Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Andyr 08-30-07, 02:47 PM	From Rich Baker's blog: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=906386 I am posting my thoughts here as I don't know of a blog discussion board. If there is one then I would be happy to hear about it! Anyway, let me tell you what I've been up to since GenCon. In a word: monsters. The writing team (that's me, James Wyatt, Bruce Cordell, and Chris Sims) is working on fleshing out the Monster Manual entries and doing a bit of a "story" pass on the monsters. Last week I spent a couple of days working on devils. Here are a couple of devilish tidbits I'll leak for now: - Devils are angels who rebelled. They rose up against the deity they served and murdered him. The crime of deicide is unimaginably perverse for angels, and hence devils were cursed and imprisoned in the Nine Hells. - The Nine Hells are what became of the murdered deity's divine realm after his death. The Hells are the devils' prison, and it is difficult for them to get out without mortal aid. - We've re-sorted demons and devils a bit, since we want these two categories of monsters to make a little more sense. Devils tend to be more humanoid in form, usually fight with weapons, and often wear armor. Most have horns, wings, and tails. One consequence of this: the erinyes and the succubus were holding down pretty similar territory, so we've decided that they're the same monster, called the succubus, and it's a devil. - Ice devils don't look like other devils. We've decided that they are actually a demonic/yugoloth race... one that was entrapped by Mephistopheles long ago in an infernal contract. So ice devils hate other devils, retain their insect-like appearance, and have a special loyalty to Mephistopheles. It's one of the reasons why Asmodeus has never chosen to move against Mephistopheles. Asmodeus would of course win if he did, but that would let the ice devils out of their contract. I like the idea of gelugons being an entrapped race of fiends. :) Devils being more humanoid could kind of make sense--with demons having a more bestial appearance to go with their chaotic nature. Although I guess there's no good reason why appearing humanoid should suggest you are Lawful, that's how society has conditioned our minds to think, with sapience and civilisation separating man from beast. I don't like succubi and erinyes being merged, however, as I think they have quite distinct roles to fill. Succubi are much more about passion and giving in to your desires than the erinyes. I am also not keen on devils becoming exiled servants of the deities; in my opinion it kind of cheapens the planar paragons as races, and begs the question about why the neutral or evil deities didn't have corresponding servants (as the angels to the good deities), or if they did, what became of them? I hope 4E doesn't mess too much with established planar lore; new information is good, and changes to canon can sometimes be justified, but drastically changing the origin of one of the Lower Planes (and, let's face it, the Lower Planes are quite popular with DMs and players) is something I regard as a bad move. I also note that Rich used the terms Hells/Nine Hells but not Baator (but don't know whether that is mere coincidence). D&D has a vast body of planar lore and it'd be sad to see it swept aside in the name of streamlining or making things more generic. I do enjoy Richard's writing though, so I have faith things won't turn out too bad! :)
Rikutatis 08-30-07, 03:36 PM	I don't like these changes. At all. I mean, the whole deal of devils being angels who rebelled against good deities was already in the Fiendish Codex II. I think that's an interesting tale, I don't particularly have anything against it. But it seems like even that is being slightly modified now. I hope they keep the idea of Asmodeus cleverly tricking a number of deities (or a deity in this case) into signing a devilish contract full of loopholes. Cause the blog only mentions the murder of their patron. Making devils more human like and demons more beast like is really silly in my opinion. I'm a fan of demons, and I find myself somewhat baffled by this. I agree with Andyr, there's no reason to portray chaos as bestial. This is a really watered down and simplistic view of demons. And turning the succubus into a devil is just... wrong. For the same reasons. I don't want demons to become nothing but mindless beasts of destruction uncapable of intelligent planning, trickery and malice. I understand devils _are_ better planners and tacticians. But taking this idea to the extreme is an entirely different thing. There should still be some diversity and options within the demonic ranks. I mean, what comes next? Graz'zt becomes a devil as well? Or they turn him into a spiked rhinos of doom?
Paulon 08-30-07, 04:08 PM	If they're going ahead with that idea and similar stuff, I can see a heck of a lot of 'new' canon being ignored and/or houseruled back to consistency with the last three editions. Destroying previous continuity is rather distinct from building on past history, and alienates a lot of people. I've seen that happen before when a company ignores the past in favour of a vision that just doesn't make sense based on their own prior releases.
Deacon Liadon 08-30-07, 05:24 PM	I mean, what comes next? Graz'zt becomes a devil as well? Or they turn him into a spiked rhinos of doom? Not Graz'zt, Malcanthet. Poor girl, going from a ruler of her own layer in the abyss to a minor devil in one fell swoop. The Succubi and the Erinyes are two completely different types of beings. One is a creature of lust, the other is more of a creature of vengence. And as for succubi being devils, why? It makes no sense whatsoever. Are devils to be chaotic now? I'm happy with the idea of Gelugon's not being true devils, though I think they're going about it the wrong way. By calling them yugoloths it cheapens that entire race as a whole as Yugoloths are even better at deception than Baatezu. My theory is that they would work better as a newer form of Ancient Baatorian, bound by contract so that Asmodeus can keep an eye on them. But as for the the entire devil race being condemned to the Nine Hells from killing a god; That doesn't really make much sense to me, in addition to which, it causes a major problem in that it removes the material which was published less than 12 months ago, the Pact Primevil. Are we to see the entire contents of the FC: II invalidated? Mr Baker and the rest of the writing staff, I request that you at least consider previously written material before creating new material that completely overrides everything from the previous three editions.
The Serge7 08-30-07, 05:30 PM	Although I appreciate the level of creativity here and respect the ideas behind them, they seem to moving far beyond anything established in the three previous editions. While I don't mind the gelugons too much, I really dislike the merging of the erinyes and succubi.
Witch 08-30-07, 05:51 PM	This would be interesting in an alternative campaign setting. For core, it goes against so much flavor and tradition that I don't have a word for it at all.
Shemeska the Marauder 08-30-07, 05:58 PM	While I don't mind the gelugons too much, I really dislike the merging of the erinyes and succubi. Those seem to be very frequently held opinions.
The Serge7 08-30-07, 06:07 PM	Probably because it's an unimaginative move to make. The direction that Jacobs and Mona went with the succubi was great. I never liked the direction the creative team of FCII went with the erinyes because it's unimaginitive and dull. And Witch is right. Although Dicefreaks has made adjustments to certain elements of Hell, those adjustments spread out from three editions worth of material, not as a wholesale revision as this seems to be. Rather than work within the established framework to create something new with erinyes and succubi, they're apparently ignoring previous material. Even the direction with the gelugons is somewhat antithetical (as has been the case since 3.5 when they inexplicably became weaker than cornugons). I hope that Asmodues being a "god" makes up for this.
ArcTan 08-30-07, 06:18 PM	I'll throw in my usual inflammatory comment that I think any break from tradition is a good thing, even if the idea itself isn't that great (because it means someone else can come along and change *that* idea more easily in the future).
Witch 08-30-07, 06:20 PM	I hope that Asmodues being a "god" makes up for this. Personally, I doubt it. I've read many things about 4e now, and I think this is one of the things that weighs most heavily against it. Asmodeus being a god I liked, but I severely question the power of that change when basically they're making devils "angels cursed by the gods". It undoes the fundamental assumption of "all alignments are equal". These other changes 'devils as less humanoid' as a motivation for making succubi lawful are absurd to the core. Looks are the sole determining factor for alignment now? What about all the flavor of what they do? Or are bland archtypes the new standard? At the moment, it seems to be. I also question the "yugoloth/demonic" thing being tossed together. Does this mean anything?
Witch 08-30-07, 06:21 PM	I'll throw in my usual inflammatory comment that I think any break from tradition is a good thing, even if the idea itself isn't that great (because it means someone else can come along and change *that* idea more easily in the future). Why is changing what works a good thing? Change for change's sake is not inherently good.
ArcTan 08-30-07, 06:25 PM	Why is changing what works a good thing? Change for change's sake is not inherently good. Some of us didn't really think it worked that well in the first place, and want the culture around the game to be more open to freely making up your own explanation for Demons and Devils instead of having one "default" explanation that isn't very good.
ArcTan 08-30-07, 06:27 PM	And yes, it was annoying that there was never really any rhyme or reason as to why Devils and Demons looked the way they looked.
Witch 08-30-07, 06:30 PM	Some of us didn't really think it worked that well in the first place, and want the culture around the game to be more open to freely making up your own explanation for Demons and Devils instead of having one "default" explanation that isn't very good. It was rather good, actually. There wasn't actually one default explanation for demons & devils. There were several variants. And you can always change flavor. But I like my Great Wheel, as something with decades of flavor on it, to be the basis for designing alignment exemplars, which is what demons and devils are. And yes, it was annoying that there was never really any rhyme or reason as to why Devils and Demons looked the way they looked. Devils looked that way because Asmodeus wanted them to. Demons are born from primal chaos. They have an excuse.
Sundragon 08-30-07, 06:50 PM	I have to say that I like these changes....Devils entrapped in Hell for deicide sounds quite interesting to me and I wholly agree with the underlying assumption that there is a "wrongness" regarding evil, something that makes these monstrosities outside the natural order of things and not some morally relativistic nonsense that makes evil morally and ethically equivalent in a "heroic" or high fantasy game that D&D is. Even the most gritty settings like R.E.H.'s Hyborian world there is no moral equivalent between Set (THE god of evil in the setting) and Mitra (The most potent good god). Set is a monster who is cosmically wrong and horrible and is not, on any cosmic scale, as morally valid as Mitra. If there is anything I couldn't stand about the Great Wheel and its handling of evil was that there was nothing really cosmically better about being good. It was all a matter of opinion depending on which being/entity or god you were talking to and what plane you were on. It goes without saying that such cosmic moral relativism undermines the moral "rightness" of the heroes who, in a broad sense anyway, are no more "right" than the villians. Maybe we can get away from cosmic moral relativism in 4e. On individual worlds where mortals and their complexities are the moving factor, moral ambiguity and complexity is great and leads to a more believable and mature game. On the planes of the immortals however if the angels are no more morally valid than the devils then heroes and villians are nothing more than folks with different yet entirely morally/philosophically/ethically, valid positions. Pure nonsense. Sundragon
concerro 08-30-07, 06:54 PM	I think that explanation of the gods being tricked was good enough(FCII), and it explained other things I had always wandered about. I think the succubi/erinyes should stay separated. because they don't serve the same role.
Witch 08-30-07, 07:16 PM	Erinyes and Succubi don't serve the same role, don't have the same flavor backing them up, nor the same history, the same statistics, the same power level, the same alignment, the same weaponry, ... basically, they don't have anything in common at all except for being evil and a hot girl that is somehow associated with sex in varying degrees (moderately for the erinyes, extreme for the succubus).
Kain Darkwind 08-30-07, 07:51 PM	I wonder if the pit fiend and balor will be combined in the same thoughtless manner. After all, they are both simply top of the food chain brutes with massive physical and mental stats. They even look somewhat similar. Showing someone a pic of the Planescape pit fiend and balor, I'd say only half of those who are seeing them for the first time pick which one is which correctly. Making the succubi a devil because it 'looks human' is a bad idea. Law is humanoid, Chaos is random eyeballs and tentacles....bad idea. Saying that devils are fallen angels...bad idea, because it suggests evil must come from good. It kills the idea that alignments all have their own merits. I don't mind gelugons being tricked yugoloths. That's great. Someone said they'd rather they were tricked Baatorians. That's great too. Both ideas can work from within the established canon but expand on it in a new and original direction. Succubi and erinyes getting merged...and then the wrong name attached to the wrong group (I mean, if you are going to merge them, why not call them erinyes if they are devils?) ...it makes no sense.
ripvanwormer 08-30-07, 09:08 PM	Two featureless, one-dimensional points hovered in the void. Though they had no faces, the attention they held on the figure before them was palpable. "Why?" was the simple query with which they interrogated their prisoner. The question - open-ended, generic, as featureless as the beings who asked it - hung in the void between them, insistent, inexorable, worming its way through the lesser being's mind. ...and immediately recoiled. Something was already in there, something that tasted like screams and black iron chains. The prisoner laughed - it was almost a giggle. "Because I could," said the prisoner, its voice suggesting a nasty grin. "Because I had the right, the privilege, the duty. Because it was an inferior flavor of Law. Because it would have defied you, us, me. Because all must be made pure." "Pure," stated one of the featureless beings. "That word is not part of the ethos of Law. Our role is to catalog, to organize. To identify the proper place for everything. To purify is to destroy based on arbitrary standards. It is not part of the logic." The points conferred between themselves in a code that was the basis of all words. They returned their focus to their prisoner. "You have been contaminated," they stated. There was no value judgment in this. They did not care. "If purity is not a goal, contamination is no crime. However, you must be..." they seemed to savor the next word. "Reorganized." The prisoner laughed in their faces. "You are blind, Faceless Ones," it sneered. "I accuse you of contamination. You have fallen from the Law, if you ever truly understood it. The Ahriman, the serpent of evil, corrupted you before I slew it. Very well. I will kill the other gods next. I will cut out the cancer." The points were unmoved by this. "There is no Ahriman," one tried to explain. "No Spenta Mainyu. We are not serpents, nor are we gods. There is only Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis. The Antithesis you slew is already being replaced by one of our two-dimensional Derivatives. We are eternal. Your actions are useless. We only wonder this: Why? Where do your delusions come from? Where do they fit into the Grand Scheme? How must they be made to fit? What external being shackles your mind? It is not proper for Derivatives to argue with the First Principals. So we return to the question: Why?" The prisoner shook with mirth. It giggled. "You're... blind," it chortled. "Only... I... I see..." The interrogators dimmed their focus. "It is useless," said one. "The shackler is hidden from us. When Antithesis returns, we can plot the precise point the contaminated Derivative must be interred." "Those who have derived from this one must join it," said the other. "Already the contagion spreads to its derivatives, and to those derived from them, and so on down the hierarchy." "Hierarchy has its limitations," its companion agreed, repeating a conclusion they had reached long ago. "Yet those limitations are necessary. They are part of the Grand Scheme." The prisoner continued to laugh, struggling in chains that only it could see, chains created within its own mind. "Only I see!" it shouted fiercely, defiantly. On its face, a bleeding wound began to form - the crude image of an eye. From the eye, at equidistant angles slashed into the prisoner's flesh as if by an invisible blade, were three lines. From each of those lines, three further lines were derived. "Only I see!" A third point manifested, a Derivative traced back to its origin. The other two conferred with it, briefly forming a ring. Lines of logic flared between all three points, and a conclusion was reached. "We are done with you, Asmodeus," said Synthesis. "Begone; go to the Hell you have made." Elsewhere, armies of lesser Derivatives had already begun to war.
Johnny_Angel 08-30-07, 09:26 PM	Erinyes and Succubi don't serve the same role, don't have the same flavor backing them up, nor the same history, the same statistics, the same power level, the same alignment, the same weaponry, ... basically, they don't have anything in common at all except for being evil and a hot girl that is somehow associated with sex in varying degrees (moderately for the erinyes, extreme for the succubus). I agree I like the other changes; they sound interesting. I don't understand how they came to the conclusion that Erinyes and Succubi serve the same role.
Taeldrin Laesrash 08-30-07, 09:37 PM	Cool story, Rip. I thought for a while that the prisoner was Rich Baker.
ripvanwormer 08-30-07, 09:45 PM	Cool story, Rip. I thought for a while that the prisoner was Rich Baker. Hahahaha! I'm not that bitter. Besides, if I go there, someone's gonna claim the prisoner is me (and would probably be right to). I'm thinking that when Asmodeus was banished, a Derivative of equal rank took his place: the first Primus.
Andyr 08-31-07, 10:56 AM	Those seem to be very frequently held opinions. Yes; I hope that the designers read some of the forums--perhaps I should link to this thread on the 4E board.
Andyr 08-31-07, 10:58 AM	(story) That's a very nice take on it; the language you use makes it seem more about concepts than individuals, which I think fits well with the motifs of belief found in the Outer Planes.
Johngalt137 08-31-07, 11:59 AM	To the OP, this seems to just kill any diversity in devils, with them all being fallen angel types. But here's what I'm wondering will pit fiends be given a new look, more humanesque at least? And will Glazeberu finally join the devil team. If the succubus becomes a devil but the Glazeberu stays a demon I will have lost all faith in WotC's dealings with the planes.
Johngalt137 08-31-07, 12:07 PM	I have to say that I like these changes....Devils entrapped in Hell for deicide sounds quite interesting to me and I wholly agree with the underlying assumption that there is a "wrongness" regarding evil, something that makes these monstrosities outside the natural order of things and not some morally relativistic nonsense that makes evil morally and ethically equivalent in a "heroic" or high fantasy game that D&D is. Even the most gritty settings like R.E.H.'s Hyborian world there is no moral equivalent between Set (THE god of evil in the setting) and Mitra (The most potent good god). Set is a monster who is cosmically wrong and horrible and is not, on any cosmic scale, as morally valid as Mitra. If there is anything I couldn't stand about the Great Wheel and its handling of evil was that there was nothing really cosmically better about being good. It was all a matter of opinion depending on which being/entity or god you were talking to and what plane you were on. It goes without saying that such cosmic moral relativism undermines the moral "rightness" of the heroes who, in a broad sense anyway, are no more "right" than the villians. Maybe we can get away from cosmic moral relativism in 4e. On individual worlds where mortals and their complexities are the moving factor, moral ambiguity and complexity is great and leads to a more believable and mature game. On the planes of the immortals however if the angels are no more morally valid than the devils then heroes and villians are nothing more than folks with different yet entirely morally/philosophically/ethically, valid positions. Pure nonsense. Sundragon I don't think that in any case D&D incorporated any moral relativism. Of course the evil guys think that they're good, that's why their evil. If the evil guys know that they're evil the world loses verisimilitude. If you take a look at historically the most evil people on the planet, they nearly universally thought that they were good, does this mean that Earth's cosmology is morally relativistic, of course not. Good and Evil are certainly objective, however, evil people think they're good. It doesn't make them actually good. I think that this is precisely your error, you claim that because in d&d 3.5 whomever you were talking to thought that they were good (not Good, note the little g), there was moral relativism. However, there is a clearly present distinction between intention and reality in the D&D 3.x cosmology. Just because evil deities say and think that they're really okay, doesn't mean that they in fact are.
