Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Franco Un-American 08-30-07, 02:22 PM	Seems so. From Rich Baker's blog: 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. Anyway, that's the sort of stuff us story guys are working on. More later! Thoughts?
Sledgerosaur 08-30-07, 02:29 PM	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. aww man.... i liked my "demonic" looking devils :P
Ornum 08-30-07, 03:04 PM	*shrugs* It's a bit of a change. Quite a bit, actually. I'm *not* a fan of the whole "succubus is a devil/no more erinyes", but the rest I'll probably ignore or use as simply yet another myth. I actually do like the bit about the gelugons (provided that they are entrapped 'loths and in no way demonic). Actually, I'm trying to be as positive as possible here. My initial reaction is lead a mob screaming for the death of the monster that is 4e, complete with torches and pitchforks. If this is the sort of thing that I can expect from the new edition, I'll stay firmly entrenched in 3.5 until I can no longer find a game, then simply be forced to stop playing the game I used to love.
ArcTan 08-30-07, 06:20 PM	This is exactly what I wanted to happen when I heard about a new edition -- dumping old sacred cows and rearranging the existing flavor so it makes more sense.
Deamon 08-30-07, 06:48 PM	But it makes no sense.
Lord Karsus 08-30-07, 06:53 PM	My initial reaction is lead a mob screaming for the death of the monster that is 4e, complete with torches and pitchforks. If this is the sort of thing that I can expect from the new edition, I'll stay firmly entrenched in 3.5 until I can no longer find a game, then simply be forced to stop playing the game I used to love. -I'm with you, man. This is exactly what I wanted to happen when I heard about a new edition -- dumping old sacred cows and rearranging the existing flavor so it makes more sense. -Too bad there is something called 'previously established canon', which can't be arbitrarily disregarded, without creating major plotholes and problems to continuity.
WarDragon 08-30-07, 06:57 PM	This is exactly what I wanted to happen when I heard about a new edition -- dumping old sacred cows and rearranging the existing flavor so it makes more sense. And what part of that travesty makes any kind of sense, besides mindlessly copying RL mythology?
Taeldrin Laesrash 08-30-07, 07:26 PM	Some of the changes I like. I appreciate that they're making the erinyes and succubi one creature, they were too similar. The ice devil story could be very interesting also, freeing them from their contract sounds like it could be an awesome campaign. The general devil stuff, though, is too much. It disrupts the cosmology-Who are the actual LE beings? Where did they live before the betrayal? I was okay with them being fallen servents of Law, but this shakes it up a bit too much, and might create more flaws than solutions.
Witch 08-30-07, 07:27 PM	Some of the changes I like. I appreciate that they're making the erinyes and succubi one creature, they were too similar. Point out the similarity, please.
Taeldrin Laesrash 08-30-07, 07:30 PM	Technically, there's a lot of differences. For the most part, though, they're just LE and CE versions of the old temptress archetype. Now that I think about it, though, they both have roles within their races too important to drop. Hmm. I'm conflicted on this now.
Witch 08-30-07, 07:45 PM	I don't think "temptress" is specific enough to merit being singled together as one being. For instance, Balors and Pit Fiends have a similar role yet are quite unique as well.
ArcTan 08-30-07, 09:53 PM	-Too bad there is something called 'previously established canon', which can't be arbitrarily disregarded, without creating major plotholes and problems to continuity. Sure it can. You know how you fix "plot holes" created by ignoring previous canon? You IGNORE the previous canon. You say "Hey, we're making a new game and we don't have to abide by the old game's stupid ideas anymore!" and you move on with your life. I really hate the tyranny the concept of "continuity" holds over most geek media. It's the single thing that's made superhero comics unbearable for me.
ArcTan 08-30-07, 09:54 PM	And what part of that travesty makes any kind of sense, besides mindlessly copying RL mythology? Creating a logical way to categorize Devils and Demons by appearance rather than just randomly saying "These are Baatezu, these are Tanar'ri". Making Evil have an origin story rather than just being part of the natural consequence of the way things are. Not having stupid mirror-image monsters anymore that do essentially the same thing except one's Chaotic and one's Lawful.
