I understand that in later editions, Modrons became mechanical clockmen and that honestly bores me. Also, I don't have any books from later editions, other than 5th.
But in 1st edition, Modrons are essentially the godly pantheon of Lawful Neutral. I like that.
Here is my question: is there another pantheon that is the opposing force to the Modrons? Would it just be demons in general or is there a specific opposing force? With Demons, Devils, Daemons, Slaad, and I don't even know what else, I figure that there has to be some group who hates the Modrons and vice versa.
Quote from: everloss;933042I understand that in later editions, Modrons became mechanical clockmen and that honestly bores me. Also, I don't have any books from later editions, other than 5th.
But in 1st edition, Modrons are essentially the godly pantheon of Lawful Neutral. I like that.
Here is my question: is there another pantheon that is the opposing force to the Modrons? Would it just be demons in general or is there a specific opposing force? With Demons, Devils, Daemons, Slaad, and I don't even know what else, I figure that there has to be some group who hates the Modrons and vice versa.
My first instinct would be the Slaadi. They are from Limbo which is primal Chaos the very antithesis of the orderly clockwork reality of the Modrons.
That said - if you wanna go all cosmic, there is nothing saying you couldn't say the Githyanki wouldn't make good foes, by drinking deep of the Chaos Kool-aid. Or do something wild like run a campaign where the Illithid Interdimensional Empire returns from the slimy remains of the past. Heck in D&D terms anything having to do with the Far Realms and whatever it decides to corrupt are perfect antithesis to the Modrons.
The Slaad have a cool weirdo vibe and are are an underrated part of the D&D Mythos.
I always played them like cruel, impulsive, hyperactive children.
Were those the ones that were basically giant dice?
Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;933068The Slaad have a cool weirdo vibe and are are an underrated part of the D&D Mythos.
I always played them like cruel, impulsive, hyperactive children.
We always played them as very incomprehensible, not just blue-and-orange morality (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlueAndOrangeMorality), but also the same orthogonality (apparently not a real word) in all thought, beings older than time itself (kinda Cthullu, but without the tentacles, and only drive you mad with fear).
Quote from: ningauble;933069Were those the ones that were basically giant dice?
Two of them (tridrones and quadrones) were basically dice with various body parts added. The rest didn't resemble dice at all, more like somewhat Lovecraftian shapes with a number of tentacles based on their rank. I always thought pure geometric solids would have been better.
Quote from: Willie the Duck;933076We always played them as very incomprehensible, not just blue-and-orange morality (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlueAndOrangeMorality), but also the same orthogonality (apparently not a real word) in all thought, beings older than time itself (kinda Cthullu, but without the tentacles, and only drive you mad with fear).
Clark Ashton Smith's Tsathoggua and its minions were described as amorphous blobs that could take on anthropomorphic toad shapes (see: The Door to Saturn and The Seven Geasas.) Lovecraft carried this over into The Whisperer in Darkness when he briefly mentioned Tsathoggua. So, I've always interpreted the Slaadi as Lovecraftian. When I was writing up my own replacements for the non-OGL Slaad, I called them Saturnians and made the "amorphous toad-shape" idea more central. Making them naturally amorphous also helps emphasize their connection to Chaos and places them in opposition to the more static modrons.
Cool. My main DM throws out the whole AD&D alignment cosmology based around the 9 alignments, and has a different cosmic eternal battle based on two camps (Big Noise and Little Noise). The actual ethical tenants are effectively incomprehensible (or at least not predictable) to mortals. Mostly one knows not to get in the middle of it.
I'm using the Law-Balance-Chaos model because it's the most coherent. Aside from obvious things like pointless theft, murder or torture, it is very difficult to get people of different backgrounds to agree what constitutes good or evil. It also makes the cosmology easier to keep track of, ignoring magnification.
Quote from: ningauble;933069Were those the ones that were basically giant dice?
Kinda...
The lower echelons came in various shapes.
The the basic Monodrone was a sphere with two spindly bug legs and little wings. while the Decaton, a heirarch, was sphere with ten tentacles and two stubby legs. the quadrone a cube, with two spindly legs and two arms, while the Duodrone was a flattened rectangular box, a Pentadrone was a sort of starfish with a flamethrower on top and spindly bug legs, and another was a cylinder and another a four-sided shape, etc. They were organic looking instead of mechanical.