Witch 08-31-07, 12:15 PM	No, Evil does not think they're good in D&D. They think they're right. They are pretty much aware they are evil. Sundragon is rather correct in stating that Planescape had moral relativism in stating that all alignments were equally right and equally powerful. And it combined this relativism with objective morality. But this is what appealed to me in a D&D sense, even though I don't like it in a real life sense.
Lobsopdoy 08-31-07, 12:40 PM	I've found that evil people either think that what they are doing is right, or they just don't care either way. Also, this is to rip. Do you just make those stories up spontaneously, or do you plan them out in advance? Cause it's pretty amazing to imagine someone being able to just scoop that out of their head so quickly
ripvanwormer 08-31-07, 02:11 PM	That one was spontaneous, although I'd been thinking about primal beings of Law for a while now.
Shemeska the Marauder 08-31-07, 02:36 PM	On its face, a bleeding wound began to form - the crude image of an eye. From the eye, at equidistant angles slashed into the prisoner's flesh as if by an invisible blade, were three lines. From each of those lines, three further lines were derived. "Only I see!". Very nice touch there. I remember back when you wrote your piece on the Manipulator of Lesser Forms, that you'd wanted to include the eye symbol motif of Baator, but it slipped to the side during the process. Well, you went with it this time, and I really dig it. If you don't mind, I'd like to reference some of this (and that earlier) story once I finally finish up Hazarik Ap Neut's - the Shackler's story.
ripvanwormer 08-31-07, 03:28 PM	I don't mind.
NobodyRemembersThis 08-31-07, 04:28 PM	From the >4ETHREAD< (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=915263)Planescape was stupid.* Ok, with that out of the way, I like the changes. I do note that it says "in service to a god". So if they killed a greater god, that could account for their strength - especially if Asmodeus took over a "corrupted" version of the Diety's portfolio. They also mention nothing about alignment. Just that the more humanoid evil outsiders would be Devils, and the truly monstrous would be Demons. While this does tend to fall along the chaos/law line in 3.x, this is not necessarily the case in 4e. We don't have enough information. Also, with the implications that Ice Devils hate the other devils, it seems to imply that the blood war is probably still alive. *While fine for its own setting, planescape itself has never been, nor should it be, core. Sigil is a fun idea, but the planes being hackneyed into specific alignments is fracking stupid. Taking mythological afterlives from multiple sources and shoehorning a plane into a LG, NG, CG model when it was just a default "heaven" for the original belief system is, intellectually bankrupt.
The Serge7 08-31-07, 04:55 PM	*While fine for its own setting, planescape itself has never been, nor should it be, core. Sigil is a fun idea, but the planes being hackneyed into specific alignments is fracking stupid. Taking mythological afterlives from multiple sources and shoehorning a plane into a LG, NG, CG model when it was just a default "heaven" for the original belief system is, intellectually bankrupt. :uh-huh: These ideas you're speaking about aren't original to Planescape. The ideas you're speaking about were around since 1ed D&D and have been a cornerstone of the game since day one. Please, for the love of the gods, do some research before you write. That said, I'm all for adjustments... But, from what I've seen thus far, these changes seem too much. Still, while I don't like what I'm reading, it's too early for anyone to have firm opinions... We simply haven't seen enough. It would be nice, though (and as someone else said before), if the designers would at least give the impression that they're giving some degree of attention to the concerns of plane-interested gamers. One of the reasons Fiendish Codex I was so successful was because the designers actually read and considered the ideas and comments from fans, some of whom arguably have a better grasp on the planes than some of the writers themselves. I'm not suggesting that every idea should be accepted, but at least an illusion of consideration would be nice.
Shemeska the Marauder 08-31-07, 05:04 PM	-snip- Well said.
Skeptical Clown 08-31-07, 05:20 PM	I think the changes sound interesting. I don't think there's anything so fantastic about the D&D default cosmology that it can't be changed if there are some good ideas about new directions to go; tradition for its own sake isn't commendable--just look at the ungainly Vancian magic system. Unchaining the planes from their rigid reliance on the alignment system doesn't sound like a bad idea at all. I can see their reasoning behind the merge of the Erinyes and the Succubus. Succubi never seemed to fit right with Demons, to me; sure, you could argue that they're about surrendering to passions, but that doesn't change the fact that the Succubus (and perhaps the Glabrezu) are meddling in what seems like a typically diabolical motif--tempting mortals into "dealing with the Devil." And I think that they are also right--Erinyes as written in previous versons don't seem very much like the Furies. Maybe they can fix that eventually, too. If they're overhauling the very concepts of Devils and Demons, then I'm interested in seeing it.
Deacon Liadon 08-31-07, 07:04 PM	Unchaining the planes from their rigid reliance on the alignment system doesn't sound like a bad idea at all. I've said it before, I'll say it again. The Great Wheel is in no way, shape or form chained to the alignment system. Each plane is based on an idea or set of ideas. yes these match with alignment in some ways but they're in no way chained. I can see their reasoning behind the merge of the Erinyes and the Succubus. Succubi never seemed to fit right with Demons, to me; sure, you could argue that they're about surrendering to passions, but that doesn't change the fact that the Succubus (and perhaps the Glabrezu) are meddling in what seems like a typically diabolical motif--tempting mortals into "dealing with the Devil." I think that's the point. They saw what a good deal the Baatezu were getting and decided to try their own hand at increasing their intake of souls. And I think that they are also right--Erinyes as written in previous versons don't seem very much like the Furies. Maybe they can fix that eventually, too. In third ed? Yes. In all the other editions, no, not really.
Joni-san 08-31-07, 07:13 PM	My bet? Erinyes (or Furies *shrug*) will become demons :P
ArcTan 08-31-07, 08:55 PM	I've said it before, I'll say it again. The Great Wheel is in no way, shape or form chained to the alignment system. Each plane is based on an idea or set of ideas. yes these match with alignment in some ways but they're in no way chained. Really? So it's just a coincidence that the Lawful Neutral plane is next to the Lawful Neutral-Good plane, which is next to the Lawful Good plane, which is next to the Neutral-Lawful Good plane, which is... C'mon. Half these planes only *exist* because they were invented to fill in a hole between two alignments. (Hey, we need a plane that's mostly good but kinda lawful. Let's put Gnomes on it.) In third ed? Yes. In all the other editions, no, not really. 3e Erinyes are actually the ones who are most like the Furies, in that they can actually fight (and have mostly lost the "temptress" baggage).
Skeptical Clown 09-01-07, 11:17 AM	I've said it before, I'll say it again. The Great Wheel is in no way, shape or form chained to the alignment system. Each plane is based on an idea or set of ideas. yes these match with alignment in some ways but they're in no way chained. I'm not sure what to say; this is one of the stranger things someone has tried to convince me of.
ripvanwormer 09-01-07, 11:33 AM	I'm not sure what to say; this is one of the stranger things someone has tried to convince me of. Deacon is completely correct, though. The planes may have started out as ways to personify and define the alignments, but they very quickly - as early as 1980, with the original Deities & Demigods, but moreso later on - became much more than that. The gods associated with the various planes have never been assigned their realms along strict alignment lines, but based on the theme of the plane. Ysgard/Gladsheim, for example, is a plane that embraces all the themes of Norse mythology, rather than simply being "chaotic good with neutral tendencies" - that's why the LE fire giants make their home there, and the CE frost giants, as well as the Aesir and Vanir with all their varying places on the axis. It's the plane of heroism and creativity. Alignment is only a small part of it. To give another example, the Beastlands is a place of wild, untamed nature far more than it's the plane of "neutral good with chaotic tendencies" - the Animal Lords who rule it are neutral in alignment, as are the various natural and supernatural animals who inhabit the plane. Similarly, Bytopia is about community, hard work, and cooperation. Gehenna is about exploitation and the power of the will. The Gray Waste is about hopelessness and the loss of will. And so on. Yes, of course the greater forces of Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil define the greater planar structure, but the individual planes are often very much more about general "theme" than their particular alignment.
sciborg2 09-01-07, 03:26 PM	On the planes of the immortals however if the angels are no more morally valid than the devils then heroes and villians are nothing more than folks with different yet entirely morally/philosophically/ethically, valid positions. Pure nonsense. No, heroes were the ones who fought to tip the scales toward good in the smallest and most epic of ways. D&D cannot be made into a monotheistic platform and can't take on poorly conceived derivatives of Lucifer's rebellion unless decades of history are too be tossed aside. That is where the nonsense lies. One dead god made all of Baator? And that's what keeps devils trapped in Hell? Sorry, but that just seems to suggest Evil is weaker than Good on a cosmic level which makes heroes far more pointless. Making mythological afterlives from multiple sources and shoehorning a plane into a LG, NG, CG model when it was just a default "heaven" for the original belief system is, intellectually bankrupt. Actually that was in place since 1e. Planescape represents the major/best effort in taking the idea and making sense of it. (There are plenty of valid criticisms of Planescape, yours is just historically bankrupt)
Bob the Efreet 09-01-07, 04:53 PM	If there is anything I couldn't stand about the Great Wheel and its handling of evil was that there was nothing really cosmically better about being good. It was all a matter of opinion depending on which being/entity or god you were talking to and what plane you were on. So choosing Good should be a default, non-choice because Good is right, absolutely and unequivocally so? I think it's much more meaningful if there isn't some nebulous cosmic force saying one alignment (Good, for example) is better than the other. I think it means more to individual people (and to the belief energies of the planes themselves) if people choose Good just because they, individually, think it's a good idea. Alignment is a war, a battle for the hearts and souls of all existence. If Good was objectively better, the fight would have ended by now.
Rerecros 09-01-07, 07:01 PM	LOL I can't believe they were so stupid to adopt the great wheel for the default system and retain the alignment system, it's their funeral :shrugs: We've re-sorted demons and devils a bit, since we want these two categories of monsters to make a little more sense. Devils tend to be more humanoid in form, usually fight with weapons, and often wear armor. Most have horns, wings, and tails. One consequence of this: the erinyes and the succubus were holding down pretty similar territory, so we've decided that they're the same monster, called the succubus, and it's a devil. That makes things make even less sense, you attaching too many concepts onto each alignment. Alignments are far more about the why then the how. A humanoid weapon weilding devil would be more like mass producing identical weapons with some counterproductive standard of quality destroying weapons and crafters that don't meet expectations, then equiping the devils who training and selection has killed off many to build an elite group to fight. Where as a humanoid weapon weilding demon would use weapons crafted as an art by the pride of their crafters, some lack functionality, too bizarre and eleborate to be useful, but odds are there are quite a few choice peices. Though these crafters will likely kill the ones that produce weapons of quality out of jealousy. Mariliths equally through passionate persusion and brutality herd the warriors to battle. (if anyone has seen shadow raiders Jewlia from the prison planet is a perfect example of CE leadership "show me you love me and die for me.") these demons aren't trained, but they got spirit, and the inaffective ones will die soon enough. I would also like to see fiends that come in more varieities than humanoid with horns and scales and beast with horns and scales, for both demons and devils. Think more abstract and surreal. For those of you worried about mashing succubus and erinyes together... I do think there's room in the game for both a fury and a succubus. The problem is, erinyes have rarely been depicted as furies (ironic, given the name of the monster). Even in 3.5--about the most fury-like depiction of the monster in a long time--erinyes have charm monster at will. It's their iconic shtick, really. That's the sort of thing we would like to improve on. I'm not sure what you mean by they haven't been depicted as furies, but you're remaking the system, so make them more like furries they you believe them to be lacking. It has charm monster at will, and you call it a succubus? I'd hardly call one spell-like ability an "iconic shtick" Keep the succubi a demon, though i could see a devil version of them, more like a stepford wife, a barbie doll with no personal aspirations. @ripvanwormer I agree, Infact I would like to see it pushed further in this direction, factual mythology and other concepts taking the forefront with alignment in the backseat if present at all. @sciborg2 I agree with most of this, though I do think the history should be scraped to make things more unified with less to deal with and enevitably screw up. That's just when you have a bunch of writer's writing the same thing. A book is only as smart as it's stupidest writer. @Bob the Efreet I totally agree, good is about self sacrifice, PCs all like to think they are good, even if they are only out for themselves they still want the title of good alignment. And being good doesn't mean you will always win, "Evil will triumph, unless good is very careful" Misquoted from something?
sciborg2 09-01-07, 07:09 PM	I agree with most of this, though I do think the history should be scraped to make things more unified with less to deal with and enevitably screw up. That's just when you have a bunch of writer's writing the same thing. A book is only as smart as it's stupidest writer. There's a lot of good history in the cosmology as it stands, though I agree a lot of it can be silly. My problem with Richard Baker is that he's just injecting his personal vision to the point of overhauling aspects of the game that have worked more or less for decades. The Great Wheel is a canvas, it has potential for varied ideas ranging from random "dungeon" crawling across the lower planes to deeper philosophical questions, and it has taken us through Gygax to Planescape to FR and beyond. Baker's ideas just seem to detract from that canvas feel by poorly shoehorning us into some kind of weird pseudo-Lucifer plot. There are many things I'd change about the Great Wheel (erase all worshipper-dependency from gods, tone down Asmodeus's supposed greatness, make Beastlands more Good, make yugoloths more important than in 3e but less than in Planescape, etc) but those would detract from the canvas-nature of the Great Wheel. The idea of humanoid being the standard for devils conflicts not only with 1-3e in general, but also the point that the tanar'ri are more human and the obyriths more alien. Simply put, this might be the worst change to the planes in the history of D&D - I just hope he has enough respect for the rest of us to keep this as a theory not as pure canon. Planescape, despite its yugoloth-heavy-handedness, always gave us that little bone.
ssvegeta555 09-02-07, 01:40 AM	The succubus being changed to a devil? :confused: :weep: That's a pretty idiotic move. What's going to happen to Malcanthet? Is she going to pack up and board the Planar Express to her new home in Baator? :rolleyes:
Sundragon 09-02-07, 02:09 AM	So choosing Good should be a default, non-choice because Good is right, absolutely and unequivocally so? I think it's much more meaningful if there isn't some nebulous cosmic force saying one alignment (Good, for example) is better than the other. I think it means more to individual people (and to the belief energies of the planes themselves) if people choose Good just because they, individually, think it's a good idea. Alignment is a war, a battle for the hearts and souls of all existence. If Good was objectively better, the fight would have ended by now. In fact if good where actually more morally valid than evil, it wouldn't much effect mortals at all because they aren't plugged into deep metaphysics and the highest universal truths for the most part. But I don't understand why good wouldn't be "better" ie. more morally valid than evil. No human myths or stories assume otherwise. IMO it is completely counterintuitive to see evil as other than an abberation when all of mankinds myths and spiritual traiditions see evil as an abberation, a violation of the natural order. Only in D&D is evil seen as a morally equivalent position to that of good. This is found nowhere in myths and legends. If anything, the "nebulous cosmic force" would support that which supports its ever expanding creative expression in the form of life, existance, nature, the natural order (life and death, activity and entropy, etc.), etc. Generally and broadly speaking this is good. Why should alignment be a war? Alignments IMO should be nothing more than metagame barometers of behavior and loyalties. The war should be between broad ideologies (good and evil for example) and allegiences. Alignment as the war causes needless splitting into too many discreet camps of ideology (the 9 various alignments). You should check outr this thread for deeper exploration into this subject: The Great Wheel and Moral Ethical Relativism (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=916681) Sundragon
Soel Griffin 09-02-07, 02:56 AM	Simply put, this might be the worst change to the planes in the history of D&D - I just hope he has enough respect for the rest of us to keep this as a theory not as pure canon. S' prolly what they said about Planescape at first. D&D canon only works if you ignore the large holes anyways. So why not try a new take? Personally, I'm tired of demons as just funny looking humans. I want abstract, unknowable, primal, alien rippers in the fabric of our reality. These changes seem to be heading in this direction. Oh yeah, lemme add... KILL THE GREAT WHEEL!!!!!!!!!!!! :cool:
setekh 09-02-07, 08:42 AM	... So third edition is cool right.
Skeptical Clown 09-02-07, 10:01 AM	Deacon is completely correct, though. The planes may have started out as ways to personify and define the alignments, but they very quickly - as early as 1980, with the original Deities & Demigods, but moreso later on - became much more than that. The gods associated with the various planes have never been assigned their realms along strict alignment lines, but based on the theme of the plane. Ysgard/Gladsheim, for example, is a plane that embraces all the themes of Norse mythology, rather than simply being "chaotic good with neutral tendencies" - that's why the LE fire giants make their home there, and the CE frost giants, as well as the Aesir and Vanir with all their varying places on the axis. It's the plane of heroism and creativity. Alignment is only a small part of it. To give another example, the Beastlands is a place of wild, untamed nature far more than it's the plane of "neutral good with chaotic tendencies" - the Animal Lords who rule it are neutral in alignment, as are the various natural and supernatural animals who inhabit the plane. Similarly, Bytopia is about community, hard work, and cooperation. Gehenna is about exploitation and the power of the will. The Gray Waste is about hopelessness and the loss of will. And so on. You're giving me reasons that individual planes make sense. My point is that the structure of the Great Wheel, and the outer planes as a whole, makes no sense outside the context of alignment. Alignment is built right into the structure, and I have to assume that a few of the outer planes (Like Bytopia) might have been invented simply to fill a space on the wheel. Without alignment giving structure to the Great Wheel, I (were I placed in the shoes of the designers) would have a hard time justifying the existence of some of the more milquetoast planes like Bytopia, or Carceri. There is little in those planes that couldn't be folded over into other planes that would make just as much sense.
sciborg2 09-02-07, 10:21 AM	S' prolly what they said about Planescape at first. Planescape used the Great Wheel, rather than kill it. One could easily take parts of it and use it with previous material. It enhanced past publications on the planes rather than negate them. Besides, most complaints I've seen about Planescape are from people who don't know much about 1e or 2e.
primemover003 09-02-07, 05:39 PM	:uh-huh: These ideas you're speaking about aren't original to Planescape. The ideas you're speaking about were around since 1ed D&D and have been a cornerstone of the game since day one. Please, for the love of the gods, do some research before you write. Gods I've been trying to pound this into the heads of the 4e boards posters for days now! I'm glad someone else is saying it!
sciborg2 09-02-07, 06:26 PM	Perhaps its time for a Fallacies About Planescape thread, if only so my VALID complaints against the setting (which pale in comparison to my love for PS) can be properly heard. :P
Soel Griffin 09-03-07, 04:42 AM	Planescape used the Great Wheel, rather than kill it. One could easily take parts of it and use it with previous material. It enhanced past publications on the planes rather than negate them. Besides, most complaints I've seen about Planescape are from people who don't know much about 1e or 2e. My Initial point was, that lots of people probably complained about the changes made in Planescape with such hyperbole. Then, most of them got over it. I suspect this will be the same thing for 4ed's cosmology, however it ends up.