JulesCARV 08-30-07, 10:10 PM	So, I'm an angel serving Nerull, say. Nerull notices that some town full of worshippers has not paid tribute to his church. One of his clerics casts Planar Ally and asks for someone to kill the inhabitants of the town, so Nerull sends me. For some reason, I refuse to kill the unarmed civilians. Something snaps in me, maybe I'm a bit crazy. Anyway, when I leave, Nerull wants to kill me for my disobedience. I decide I'll go down fighting, and to my surprise, several of Nerull's angels join me, and we kill Nerull. Now, because we betrayed and killed our deity, we become devils. That's not unreasonable, I suppose, if you just consider angels to be "outsiders who serve deities" and devils to be "ex-angel outsiders who betrayed their deities," and get rid of the idea that angels are good and devils are evil. Unless, that is, you get rid of evil deities, or say evil deities don't have servants.
ripvanwormer 08-30-07, 10:21 PM	I guess it's sort of a paradox that I find it hard to imagine the point of view of someone with such a poor imagination that they can't think of a way to differentiate succubi from erinyes. I should feel pity. For those who are so impoverished, I direct you to The Ecology of the Succubus and Erinyes (http://mimir.net/essays/succubus.html). Now you are enlightened. Of course the difference between demons and devils is that one chaotic and the other is lawful. They're beings of chaos and law incarnate, respectively, so their alignment should be the primary focus. "Demons are bestial, devils are humanoid, and yugoloths are insectoid" might sound reasonable, but most of us understand that simplification is not always preferable to complexity. Complexity can make things interesting, and simplification for its own sake is only simple-minded. The primary issue is what happens to humanoid demon lords like Graz'zt and Malcanthet? Particularly Malcanthet, whose entire raison d'etre is now gone. Bestial-looking demons of lust just aren't the same. Simple-minded is the only word for it. It is, at least, confirmation that the Great Wheel is not ditched; D&D still has a default, implied setting, with apparently quite a lot of detail in the planes.
ArcTan 08-30-07, 11:30 PM	Right, the Erinyes is a sexy girl who makes people feel more prudish and straitlaced. Wow, I feel so creatively impoverished for not having come up with that idea. I like how it's always whatever platitude defends the Great Wheel as it currently stands (or, rather, how it stood in 2e AD&D Planescape). Sometimes simplification is superior to "unnecessary" complexity (when a new wrinkle, like the Native Outsider, changes beings like Rakshasa). Sometimes, however, a few contradictions or bits of hard-to-swallow illogic help make the setting "interesting" and "too much consistency is a bad thing" and so on. Bleah. Bestial-looking demons of lust just aren't the same. Guess you don't go much in for goats and bulls and such as fertility symbols, huh?
Lord Karsus 08-30-07, 11:38 PM	Sure it can. You know how you fix "plot holes" created by ignoring previous canon? You IGNORE the previous canon. You say "Hey, we're making a new game and we don't have to abide by the old game's stupid ideas anymore!" and you move on with your life. -No one is making a new game. We're still playing Dungeons and Dragons. Caves and Creatures would be a new game. Mountains and Monsters would be a new game. Nope, this is still D&D, the same game, albeit a new rulesource. I really hate the tyranny the concept of "continuity" holds over most geek media. It's the single thing that's made superhero comics unbearable for me. -That's how we roll, literally and metaphorically. If you don't like the idea of a coherent and continuity, well, that's something for you to figure out on your own. There's nothing I can say that can change that.
ripvanwormer 08-30-07, 11:39 PM	Sometimes simplification is superior to "unnecessary" complexity Yes, that's right. Simplicity isn't a virtue in itself, and neither is complexity. Therefore, other criteria must be invoked. The problem is that Mr. Baker is behaving as if simplicity was a virtue in itself, which is merely simple-minded. Guess you don't go much in for goats and bulls and such as fertility symbols, huh? Haha, they make great fertility symbols, but, as I said, they're not the same. They make great lusters, but poor objects of lust, if you see the distinction. That distinction's important enough to completely change the character of Malcanthet - a hairy goat-demon is not the same kind of creature at all. I mean, granted, I don't know what you go for - I suppose it's a matter of personal preference.
ArcTan 08-31-07, 02:39 AM	-No one is making a new game. We're still playing Dungeons and Dragons. Caves and Creatures would be a new game. Mountains and Monsters would be a new game. Nope, this is still D&D, the same game, albeit a new rulesource. What, precisely, this even actually means is up in the air. It's not as though "continuity" hasn't been broken or at least strained by each new edition change. -That's how we roll, literally and metaphorically. If you don't like the idea of a coherent and continuity, well, that's something for you to figure out on your own. There's nothing I can say that can change that. It may be how *you* roll, but it's not how I roll nor, apparently, how Mr. Rich Baker rolls, and I'm perfectly happy with that.
