I need to explore this issue for my campaign, as I'd like to run a group of exemplars who attempt to purge themselves of the limitations of their nature, believing that only with true freedom of choice can they become proper representatives of their ideals, otherwise they are simply automata acting out a part.
I don't know, really. Just kicking out an idea, what do you think?
Modrons most definitly do not seem to have such a thing before they go rogue, it's anyone's guess how things go after that.
As Chaotic examplars, one would think that Slaadi *ought* to have it, but this may not be the case. The fact that they, for all their chaotic nature, have had a certain pattern imposed on them and may have a strong inclination to act adversely to the prevailing alignment of their surroundings on Upper and Lower Planes, do suggest (if not conclusively) to the contrary.
It appears the Rilmani outright cannot exist unless in a state of True Neutrality, although this by itself of course does not settle whether they have any choice or not.
As for Tanar'ri, they seem to be more than able to act in accordance with the tenets of Good, and many indeed do so for the sake of understanding and practicing their Chaotic Evil ways better. However, they do appear to flat-out be unable to be Lawful, so what does that amount to?
Baatezu can turn to both good and chaos, but the latter seems to be due to an impulse inborn into the lower ranks of the Baatezu, so is this something they chose to act on, or is it something that automatically pushes some of them away from Law? Likewise, when members of the higher ranks purge themselves from Chaos in the process of their ascension, is this through inner discipline or imposition?
As for the Celestials of all shapes, one would think that Good would prize champions that actively choose to be Good over being Evil, and so are capable of breaking with their nature. Archons seem to need to strive to attain the perfection of their natures, and can fall to Evil, Chaos, and Neutrality, so this might imply that they at some point decide to abandon this path (since they apparently are virtually never pushed out for merely failing). If there's any truth to the quote about temptation being the best way to lure Archons (Celestials?) away from Good, this would further imply that falling is the process of deciding to do things contrary to the teachings that Good creatures are to adhere to. For Eladrin, not being able to choose is not inconceivable, but certainly would seem at least a bit paradoxical.
But then there is the case of the Maeldur et Kavurik, a celestial who apparently was radically torn from his previous nature by the force of words and sorcery, which proves the process needs not involve any choice at all.
Anyway, this seems to settle little, but it's the sum of the official evidence I have seen.
I see exemplars as more - okay, a LOT more - than constructs. They are the expression of their plane's will, kinda like apples. When you get down to it, an apple is little more than reconfigured dirt, water, and sunlight. You can do a lot with apples, but it's not until you add cinnamon and sugar and pie crust and stuff that you have something truly amazing. That's how it is with mortals: the breadth of their experience and the consequences of their actions and choices makes them much more effective followers, because they know other things exist and have experienced them. To exemplars, other beliefs are aberrations; to mortals who grew up with the same choices available, there's some understanding of why someone went the way they did and why they made the choices they did and how they ended up the way they did.
That's how I see it.
So, sure, a fiend could try and do good things, just to see what all the fuss is about. It can help someone else out (maybe it wants to learn the ways of good creature to more perversely desecrate those ideals) but it won't really understand it.
I like this philosophy, because it means that mortals are important. They decide what they want to do, so as much as they are derided by exemplars, they are actually the real movers and shakers in the multiverse. Metaphysically, there's no grand effect when an armanite murders, steals, and destroys. It didn't examine any conscience and willingly disregard good to commit evil. When mortals adopt moral stances, though, that produces real effects in the planes. I mean, exemplars only exist in the forms they do because mortals believe that they do.
To take an example of what I mean out of Torment: When you want to restore Curst to the Outlands, you have to oppose chaotic evil tendencies in the town. But it's not the ideas of the gehreleths you have to change. It's not the murder and destruction that they're wreaking that cements the town to the plane. It's the citizens of Curst who lynch their fellow citizens as scapegoats, who sacrifice others to try and save themselves, who exploit their neighbors' suffering, who loot and betray and lie and condemn. That's what's really dooming Curst.
ooh, that's my post down here in your sig :D
You gotta admit, though: It's a crazy "set `em up, knock `em down" kinda thing.