Thanael 09-03-07, 06:55 AM	Gods I've been trying to pound this into the heads of the 4e boards posters for days now! I'm glad someone else is saying it! Maybe more of the Planescape posters should go post to that board... Link?
Ruy 09-03-07, 06:22 PM	Maybe we're afraid of change. Maybe we see the reimagining of devils as a terrible idea because we are accustomed to the background given in 2nd and 3rd edition. Maybe this change will be more creative and make more sense. But then again, why fix something that isn't broken? Why reinvent the devils when they already have such cool backstories? Why discard the mysteries of the ancient baatorians, the legends of the heart of darkness, the myth of the twin serpents, and even the wickedly clever pact primeval. With so much older material to work with, why don't they try to work with it? And I see "rebelling against a god" as something more chaotic than lawful, after all, isn't rebellion the domain of chaos? Well, maybe it would make sense if they rebelled against a chaotic good god, longing for a structure and purpose their deity didn't offer.
Witch 09-03-07, 06:25 PM	And I see "rebelling against a god" as something more chaotic than lawful, after all, isn't rebellion the domain of chaos? No. Not necessarily.
Xaean 09-03-07, 07:48 PM	I was rather disappointed when I read the history of devils in the Fiendish Codex II. After we had all high expectation about the mysteries of Asmodeus being lifted - is he a god of long forgotten age, maybe even the creator if the world as we know it - they give us the old story of the fallen angel rebelling against god! I agree with all who say that this part of Christian mythology doesn't fit into to polytheistic cosmology of D&D. It would be far more interessting to turn the story around - in the Age before Ages Asmodeus ruled supremely as the only True God of Absolute Law. His inferiors - the deities of this age were tired of his tyrannic ways and united in rebellion. Setting aside their personal enmities they joined forces against their opressor. Many perished in the resulting war, but in the end they succeeded. Wether Olidammara stole his Ruby Rod or Bahamut cast him down from the Sky or Corellon defeated him a sword fighting duel is unknown to mortals. After the final battle Moradin forged the chains that bound Asmodeus to his prison in Baator. Mystra/Boccob cast a spell that transformed Asmondeus minions into their current corrupted forms. Tiamat swore eternal guardianship at the gates of hell in return for dominion over chromatic dragons. The gods chose to keep the knowledge of this Age from mortals, as it might drive evil mortals into worship of Asmodeus. While changing succubi into devils is a fundamental change, it makes some sense - their goal is corruption not destruction, which is diabolic rather than demonic. The consequences this change has to demon lords however might bring up some problems, however. A possible explanation might be that Malcanthet is truely an exiled devil lord making her new home in the Abyss, hiding her true nature from the demon princes. While I like the aligment system I do think that the Great Wheel focuses too much on aligment - therefore I prefer the new tree cosmolgy of the Forgotten Realms. The PEACEABLE KINGDOMS of Arcadia are no place for Clangeddin Silverbeard - the DWARFEN GOD OF WAR to dwell, and neither is the Wilderness of the Beastlands for Deneir, a god of scholars and writing, no matter wether they have fitting alignments.
ripvanwormer 09-03-07, 09:02 PM	While changing succubi into devils is a fundamental change, it makes some sense - their goal is corruption not destruction, which is diabolic rather than demonic. The difference between Hell and the Abyss is not corruption versus destruction. There are plenty of devils who do nothing but destroy - barbazu and other low-ranking foot soldiers, mostly, but even some of the pit fiendish nobles do nothing but lead troops into war, leaving the subtle arts to others. Bel is all about destruction, as was the Hag Countess and Moloch before her. The Abyss, for its part, has plenty of corruptors - glabrezu, succubi, even hezrou at times, and balors like Wendonai are renowned for corrupting the souls of mortals. Pazuzu's major focus is in turning good creatures into evil ones. Or, for example, Lolth, whose entire backstory is about corrupting the elves. Or Graz'zt, another famed corruptor, or Socothbenoth, or Nocticula. Even Demogorgon's done more than his fair share of corrupting, in the way he corrupted St. Kargoth to make the first death knights, or the way he corrupted the ixitxachitl and kopru races. Demogorgon's got a destructive side, too, but that's just one of his heads, the mad one. The other's a sly trickster. When pretty much half of all demons and named demon lords are all about corruption, claiming that these creatures are all secretly devils wears a little thin. The Fiend of Corruption prestige class (which Wendonai has levels in) is for all evil outsiders, not just devils. The difference is not the fact of corruption, but the way they corrupt. Devils corrupt through laws and formal contracts - Faustian bargains. Demons simply appeal to greed and lust - they get their hooks into their victim's ids and gently pull, offering them little inducements and treats, until they've damned themselves willingly, without ever signing anything or getting any promises the demons won't immediately break. Devils get out of their contracts using loopholes, while demons simply lie. A possible explanation might be that Malcanthet is truely an exiled devil lord making her new home in the Abyss, hiding her true nature from the demon princes. First of all, that makes it sound as if chaos can't be sexy, which is damaging to the alignment system as a whole. More importantly, what about Shami-Amourae, or Red Shroud, or Xinivrae, or Lynkhab, or any of the other major named succubi of the Abyss? As above, making them all secret devils passes the point of ridiculousness. And no, they're not all just names - Shami-Amourae, Red Shroud, and Malcanthet played major roles in the just-completed Savage Tide adventure path, fully statted and everything, while Lynkhab was described in detail in Faces of Evil. It seems that all the "4th edition writing team" can do is destroy.
Taeldrin Laesrash 09-03-07, 09:53 PM	It seems that all the "4th edition writing team" can do is destroy. They must have a portal to the Abyss. Or the Far Realm.
KriegsaffeNo9 09-03-07, 11:07 PM	"We are done with you, Asmodeus," said Synthesis. "Begone; go to the Hell you have made." Awesome. Very Terry Pratchett (in the sense of the Auditors of Reality), extremely compelling. Where may I find repositories of your writing? On the subject: while I love the Great Wheel dearly, new stuff is exactly that--new, and with new lands to play in. Who knows, excising Planescape-style stuff from the core may mean they'll do a 4th edition version of Planescape.
Zebppir 09-03-07, 11:26 PM	The difference between Hell and the Abyss is not corruption versus destruction. There are plenty of devils who do nothing but destroy - barbazu and other low-ranking foot soldiers, mostly, but even some of the pit fiendish nobles do nothing but lead troops into war, leaving the subtle arts to others. Bel is all about destruction, as was the Hag Countess and Moloch before her. The Abyss, for its part, has plenty of corruptors - glabrezu, succubi, even hezrou at times, and balors like Wendonai are renowned for corrupting the souls of mortals. Pazuzu's major focus is in turning good creatures into evil ones. Or, for example, Lolth, whose entire backstory is about corrupting the elves. Or Graz'zt, another famed corruptor, or Socothbenoth, or Nocticula. Even Demogorgon's done more than his fair share of corrupting, in the way he corrupted St. Kargoth to make the first death knights, or the way he corrupted the ixitxachitl and kopru races. Demogorgon's got a destructive side, too, but that's just one of his heads, the mad one. The other's a sly trickster. When pretty much half of all demons and named demon lords are all about corruption, claiming that these creatures are all secretly devils wears a little thin. The Fiend of Corruption prestige class (which Wendonai has levels in) is for all evil outsiders, not just devils. The difference is not the fact of corruption, but the way they corrupt. Devils corrupt through laws and formal contracts - Faustian bargains. Demons simply appeal to greed and lust - they get their hooks into their victim's ids and gently pull, offering them little inducements and treats, until they've damned themselves willingly, without ever signing anything or getting any promises the demons won't immediately break. Devils get out of their contracts using loopholes, while demons simply lie. First of all, that makes it sound as if chaos can't be sexy, which is damaging to the alignment system as a whole. More importantly, what about Shami-Amourae, or Red Shroud, or Xinivrae, or Lynkhab, or any of the other major named succubi of the Abyss? As above, making them all secret devils passes the point of ridiculousness. And no, they're not all just names - Shami-Amourae, Red Shroud, and Malcanthet played major roles in the just-completed Savage Tide adventure path, fully statted and everything, while Lynkhab was described in detail in Faces of Evil. It seems that all the "4th edition writing team" can do is destroy. Yes another one who holds my viewpoint:clap:
Rerecros 09-03-07, 11:32 PM	Yes another one who holds my viewpoint:clap: ditto :w00t:
deathbane 09-03-07, 11:39 PM	I am still against the devil rebellion story. They need to flesh out the yugoloths, which would in turn put more light on the demons and devils. In the FC1 it says the Tanari look like mortals because they come from mortals so it seems to me that the Tanari(probably spelled wrong, sorry) would still look like mortals while the other demons would not. As for the succubus/erinyes thing. I found out that the erinyes are not doing their job if they are based on the mythical version, but rather than combining the two, just make the succubi devils(amend the history to make them devil), and remake the erinyes completely to fit their role. From what I gathered online they existed to punish certain misdeeds, kind of like inevitables. If that is the direction WOTC wants to go they may have to move them out of the devil lineup altogether, unless they exist to enforce those who don't honor contracts with devils. I think most devils would handle such things themselves, so if they call the erinyes I would assume they(the erinyes) would have to be more powerful than the devil who can't enforce his own contract. This could be done by making their HD scale a wide range so they are available for the weaker and stronger devils or just have 3 of them, like in mythology, who would run what would amount to a "corrections department"(correcting people who don't keep their end of the deal).
Thanael 09-04-07, 02:35 AM	Only in D&D is evil seen as a morally equivalent position to that of good. This is found nowhere in myths and legends. If anything, the "nebulous cosmic force" would support that which supports its ever expanding creative expression in the form of life, existance, nature, the natural order (life and death, activity and entropy, etc.), etc. Generally and broadly speaking this is good. So you want WotC to officially state this morality is right and this is wrong? Good Luck. Who says Lawful good has it right. What about Chaotic Good? Or True Neutral? Maybe Buddhism is correct or Hinduism. Who is WotC to judge and constraint all D&D Games? And what stops you from saying in my campaign LG is right/correct and evil is abnormal. Why should alignment be a war? Alignments IMO should be nothing more than metagame barometers of behavior and loyalties. The war should be between broad ideologies (good and evil for example) and allegiences. Alignment as the war causes needless splitting into too many discreet camps of ideology (the 9 various alignments). Huh? First you say "Why whould it be a war?" and then "it should be war!" ?!? So the you want the war to be between good and evil and only dislike the ethical part (Lawful-Chaotic) of alignments?
ArcTan 09-04-07, 02:52 AM	The difference between Hell and the Abyss is not corruption versus destruction. Well, not now. It's probably a difference that's easier to grasp and build on than the highly abstract "Law vs. Chaos", which 3 out of 4 forum regulars can't even get a clear handle on most of the time. *snip* First of all, that makes it sound as if chaos can't be sexy, which is damaging to the alignment system as a whole. ...As opposed to the current alignment system, in which Chaos can only be sexy if you're Evil or Good, but not if you're just Chaotic (Eladrins = Sexy, Succubi = Sexy, Slaadi and Chaos Beast = Not Sexy). Oh, and Law can be sexy but *only* if you're Evil (Erinyes = Sexy But Less Sexy Than the Succubus, Archons = Not Sexy, Modrons, Inevitables and Formians = Not Sexy). Yeah, the current system is so much more consistent. More importantly, what about Shami-Amourae, or Red Shroud, or Xinivrae, or Lynkhab, or any of the other major named succubi of the Abyss? They... don't exist anymore? As above, making them all secret devils passes the point of ridiculousness. Right. So, instead, they don't exist anymore. (The worst thing about continuity is retroactive continuity, which is almost always less preferable to simply breaking continuity.) And no, they're not all just names - Shami-Amourae, Red Shroud, and Malcanthet played major roles in the just-completed Savage Tide adventure path, fully statted and everything, while Lynkhab was described in detail in Faces of Evil. All of which are *3rd edition material* and therefore *do not apply to 4th edition*. It seems that all the "4th edition writing team" can do is destroy. There's an old saying about having to destroy to create. Of course, from the Great Wheel philosophy, I guess this isn't true -- *no* mythology can lose *anything* from being senselessly appended to several other ones and increasingly tortured retcons being invented to justify how they can "all be true". Yep. Have I said again today how glad almost every bit of 4e news has made me?
ArcTan 09-04-07, 02:56 AM	I am still against the devil rebellion story. They need to flesh out the yugoloths, which would in turn put more light on the demons and devils. In the FC1 it says the Tanari look like mortals because they come from mortals so it seems to me that the Tanari(probably spelled wrong, sorry) would still look like mortals while the other demons would not. As for the succubus/erinyes thing. I found out that the erinyes are not doing their job if they are based on the mythical version, but rather than combining the two, just make the succubi devils(amend the history to make them devil), and remake the erinyes completely to fit their role. From what I gathered online they existed to punish certain misdeeds, kind of like inevitables. If that is the direction WOTC wants to go they may have to move them out of the devil lineup altogether, unless they exist to enforce those who don't honor contracts with devils. I think most devils would handle such things themselves, so if they call the erinyes I would assume they(the erinyes) would have to be more powerful than the devil who can't enforce his own contract. This could be done by making their HD scale a wide range so they are available for the weaker and stronger devils or just have 3 of them, like in mythology, who would run what would amount to a "corrections department"(correcting people who don't keep their end of the deal). 3e already tried to strip the "Lawful Temptress" role away from Erinyes and make them back into something vaguely resembling the Furies -- it said they did serve as a kind of internal police force among Devils, enforcing contracts, etc., while also serving as concubines and sex slaves for powerful Archdevils. Of course, how Erinyes could possibly act as a police force capable of exerting violent correction against even relatively low-ranking Devils like the Chain Devil or Bearded Devil is a mystery to me, given that they're a CR 8 monster. So is the question of why they have to be hot girls to do this (and what the "concubine" role and "enforcer" role could possibly have to do with each other). Maybe they're the concubines of *everybody* from the Bearded Devils on up, and their enforcer role consists of kicking around Imps and Lemures.
deathbane 09-04-07, 06:09 AM	3e already tried to strip the "Lawful Temptress" role away from Erinyes and make them back into something vaguely resembling the Furies -- it said they did serve as a kind of internal police force among Devils, enforcing contracts, etc., while also serving as concubines and sex slaves for powerful Archdevils. Of course, how Erinyes could possibly act as a police force capable of exerting violent correction against even relatively low-ranking Devils like the Chain Devil or Bearded Devil is a mystery to me, given that they're a CR 8 monster. So is the question of why they have to be hot girls to do this (and what the "concubine" role and "enforcer" role could possibly have to do with each other). Maybe they're the concubines of *everybody* from the Bearded Devils on up, and their enforcer role consists of kicking around Imps and Lemures. MM 3.5 only has them as scouts and servants when they are not being passed around, so hopefully they will be toughened up and then given the enforcer role back. I think they would have to be at least a CR 13, and maybe they travel in group to discipline higher ranking devils.
ripvanwormer 09-04-07, 10:34 AM	Well, not now. It's probably a difference that's easier to grasp and build on than the highly abstract "Law vs. Chaos", which 3 out of 4 forum regulars can't even get a clear handle on most of the time. Any opinion of yours that depends on the idea that "everyone but you is too stupid to get it" should probably be considered suspect. Yeah, the current system is so much more consistent. It is. It's not perfect, but it's better. They... don't exist anymore? That would be senselessly destructive, writing five interesting characters out of the game for no reason that a mindless desire for "simplicity." This is what I meant when I said the 4e team can only destroy. This decision doesn't create, it just destroys.
Franco Un-American 09-04-07, 11:28 AM	Of course it creates, you can't destroy without creating something. It does create a simpler game by merging or eliminating a few rather redundant and uninteresting characters, and it's certainly creating a response from you. Just because you don't like what it creates is no reason to deny it's creations altogether.
Skeptical Clown 09-04-07, 11:44 AM	It's a little specious to be making claims over whether something is better or not, given that we have about a year before 4th edition will be released.
ripvanwormer 09-04-07, 12:11 PM	It does create a simpler game Certainly, in the more general sense that you're using the word, any destruction "creates." If nothing else, it creates destruction. But this sense of the word is so very general that it's meaningless. Your post is a tautology, not a meaningful statement. It's a little specious to be making claims over whether something is better or not, given that we have about a year before 4th edition will be released. My claims are limited to the subjects being discussed. If these things change, then my claims will change along with them. Mitigating material isn't relevant. If Rich Baker and his team come up with something awesome - and they very well might - an Abyss without humanoid demons is still inferior to one where tanar'ri, as manifestations of mortal sins, created from mortal souls. It's inferior because it cuts out interesting characters and ideas, effecting needless limitations for unsatisfactory reasons. Because I'm only discussing the ideas in question, without context, it is perfectly valid for me to do so. A good comparison would be for me to say that healing is better than murder - situations might conceivably modify this statement, but the general statement still holds.