ArcTan 08-31-07, 02:43 AM	Yes, that's right. Simplicity isn't a virtue in itself, and neither is complexity. Therefore, other criteria must be invoked. The problem is that Mr. Baker is behaving as if simplicity was a virtue in itself, which is merely simple-minded. It doesn't really sound like he is, or he would've destroyed the Demon/Devil distinction entirely and decided Devils didn't need an origin story at all. It sounds more like he's going for a certain thematic consistency that you don't care for. Haha, they make great fertility symbols, but, as I said, they're not the same. They make great lusters, but poor objects of lust, if you see the distinction. That distinction's important enough to completely change the character of Malcanthet - a hairy goat-demon is not the same kind of creature at all. I mean, granted, I don't know what you go for - I suppose it's a matter of personal preference. It is. It's also a matter of how you conceptualize things. I don't have to actually literally want to have sex with Malcanthet for Malcanthet to serve as a symbol of objects of sexual desire. (Otherwise Malcanthet couldn't have straight female followers, could she?) The ancients of various cultures used animals to represent female sexuality about as often as they used animals to represent male sexuality. Zeus could be represented as a raging bull; Io as a beautiful heifer. Many Hindu deities that represent sex and desire are often grotesque or bizarre-seeming to us, because they aren't meant to *literally* be someone you'd go and have sex with. I think part of the motivation here is simply to decrease the amount of gratuitous T&A in D&D art (how many separate races of sexy demon wenches do we really, honestly need?) and I can't really complain about that either.
caeruleus 08-31-07, 02:51 AM	Sure it can. You know how you fix "plot holes" created by ignoring previous canon? You IGNORE the previous canon. You say "Hey, we're making a new game and we don't have to abide by the old game's stupid ideas anymore!" and you move on with your life. I really hate the tyranny the concept of "continuity" holds over most geek media. It's the single thing that's made superhero comics unbearable for me. I agree. After all, changes have already been made between editions. However... Of course the difference between demons and devils is that one chaotic and the other is lawful. They're beings of chaos and law incarnate, respectively, so their alignment should be the primary focus. "Demons are bestial, devils are humanoid, and yugoloths are insectoid" might sound reasonable, but most of us understand that simplification is not always preferable to complexity. Complexity can make things interesting, and simplification for its own sake is only simple-minded. The primary issue is what happens to humanoid demon lords like Graz'zt and Malcanthet? Particularly Malcanthet, whose entire raison d'etre is now gone. Bestial-looking demons of lust just aren't the same. Simple-minded is the only word for it. I also agree with this. If they're going to make changes, the least they could do is make good changes. Right, the Erinyes is a sexy girl who makes people feel more prudish and straitlaced. Wow, I feel so creatively impoverished for not having come up with that idea. Is it even the case that erinyes are temptresses? The Monster Manual doesn't say anything about that. I thought they served a totally different function altogether, and their being attractive is due to their origins, not to their function.
ArcTan 08-31-07, 03:36 AM	Is it even the case that erinyes are temptresses? The Monster Manual doesn't say anything about that. I thought they served a totally different function altogether, and their being attractive is due to their origins, not to their function. That was never my impression, either. That was the rather idiotic take the mimir.net article ripvanwormer posted a link to put on Erinyes, and needless to say I found it hardly enlightening -- in fact, it was just plain stupid, from beginning to end. It would be like if I said Pit Fiends are spirits of war and destruction and pain, and that's why they're big muscular dudes with big swords and flaming whips, whereas Pit Fiends are spirits of pacifism and love, whose big swords hit you and make you want to stop fighting. I was actually not that *upset* by the presence of Erinyes and Succubi -- Succubi were hot chicks for a reason, and Erinyes were hot chicks gratuitously (because they were "beautiful angels of light who fell", or whatever). I could dig that, but it also meant Erinyes didn't serve any particularly important purpose that would make me sad to see them go. Trying to claim that we absolutely need a Lawful Evil counterpart to Chaotic Evil Succubi because Succubi that make you want to have evil, nasty, hot sex is an inherently CE concept, while similar hot chicks who make you want to... follow tradition and uphold societal norms is a similarly obvious LE concept... no, just no. I'm sorry. It's an example of the nearly endemic disease among Planescape fans of pretending D&D's cosmology makes a lot more sense than it ever actually has. Certainly I don't see any reason whatsoever that it should be obvious that the "temptress" role in general should be CE rather than LE, nor anything about the Succubus' class abilities that makes what it does inherently Chaotic, nor anything about the Erinyes that says they have to exist at all. (Y'all are aware that the D&D Erinyes bear no resemblance to the actual Erinyes of mythology at all, and actually kind of disgrace the name "Erinyes" by being such lame monsters and using up that name rather than letting it go on something worthy, right?)