Quote from: everloss;933042I understand that in later editions, Modrons became mechanical clockmen and that honestly bores me. Also, I don't have any books from later editions, other than 5th.
But in 1st edition, Modrons are essentially the godly pantheon of Lawful Neutral. I like that.
Here is my question: is there another pantheon that is the opposing force to the Modrons? Would it just be demons in general or is there a specific opposing force? With Demons, Devils, Daemons, Slaad, and I don't even know what else, I figure that there has to be some group who hates the Modrons and vice versa.
1: Same here. I liked the original organic looking version.
2: More like an outer force on the planes rather than a full fledged pantheon.
3: And the counterpart would be the Slaad which are also that odd sort of pseudo-pantheon. Rigid inflexible law vs unpredictable mercurial chaos.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;933091I'm using the Law-Balance-Chaos model because it's the most coherent. Aside from obvious things like pointless theft, murder or torture, it is very difficult to get people of different backgrounds to agree what constitutes good or evil. It also makes the cosmology easier to keep track of, ignoring magnification.
What backgrounds are these - you play in psycho wards? Elves and Demons getting along because both are Chaotic and Devils and Dwarves getting along because they are both Lawful makes better sense than Halflings and Angels getting along because both are Good?
Law/Chaos is far more abstract a concept than Good/Evil.
Good/Evil is WHAT you do and WHY, practically.
Law/Chaos is merely HOW. Having Law/Chaos be What or Why is abstract metaphysical alien thought patterns. :D
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;933091I'm using the Law-Balance-Chaos model because it's the most coherent. Aside from obvious things like pointless theft, murder or torture, it is very difficult to get people of different backgrounds to agree what constitutes good or evil. It also makes the cosmology easier to keep track of, ignoring magnification.
I've been using single-axis (Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic) alignment, with the Rients Threefold Apocalyptic Alignment Test (http://jrients.blogspot.com.br/2008/07/jeffs-threefold-apocalyptic-alignment.html), for a while now. To be honest, I believe this is the only alignment system that makes any sense; I too have spentfar too much time arguing the finer points of just what course of action falls under the purview of which alignment. And time spent arguing is time not spent gaming.
Quote from: The Butcher;933451I've been using single-axis (Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic) alignment, with the Rients Threefold Apocalyptic Alignment Test (http://jrients.blogspot.com.br/2008/07/jeffs-threefold-apocalyptic-alignment.html), for a while now. To be honest, I believe this is the only alignment system that makes any sense; I too have spentfar too much time arguing the finer points of just what course of action falls under the purview of which alignment. And time spent arguing is time not spent gaming.
...and that's a perfect example of why the Law/Chaos alignment system is more abstract, it has nothing to do whatsoever with day to day human behavior, it's manifested around Cosmic Conflict. Which is totally fine, but the question always becomes then 'Why the hell bother?".
The problem with the Nine Alignments is that when given a L/C breakdown based on some nebulous Cosmic Conflict people are willing to accept that and go about their business, but when you throw in G/E and make a matrix it ceases to become "Alignment" and become "Abrahamic Faith Foolishness That Gamers Love to Hate".
For most people, how you lean as far as alignment goes, doesn't matter any more than how you lean in the Law/Chaos conflict, you're a human, humans vary and people make mistakes/change their views. A generally Lawful/Neutral character might be spurred by compassion to do something that we could argue is Chaotic/Good, etc. etc.
Always using 0/B L/C in every OSR game these days is just as silly as always using the AD&D Planar Wheel in every possible published setting. Not every cosmology has Cthulhu or Arioch waiting in the wings, nor should it.
The problem with the Nine Alignments is the same as the problem with anything: Player/GM Fuckery.
The Lawful/Stupid Paladin...the Alignment Gotcha GM...the Chaotic/Neutral Psychopath who's just playing his alignment. Don't be a dick and play with adults, somehow things manage to work out. :D
In any case, the I think the Nine Alignment hatred has a lot more to do with people's Comfort Level because you can easily see human behavioral examples in the various alignments...they come a little too close to home, and explain too many uncomfortable things...if you attempt to use them as too much of an explanation for Our World. Which they were never meant to do, at all, Happy Hunting Grounds, anyone? :D
As to coherence or "make sensishness" - well yeah. No. Azathoth or the Million Spheres don't really make more sense than the Planar Wheel.;)
Setting first, the rest follows.