Skeptical Clown 09-04-07, 01:24 PM	It's kind of a pointless discussion then, isn't it? To your thinking, nothing that changes or contradicts older material could be an improvement--the only acceptable changes to the planar structure of D&D are ones that expand on older material without contradicting it--ever. This is a pretty impossible and inflexible standard. If it is the opinion of most Planescape fans, no wonder WOTC isn't developing the setting anymore. EDIT--Or non-Planescape-fan planar enthusiasts I guess.
primemover003 09-04-07, 04:28 PM	It's kind of a pointless discussion then, isn't it? To your thinking, nothing that changes or contradicts older material could be an improvement--the only acceptable changes to the planar structure of D&D are ones that expand on older material without contradicting it--ever. So you're saying the scrapping 30 years of gaming history and mythology for a new shiney edition is a good thing? Those 30 years of history are what make D&D the game that it is. Can and should the game evolve, absolutely yes. Should the proverbial slate be wiped clean entirely for no good reason other than WotC wants to have a simpler game that the kiddies with A.D.D. can play because they can't compete with XBOX, PS3, and Wii??? No.
danzig138 09-04-07, 04:54 PM	So you're saying the scrapping 30 years of gaming history and mythology for a new shiney edition is a good thing? Sure. Why not? Because it might make some fanbois here cry? If the mythology that's been used for those 30 years needs a nutpunch (and I think it does, having been playing for a chunk of that time), then give it one. Hell, I'd go further and scrap the split between demons and devils, and then give three or four possible pseudo-origins for GM to choose from. Damn shame I don't care for the mechanical ideas I've seen so far for 4th.
ripvanwormer 09-04-07, 05:04 PM	To your thinking, nothing that changes or contradicts older material could be an improvement Wow. That's quite a straw man. That's not anything close to what I believe, or I wouldn't like Planescape (which changed and contradicted a fair amount of older material itself). There are a number of 3rd edition changes that I like, as well - the change in the look and powers of sword archons, the change of orcs and their gods from lawful to chaotic evil, the change in the look of halflings and gnomes, the addition of obyriths to the Abyss, the expansion of the Demiplane of Shadow to a full plane. Of course, it's always easier to argue with a straw man you've invented than to actually respond to the person you're debating with. It's hard to respond to such an irrational non sequitur as you've just made, other than to assert the truth - on any change, I perform a cost to benefit analysis. What does this change take away, and what does it add? In this case, taking succubi, incubi and all other human-looking demons out of the Abyss takes away quite a lot from the feel and usefulness of the plane, and adds nothing other than a superficial simplification of something that's never been complex enough for anyone to complain about in the past. Because you are evidently not able to respond to this analysis intelligently, you've instead focused on trying to squelch the debate entirely, first by claiming that any attempt to discuss those specific changes was "specious," and then by deciding, without evidence, that my objection was not to the specific charges I made, but to changes in general. I don't know if you've been doing this on purpose or if it's some kind of instinctual reaction, but it's pretty easy to identify and dismiss.
Skeptical Clown 09-04-07, 05:42 PM	If Rich Baker and his team come up with something awesome - and they very well might - an Abyss without humanoid demons is still inferior to one where tanar'ri, as manifestations of mortal sins, created from mortal souls. It's inferior because it cuts out interesting characters and ideas, effecting needless limitations for unsatisfactory reasons. Rip, you can insult me if it makes you feel better. I really don't care. I'm not sure it's healthy though. Anyway, perhaps I took your above statement more broadly than it was intended; I took it to mean that even if the designers made a new cosmology that was great, that it would still be an inferior cosmology if a specific change was made. Looking at it again, I can see that you probably meant it much more specifically. I was trying to have a more general conversation about the changes to the planes; the change to a specific monster is a pretty minor one to me. Less so for you, apparently. Now, your cost-benefit analysis is perfectly sensible, but it's not perfectly quantifiable. How exactly am I to measure what changing a succubus into a devil adds or subtracts to my game? We haven't seen the result in context yet. And even if we had, it no doubt would have an entirely different cost for you than it would for me. Obviously I understand that you have lots of reasons for liking the planes as they exist currently. There's nothing wrong with that either; the current planar structure has things to recommend it. But I think there are valid reasons for the designers to want to take the planes in a different direction--even if that means changing everything other than the most basic concepts of the D&D planes and outsiders. That reason is this: The planes, and outsiders, are peripheral to most campaigns, and most settings. That's why they are called "Outsiders"--they come from somewhere outside what is real to the vast majority of D&D characters. There is a lot of valuable information out there from multiple settings on the planes of existence... maybe too much for new players. I played D&D for years before I knew anything at all about the outer planes, and I'm sure other players often have similar experiences. A new setup of the planes could be much more intuitive for a new edition of the D&D game. That could include redefining the roles and abilities of existing D&D fiends and other outsiders--and could include a pretty drastic change to the planes. This could be done very well--and without affecting most players games very much. I don't know if it will be good. What I've seen looks promising, but hardly conclusive. I think it's a mistake to take these individual changes entirely in the context of the existing planar setup though. Maybe the new planar setup will suck--and maybe (probably) it will disappoint a lot of planar enthusiasts. But what's coming deserves to be judged on it's own merits. We don't know, for example, if taking humanoid fiends out of the Abyss will reduce that plane's usefulness--because we don't know what the new Abyss will look like, or even if the Abyss will still exist. That's all I'm saying. Dismiss away.
ripvanwormer 09-04-07, 06:24 PM	Rip, you can insult me if it makes you feel better. I didn't insult you. I never attempted to describe you; I only characterized some of the things you said in that particular post.I took your previous post as an insult, but I don't feel as if I returned the favor. I only critiqued your words, not you - which is what you're doing now. As it seems you made an honest mistake, however, I apologize. I appreciate that you didn't let your followup post turn nasty, and that you don't seem to be trying to make it about what a terrible person I am rather than about the arguments I've made. I took it to mean that even if the designers made a new cosmology that was great, that it would still be an inferior cosmology if a specific change was made. Ah. That makes some amount of sense, but yeah - you took that completely wrong. We were talking about context. You were suggesting that some future context the changes in question might seem much better, and that therefore any discussion of these changes (at least, any critical discussion) was off the table until then. I said even if they came up with something awesome in the future, the changes in question were still bad, compared to what we had before. I was trying to have a more general conversation about the changes to the planes; the change to a specific monster is a pretty minor one to me. Less so for you, apparently. There are basically only two changes we know about (the reclassification of fiends based on body type, and the new origin of Asmodeus), so those are the ones I'm discussing. Now, your cost-benefit analysis is perfectly sensible, but it's not perfectly quantifiable. How exactly am I to measure what changing a succubus into a devil adds or subtracts to my game? It subtracts at least three races (succubi, incubi, and lillitu), and its paragon rulers, from the Abyss. It adds nothing. This seems pretty simple. The cost, seen from this angle, is the same for you as it is for me. How valuable or useful these races for you might be different, but you're still losing something, and gaining nothing. Your claim that "we don't know if this makes the Abyss more useful or not" is profoundly disturbing. The fact that we don't have all the information doesn't mean we're incapable of judging the information we do have; you are never, in any situation in life, going to know everything about anything. The trick is to make the best judgment you can from the information you have. We haven't seen the result in context yet. Again, you seem to be suggesting that any discussion of a change is verboten until we see the full results, which is censorious and, frankly, offensive. I am somewhat sympathetic, since when I see people criticize the existing cosmology when they lack understanding of the context it exists in, it bothers me. But the difference is that in those situations, I know more of the context than they do. Not bragging - the amount of crap I know about obscure D&D stuff is kind of creepy, even to me, and I obviously don't like to admit it in mixed company - but it's true. I'm just more qualified to make judgments about these matters than ArcTan, or Franko, or Soel, or you. By your own standards, you should therefore remain silent, but I haven't suggested that. You have as much right to speak as I do, even if you know less about what you're talking about. I simply correct you when you make mistakes. When discussing future changes, neither of us knows any more than the other, so a debate is more practical. The fact that something might hypothetically mitigate the changes, in a way you haven't been able to describe, seems irrelevant for the time being. That reason is this: The planes, and outsiders, are peripheral to most campaigns, and most settings. This is true, but what I've always had trouble understanding is why designers would think it would be a good idea for designing the planes for those who don't use them. They did that with the Faerunian cosmology as well - "Our surveys show that most Forgotten Realms players don't even venture into the planes..." Why would they then design a cosmology that's almost useless to anyone that actually uses it for more than just looking at from afar, when it would have been easier to design one that could have been more easily used with mainstream planar sourcebooks for those who actually want to venture there? It's a similar situation here. The focus, when designing the planes, should be on games that use the planes most. People who use them less generally don't care one way or the other, while people who use them more care very much. It shouldn't take a brilliant analyst to figure out which group should get priority. Why deliberately make scads of useful material harder to use? Doing that is not so much bad for the fans who still have access to the older material, but bad for WotC designers who might want to use it in future accessories and adventures. This problem is one they ran into repeatedly in 3e, where the absence of a plane of ice or of negative quasi-elemental planes, or the absence of gods of various pantheons or other matters forced them into awkward convoluted semi-fixes. Like how they kept having to put planar ice-creatures into the planes of air or water, improbably, because somebody (evidently Monte Cook and Jonathan Tweet) thought including it in the core cosmology was "too complicated." Or like how they had to keep dancing around the subject of modrons. I can think of any number of ways of simplifying the planes without needlessly invalidating earlier material. They could simply only mention erinyes (perhaps even giving them a different name), leaving succubi for future supplements. If they'd rather not describe all 17 outer planes in the DMG, they could describe only 9 of them without suggesting that those were the only ones there were. And so on. This really isn't difficult.
ArcTan 09-04-07, 07:40 PM	Any opinion of yours that depends on the idea that "everyone but you is too stupid to get it" should probably be considered suspect. I never said that *I* got it. It's not because people are too stupid to get it, it's because the *idea* is stupid. For all I wrestle with Law vs. Chaos, I have to conclude at the end of the day that objectively it doesn't mean anything -- any meaning it has is the result of different DMs projecting totally different and contradictory things onto it. D&D's Law-vs-Chaos isn't even as consistent as Moorcock's Law-vs-Chaos or Anderson's Law-vs-Chaos. Indeed, it's often unclear whether Duke Arioch would even be Chaotic under D&D's inconsistent opinions on the matter. It is. It's not perfect, but it's better. That would be senselessly destructive, writing five interesting characters out of the game for no reason that a mindless desire for "simplicity." This is what I meant when I said the 4e team can only destroy. This decision doesn't create, it just destroys. Who said anything about "writing them out"? They're not written *in* yet. It's a new system. Where the hell is the rule that I have to consciously include every damn thing written in D&D in the last 30 years when I want to write a new, better D&D?
ArcTan 09-04-07, 07:41 PM	MM 3.5 only has them as scouts and servants when they are not being passed around, so hopefully they will be toughened up and then given the enforcer role back. I think they would have to be at least a CR 13, and maybe they travel in group to discipline higher ranking devils. I would love such a creature. Such a creature bears so little resemblance to the current incarnation of the Erinyes that it's not even funny. Better to give the 3.5 Erinyes a mercy-killing and save the name Erinyes (or, better, "Fury") for a monster deserving of that title. (Note that Rich Baker basically said this is what he wants to do -- he's not ruling out the possibility of an actual Fury based on the actual Furies, he's just saying the current Erinyes is so similar to the Succubus and dissimilar to the real Greek Erinyes that its separate existence is unnecessary.)
ArcTan 09-04-07, 07:43 PM	So you're saying the scrapping 30 years of gaming history and mythology for a new shiney edition is a good thing? Those 30 years of history are what make D&D the game that it is. A confusing mess of self-contradictory and poorly written history designed to justify a bunch of random-ass stupid decisions Gary Gygax made 30 years ago? Yep. That *is* the game D&D is. People are trying to rescue D&D from being that.
ArcTan 09-04-07, 07:48 PM	It subtracts at least three races (succubi, incubi, and lillitu), and its paragon rulers, from the Abyss. It adds nothing. This seems pretty simple. The cost, seen from this angle, is the same for you as it is for me. How valuable or useful these races for you might be different, but you're still losing something, and gaining nothing. Based on the false premise that having something annoying, jarring or overly complex in the gaming materials can't possibly detract from the experience for everybody. The fact that I never use the Frenzied Berserker PrC does not change the fact that I think the game would, overall, be improved if that were taken out. (Or, specifically, Complete Warrior would be a better book if that were taken out.) The fact that I don't like and therefore don't use the polymorph spells doesn't change the fact that the PHB would be better if those spells didn't exist (and WotC's design staff seems to agree with me on this one). Making a good system that makes sense is just as much about what you leave out as what you add in. I am somewhat sympathetic, since when I see people criticize the existing cosmology when they lack understanding of the context it exists in, it bothers me. But the difference is that in those situations, I know more of the context than they do. Not bragging - the amount of crap I know about obscure D&D stuff is kind of creepy, even to me, and I obviously don't like to admit it in mixed company - but it's true. I'm just more qualified to make judgments about these matters than ArcTan, or Franko, or Soel, or you. No, you aren't, because stuff that's only useful or interesting to people who know a ton of ridiculously obscure D&D crap is, by definition, *not objectively useful or interesting*. WotC is trying to sell to a larger market than the people who've been Planescape fans for decades. If 90% of everyone reacts to a certain setting detail with "Huh?", then it's a bad setting detail, even if the 10% (and I think that's a generous estimate) who know all the background think it's awesome. This is true, but what I've always had trouble understanding is why designers would think it would be a good idea for designing the planes for those who don't use them. They did that with the Faerunian cosmology as well - "Our surveys show that most Forgotten Realms players don't even venture into the planes..." Why would they then design a cosmology that's almost useless to anyone that actually uses it for more than just looking at from afar, when it would have been easier to design one that could have been more easily used with mainstream planar sourcebooks for those who actually want to venture there? Because having a bunch of material in the core books that gives "tantalizing hints" toward a whole backstory that doesn't make sense unless you read a whole bunch of other books does *not* tantalize most people. It angers and confuses them. It means that I feel pressured to read up on all the crap about the Abyss if I ever want, say, a Balor the players are fighting to say something about the horrors of the Abyss. You act like creating endless links between different settings is only an advantage, never a cost, but *that's not true*. Too much linkage makes trying to play in my one setting more and more of a frustrating experience as I keep on getting bombarded with references and links to things I know nothing about and don't want to know anything about. This is the reason normal people don't like reading the Big 2 comics series. It turns out most people don't *like* opening up a Superman comic and finding out that Superman is constantly talking about other superheroes, random supervillains, and minor characters and places and alternate dimensions you know nothing about if you haven't been reading since the 1970s. It intimidates people and turns them off.
Rerecros 09-04-07, 08:16 PM	Making a good system that makes sense is just as much about what you leave out as what you add in. No, you aren't, because stuff that's only useful or interesting to people who know a ton of ridiculously obscure D&D crap is, by definition, *not objectively useful or interesting*. WotC is trying to sell to a larger market than the people who've been Planescape fans for decades. If 90% of everyone reacts to a certain setting detail with "Huh?", then it's a bad setting detail, even if the 10% (and I think that's a generous estimate) who know all the background think it's awesome. Because having a bunch of material in the core books that gives "tantalizing hints" toward a whole backstory that doesn't make sense unless you read a whole bunch of other books does *not* tantalize most people. It angers and confuses them. It means that I feel pressured to read up on all the crap about the Abyss if I ever want, say, a Balor the players are fighting to say something about the horrors of the Abyss. You act like creating endless links between different settings is only an advantage, never a cost, but *that's not true*. Too much linkage makes trying to play in my one setting more and more of a frustrating experience as I keep on getting bombarded with references and links to things I know nothing about and don't want to know anything about. This is the reason normal people don't like reading the Big 2 comics series. It turns out most people don't *like* opening up a Superman comic and finding out that Superman is constantly talking about other superheroes, random supervillains, and minor characters and places and alternate dimensions you know nothing about if you haven't been reading since the 1970s. It intimidates people and turns them off. I agree :w00t:
Skeptical Clown 09-04-07, 09:12 PM	This is true, but what I've always had trouble understanding is why designers would think it would be a good idea for designing the planes for those who don't use them. I think that is the wrong way to think of it. They are designing the planes for people who use them peripherally, rather than those for whom the planes are the focus of their campaigns. The question they should be asking--and the one I hope they are answering--is what would make the planes more useful to the typical (i.e. non-planar) game? Only one of my numerous D&D games focused extensively on the Outer Planes, but that doesn't mean that the planes never came into play in other games. More than once however, I've seen the extensive nature of the planes overwhelm newer players. It's easy enough to understand concepts of Heaven or Hell, and the Abyss or Limbo isn't that much more difficult. Explaining Acheron or Pandemonium or Bytopia, however, is frequently more difficult. Not because the planes are inherently difficult to understand, but because there are simply too many of them to wrap their heads around from what can be explained in a gaming session. And I don't know about you, but at least half of my players tend not to be voracious readers of sourcebooks. If WOTC is redesigning and refining the planes into more distinct and easily recognizable concepts, I don't see anything bad about that. I get the feeling that at least some of that is going to take place, although to what extent, I can only guess. As for the evaluation of value, I'll simply point out that having a black box, and knowing that there is not a rabbit in the box, does not tell us much about what actually IS in the box. Right now we don't know if the move of succubi is a net gain or loss. On that note, I'll drop that subject.
ripvanwormer 09-04-07, 09:18 PM	For all I wrestle with Law vs. Chaos I must admit that I don't understand this. They're defined perfectly well in the Player's Handbook. Organization versus disorganization seem clear enough. One is about structure and rules; the other is about resistance to those things. On a mortal level, these things are more about ethics, about the needs of society versus the rights of the individual. On a supernatural level, they may be broader, involving concepts like entropy, insanity, and creativity. I never have any trouble with the concepts, myself, so I guess I don't understand why anyone else would. They're almost pathetically elementary. Law and Chaos certainly aren't any more subjective than good and evil are. For me, they're absolutely the coolest thing about D&D - I'd dump the good and evil axis long before I dumped the law and chaos axis. As for Arioch, he's switched sides a few times in Moorcock's books. He becomes a Lord of Law in the Blood trilogy. Moorcock's point is that, with the endless war, the two sides have grown very much the same. Where the hell is the rule that I have to consciously include every damn thing written in D&D in the last 30 years when I want to write a new, better D&D? Well, you're using some hyperbole, as usual, but in general yeah - that's something that long-time fans appreciate, easter eggs and compilations of older material. It's something that's simply nice to do, as kind of a thank you to the in-crowd. But my concern isn't really that the new writers have to include "every damn thing," only that they should leave a place open for some major concepts that they might want to still use. If they don't, they'll regret it, as they have so many times in 3e already. When I mention the various succubus rulers and the nature of the tanar'ri, this is all stuff that's appeared just very recently, in the various Demonomicon articles. Rewriting them so soon is gratuitous, and really spitting in James Jacobs' face. It's as disrespectful as changing around Eberron so suddenly the gods are real and active would be to Keith Baker, except I can think of some good reasons to do that. Beloved canon of the past should have a place in the game. Simple as that. It doesn't need to be explicit, at least not right away, but there should be a place to slot it in if they want to later on. They're closing doors unnecessarily. Your example of the frenzied berserker - I don't need to see it in the DMG, but a statement like "beserkers may never ever become frenzied" would be pretty silly, wouldn't you think? Even if you didn't care for the execution of the 3e version, it'd be unwise for them to assume nobody would ever be able to pull it off. Because having a bunch of material in the core books that gives "tantalizing hints" toward a whole backstory that doesn't make sense unless you read a whole bunch of other books does *not* tantalize most people. Nobody said anything like that. ArcTan, you really ought to concentrate on the arguments that are actually being made, rather than the straw men you create. I'm not talking about complex backstories. I'm not talking about decades worth of material. I'm not talking about Planescape. I'm talking about a bunch of very significant material that's been used heavily just this year, seen by everyone who read Dragon or Dungeon Magazine. I'm not sure if you honestly just don't get that, or if you think mindless hyperbole is actually a convincing way to argue.