ArcTan 08-31-07, 03:41 AM	Point out the similarity, please. They were both hot chicks, which was the reason most DMs and players were interested in them. The Succubus had abilities consistent with being a mythological succubus. The Erinyes had abillities consistent with being a lame ripoff of Wonder Woman. In other words, what difference there was between them was mostly lameness on the part of the Erinyes, and the Erinyes didn't need to exist. The fact that they didn't need to exist was the primary reason people kept forgetting about them and getting all inconsistent with what their origin was supposed to be and what their role in Hell was. (Were they fallen angels or not? Are they supposed to be temptresses, because of charm monster, or are they just supposed to be mobile archers who tie people up and throw them from a distance? What is the point? All questions I never found to be very satisfactorily answered.)
Soel Griffin 08-31-07, 04:24 AM	Interesting. I appreciate to closer-to-real-world-mythology take on devils. Of course, the question will come, 'Who is the deity they used to serve?' I hope they do in fact ditch the Great Wheel concept, as I can no longer abide by its alignment dependancy. Turn that mother out!
BadCatMan 08-31-07, 04:39 AM	I like Erinyes. They're more reliable when summoned for certain purposes. I had a short and silly adventure idea about a lonely farmer who discovers a lost erinyes and falls in love, without the application of charm spells, while she finds the arrangement beneficial to her (she's still Evil). Then the PCs would have to decide if she was genuine, and if so, work out a cast-iron pre-nuptial agreement. The ol' ball-and-chain. :D It wouldn't work with a chaotic sex-fiend succubus, as the answer is obvious: she'd be lying she'd renege on the deal, is obviously trying to seduce, and will kill him. Anyway, nonsense aside, D&D is not about this myth or that myth, or what someone thinks, nor is it even supposed to make sense. It's supposed to have options, for whatever suits a DMs need at the time. There should be fiends and celestials across the lawful and chaotic spectrum, to suit all purposes. There should be LE dominatrixes and CE vixens, just because. The game is supposed to be full of crazy crap.
Deacon Liadon 08-31-07, 06:22 AM	I hope they do in fact ditch the Great Wheel concept, as I can no longer abide by its alignment dependancy. Turn that mother out! Why is it that people always think that the Great Wheel is alignment dependant? It's not. Know what would happen if you took out alignment? Absolutely nothing. It's based on ideas and philosophies.
Miryana 08-31-07, 07:03 AM	If the 4E developers feel that succubi must be devils and there can only be one type of good-looking female fiend in MM1, I hope the erinyes manage to return in MM2 with an emphasis on vengeance, persecution and justice without mercy or moderation. They may look like succubi but they don't need to have the same powers and purpose, and if 4E is going to draw on real world mythology... It would be a shame to lose the erinyes, since I believe they can be interesting.
Sigurd van Norhusen 08-31-07, 07:04 AM	Aside from the obvious points, it would appear that they want to further marginalize neutrality. This is pretty sad in itself.:(
Doom_Linnorm 08-31-07, 08:23 AM	I like Erinyes. They're more reliable when summoned for certain purposes. I had a short and silly adventure idea about a lonely farmer who discovers a lost erinyes and falls in love, without the application of charm spells, while she finds the arrangement beneficial to her (she's still Evil). Then the PCs would have to decide if she was genuine, and if so, work out a cast-iron pre-nuptial agreement. The ol' ball-and-chain. :D It wouldn't work with a chaotic sex-fiend succubus, as the answer is obvious: she'd be lying she'd renege on the deal, is obviously trying to seduce, and will kill him. Anyway, nonsense aside, D&D is not about this myth or that myth, or what someone thinks, nor is it even supposed to make sense. It's supposed to have options, for whatever suits a DMs need at the time. There should be fiends and celestials across the lawful and chaotic spectrum, to suit all purposes. There should be LE dominatrixes and CE vixens, just because. The game is supposed to be full of crazy crap. Seconded! Erinyes and Succubus were similar in some aspects but particulairly in combat they showed great distinction. For one Erinyes seemed much more likely to participate in combat at all, Succubi seemed to have a much story-NPC tool set then the Erinyes who was more of a monster-NPC IMHO. Also if (and truly IF) you believe that the changes make more sense and will help the lore, then consider weither or not it actually makes the game more fun, which is the central concept of playing a game. Also if we merge the succubus and the erinyes, the succubus should still be a Demon, not a Devil. The closest match to a Baatezu version of the Succubus so far is not the Erinyes but the Falxugon/Harvester Devil, which is a recent arrival yes but already perhaps the most devilish devil out there.
