druid powers or some such shit.
So. Evil tag = Made of Evuls and you don't have to fuck with them but no good guys are ever going to come fucking with you for killing a succubus.

Especially, if that succubus is saying "I'm a good succubus! Please just hear me out! We can talk!"

*Smite* seriously don't talk to succubi is in the smiter's hand book. I'm mean really, in game it their fucking power to seduce.
Detect Evil: check
Made of evilons: check
Kill: Check.
You guys just overcomplicated things. You're fucking muder hobos. . . please stop.

[hyzmarca]

My name is Inigo Orktoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.

[Cyberzombie]

That's the universal rule. More than half of the definition of the Evil Subtype is ranting about what happens to outsiders who have it and aren't personally aligned to evil. It's the entire reason there's an actual subtype instead of just having a couple of special rules that kick in when an outsider happens to have an evil alignment.

I'm aware of this Frank. But that doesn't necessarily say that an evil creature, who is made of evil and has an alignment of "Always Chaotic Evil" can voluntarily switch alignment. Obviously there are things like the helm of opposite alignment that can temporarily change ones alignment, and I've already addressed that.

The fact is, I've still seen no evidence that a creature like that can voluntarily change alignment, which is why I'm asking for an official stat block of something with an evil subtype. Now maybe I'm wrong and such a thing exists, but I'd like to see it regardless. Because as I've said, the flavor text seems to suggest that fallen angels do not keep the angel or the good tag. And I don't want to keep repeating the same arguments over and over again, so I'm asking do you guys have an official stat block or do you not?

If you do, then cite it and prove me wrong. If not, then there's nothing more to discuss here beyond repeating the same old crap for 10 pages.

[Wiseman]

Always: The creature is born with the indicated alignment. The creature may have a hereditary predisposition to the alignment or come from a plane that predetermines it. It is possible for individuals to change alignment, but such individuals are either unique or rare exceptions.

[Whipstitch]

I'm emptying this post because honestly on closer inspection I can't even tell what people's points are anymore.

[DSMatticus]

I'm aware of this Frank. But that doesn't necessarily say that an evil creature, who is made of evil and has an alignment of "Always Chaotic Evil" can voluntarily switch alignment.

Most creatures that have this subtype also have evil alignments; however, if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype. Any effect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature has an evil alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is.

That explicitly says that creatures with the evil subtype (and therefore made of evil, because that is what that means) do not always have an alignment of evil, and also states very explicitly that when they are not evil they retain their evil subtype (and are still made of evil). It does not refer to specifics of how an alignment change might happen at all, but it again very explicitly states that when it does happen the evil subtype is retained (and the creature keeps being made out of evil).

Your original claim was that "creatures with the evil subtype who stop being evil and start being good lose their evil subtype." That is completely and totally wrong. The definition and rules text of evil subtype are unambiguous on this matter, and they do not agree with you.

You have since shifted goalposts to "creatures with the evil subtype can't voluntarily choose to be good anyway." And while there is no reason to believe that claim in the first place and you've provided no evidence that it might be true and there's a great deal to suggest it isn't already posted, it doesn't even matter because the counter-example was in this thread before we even started arguing and you've since been given direct links to WotC material. Including one in the exact post you are responding to. What the fuck.

[Username17]

Yeeeah. Cyberzombie isn't even moving goalposts at this point, he's just stamping his feet and shouting "nuh uh!" over and over again. This is pointless. He asked for a canon example of an outsider with an alignment of Good that wasn't the result of a "removable effect like a cursed item or a spell." Now, leaving aside the fact that atonement isn't actually removable, because it has a duration of "instantaneous," Eludecia still meets his bizarre demands in full:

She then dedicated herself fully to the cause of good and took on the mantle of paladin, although no deity was willing to be her special patron.

Eludecia knows that she can never purge herself completely of her evil nature without magical aid, but for now, she shuns such help because she is determined to "make it on her own."

Cyberzombie demanded a rule, and a rule was provided. In fact, several rules were provided, which all mutually reinforce each other. He demanded a sample character, and that was provided too. Now he's back to... demanding shit that already got provided because he's simply pretending that he hasn't already lost the argument.

That part of the discussion is fucking over. And everyone knows that except Cyberzombie.

-Username17

[Sakuya Izayoi]

One of the things 4e gets flak about that I actually liked was how it trimmed down the alignment system. I don't like that it offered fewer choices, what I liked was that it made it easier to make sense of D&D ethics. A person who is mostly self-serving and rarely, if ever altruistic, isn't evil, they're neutral. That was such an important change. No more of this "the neutral seek balance". Who the fuck seeks balance. Even Tao, which says the positive and negative exist in balance, doesn't say you want an equal amount of positive and negative things happening to you. No more "Robin Hood is Chaotic Good", he's a damn nobleman who wanted his birthright back, he wanted order in place, just not the existing order, he was Lawful Good (and that's only if you accept the dramatized ideal of him as fact).

The Player's Guide recommended strongly against playing Evil unless (a) GM told you to, and (b) you were a race that it fit with. This meant that finally, the alignment system had a degree of relativism to it. Culture A could think Culture B was a degenerate, wanton lot, and Culture B could think Culture A was a bunch of tyrannical fascists ran by hypocrites, and you didn't have Pelor riding down on a cloud telling one of them that they were objectively correct.

I finally understood the whole "Evil is genetics, not ethos" thing. Humans who were Evil and radiated Evil were Saturday morning cartoon villains unsuited to the same kind of motivations that drove PCs. Players could act without compassion, mercy, or honor, as Neutrals, because, even if they were unpleasant, their motivations were scrutable.

Under that system, you could definitely fight orcs without guilt. They've aligned themselves with Evil powers. Why? Because its a game, and you need something to fight. You can try to negotiate with them, but the DC is higher than a relativistic tribe of human barbarians. Why? Because the orcs are eeeEEEeeevVVVViiiIIIIiillLLLLlll.

The important part, I feel, is that both Fight and Negotiate are both on your hotbar, because otherwise you don't really have player agency. If the players only pick Fight, that's their choice, and you can make a world where it's not Evil for them to do so by not chastising them for it.

[tussock]

That's what 3e says Sakuya. Evil types will hurt innocents without compunction, and Neutral types would rather not. That's the primary dividing line there. Good is where you go out of your way to stop that shit.

And while 3e's Orcs "often" (40-50%) willingly align themselves with Evil gods and do harmful things to innocent people for teh LOLs, they're still usually not like that and they are explicitly redeemable in any case.

3e's Goblins are "usually" (51-99%) evil instead. So not being malicious twerps is the exception. Though they still not be up to anything in particular, so killing them at first sight is still probably Evil. Fortunately, they'll usually be doing something shitty.



4e, meanwhile, says Orcs are just cardboard cutouts that all worship Gruumsh and are going to kill you if you don't kill them first, the same as every other monster in 4e. That's not really because of the alignment system, they just took all the redemption stories out so you could focus on the minis battle game.

[Omegonthesane]

The fact is, I've still seen no evidence that a creature like that can voluntarily change alignment, which is why I'm asking for an official stat block of something with an evil subtype

Maybe you missed the link to the Succubus Paladin. You know, this one:

Sure. Here a statblock of a Lawful Good Paladin Succubus wielding holy weapons: Eludecia

This one, right here:

Sure. Here a statblock of a Lawful Good Paladin Succubus wielding holy weapons: Eludecia

This one:

Sure. Here a statblock of a Lawful Good Paladin Succubus wielding holy weapons: Eludecia