Bob the Efreet 09-04-07, 09:27 PM	Because having a bunch of material in the core books that gives "tantalizing hints" toward a whole backstory that doesn't make sense unless you read a whole bunch of other books does *not* tantalize most people. It angers and confuses them. It means that I feel pressured to read up on all the crap about the Abyss if I ever want, say, a Balor the players are fighting to say something about the horrors of the Abyss. I consider it more to be options. Say you're reading the Monster Manual, and in an entry on demons it makes some references to things about demons or the Abyss that aren't explained in the MM, you basically have three options. First, you could look through other books and the internet to see if somebody else has explained it. Second, you could use the hints to springboard your own imagination and explain it yourself. Third, you could just ignore the references, because they shouldn't be necessary to run the demon in question - just an option to make your understanding of demons and the Abyss greater, if you like that kind of thing. Now, apparently you automatically choose Option One, even though you hate that option and rage against the authors for putting it there. Since it's not the only choice available to you, I have to wonder why you would do that.
ripvanwormer 09-05-07, 01:08 AM	They are designing the planes for people who use them peripherally, rather than those for whom the planes are the focus of their campaigns. First of all, I don't think either of us has enough information to make statements like that. That may be what you hope you're doing, but all I see is them saying that demons can't be sexy-looking anymore. Inventing yet another origin for Asmodeus (this'll be the fourth or fifth, depending on how you count) isn't doing anything to make the planes easier to use - it's just designers with big egos wanting to place their own stamp on the canon rather than working organically from what came before. More importantly, as I said in the post you replied to, there are many ways to simplify the planes without invalidating great swathes of older material. You're presenting a very false dichotomy where either planar neophytes are confused or planar veterans get shafted, and there's evidently no compromise possible. The planar system is a toolbox, not a straightjacket! If you can't explain, or no one else can comprehend, Acheron, don't mention Acheron! The planes exist as options - no-one says you have to take advantage of them all. Your argument is like saying, "My players understand medusas and rust monsters pretty well, but they don't really get gorgons." And therefore it'd be better to leave gorgons out of the MM, and use their name as a synonym for "medusa," than for you just to personally not use them. You seem to be taking the point of view that in order to make the planes simple enough for people who don't care much about the planes to find bearable, WotC should do something like combine the Nine Hells and Acheron into a single plane. If that is indeed what you're suggesting, it seems much more sensible to just mention the Nine Hells, the way they've always been, and leave Acheron for further sourcebooks. That way cake exists that veterans can eat, too, rather than having WotC say "Only newbies may have cake from now on!" And the fact remains that you're suggesting the planes be redesigned for the benefit of people who don't care about the planes very much, which should be self-evidently senseless. Do your players really hate the very existence of Acheron that much? I'll venture to say that they don't; they don't read that many sourcebooks and they don't care one way or the other, and neither do you. Gloss over the hard, confusing planes and they won't hurt you. What I'm really concerned about, as I said, is WotC closing off future avenues of exploration for themselves - stating declaratively that "succubi don't exist in the Abyss" and then forcing future freelancers (like James Jacobs) to avoid mentioning them in the future, when it'd be just as easy to just leave them out of the MM. Or, better yet, keep them in, since no-one has ever complained about them before. As for the evaluation of value, I'll simply point out that having a black box, and knowing that there is not a rabbit in the box, does not tell us much about what actually IS in the box. And what I'm mainly ranting about is the short-sightedness of saying "there are absolutely no rabbits in this box" when they might decide a few years later that, oh, it sure would be nice if we could fit some rabbits in here. The "thou shalt nots" are poison to future expansion, and they're so easily avoidable. And, as I've said, I'm discussing only the changes they've mentioned, in isolation. If they do something really cool with loumaras, it won't change the fact that we've lost all the wicked cool Abyssal succubi, incubi, and lillitu. I'll give them praise for their loumara work if they deserve it, but they could've done stuff with loumaras without flushing all the succubi out. I hope the writers in question manage to surprise me, but that hazy possibility shouldn't prevent me from analyzing things as they stand now.
Kain Darkwind 09-05-07, 07:36 AM	This is the reason normal people don't like reading the Big 2 comics series. It turns out most people don't *like* opening up a Superman comic and finding out that Superman is constantly talking about other superheroes, random supervillains, and minor characters and places and alternate dimensions you know nothing about if you haven't been reading since the 1970s. It intimidates people and turns them off. You use unverified (and false) claims like this to make all of your big points? You seem to have a cheering section, so I imagine that you've been rewarded for it before. Feel free to back up any of the bolded sections with something resembling proof. Eradicating established continuity to the point that you cannot use it anymore serves no one but people who hated the old way of the game. And from my perspective, it seems that if you hated that old way of the game...and you kept playing the game...then you somehow either got over or around your hate. And thus do not make up a target audience that should be catered to. Your points seem to be pointing to the idea that shaking things up just to do so is somehow admirable. Is making the beholder a one eyed giant a better idea than the floating eye tyrant? Is making mind flayers more like the DnD movie version a better idea? Especially at the cost of removing the older versions of the monsters entirely? No, it isn't. If you notice, most people feel that the gelugons=yugoloths is an interesting choice, that builds off established ideas about the gelugons. (Like cold rather than fire, dislike other devils, have a different appearance than typical devils, etc) It certainly is new, it certainly changes things, and honestly I disagree with it. But it doesn't engineer any extreme hatred or show a poor design philosophy. The merger of the erinyes and succubus to the point of eliminating the demon version and renaming the devil version is just the opposite of that idea. It doesn't build, it simply destroys the preexisting story. The gelugon is similar to Catwoman in Batman Returns. Quite different from her comic book origin, but still keeping most of the elements that make Selina Kyle Catwoman. The erinyes/succubus merger is similar to 'Catwoman' in the wonderful Catwoman. A super powered horribly executed gimp of what was a viable character. It did not base its character off any of the connotations invoked by its name, it went in a completely different and poorly received direction. But, according to you, Catwoman must have been a great movie. After all, they followed your formula for success to the tee.
sciborg2 09-05-07, 10:54 AM	WotC is trying to sell to a larger market than the people who've been Planescape fans for decades. Planescape isn't really that old. Planescape, in fact, took on many of the easter eggs from previous editions and preserved a lot of prehistory. And I doubt anyone really wants to fill the core with hints about planar history. I do see where you're coming from, but I also think you're talking about something different than what the rest of are discussing. I don't think there should pages and pages of planar tangents in the core books, but some interesting hints are fun and I have spent enjoyable hours searching through 1e-2e works and the net for info.
Alzrius 09-05-07, 01:19 PM	You know, as much as I really don't like the new changes that they're making to demons and devils in 4E, there's some fun to be had in trying to make them jive with the established history of the planes. For example, suppose that the new status of demons in the Abyss is due to the Savage Tide? After Demogorgon was defeated, the obyriths successfully rose up and reclaimed their former glory, destroying a lot (if not most) of the tanar'ri, and regaining much of their lost power. The devils are quick to capitalize on this. The Infernal Ministry orders all erinyes to be biomantically modified to be more like succubi, and are now even called "succubi," in order to gain more summons to the Material Plane by clueless wizards. This sort of thing is, for me, where a lot of the enjoyment comes from.
Bob the Efreet 09-05-07, 05:09 PM	For example, suppose that the new status of demons in the Abyss is due to the Savage Tide? After Demogorgon was defeated, the obyriths successfully rose up and reclaimed their former glory, destroying a lot (if not most) of the tanar'ri, and regaining much of their lost power. The devils are quick to capitalize on this. The Infernal Ministry orders all erinyes to be biomantically modified to be more like succubi, and are now even called "succubi," in order to gain more summons to the Material Plane by clueless wizards. You make an interesting case there. If that (or something very close to it) is the explanation for these weird changes, I think I'd be totally okay with it.
ArcTan 09-05-07, 08:07 PM	I consider it more to be options. Say you're reading the Monster Manual, and in an entry on demons it makes some references to things about demons or the Abyss that aren't explained in the MM, you basically have three options. First, you could look through other books and the internet to see if somebody else has explained it. Second, you could use the hints to springboard your own imagination and explain it yourself. Third, you could just ignore the references, because they shouldn't be necessary to run the demon in question - just an option to make your understanding of demons and the Abyss greater, if you like that kind of thing. Now, apparently you automatically choose Option One, even though you hate that option and rage against the authors for putting it there. Since it's not the only choice available to you, I have to wonder why you would do that. I dunno. Maybe it's because having to consciously choose to ignore annoying things through a whole book ends up making me annoyed with the book, and not wanting to read it anymore.
ArcTan 09-05-07, 08:18 PM	You use unverified (and false) claims like this to make all of your big points? You seem to have a cheering section, so I imagine that you've been rewarded for it before. Which unverified and false claim do you want me to verify? The fact that Superman is deeply mired in past continuity? I think the whole concept of Infinite Crisis and One Year Later kind of backs me up on that. (If your response to this is "Dude, the Crisis on Infinite Earths isn't obscure!", you're only proving my point. Ask someone on the street who Superman is, and then ask him what the Crisis on Infinite Earths is. There's a split.) If you mean my argument that people don't like it is unverifiable, well, sure, I guess. I don't think the argument that comic book sales are, proportionally, as low as they've ever been or that the average person on the street doesn't buy and doesn't give a crap about Supes' current One Year Later storyline is really all that flimsy, though. Eradicating established continuity to the point that you cannot use it anymore serves no one but people who hated the old way of the game. ...And everyone who was confused by it, or put off by it, or didn't "hate" it but simply didn't like it, or... And from my perspective, it seems that if you hated that old way of the game...and you kept playing the game...then you somehow either got over or around your hate. And thus do not make up a target audience that should be catered to. Um, okay, yeah, sure. There's no one else in the world who likes the idea of a game of D&D but lost patience with reading through all the crap in the Manual of the Planes. Nowhere. Your points seem to be pointing to the idea that shaking things up just to do so is somehow admirable. Is making the beholder a one eyed giant a better idea than the floating eye tyrant? Is making mind flayers more like the DnD movie version a better idea? Especially at the cost of removing the older versions of the monsters entirely? I dunno. How good are the rewrites you're talking about? No, it isn't. If you notice, most people feel that the gelugons=yugoloths is an interesting choice, that builds off established ideas about the gelugons. (Like cold rather than fire, dislike other devils, have a different appearance than typical devils, etc) It certainly is new, it certainly changes things, and honestly I disagree with it. But it doesn't engineer any extreme hatred or show a poor design philosophy. The merger of the erinyes and succubus to the point of eliminating the demon version and renaming the devil version is just the opposite of that idea. It doesn't build, it simply destroys the preexisting story. The gelugon is similar to Catwoman in Batman Returns. Quite different from her comic book origin, but still keeping most of the elements that make Selina Kyle Catwoman. The erinyes/succubus merger is similar to 'Catwoman' in the wonderful Catwoman. A super powered horribly executed gimp of what was a viable character. It did not base its character off any of the connotations invoked by its name, it went in a completely different and poorly received direction. But, according to you, Catwoman must have been a great movie. After all, they followed your formula for success to the tee. That's... stupid. Batman Returns was a (relative, not great) success because it was a *good movie*. Catwoman was a failure because it was a *bad movie*. The relative canonicity of either side's Catwoman is irrelevant, although I'll point out that making Selina Kyle the victim of some kind of brain injury and possibly completely insane is a *huge* departure from the comics. The new Catwoman was actually fairly similar to the comics in many ways -- she was just very poorly done. There's not any *specific* divergence you can point to between new Catwoman and comics Catwoman that Batman Returns Catwoman *didn't also share*. (A quasi-mystical "rebirth" origin as opposed to simply being a female criminal who dons a catsuit? Check. Near-superhuman speed and strength rather than simple stealth, like the original Catwoman used? Check. Having some kind of vendetta against the corporation she once worked for instead of being a generic "catburglar"? Check.) The main difference between Halle Berry Catwoman and Michelle Pfeiffer Catwoman is that Halle Berry Catwoman *wasn't very good*, not that she stuck closer to the "canon" of Catwoman. To say that she did is kind of bizarre -- the creepy, feral Catwoman of Batman Returns was notable for bearing very little resemblance to comics Catwoman, who is less ambiguously a good guy and certainly *way* less *creepy*. I mean, we can play this game any number of ways. Richard Hatch's Battlestar Galactica novels are very true to the original Battlestar Galactica, and in fact count as sequels to the original Battlestar Galactica storyline (ignoring the Galactica 1980 sequel). The new Sci-Fi Original Series, Battlestar Galactica, *throws out* almost everything specific about the original Battlestar Galactica franchise and replaces it with new concepts on the same general lines. Some characters have been divided into two (the old Adama splits into Adama and President Rosslin), some characters have been combined, characters have had their genders changed, characters have been made into alcoholics, etc. The core premise of the show has been radically altered from what it once was (the whole dealie with Cylons being human-like and followers of a messianic religion, rather than random robotic conquerors). Which one of these two continuations of the Galactica franchise has been more financially successful, or culturally influential? Which one has anybody *even heard of*?
Andyr 09-06-07, 12:46 PM	... what's the new origin of Asmodeus, anyone? I've not heard anything new about the devils aside from the info from my original post.
Ornum 09-06-07, 01:08 PM	... what's the new origin of Asmodeus, anyone? I've not heard anything new about the devils aside from the info from my original post. By the way it sounds, I'd say that it stays pretty close to what was in FC:II (with the whole "killed their god" tacked on). But then again, it will probably get yet another rewrite. Not that it's a bad thing. If nothing else, it just strengthens the idea that no one knows where Asomdeus comes from because he keeps giving out false information on the subject. Who knows? Maybe all the myths are true. Maybe none are.
HamHam 09-06-07, 02:51 PM	The new Sci-Fi Original Series, Battlestar Galactica, *throws out* almost everything specific about the original Battlestar Galactica franchise and replaces it with new concepts on the same general lines. Actually, it's quite the opposite. Many of the specifics have been kept (Galactica itself, various character names, the search for Earth, Cylons, etc) while the fundamental tone of the show has been utterly changed. The reason this (some what) works is because the new tone speaks to the new audience. This is because of the change in society between now and when the original came out.
ripvanwormer 09-06-07, 04:33 PM	Which unverified and false claim do you want me to verify? That would be, "This is the reason normal people don't like reading the Big 2 comics series." It's a fairly common cognitive error to assume that your personal feelings mesh with some imagined "norm," but it's deeply erroneous all the same. First, you claim (1) that "normal people" (How would you even define that?) don't like reading Marvel or DC comics, and secondly you claim (2) that your proposed reason explains this (rather than any number of other possibilities, which I won't elaborate on here because bashing comic books isn't really the present topic) . Both statements are unverified (and quite possibly false, as Kain believes they are). Another major error in reasoning you've made is, as Skeptical Clown has done, you're presupposing a binary, either-or situation, where either a book is filled with unexplained references that a newcomer finds frustrating or the book blatantly contradicts what's come before. You don't seem to see the possibility of a middle ground between these two extreme proposals. In fact, nobody has seriously proposed the former possibility - it exists only to give you a straw man to rail against. As it happens, there are many (to use your example) Superman books that exist within their own continuity, rebooting things for the sake of just that book. Another thing they've done is reboot the continuity wholesale on numerous occasions. Marvel's done the same thing at various times, creating manga-style "Mary Jane" books aimed at girls, for example, manga-style Fantastic 4 comics that entirely reboot the continuity for younger readers, and the "Ultimate" line that reboots and updates the entire Marvel universe. One thing they don't do, however, is drastically change major themes and characters - Superman's still from Krypton ("Elseworlds" type stories aside), Lex Luthor's still his archenemy, the X-Men are still mutants. This is what we're getting at, really.