Ornum 08-31-07, 08:38 AM	That was never my impression, either. That was the rather idiotic take the mimir.net article ripvanwormer posted a link to put on Erinyes, and needless to say I found it hardly enlightening -- in fact, it was just plain stupid, from beginning to end. It would be like if I said Pit Fiends are spirits of war and destruction and pain, and that's why they're big muscular dudes with big swords and flaming whips, whereas Pit Fiends are spirits of pacifism and love, whose big swords hit you and make you want to stop fighting. What you have to understand is that in 2nd Edition (which was when the mimir site was around and the time at which the article was written), the Erinyes were temptresses. They weren't fallen angels, either. They were firmly within the baatezu hierarchy, and were actually the fastest path to promotion within the baatezu ranks. It was 3.5 that changed the origins of the Erinyes. Their "temptress" role was was glossed over if not outright changed, and they seemed to be more in-line with their original mythological counterpart (basically, they deal in vengeance). I wasn't an initial fan of that change but I embraced it afterwards and it grew on me. And please, like D&D hasn't completely changed creatures from mythology before. I don't believe that a medusa was ever a race of creatures, but the name of one of the Gorgons (another creature that was changed, btw). The original Erinyes were also know as the Furies. Also, you might like to note that in mythology, a succubus was a demon. Really, if you want to follow mythology, devils and demons should share the same plane (hell), and devils would just be greater demons found within, a change that I do not promote. Honestly, I see no reason for the change, at least as far as the erinyes/succubus thing goes, especially since they were already nothing alike in 3.5. The rest I can deal with by simply ignoring it, if I choose (it's interesting, if nothing else, and I'd like to see what it made of it).
ripvanwormer 08-31-07, 09:06 AM	What you have to understand is that in 2nd Edition (which was when the mimir site was around and the time at which the article was written), the Erinyes were temptresses. Quite right. And they were made temptresses again very recently, in the form of the "pleasure devils" from FCII, which are advanced erinyes. And the MMV implies that erinyes are still temptresses. But yes, seeing as both demons and devils have the need to gather mortal souls, both need tempters. What's fascinating - and what the Mimir article explored brilliantly - is the different ways Law and Chaos goes about this. I'm still trying to figure out how ArcTan believes that hairy goat demons would be effective in this role.
Ornum 08-31-07, 09:14 AM	I'm still trying to figure out how ArcTan believes that hairy goat demons would be effective in this role. Maybe they plan to seduce shepherds and goatherds? There must be some demonic scheme that requires a mass influx of them to the Abyss.
Johnny_Angel 08-31-07, 09:15 AM	I like the changes. I just don't see how they came to the conclusion that Succubi and Erynes serve the same role. That may have been true in older editions of the game, but I don't see it as being currently true. Somehow I get the impression that Devils are going to look similar to some of the more human-looking Daedra from Elder Scrolls Oblivion. http://oblivion.gamewikis.org/images/thumb/8/87/Xivilai.jpg/180px-Xivilai.jpg The link may not work when you click on it the first time; click on it again on the second screen and it works. I've always felt that Arrow Demons should have been Devils. The picture and all of their fluff has always reminded me more of a Devil than a Demon.
Lord Karsus 08-31-07, 11:09 AM	What, precisely, this even actually means is up in the air. It's not as though "continuity" hasn't been broken or at least strained by each new edition change. -I'm not doubting that, and I never have. The less that canon continuity is changed, altered, retconned, and strained the better. Simply changing something in the middle of a game/story and saying, "Oh, it was always like that", when it clearly wasn't always like that is not acceptable, and is quite cheesy. It may be how *you* roll, but it's not how I roll nor, apparently, how Mr. Rich Baker rolls, and I'm perfectly happy with that. -You are the only one who is complaining about previously established canon, and continuity, here. If other felt the same way that you did on the subject, I am sure they all would have chriped in and agreed when you first mentioned how you felt about it. Because of that lack of support, I find it safe to use the plural, for all of us here. -And, we all know that Mr. Baker cares little for previous precident regarding established canon. He doesn't bother to research it first, before writing about it.
caeruleus 08-31-07, 12:51 PM	I was actually not that *upset* by the presence of Erinyes and Succubi -- Succubi were hot chicks for a reason, and Erinyes were hot chicks gratuitously (because they were "beautiful angels of light who fell", or whatever). I could dig that, but it also meant Erinyes didn't serve any particularly important purpose that would make me sad to see them go. I think the erinyes did serve a different purpose. Hell (ahem), even if they are temptresses, they'd still have a role. Both devils and demons have warrior-types because both engage in war. Well, both also seek to corrupt mortals to their own particular ideologies, and temptations of the flesh can be a powerful incentive. I imagine that a succubus would tempt someone away from their duties, while an erinyes would perhaps tempt someone into a binding agreement. It's supposed to have options, for whatever suits a DMs need at the time. There should be fiends and celestials across the lawful and chaotic spectrum, to suit all purposes. There should be LE dominatrixes and CE vixens, just because. The game is supposed to be full of crazy crap. Yes, it should have options. But "just because" is a horrible reason, primarily because it's a lack of reason. How about LG temptresses? How about gay temptors who magically charm PCs? How about a demon that disguises itself as a clown in order to corrupt children at birthday parties? Or a type of devil whose sole purpose is to point at people who suffer misfortunes and laugh at them so that they'll feel bad, just because? No, there needs to be a reason, because you can't fit all possible options into the game. What you have to understand is that in 2nd Edition (which was when the mimir site was around and the time at which the article was written), the Erinyes were temptresses. They weren't fallen angels, either. They were firmly within the baatezu hierarchy, and were actually the fastest path to promotion within the baatezu ranks. It was 3.5 that changed the origins of the Erinyes. Their "temptress" role was was glossed over if not outright changed, and they seemed to be more in-line with their original mythological counterpart (basically, they deal in vengeance). I wasn't an initial fan of that change but I embraced it afterwards and it grew on me. Thanks for the note about the erinyes in 2e. But the change in 3.5 is not new. The 1e MM said nothing about their being temptresses either. -You are the only one who is complaining about previously established canon, and continuity, here. If other felt the same way that you did on the subject, I am sure they all would have chriped in and agreed when you first mentioned how you felt about it. Actually, I already said that I'm okay with canon changing. I just also pointed out that if it's to be changed, it should be done well. And some of the changes being proposed are not good.
NobodyRemembersThis 08-31-07, 05:03 PM	It's about time they get rid of it.
Phantom Llama 08-31-07, 05:26 PM	Erinyes are cool, succubi are lame. Anything which decreases the ratio of erinyes to succubi is hence a bad decision. Erinyes should have the idea of sex either sidelined or preferably not mentioned in their actions (for one thing, the major flaw in erinyes appearance is that they don't wear enough clothes, though that's a more endemic problem with D&D). There are plenty of ways to infiltrate and corrupt mortal society through temptation that don't involve banging people. And you can also tie in dealing with vengeance, as a nod to the mythology. The easiest way to fix succubi is to name the entry to 'Incubus/Succubus' and have a picture of a hot guy instead of a hot girl, or at least have both. The biggest problem with them is the pathetic transparency of the 'oh yeah incubi exist too I guess' footnote they always get. Also, fellow Wheel fans? Don't say the new cosmology being drawn 'doesn't make sense'. We may not like it, and we can cogently criticise the reasoning and substance of the changes, but we don't yet have a basis for saying it 'doesn't make sense'.