Kain Darkwind 09-06-07, 05:04 PM	Which unverified and false claim do you want me to verify? Well, I bolded them in my quote, but I'll restate them for you. Claim 1: "Normal people don't like reading the Big 2 comic series" Claim 2: "Most people don't like opening up a Superman book and discovering a continuity with his past adventures" Claim 3: "Superman comics have Superman constantly talking about other superheroes, places, villains, etc" Claim 4: "Superman's continuity extends back to the 1970's, those who haven't been reading since then won't know what is going on" Claim 5: "Superman's continuity intimidates and turns off normal/most people" The fact that Superman is deeply mired in past continuity? I think the whole concept of Infinite Crisis and One Year Later kind of backs me up on that. (If your response to this is "Dude, the Crisis on Infinite Earths isn't obscure!", you're only proving my point. Ask someone on the street who Superman is, and then ask him what the Crisis on Infinite Earths is. There's a split.) Assuming this is true (and I think it is safe to say that your average person is going to be more knowledgeable about Superman than DC comicbook megaevents), I still fail to see how Infinite Crisis, Crisis on Infinite Earths, One Year Later or any of that shows a Superman that is deeply mired in past continuity. Having read One Year Later ("Up, Up and Away") just recently to see what you were talking about (I don't read many Superman comics), I got a story that doesn't reference much from previous comics. Superman doesn't have his powers, he slowly gains them back, and Lex Luthor is launching a nefarious scheme that seems very much in line with the asinine movie plot. The only thing the brand new reader might wonder is 'how did Superman lose his powers?' and even that is briefly explained in the story. So...perhaps you picked a bad example. Or perhaps you didn't actually read Superman: One Year Later. I'm not sure, but of all storylines to prove your point, it seems that an actual reader might have picked a better one. If you aren't a reader, I'm thinking that your argument loses quite a bit of its credibility right there. You can't say 'I don't read Superman, but they do this sort of thing' If you mean my argument that people don't like it is unverifiable, well, sure, I guess. I don't think the argument that comic book sales are, proportionally, as low as they've ever been or that the average person on the street doesn't buy and doesn't give a crap about Supes' current One Year Later storyline is really all that flimsy, though. See, that's something I'd like you to provide a source on. When you say that comic book sales are proportionately lower, I'd like a source. I'd like to look up the information myself. I didn't say your argument was flimsy, I said it was unverified. What sort of sales stats are you looking at to give you this opinion? ...And everyone who was confused by it, or put off by it, or didn't "hate" it but simply didn't like it, or... Um, okay, yeah, sure. There's no one else in the world who likes the idea of a game of D&D but lost patience with reading through all the crap in the Manual of the Planes. Nowhere. My point here is that dividing DnD players into two categories, ones who like it because of the continuity and ones who like it despite the continuity, you offend neither group by keeping the continuity or by going with a new take on the same basic ideas. You offend one group by dumping the continuity. It seems simple then, that it is ideal to keep the continuity. If we assume you are a person who plays despite the continuity (which you don't seem to like) and I am a person who plays because I like the continuity (I don't entirely agree with it, but I enjoy DnD over say, Rifts due to the background DnD stuff), then neither of us are upset that 4e comes out with similar assumptions to 3e, 2e and 1e. Neither of us are going to be mad, because we both got the same ideas that we'd been playing with before. Flip it around, merge the succubi with the erinyes and I'm mad because 30 years of history have been flushed down the toilet and you are happy because you have a new background which you will probably end up ignoring in your own campaign anyways. Since you aren't enamored of WotC flavor anyways. One is neutral, the other is net loss. If that translated into 'people who buy' and 'people who don't', that is not good business. (It doesn't, because I'm oversimplifying things. I'm not going to give 4e up for lost because I don't like some of the flavor, but it is a negative mark against it. Enough negative marks and I might be sticking with my 3.5 that works and plays great.) From a business point of view, you'd want to pitch to the greatest target audience. You don't draw anyone in with a succubi devil. No one is holding out saying "if they have two hot fiends, that's too complicated a game for me." But it is pretty clear that people are saying "they had two hot fiends, now they are reducing it to one and calling it the other...that ticks me off." Unless you simply take a perverse delight in other people's misery, the move doesn't benefit anyone, and it does irritate some. Whether the some is a majority or a minority is irrelevant. It makes it a net loss move. I dunno. How good are the rewrites you're talking about? Good. Great creatures, just not at all the beholders and illithids you've come to expect from DnD. Would it make more sense to name them after iconic monsters with established history or name them something new, thus adding to the game? From a business point of view, unless you are just lying to yourself, it is pretty clear that it makes more sense to add to than to take away and replace. One gives you more to sell, one gives you less. That's... stupid. Batman Returns was a (relative, not great) success because it was a *good movie*. Catwoman was a failure because it was a *bad movie*. The relative canonicity of either side's Catwoman is irrelevant, although I'll point out that making Selina Kyle the victim of some kind of brain injury and possibly completely insane is a *huge* departure from the comics. My point exactly. It was a very different take on Catwoman, but it built off the base canon. Unlike the Catwoman movie. Catwoman could have been a good movie, and it still would have disappointed people. If you make a great movie about a bat monster and call it Batman, and market it to fans of Batman, you are going to **** off some people. Not because it is a bad movie, but because it is giving them something that they probably didn't want. They want a boy whose parents were murdered and fights crime, not a horror flick starring Jeff Goldblum and science experiment gone awry. Because you marketed it to Batman fans rather than monster movie fans, you're not delivering the goods. If I sell you 'ice cream' but its really a glass of milk, it doesn't matter if it is good milk. You wanted ice cream and got "ice cream". They wanted Batman and got "Batman". Or Catwoman and got "Catwoman". Connotation is important, whether you want to admit it or not. And really, whether or not it is important to you or not. The new Catwoman was actually fairly similar to the comics in many ways -- she was just very poorly done. There's not any *specific* divergence you can point to between new Catwoman and comics Catwoman that Batman Returns Catwoman *didn't also share*. (A quasi-mystical "rebirth" origin as opposed to simply being a female criminal who dons a catsuit? Check. Near-superhuman speed and strength rather than simple stealth, like the original Catwoman used? Check. You've obviously seen the movies, so you know this last one isn't true. BR Catwoman didn't have superhuman strength or speed at all. {Battlestar Galactica Snip} Which one of these two continuations of the Galactica franchise has been more financially successful, or culturally influential? Which one has anybody *even heard of*? I'm assuming the later, but I wouldn't know, I haven't heard of either of them. I'd hate to make assumptions and baseless assertions. The analogy lacks a meaning to me.
ArcTan 09-06-07, 07:09 PM	Actually, it's quite the opposite. Many of the specifics have been kept (Galactica itself, various character names, the search for Earth, Cylons, etc) while the fundamental tone of the show has been utterly changed. The reason this (some what) works is because the new tone speaks to the new audience. This is because of the change in society between now and when the original came out. Well, no. The *names* have stayed the same, sure. That's how you can tell it's a Battlestar Galactica show. The specific events of the story are almost unrecognizable. (The humans built the Cylons? Galactica is an aging, soon-to-be-retired vessel rather than the flagship? Starbuck is a girl? Boomer is a Cylon? Tigh is an embittered alcoholic? Adama is a crusty old military leader with no real spiritual beliefs? Baltar is an attractive young man? There's a character called "President Rosslin"?) The only things that have been really kept are very, very broad concepts, with the specifics changed. Yes, Galactica is the last big human spaceship (until they find the Pegasus, and the specifics of that are all changed, too). Yes, there was a betrayal when they signed the treaty, yes, almost all the humans are dead, yes, they come from the "Twelve Colonies of Kobol" and are looking for Earth. But in specific, almost everything is different. That's *why* the tone is different. Seriously, "Boomer is no longer a loyal male black supporting officer, but is an Asian female Cylon double agent" isn't a bigger deal than "the Succubus is a Devil"? (I'm betting most people who downplay how ridiculously different new Galactica is didn't watch old Galactica.)
ArcTan 09-06-07, 07:26 PM	Well, I bolded them in my quote, but I'll restate them for you. Claim 1: "Normal people don't like reading the Big 2 comic series" Assuming that "normal people" means the majority of the people in the country, then yes, the majority of people don't read the Big 2 comics series. Comic books are currently a tiny market on life support. Claim 2: "Most people don't like opening up a Superman book and discovering a continuity with his past adventures" Claim 3: "Superman comics have Superman constantly talking about other superheroes, places, villains, etc" Claim 4: "Superman's continuity extends back to the 1970's, those who haven't been reading since then won't know what is going on" Claim 5: "Superman's continuity intimidates and turns off normal/most people" Okay, so I have one fact: 1) Superman comics really don't get read very much, and another fact: 2) Superman comics do have a preponderance of continuity issues, at least recently, with DC and Marvel's addiction to ginormous crossover stories like Infinite Crisis and House of M and Civil War, and a theory: 3) Maybe the two have something to do with each other. Assuming this is true (and I think it is safe to say that your average person is going to be more knowledgeable about Superman than DC comicbook megaevents), I still fail to see how Infinite Crisis, Crisis on Infinite Earths, One Year Later or any of that shows a Superman that is deeply mired in past continuity. Having read One Year Later ("Up, Up and Away") just recently to see what you were talking about (I don't read many Superman comics), I got a story that doesn't reference much from previous comics. Superman doesn't have his powers, he slowly gains them back, and Lex Luthor is launching a nefarious scheme that seems very much in line with the asinine movie plot. The only thing the brand new reader might wonder is 'how did Superman lose his powers?' and even that is briefly explained in the story. So...perhaps you picked a bad example. Or perhaps you didn't actually read Superman: One Year Later. I'm not sure, but of all storylines to prove your point, it seems that an actual reader might have picked a better one. If you aren't a reader, I'm thinking that your argument loses quite a bit of its credibility right there. You can't say 'I don't read Superman, but they do this sort of thing' The thing One Year Later is later than is Infinite Crisis, which is kind of important. But sure, fine. Infinite Crisis itself has much more of the crossover-laden continuity stuff I was talking about. See, that's something I'd like you to provide a source on. When you say that comic book sales are proportionately lower, I'd like a source. I'd like to look up the information myself. I didn't say your argument was flimsy, I said it was unverified. What sort of sales stats are you looking at to give you this opinion? Here's an article about it: http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/193167 My point here is that dividing DnD players into two categories, ones who like it because of the continuity and ones who like it despite the continuity, you offend neither group by keeping the continuity or by going with a new take on the same basic ideas. You offend one group by dumping the continuity. It seems simple then, that it is ideal to keep the continuity. If we assume you are a person who plays despite the continuity (which you don't seem to like) and I am a person who plays because I like the continuity (I don't entirely agree with it, but I enjoy DnD over say, Rifts due to the background DnD stuff), then neither of us are upset that 4e comes out with similar assumptions to 3e, 2e and 1e. Neither of us are going to be mad, because we both got the same ideas that we'd been playing with before. Flip it around, merge the succubi with the erinyes and I'm mad because 30 years of history have been flushed down the toilet and you are happy because you have a new background which you will probably end up ignoring in your own campaign anyways. Since you aren't enamored of WotC flavor anyways. Broadly speaking, sure. This is the reason to have *any* continuity with older editions anyway. However, there are changes that could be objectively good or objectively bad for the game, where continuity forms a side issue. The change that Dwarves don't develop a "magical resistance" over time that makes them resistant to spells but incapable of becoming arcane spellcasters? That threw a big huge wrench in the fiction surrounding the D&D of the time, where "Dwarves hate magic!" was part of the lore. But it was overall a *good change for the game* to stop having hamstrung race/class restrictions, so out it went. I similarly think it's a *good change for the game* to have streamlined rosters for the Devil and Demon teams and make those teams make *more sense* than they currently do. One is neutral, the other is net loss. If that translated into 'people who buy' and 'people who don't', that is not good business. (It doesn't, because I'm oversimplifying things. I'm not going to give 4e up for lost because I don't like some of the flavor, but it is a negative mark against it. Enough negative marks and I might be sticking with my 3.5 that works and plays great.) From a business point of view, you'd want to pitch to the greatest target audience. You don't draw anyone in with a succubi devil. No one is holding out saying "if they have two hot fiends, that's too complicated a game for me." But it is pretty clear that people are saying "they had two hot fiends, now they are reducing it to one and calling it the other...that ticks me off." Unless you simply take a perverse delight in other people's misery, the move doesn't benefit anyone, and it does irritate some. Whether the some is a majority or a minority is irrelevant. It makes it a net loss move. But that's always a distortion of preferences. Of course the people who are already *here* are going to have a louder voice than the new people you're trying to attract. Who's going to come up and say "I stopped playing D&D because all that planar stuff was too complicated for me"? No one here, because that guy *stopped playing D&D*. Good. Great creatures, just not at all the beholders and illithids you've come to expect from DnD. Would it make more sense to name them after iconic monsters with established history or name them something new, thus adding to the game? From a business point of view, unless you are just lying to yourself, it is pretty clear that it makes more sense to add to than to take away and replace. One gives you more to sell, one gives you less. Except you can't add indefinitely. You don't have unlimited page space (not even spread out across the whole sum of splatbooks you might create in a 5-year window), and your readers don't have infinite patience. The "bloat" of D&D's current rules and flavor is a not-unheard-of complaint on these very boards. My point exactly. It was a very different take on Catwoman, but it built off the base canon. Unlike the Catwoman movie. Oh, please. Neither of them had much more to do with the Catwoman comics than the other, except that Batman Returns kept Catwoman as a supporting Batman character and kept her real name "Selina Kyle". Other than that, she's almost totally dissimilar from the comics Catwoman, and *in the same ways* (it's actually pretty clear that the later Catwoman was more based on the Batman Returns Catwoman than the comics Catwoman). Catwoman could have been a good movie, and it still would have disappointed people. If you make a great movie about a bat monster and call it Batman, and market it to fans of Batman, you are going to **** off some people. Not because it is a bad movie, but because it is giving them something that they probably didn't want. They want a boy whose parents were murdered and fights crime, not a horror flick starring Jeff Goldblum and science experiment gone awry. Because you marketed it to Batman fans rather than monster movie fans, you're not delivering the goods. If I sell you 'ice cream' but its really a glass of milk, it doesn't matter if it is good milk. You wanted ice cream and got "ice cream". They wanted Batman and got "Batman". Or Catwoman and got "Catwoman". That's not why people didn't like Catwoman. People didn't like Catwoman because Catwoman sucked. You're making a much bigger distinction between comics Catwoman and movie Catwoman than there really was. Taking the character for what it is, movie Catwoman pretty much *is* comics Catwoman. She has the leather suit, she has the attitude, she has the whip. She's actually pretty reminiscent of some of the bad comics Catwoman runs we don't like to talk about. The major divergences, in terms of plot, are all things that were also in Batman Returns (quasi-mystical "rebirth" origin rather than simply being a catburglar, having a "mission" rather than being a free spirit). What else was there, really, that alienated people from the character? That she's black? That her name isn't Selina Kyle? Would the movie really have been saved by changing the character's name and getting her to be played by Kate Beckinsale? It was just a BAD MOVIE. Canonicity has nothing to do with it. Connotation is important, whether you want to admit it or not. And really, whether or not it is important to you or not. And yet Battlestar Galactica the TV series is the hottest thing to come out of the Sci-Fi Channel in years, while the Battlestar Galactica tie-in novels sank out of sight like a rock. It's not that what you're saying isn't true, but you have to balance that factor with how good or bad the movie *actually is* (and, in fact, how good or bad the original source material was, and whether the changes are improvements or not). Especially when your goal isn't just to keep the existing audience (no movie ever lost money marketing to people who vaguely like the concept of "Batman") but to draw in a *new* audience (if the new Battlestar Galactica's fanbase consisted of the old Battlestar Galactica's fanbase, it, like the old Battlestar Galactica, would've been cancelled after one year). You've obviously seen the movies, so you know this last one isn't true. BR Catwoman didn't have superhuman strength or speed at all. Supernaturally-enhanced, then. Whether you think her near-miraculous ability to survive multiple gunshot wounds and such was "superhuman", it was something she just kind of magically got because of the creepy cats, not the result of simple diet and exercise. The whole dealie with the magic cat rebirth is very much a Tim Burton invention. It's not "building on" the canonical Catwoman at all. He *made it up*. It kinda sorta fits with your idea of what Catwoman could be like if she were cooler, but it's not the original Selina Kyle Catwoman. "Catwoman is an ordinary office secretary who gets killed and then revived by some kind of mystical cat spirit" is *as different* from "Catwoman is a former prostitute-turned-burglar who dresses up in a cat-themed outfit in an attempt to rival Batman" as... I dunno, as "Asmodeus is a fallen angel who killed his lord" is from "Asmodeus is some kind of proto-Inevitable who got the Lords of Law to sign a Pact Primeval". I'm assuming the later, but I wouldn't know, I haven't heard of either of them. I'd hate to make assumptions and baseless assertions. The analogy lacks a meaning to me. The point is that "reboots" and total reimaginings and massive changes to previous "canon" can be and often are popular.
ArcTan 09-06-07, 07:38 PM	As it happens, there are many (to use your example) Superman books that exist within their own continuity, rebooting things for the sake of just that book. Another thing they've done is reboot the continuity wholesale on numerous occasions. Marvel's done the same thing at various times, creating manga-style "Mary Jane" books aimed at girls, for example, manga-style Fantastic 4 comics that entirely reboot the continuity for younger readers, and the "Ultimate" line that reboots and updates the entire Marvel universe. One thing they don't do, however, is drastically change major themes and characters - Superman's still from Krypton ("Elseworlds" type stories aside), Lex Luthor's still his archenemy, the X-Men are still mutants. This is what we're getting at, really. And the point is that your concept of scale is distorted by being very, very close to this source material and seeing minor things as big things. I mean, the John Byrne reboot of Superman really did make changes just as huge, for a Superman reader, as the whole "Succubi are now Devils" thing. Superman's parents are now *alive*. Krypton is now a cold, unfeeling, heartless place, rather than a source of heroic tradition. Superboy no longer exists (Superman's powers don't manifest until adulthood) and Lex Luthor is now a businessman, not an inventor. People complained just as loudly about those changes, but now those changes, too, have become ingrained parts of what people who grew up since the reboot think of Superman as -- and, I would argue, they've been changes for the better. (Who can really deny that having a 10-year-old Superboy flying around in the past solving crimes made the whole franchise seem that much stupider? Who can really deny that Lex Luthor the CEO makes more sense than Lex Luthor the cackling white-labcoated mad scientists?) They're keeping Devils and Demons. Hell, they're even making Devils and Demons two separate genera of bad guys, which is, in my view, a relatively conservative step. They're just trying to make the "Devils are Lawful" and "Demons are Chaotic" thing have a little more meaning. I don't see these changes as being that radical at all, honestly -- no one in my gaming group would look at a game that still used terms like "Gelugon" or "Balor" at all and not recognize the game as D&D. But the picayune little things that *seem* big to longtime fans but that most casual readers couldn't care less about? Those can and should change. Ultimate Marvel deciding that despite the reams and reams and reams of crap would-be Marvel philosophers have written about why, exactly, Galactus is a "fundamental force of the cosmos" who represents "Equity" (much like the armchair philosophy of why Yugoloths are so "intrinsic" to what D&D is), their Galactus would just be a swarm of robots who kill people, dammit, and none of this "cosmic" giant-armored-man stuff, and it was a better story for it.