The Serge7 08-31-07, 05:48 PM	I'm still trying to figure out how ArcTan believes that hairy goat demons would be effective in this role. I'm not sure why you're wasting the time and effort... At any rate, I've noticed that most of the people who're quick to open their mouths in support of this apparent change are also those who have no idea or limited experience with or understanding of the game's transition through three and half editions. Mind you, I am not a slave to adhering to concepts just because they've been around forever; however, the best adjustments to D&D cosmology over the years have been those that expanded upon existing ideas and/or worked within the established framework to create something new. Those that don't tend to regarded poorly. 2ed's A Guide to Hell and even Die, Vecna, Die are excellent examples of what occurs when designers don't bother to do much research on key concepts or figures across (or even within) editions. Not withstanding that I liked the general concepts of both those books, they did not fit in well with most established lore and, as a result, are largely viewed as apocryphal at best by most planar-interested fans. To a lesser degree, PS suffered this with the wholesale revision to the arch-devils and even demon princes until they slowly began to reintroduce older concepts and explained how they were eliminated. Now, it's entirely possible that we're going to see something like this here. It's possible that, somewhat like what was hinted in Die, Vecna, Die and The Apocalypse Stone that the designers will create adventures or write books that show how the D&D cosmology is changed and why certain game conceits have been eliminated. However, what we're seeing here is far more severe than anything that occured between 1ed and 2ed or 2ed and 3ed... And, although this is probably too strong a statement, this could be perceived as a slap in the face to gamers who have used the same basic concepts (updated to reflect contemporary attitudes to be sure) over three editions. At least with the 1ed --> 2ed --> 3ed transitions, the basic cosmological foundations remained the same. I don't sense this this time around. Still, time will tell. I will say I don't like what I'm seeing right now...
Skeptical Clown 08-31-07, 06:28 PM	At any rate, I've noticed that most of the people who're quick to open their mouths in support of this apparent change are also those who have no idea or limited experience with or understanding of the game's transition through three and half editions. I suspect it has nothing at all to do with how much experience players have with D&D. It would be more accurate to say that those who support the change tend to be those who do not have a strong vested interest in the existing cosmology. I suspect lots of players who are familiar with multiple editions of D&D do not have strong opinions about changes to the D&D cosmology.
ArcTan 08-31-07, 08:42 PM	Quite right. And they were made temptresses again very recently, in the form of the "pleasure devils" from FCII, which are advanced erinyes. And the MMV implies that erinyes are still temptresses. But yes, seeing as both demons and devils have the need to gather mortal souls, both need tempters. What's fascinating - and what the Mimir article explored brilliantly - is the different ways Law and Chaos goes about this. I'm still trying to figure out how ArcTan believes that hairy goat demons would be effective in this role. The Mimir article doesn't "explore" this at all. It says an Erinyes dresses up as a sexy chick, marries someone rich and powerful, lives in a community, and... people spontaneously become more hidebound and traditionalist as a result. It gives no *mechanism* at all (for obvious reasons, since an actual mechanism by which this would happen is very difficult to justify). It actually *explicitly* calls for some kind of bizarre "evil radiation" that slowly and subtly changes everyone's actions who happens to live in the same town as the Erinyes. It never once says anything about what the Erinyes *does*, about actual *temptations* the Erinyes puts forward and in what way those temptations cause people to make *choices* that make them more Lawful Evil. Because if you actually think about it, it really doesn't make sense. She's a beautiful woman married to a rich and powerful man whom I desire but am not allowed to have. In what way does this make *me* more willing to enforce the law and bow down to tyranny? It's exactly the sort of thing that would make me *less* respectful of the law -- because *it's the exact same thing the Succubus does* (dress up as someone you're not allowed to have and make you want her). If you actually wanted the anti-Succubus, it'd be a woman who was cold, and distant, and frightening -- someone who looked like the Lady of Pain, someone where if you took one look at her you'd quail at the thought of having sex with her and be turned off of desire -- someone who taught you to *fear* and *hate* the loss of control that comes along with sexual desire. ...You know, kind of like the *actual* Erinyes from Greek mythology, instead of ersatz Succubi who happen to have Wonder Woman's lasso. As for "hairy goat demons", I'll just point out that if the ancient Greeks can believe that multiple women were seduced by Zeus in the form of a bull, or a swan, or a shower of gold, it's really not that implausible as a mythological concept. (In Hindu mythology, Kali and Shiva are also associated with sexuality and desire, and neither of those deities looks like a typical D&D hottie. The extra arms and the necklace of skulls are a personal turn-off for me.) In any case, saying that "demons of lust" must make you lustful by being, themselves, women that you want to have sex with is kind of dumb. It's like saying demons of anger must manifest themselves as people who are so annoying they make you really angry and want to kill them.
ArcTan 08-31-07, 08:43 PM	I'm not sure why you're wasting the time and effort... At any rate, I've noticed that most of the people who're quick to open their mouths in support of this apparent change are also those who have no idea or limited experience with or understanding of the game's transition through three and half editions. Mind you, I am not a slave to adhering to concepts just because they've been around forever; however, the best adjustments to D&D cosmology over the years have been those that expanded upon existing ideas and/or worked within the established framework to create something new. Those that don't tend to regarded poorly. ...Which doesn't say anything about their intrinsic value but merely about the fact that, yes, most geeks are slaves to continuity. Unless you really think that it's a universal law that people who stick to established continuity write good material and people who don't write bad material.