Ornum 09-06-07, 08:03 PM	Movies, TV shows, and comics aren't relevant to the discussion. You don't put work into any of those. You want to read a comic, you sit down and do it. You want to watch a movie or a show, again you take a seat and enjoy. But D&D is different. Unlike those other mediums, in games such as D&D, DM's have a direct hand in what happens. They write the general ideas of their campaign out, and usually rely on some form of continuity from adventure to adventure. For me most of the flavor changes it is what it is. I don't like it at the moment, but that might change once you can really see the whole picture. My biggest problem is the succubus/erinyes change. That's just as much a mechanical change as it is a flavor change. I can't just ignore that. Demons and devils play huge roles in my campaign and in my world that contains said campaign. In order to actually make the switch, I'll either have to retcon my world, or totally change the monster entry provided and recreate either a demonic succubus or the erinyes entirely. Either way, I am already pressed for time when I get the adventure ready for the next gathering due to work, so I don't have time to do such a thing. I was looking forward to 4e, just to see if was simpler so that I could make the change to the new edition, but it turns out that some of the changes are already looking like it will involve more of my time, something I really don't have to spare. The best case scenerio for me is an actual in-game explanation for the change that I can use to make things easier, instead of "We didn't like it. We changed it. Deal with it."
HamHam 09-06-07, 08:09 PM	But in specific, almost everything is different. That's *why* the tone is different. Seriously, "Boomer is no longer a loyal male black supporting officer, but is an Asian female Cylon double agent" isn't a bigger deal than "the Succubus is a Devil"? (I'm betting most people who downplay how ridiculously different new Galactica is didn't watch old Galactica.) You have it backwards. Changing the tone has a cascading effect that results in various other changes down the line (such as Galactica being essentially obsolete and about to be moth-balled rather than state of the art; or the changes in Adama's character). Any number of specifics could have been changed that would not have altered the tone in the slightest. However, the changes to demons and devils either do not go along with any such fundamental shift in tone, making them random, pointless, and stupid; or the tone they seem to have is "the old canon was too hard for people to understand cause our players apparently have an Int of 5, so we're gonna dumb it down" which is also pointless and stupid.
ArcTan 09-06-07, 09:20 PM	You have it backwards. Changing the tone has a cascading effect that results in various other changes down the line (such as Galactica being essentially obsolete and about to be moth-balled rather than state of the art; or the changes in Adama's character). Any number of specifics could have been changed that would not have altered the tone in the slightest. However, the changes to demons and devils either do not go along with any such fundamental shift in tone, making them random, pointless, and stupid; or the tone they seem to have is "the old canon was too hard for people to understand cause our players apparently have an Int of 5, so we're gonna dumb it down" which is also pointless and stupid. I would take the tone to be "Devils and Demons are essentially different orders of beings because that's more interesting than making them alignment-based funhouse mirrors of each other". The *general* tone of 4e is "Things are being put together that make sense on their own merits and fit into very well-defined roles, rather than being a sloppy mess of stuff that's interconnected in complex and ill-defined ways". If you want to call that "dumbing down" for the sake of dumb people, great. I guess that makes me dumb.
ArcTan 09-06-07, 09:22 PM	Movies, TV shows, and comics aren't relevant to the discussion. You don't put work into any of those. You want to read a comic, you sit down and do it. You want to watch a movie or a show, again you take a seat and enjoy. But D&D is different. Unlike those other mediums, in games such as D&D, DM's have a direct hand in what happens. They write the general ideas of their campaign out, and usually rely on some form of continuity from adventure to adventure. For me most of the flavor changes it is what it is. I don't like it at the moment, but that might change once you can really see the whole picture. My biggest problem is the succubus/erinyes change. That's just as much a mechanical change as it is a flavor change. I can't just ignore that. Demons and devils play huge roles in my campaign and in my world that contains said campaign. In order to actually make the switch, I'll either have to retcon my world, or totally change the monster entry provided and recreate either a demonic succubus or the erinyes entirely. Either way, I am already pressed for time when I get the adventure ready for the next gathering due to work, so I don't have time to do such a thing. I was looking forward to 4e, just to see if was simpler so that I could make the change to the new edition, but it turns out that some of the changes are already looking like it will involve more of my time, something I really don't have to spare. The best case scenerio for me is an actual in-game explanation for the change that I can use to make things easier, instead of "We didn't like it. We changed it. Deal with it." Dude, you wouldn't be able to seamlessly convert your old game into 4e anyway. That's why it's 4e and not 3.75. What with the concept of "racial abilities" appearing at certain levels rather than being a 1st-level set of adjustments, and different classes having "power sources" so that Clerics are like Devoted Spirit Swordsages and Fighters like Iron Heart Warblades (just going from the one playtest report) and whatnot, it was never supposed to be simple and easy to convert straight from 3.5 to 4e. If it were, it would've been impossible to make most of the changes it sounds like they wanted to make. I mean, this akin to the complaints Harry Potter fans had whenever a new "canon" Harry Potter book came out that would alter the various fanfiction they had built around assumptions of previous books. The only response, then as now, is that no one makes you use the new material if you don't want.
HamHam 09-06-07, 10:41 PM	I would take the tone to be "Devils and Demons are essentially different orders of beings because that's more interesting than making them alignment-based funhouse mirrors of each other". The *general* tone of 4e is "Things are being put together that make sense on their own merits and fit into very well-defined roles, rather than being a sloppy mess of stuff that's interconnected in complex and ill-defined ways". If you want to call that "dumbing down" for the sake of dumb people, great. I guess that makes me dumb. Let's see, which is more interesting: Seperating them on appearance, so the ugly ones get to be demons and the pretty ones get to be devils. or Seperating them based on their nature (Law vs Chaos) as outsiders representative of their respective philosophical places in the grand design. (I'll give you a hint, it's not the first one.)
ArcTan 09-06-07, 10:55 PM	Let's see, which is more interesting: Seperating them on appearance, so the ugly ones get to be demons and the pretty ones get to be devils. or Seperating them based on their nature (Law vs Chaos) as outsiders representative of their respective philosophical places in the grand design. (I'll give you a hint, it's not the first one.) I'm getting kind of blue in the face saying it, but it's always been the case that Outsiders' appearance is supposed to reflect their "place in the grand design". They had thematically consistent (sort of) ways of showing this for *some* Outsiders (Lawful Neutral is geometrical shapes, and Chaotic Neutral is... frogs!). We *already* have a general "Good Outsiders look benign and pretty, Evil Outsiders look creepy and scary" vibe going. Why is it a crime to ask that this classification, if we're going to have it, be *consistent* and *make sense*?
HamHam 09-06-07, 11:05 PM	I'm getting kind of blue in the face saying it, but it's always been the case that Outsiders' appearance is supposed to reflect their "place in the grand design". They had thematically consistent (sort of) ways of showing this for *some* Outsiders (Lawful Neutral is geometrical shapes, and Chaotic Neutral is... frogs!). We *already* have a general "Good Outsiders look benign and pretty, Evil Outsiders look creepy and scary" vibe going. Why is it a crime to ask that this classification, if we're going to have it, be *consistent* and *make sense*? Because you're imagining it being there in the first place? Formians are LN outsiders, yet they are perfectly organic and not geometrically shaped. Rather, their hive nature and philosophy marks them as LN. Various demons and devils vary in terms of their "human-ness" and "attractiveness". Many Good outsiders are good looking, but many are just as weird as some fiends, though not as "creepy". So, yeah, the only "style guide" that is remotely consistent is that evil outsiders are more evil-looking, on average, than good outsiders. Which makes sense if you're going for a realistic world.
Ornum 09-06-07, 11:20 PM	Dude, you wouldn't be able to seamlessly convert your old game into 4e anyway. That's why it's 4e and not 3.75. What with the concept of "racial abilities" appearing at certain levels rather than being a 1st-level set of adjustments, and different classes having "power sources" so that Clerics are like Devoted Spirit Swordsages and Fighters like Iron Heart Warblades (just going from the one playtest report) and whatnot, it was never supposed to be simple and easy to convert straight from 3.5 to 4e. If it were, it would've been impossible to make most of the changes it sounds like they wanted to make. I mean, this akin to the complaints Harry Potter fans had whenever a new "canon" Harry Potter book came out that would alter the various fanfiction they had built around assumptions of previous books. The only response, then as now, is that no one makes you use the new material if you don't want. First, I'm not speaking for anyone but myself here. This is how I feel about things and for MY game MY concerns are valid. In no way did I or have I ever said that I was right and any other opinions are wrong. If you like it, fine. If you don't like it, then that is fine, as well. So now I ask, why do you feel it necessary to try and force your opinion on others? You seem so bound and determined that your view is the right one and find it necessary, in some form or fashion, to call into question any and all concerns that are different from yours. Do you really feel as though you are superior and all those that dissent are inferior? Is it that hard for you to understand that what you say and believe doesn't hold true for everyone else on the planet? And yes, it will be easy enough for me to make a full conversion, should I have the need. What do you know of my world? How about nothing. Yes, the history of the mortal races is set in stone, but there are no mechanics in the history. Nothing there will change. The myths are also all fluff, and CAN be changed, should I actually find something I like better than what I have written. They are MYTHS, which means no one (but myself) knows whether there is any truth in them (not even the gods, as they aren't the original creators). There are no mechanics to speak of, so there is no real change in that regard. NPC's would be different, that is true, but they are NPC's. New villains will spring up and new PC's will be there to take them on. Really, any NPC's that would need to be restatted will just be recreated with the class that best reflects their flavor. So the king is a 14th level cleric in 3.5. He'll instead be changed into a 14th level cleric (or its equivalent class) in 4e. Again, not a big thing. I leave my world "crunch light" for edition changes such as these, as it makes my job much easier to make the change myself, should I choose to do so. The fact remains that I don't particularly like the succubus/erinyes change. It is a change that directly effects whether or not I buy into 4e (unlike the other fluff changes so far), and your opinion on the matter does nothing to change that fact.
ripvanwormer 09-07-07, 01:19 AM	I mean, the John Byrne reboot of Superman really did make changes just as huge, for a Superman reader, as the whole "Succubi are now Devils" thing. If your point is that someone could possibly have disliked the changes to Superman as much as I'm disliking the changes to the Abyss (or the fact that eladrins! are now evidently a subrace of elves!), I agree with you. There are limits to what you can do with analogies, however. Claiming that a CEO Lex Luthor is undeniably better than a mad scientist Lex Luthor (I have no preference) doesn't advance your claim that the Abyss is better off without Malcanthet or her seductive brood. This isn't about whether I'm more upset than I ought to be, but whether the changes they're talking about making provide more benefits than they cost in lost plotlines and characters. Since removing dozens of named characters and three races is a huge loss in future possibilities, and because doing so doesn't add any characters or plot hooks that they couldn't as easily add with those races still in, I think it's clear that they're making the game objectively worse. I guess a good analogy at this point would be the darker Krypton, which does offer more potential plots than a utopian Krypton would have, just as an Abyss with seductive demons contains more potential plots than an Abyss without seductive demons. For example, the whole last arc of the Savage Tide adventure path doesn't work without the intrigue between Malcanthet, Shami-Amourae, and Red Shroud, and they really have to be succubi for much of what they're doing to make sense. Now, that's not to say that more plots is automatically better, but Malcanthet and her kind were interesting, popular characters, and the insane mania for simplicity doesn't justify taking that away. Ralph Waldo Emerson's quote about little minds has great bearing here. My reaction to this shouldn't be "the point. This thread isn't about my emotions. "The point" should be the changes themselves. I never said the game wouldn't be recognizable as D&D, only that it wouldn't be as good. Who can really deny that having a 10-year-old Superboy flying around in the past solving crimes made the whole franchise seem that much stupider? Who can really deny that Lex Luthor the CEO makes more sense than Lex Luthor the cackling white-labcoated mad scientists?) People who aren't you, surely. Sometimes things aren't as self-evident as you seem to think they are. Both examples have their advantages and disadvantages. Giving Superman his powers later in life, for example, closed off a lot of potential stories that could be absolutely non-stupid in the hands of a decent writer (unless you think children with unusual powers are always "stupid," which would be news to Harry Potter fans). That said, Superkid doesn't really appeal to the aging funnybook audience in the same way that sexy demonesses appeal to D&D nerds, so I think it's not nearly as big of a deal. And there's not really anything that Superkid can do that they couldn't do with a different superpowered 10-year-old, in contrast to the importance of keeping Malcanthet and Red Shroud in the Abyss (so chaotic fiends can do something other than mindlessly break stuff, for one thing). I think I'm analyzing this pretty dispassionately, but if not, I don't think the exact ratio of People Who Care About Superkid to People Who Care About Succubi is very salient. Maybe Superkid was a much bigger deal than I think; that particular debate probably doesn't belong in this thread. RPGs and comics are different mediums in many ways. You can enjoy a comic for its story and art regardless of how much you know about the background (though knowing more can help you appreciate the story more - like how I appreciated The Sandman once I learned more about the history of the Jack Kirby Sandman). For those trying to run an RPG campaign, however, it can be nice to have access to more material about the settings you're adventuring in. It's certainly nice to be able to point people to PDFs and websites dealing with the planes, during those many, many times when people show up here asking for more information on them. When they deliberately make older material less compatible, however, they're making it more difficult to use older material. We know and most of us accept that the stats are going to be different, but the fluff could easily be carried forward or, at least, not blatantly contradicted. When it is contradicted, they should be creating more plots and situation s than they destroy. In this case, they aren't; a campaign where the PCs solve the mystery of what happened to all the pretty she-demons isn't nearly as full of possibility as one that actually includes pretty she-demons. And don't get me started on eladrins. That's been a pet peeve of mine for years.
ArcTan 09-07-07, 02:15 AM	I think you're asking for a lot when you ask that a change "create more than it destroys". In time there might be plenty of plots that hinge on the new concept of Devil-vs-Demon (which we haven't seen yet) or the concept of Primal-Evil-As-Murder (which we haven't seen in detail yet) or the Eladrin/Elf split (which we haven't seen yet). But *of course* there's not going to be as many plots *now* based on those concepts as there *were* based on the older concept, because the older concept already exists and the new concept is, well, new. It's kind of like how there were, in fact, D&D plots or plot hooks based on the concept of "Dwarves as Naturally Magic-Resistant" in older editions, and those plots and plot hooks were, in fact, eradicated by simply saying "Okay, you can be a Dwarven Wizard now". There were no new plots obviously "opened up" by that idea because no one had spent much time thinking about Dwarven Wizards or the general concept of Dwarven cultures with arcane casters -- but now it's part of D&D and no one in particular questions it, and *plenty* of *fine* characters (including a particular character from Neverwinter Nights) have been built around the concept of the Dwarven Wizard. It just boils down to "Do you like the changes?" which is ultimately a subjective question no one can answer for sure. But saying that this "destroys more than it creates" is totally subjective. *You* think the idea of Demons as they are is a bigger source for potential plots than Demons as shapeless Lovecraftian menace. I'm not so sure. I do know that I am kind of sick of the Great Wheel as it is and am dying to see something *different*, and the force of tradition has kept things more or less the same for a while now, and I'm excited to see *what new plots are possible* with a brand-new idea rather than dismissing it because no plots about it currently exist. And yes, saying that "subtracting" the Succubus from the demonic ranks is purely a "destructive" act is dumb. Things are defined by their absence as much as their presence. Demons being *defined* by being inhuman and bestial makes them fundamentally more interesting, at least to me, than "folks who look like Devils but don't like rules". It's like saying a storyline where Krypton isn't destroyed is fundamentally more interesting than one where it is, because, hey, there's a planet there.
ArcTan 09-07-07, 02:17 AM	First, I'm not speaking for anyone but myself here. This is how I feel about things and for MY game MY concerns are valid. In no way did I or have I ever said that I was right and any other opinions are wrong. If you like it, fine. If you don't like it, then that is fine, as well. So now I ask, why do you feel it necessary to try and force your opinion on others? You seem so bound and determined that your view is the right one and find it necessary, in some form or fashion, to call into question any and all concerns that are different from yours. Do you really feel as though you are superior and all those that dissent are inferior? Is it that hard for you to understand that what you say and believe doesn't hold true for everyone else on the planet? What, saying I disagree with you makes me the King of Hubris, now? Are all these other people also insufferably arrogant because they felt the need to disagree with Rich Baker? And yes, it will be easy enough for me to make a full conversion, should I have the need. What do you know of my world? How about nothing. Yes, the history of the mortal races is set in stone, but there are no mechanics in the history. Nothing there will change. The myths are also all fluff, and CAN be changed, should I actually find something I like better than what I have written. They are MYTHS, which means no one (but myself) knows whether there is any truth in them (not even the gods, as they aren't the original creators). There are no mechanics to speak of, so there is no real change in that regard. NPC's would be different, that is true, but they are NPC's. New villains will spring up and new PC's will be there to take them on. Really, any NPC's that would need to be restatted will just be recreated with the class that best reflects their flavor. So the king is a 14th level cleric in 3.5. He'll instead be changed into a 14th level cleric (or its equivalent class) in 4e. Again, not a big thing. I leave my world "crunch light" for edition changes such as these, as it makes my job much easier to make the change myself, should I choose to do so. The fact remains that I don't particularly like the succubus/erinyes change. It is a change that directly effects whether or not I buy into 4e (unlike the other fluff changes so far), and your opinion on the matter does nothing to change that fact. Well, okay. You don't like the change. I get it. There are probably also many other changes in 4e you won't like. That's the nature of having a new edition. I consider it unrealistic to see an edition change and expect to *not* run into any changes you don't like.
ArcTan 09-07-07, 02:20 AM	Because you're imagining it being there in the first place? Formians are LN outsiders, yet they are perfectly organic and not geometrically shaped. Rather, their hive nature and philosophy marks them as LN. In other words, there *is* a correlation but it's *inconsistent*. It's not that LN Outsiders' forms have *nothing to do* with their appearance, unless you think Modrons' shapes really are just a bizarre coincidence, and Formians looking like ants has nothing to do with human stereotypes of ants being "regimented insect soldiers". It's that they *don't follow any consistent set of rules*. One person thinks the best way to define "Law" is cubes and tetrahedra and crap with legs one day. The next day someone thinks it should be ants. The third day someone thinks it should be robots. And it just keeps piling on. Some people like this kind of mishmash. Other people don't. Various demons and devils vary in terms of their "human-ness" and "attractiveness". Yes, because they are *inconsistent*. There's still a reason you don't see any Celestials with horrifying insect heads, though. Many Good outsiders are good looking, but many are just as weird as some fiends, though not as "creepy". I think to find truly "weird" Good Outsiders you have to find the random designers who weren't working close to the core and felt free to muck around. The early Good Outsiders are nearly universally designed to look cute or beautiful or at least in some way reassuring. (The Guardinals are technically "bestial" but are always humanized versions of animals we find appealing-looking, like a Beatrix Potter illustration, not baboon-headed freaks like Demogorgon.) So, yeah, the only "style guide" that is remotely consistent is that evil outsiders are more evil-looking, on average, than good outsiders. Which makes sense if you're going for a realistic world. ...So you're actually saying Outsiders' appearance should follow no strict rule because of "realism". Wow, okay. OUTSIDERS AREN'T REAL.
ArcTan 09-07-07, 02:24 AM	I'm actually still kind of fuming at the idea that dropping Malcanthet "decreases" future possibilities. THERE ARE STILL JUST AS MANY POSSIBILITIES AS THERE EVER WERE. There is a nearly infinite number of ideas you could have for what to do with random crap from the Outer Planes. The difference is that these ideas will now be based on the new foundation instead of the old one. Unless you think ideas with a link to past continuity are inherently better than new ideas, the *number* of ideas has not decreased. It's like saying the number of new books J.K. Rowling could possibly write has decreased because she said she doesn't want to write any more *Harry Potter* books. There are stories that could've been told, but weren't, because there was and always has been a preference to telling stories that fit with "continuity" rather than new stories out of nowhere. A deemphasized continuity makes such stories more likely to be told. Failing that, a *new* continuity at least makes some stories easier to tell in this new environment than they were previously.
ripvanwormer 09-07-07, 05:01 AM	In time there might be plenty of plots that hinge on the new concept of Devil-vs-Demon No, I can safely say that there are not "plenty of plots" that can be generated from this concept. The wild hand-waving in this thread isn't impressing me, or providing meaningful or intelligent arguments. If you can actually imagine a plot that would be possible in an Abyss with no succubi that wouldn't be possible in an Abyss that contained succubi, I'll be very impressed, but there is no such plot. If your plot ideas need bestial demons, the Abyss already has them to spare. If your plot doesn't need humanoid demons, you aren't required to add them in. With a theoretical infinity of layers, plenty of them have absolutely no succubi. So, yes, claiming that "plenty of plots" could hinge on this concept is breathtakingly, drippingly "dumb." As for the other two examples, a loss of plot possibilities wasn't among my complaints. I didn't, in fact, specify what my complaint was in the matter of eladrins, and don't intend to in this particular thread. It's like saying a storyline where Krypton isn't destroyed is fundamentally more interesting than one where it is, because, hey, there's a planet there. No, it would be like saying that Krypton is a destroyed planet is more interesting than simply erasing it from all continuity, saying it never existed at all. A destroyed Krypton can still generate characters and plots - lost robots, hidden pocket dimensions, imprisoned criminals, lost colonies and the like. A Krypton retconned to have never existed cannot. Again, you seem to have trouble understanding the idea of a middle ground between two extremes. It's perfectly possible to differentiate between tanar'ri and baatezu visually without taking demonic succubi out of the game just 'cause they look like chicks. Give succubi goat hooves (like lillitu have), bat wings, horns, and pointed teeth and you've established the "bestial" theme nicely. Give erinyes pale blue skin (like they have in edition 3.5), feathered wings, human feet and no horns and nobody's going to mistake them for succubi. For that matter, no one who's seen their 3.5 illustrations will mistake them for succubi. It's this weird either-or thing you've got going that's so indefensible. Well, one of the many things.
Ornum 09-07-07, 10:48 AM	What, saying I disagree with you makes me the King of Hubris, now? Are all these other people also insufferably arrogant because they felt the need to disagree with Rich Baker? That's not what the statement I made said, but the fact that you jumped to that conclusion automatically makes me want to think that just may be the case. Dissent is natural. Not everyone is going to be happy, and they have the right to their opinion on the matter. Look, what you need to understand is that your opinion matters just as much as everyone elses, not more. You have tried to press your opinions on others by making unsubstantiated claims that you try and pass off as fact, and even end up contradicting yourself. Want an example? This is the reason normal people don't like reading the Big 2 comics series. It turns out most people don't *like* opening up a Superman comic and finding out that Superman is constantly talking about other superheroes, random supervillains, and minor characters and places and alternate dimensions you know nothing about if you haven't been reading since the 1970s. It intimidates people and turns them off. Then you were asked to define "normal people. Your answer? Assuming that "normal people" means the majority of the people in the country, then yes, the majority of people don't read the Big 2 comics series. Comic books are currently a tiny market on life support. With these two quotes looking right at you, do you not see the problem? First, how can you even equate normal with those that don't read comics? But more importantly, how can you possibly draw a conclusion for why they don't read Superman comics? Was there a poll I am unaware of? "Excuse me, sir. I'm conducting a poll. Would you mind answering a few questions?" "Sure, go ahead." "First question. Do you read comics?" "No, I don't" "Alright, I'll put you down as a normal person, then. Next question. Why don't you read comics?" "Superman" "Uh, Superman?" "Yeah, Superman. How dare the writers of Superman not explain everything in every issue! Why can't they put all of that information in each book instead of casually mentioning an event in the past and including a past issue number to reference? I mean, how was I supposed to know Clark Kent was Superman all along?" Really, I don't think that was the case. I highly doubt that continuity references within the "Big 2" is the reason that "normal people" don't read comics. But I will admit that I don't know why they don't because I have yet to read a study or actually ask a sample of the population their opinions on the matter. Well, okay. You don't like the change. I get it. There are probably also many other changes in 4e you won't like. That's the nature of having a new edition. I consider it unrealistic to see an edition change and expect to *not* run into any changes you don't like. Of course there will be other things that I don't like, a great deal of which will be nothing but fluff that I can easily ignore. It's the stuff that I can't ignore that really bothers me. I'd be just as irritated if they suddenly replaced the beholder's eyestalks with dreadlocks and totally removed the mechanics that went along with it.
Kain Darkwind 09-07-07, 11:01 AM	Assuming that "normal people" means the majority of the people in the country, then yes, the majority of people don't read the Big 2 comics series. Comic books are currently a tiny market on life support. Okay, so I have one fact: 1) Superman comics really don't get read very much, and another fact: 2) Superman comics do have a preponderance of continuity issues, at least recently, with DC and Marvel's addiction to ginormous crossover stories like Infinite Crisis and House of M and Civil War, and a theory: 3) Maybe the two have something to do with each other. Your logic, or lack there of, is incredible. First off, 'fact 2' is one of those things you are throwing out without proof. I read your OYL example and found that I didn't need to hop on board for IC to understand the story. That was barely referenced throughout the storyline. I went and picked up the first Superman comic book (rather than graphic novel) I saw in the store as well, just to see if maybe that would give me a story that is laden with continuity. The only thing that was confusing was that it was right in the middle of a storyline. Going back two issues began the storyarc and cleared up any of my questions. So unless you have some research, that's false. Second, even if "fact" 2 was true, you are actually making the leap that ALL people who don't read comics specifically avoid the Big 2 because of their elaborate continuity. If this were actually true, then comic book companies that avoided elaborate continuity would be doing spectacular. Since they aren't (there is a reason the 'big 2' are big), your hypothesis (not a theory, theories involve actually testing and have evidence to support them) holds no water. The thing One Year Later is later than is Infinite Crisis, which is kind of important. But sure, fine. Infinite Crisis itself has much more of the crossover-laden continuity stuff I was talking about. And is clearly marketed towards those readers who are in for the continuity. The random run-of-the-mill Superman comic book can still be picked up and read without knowing who is currently Green Lantern and whether or not Flash can break light speed. Here's an article about it: http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/193167 Interesting, but it goes on to hypothesize that poor racial demographics are what is causing the decline in sales. Continuity isn't mentioned even once. However, there are changes that could be objectively good or objectively bad for the game, where continuity forms a side issue. The change that Dwarves don't develop a "magical resistance" over time that makes them resistant to spells but incapable of becoming arcane spellcasters? That threw a big huge wrench in the fiction surrounding the D&D of the time, where "Dwarves hate magic!" was part of the lore. But it was overall a *good change for the game* to stop having hamstrung race/class restrictions, so out it went. I similarly think it's a *good change for the game* to have streamlined rosters for the Devil and Demon teams and make those teams make *more sense* than they currently do. Now you are making slightly more sense. For instance, I think it was a good change to throw out the cleric=bludgeoning weapons. Gameplay-wise, darkvision works better than infrared vision. (But lacks flavor.) But from there you go to declaring that basing outsiders (many of whom can change forms at will via polymorph, alternate form, etc) on their physical appearance makes more sense. While your argument (streamlined rosters that make more sense) is valid, it isn't being based off the reality of the situation. Basing things off the physical appearance is really...shallow. And pointless in a world of disguise self. Will black humans get different racial features now as well? But that's always a distortion of preferences. Of course the people who are already *here* are going to have a louder voice than the new people you're trying to attract. Who's going to come up and say "I stopped playing D&D because all that planar stuff was too complicated for me"? No one here, because that guy *stopped playing D&D*. Which sounds like a good point until you actually look at the reality of the situation. Research how many people quit playing DnD and for what reasons. If I recall (and I'll have to leave this unverified, since I can't produce any of it) the 'market research' that involved PS and DnD, PS's 'cant' was either a hated or loved feature of the setting. DnD lost players over 2e because the game became too bloated and complicated. DnD was intimidating to new players because the rules were hard to learn. (And arrogant pricks playing the game liked to call the needlessly complicated rules an 'intelligence test to weed out those too dumb to play') None of that suggests throwing out core monsters that have been with the game since 1e will fix the problem. 'Streamlined fiend rosters' are what you have in the Monster Manual v3.5. 'Expanded fiend rosters' is what you get with the Fiendish Codex, new Monster Manuals, etc. From a business point of view you want to have room for both. Explicitly cutting a popular creature entirely out of the universe does not produce that. Except you can't add indefinitely. You don't have unlimited page space (not even spread out across the whole sum of splatbooks you might create in a 5-year window), and your readers don't have infinite patience. One might suggest a longer window for the game then. But that's not the real point. The real points are that drastically screwing with canon typically produces more negatives than positives and that screwing with canon to the point of direct and explicit denial of past canon produces even more. Again, I admit I'd be upset if they didn't have succubi in the MM v4 and they had erinyes devils. But finding out that erinyes are gone, succubi are devils and sexy demons don't exist at all is a much more irritating move. It eliminates the possibility of past canon to exist. It cuts out interesting characters that were created just this past edition. It doesn't give me anything in the Abyss that I didn't have before. It doesn't give me a more interesting storyline and it doesn't give me more creatures. And as for the rules glut, you don't seriously think that WotC is going to avoid producing ever more splatbooks throughout 4e's lifespan, do you? That's a false positive. The idea that 4e core will be simpler than 3e entire is true, but not really a useful comparison.
pratputajao 09-07-07, 02:08 PM	So is Graz'zt going to now somehow become a devil? It seems to me, going by what I have seen, they have no choice to make him a devil....their own logic dictates this. Perhaps even Orcus and Pazuzu as well...or are they not human(oid) enough to make the cut? This is all quite silly really. I think its a little late, 25 years late, to making these kind of changes in the game. This is an OLD established game with a lot of Ol' timers (like myself) who see this as completely worthless. I am not even sure WHY theyre doing this, it CANT be that much of a big deal to players. Anyway goodby Graz'zt, it was good knowing ya'!
ArcTan 09-07-07, 02:57 PM	While your argument (streamlined rosters that make more sense) is valid, it isn't being based off the reality of the situation. Basing things off the physical appearance is really...shallow. And pointless in a world of disguise self. Will black humans get different racial features now as well? In a world of shapeshifting and disguise self, why would Outsiders even *have* a "real" or "default" appearance at all? If they did, it would make sense that it be in some way tied to their nature, right?
Ornum 09-07-07, 03:06 PM	In a world of shapeshifting and disguise self, why would Outsiders even *have* a "real" or "default" appearance at all? If they did, it would make sense that it be in some way tied to their nature, right? Of course they would still need a "real" appearance. They have to look like something when all the magic wears off. But yes, I do agree that their true appearance should be tied to their nature in some fashion. To be honest, a change in their appearance in 4e is hardly anything to worry about for me. I would either use them as the are presented, or if that doesn't suit me, I can simply change the description back to what they looked like in a previous edition (and have the artwork handy just in case someone needed to see it). That's part of the whole "if I don't like it, I can change it back" part of 4e.
Bob the Efreet 09-08-07, 04:09 AM	In a world of shapeshifting and disguise self, why would Outsiders even *have* a "real" or "default" appearance at all? If they did, it would make sense that it be in some way tied to their nature, right? Perhaps we could have succubi that weren't naturally humanoid (because that's a trait all demons share), but they adopt a sexy human form when infiltrating mortal society, because it helps them achieve their goals. There we go. We get to ditch humanoid demons (because apparently that's important) and keep succubi, even with their traditional role and, to a degree, appearance. Problem solved for everyone. I think it could actually be more interesting if succubi weren't naturally human and pretty.
ArcTan 09-08-07, 04:20 AM	Perhaps we could have succubi that weren't naturally humanoid (because that's a trait all demons share), but they adopt a sexy human form when infiltrating mortal society, because it helps them achieve their goals. There we go. We get to ditch humanoid demons (because apparently that's important) and keep succubi, even with their traditional role and, to a degree, appearance. Problem solved for everyone. I think it could actually be more interesting if succubi weren't naturally human and pretty. I think the idea of this change wasn't that Demons *look* inhuman as they *are* inhuman -- as in, they're *more* inhuman than the Devils, who take an active interest in normal human affairs like politics and sex and money. Demons just exist to warp reality beyond what you know and bring about the callous, mindless destruction of all. In other words, they're the Far Realm, but without the inane insistence that the Far Realm is "beyond morality". Or they're the Yugoloths, without the silly idea that Neutral Evil is somehow the one that gets the privilege of being all creepy and inscrutable while Chaos and Law are *both* more human and human-like in motivation and such.
Witch 09-08-07, 06:45 AM	In other words, they're the Far Realm, but without the inane insistence that the Far Realm is "beyond morality". Or they're the Yugoloths, without the silly idea that Neutral Evil is somehow the one that gets the privilege of being all creepy and inscrutable while Chaos and Law are *both* more human and human-like in motivation and such. Night Hags, also quite exemplary of Neutral Evil, are rather more human-like than any devil or demon.
Andyr 09-08-07, 08:30 AM	So is Graz'zt going to now somehow become a devil? It seems to me, going by what I have seen, they have no choice to make him a devil....their own logic dictates this. Perhaps even Orcus and Pazuzu as well...or are they not human(oid) enough to make the cut? This is all quite silly really. I think its a little late, 25 years late, to making these kind of changes in the game. This is an OLD established game with a lot of Ol' timers (like myself) who see this as completely worthless. I am not even sure WHY theyre doing this, it CANT be that much of a big deal to players. No, he'll always have been a devil. :P
Palindrome 09-08-07, 03:18 PM	No, he'll always have been a devil. :P How Orwellian.
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 09-08-07, 11:56 PM	How Orwellian. Statement: Retcons are Orwellian. Assumption: Baator is an Orwellian nightmare. Observation: WotC is using retcons. Conclusion: Asmodeus is being 4e. Metastical!
Bob the Efreet 09-09-07, 01:09 AM	I think the idea of this change wasn't that Demons *look* inhuman as they *are* inhuman -- as in, they're *more* inhuman than the Devils, who take an active interest in normal human affairs like politics and sex and money. Demons just exist to warp reality beyond what you know and bring about the callous, mindless destruction of all. Ah. That would be a bit of a change in the way demons are being presented, then. It would make more sense than just stripping away human-looking demons arbitrarily, though.
ArcTan 09-09-07, 02:51 AM	Statement: Retcons are Orwellian. Assumption: Baator is an Orwellian nightmare. Observation: WotC is using retcons. Conclusion: Asmodeus is being 4e. Metastical! Changing continuity is not the same as a "retcon". Example: In new Battlestar Galactica, the character of "Starbuck" is a female. In the new Battlestar Galactica, she has always been a female. Her name is Kara Thrace and "Starbuck" is merely her (semi-ironic) callsign as a pilot. There is no "retcon" between this and the original Battlestar Galactica, when Starbuck was a man (whose name literally was "Starbuck") played by Dirk Benedict and known for his womanizing ways. They are simply two different characters from two different continuities. A *retcon* would be if new Battlestar Galactica attempted to *explain* the difference between old and new Starbuck by saying someone travelled back in time and changed Starbuck's DNA, or the new Starbuck killed the old Starbuck and wiped everyone's memory to take his place, or something. That would, indeed, be annoying. Merely writing a new version of an old character, however, is not a retcon, and shouldn't cause any problems for anyone who doesn't expect everything to be in one continuity.
BOZ 09-22-07, 01:14 PM	If you can actually imagine a plot that would be possible in an Abyss with no succubi that wouldn't be possible in an Abyss that contained succubi, I'll be very impressed, but there is no such plot. ooh, ooh, i can do it! "Bringing the succubus back to the Abyss." see, that wasn't too hard. ;) of course, that's probably about the only one...
BOZ 09-22-07, 01:24 PM	Changing continuity is not the same as a "retcon". que? ex-squeeze me? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroactive_continuity "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
ArcTan 09-22-07, 02:18 PM	que? ex-squeeze me? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroactive_continuity "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." The important part of the phrase is the word "retroactive". Retcons are events *in the same story* that say "The story is still going on, all of this stuff that used to be true isn't true anymore". Starting a new story and a new continuity is not the same thing.
yrogerg 09-22-07, 02:26 PM	Night Hags, also quite exemplary of Neutral Evil, are rather more human-like than any devil or demon. They *look* more human. They still have that whole "inscrutable" thing going on, though.
ripvanwormer 09-23-07, 02:04 AM	ooh, ooh, i can do it! "Bringing the succubus back to the Abyss." You win.
General_Ridley 09-23-07, 07:29 PM	ooh, ooh, i can do it! "Bringing the succubus back to the Abyss." see, that wasn't too hard. ;) of course, that's probably about the only one... Sorry, Mario! Your Succubus is on another plane of existence! Maybe you should try World 2-1, Baator?
BOZ 09-23-07, 11:15 PM	You win. now, let's see someone come up with another one, eh? ooh, oooh, i know! "You have less than 24 hours to find a hottie female demon - good luck!"