ArcTan 08-31-07, 08:48 PM	I suspect it has nothing at all to do with how much experience players have with D&D. It would be more accurate to say that those who support the change tend to be those who do not have a strong vested interest in the existing cosmology. I suspect lots of players who are familiar with multiple editions of D&D do not have strong opinions about changes to the D&D cosmology. Other people can be dismissive of my understanding or knowledge of past editions if they want, but it's certainly not the case that I feel little investment in older editions of D&D because I know nothing about them. (Indeed, the more I know, the less I see why I should care.)
ArcTan 08-31-07, 08:52 PM	Why is it that people always think that the Great Wheel is alignment dependant? It's not. Know what would happen if you took out alignment? Absolutely nothing. It's based on ideas and philosophies. ...That are lined up and classified by alignment. If you took that out, you *would* lose the justification for the most obvious feature of the Great Wheel -- its being shaped like a wheel. I mean, that's essentially what they did with FR's new cosmology -- kept a lot of the same planes but rearranged them so they don't border each other based on alignment, but are instead arranged by "theme" (gods of War, both Good and Evil, live next to each other, etc.) Boy, you would not believe the complaining.
dfarnsworth 09-01-07, 01:26 AM	Anyone ever see that episode of South Park were Chef almost marries a Succubus? Love that episode...
Soel Griffin 09-01-07, 03:03 AM	Why is it that people always think that the Great Wheel is alignment dependant? It's not. Know what would happen if you took out alignment? Absolutely nothing. It's based on ideas and philosophies. Ideas and philosophies whose entire foundation is based upon the principles of alignment.
Soel Griffin 09-01-07, 03:14 AM	At any rate, I've noticed that most of the people who're quick to open their mouths in support of this apparent change are also those who have no idea or limited experience with or understanding of the game's transition through three and half editions. I had the first Planescape boxed set in aug of '94. I go back to second edition at least. Skeptical Clown has it right. "Established lore" changes from campaign to campaign for me, as I feel no need to be a slave to some invisible continuity god. (hint, the current continuity doesn't hold true anyways, as it has always needed one to forgive the relatively huge holes of logic anyways.)
The_Hedgewizard 09-01-07, 08:20 AM	How about LG temptresses? How about gay temptors who magically charm PCs? How about a demon that disguises itself as a clown in order to corrupt children at birthday parties? Or a type of devil whose sole purpose is to point at people who suffer misfortunes and laugh at them so that they'll feel bad... Not really that interested in the topic of this thread, but I just wanted to point out that these are all fantastic ideas.
Khadmus 09-01-07, 08:20 AM	I think everybody in here is making no sense. Even me. That's porbably just me being thick, though.
Skeptical Clown 09-01-07, 11:23 AM	If you took alignment out of the Wheel... it'd be a hodgepodge of afterlifes based on disparate real-world mythologies (and a few invented out of whole cloth), with no real reason for connecting up in a wheel, and no real reason for all existing at the same time. So yeah, it'd be exactly the same, other than making no sense.
aushlo 09-06-07, 09:57 PM	The article on Mimir could be clearer, but the point is that both ceatures use desire and jealousy, to different ends. There's no 'magical radiation', it's just the ripple effect of their abilities and the social station in which they place themselves. The Succubus sets herself up as the eye of the hurricane. Social skills, Charm Monster, Detect Thoughts, Polymorph and Suggestion are all incredibly potent tools to creating a downward moral spiral that can stretch much farther than her actual reach. She can assume the form of anyone she wants, male or female, and wreak havoc, then sit back laughing until she strikes again. She can start with the lower class or the upper-either way, it works just fine. Before long, everyone knows someone who's been knifed in an alley over a woman, a husband murdered by his father-in-law for betraying his daughter, etc. Everyone else in town seems to be getting more attention, from better-looking people, than you are, and they happily, and they happily brag to you all about it. Hello, resentment, chaos, destruction. The Erinyes is much more subtle, but no less dangerous. Setting herself up as the beautiful but chaste (or at least morally restrained) wife of a noble she can quietly guide moral policy-making from the arm of her 'lover'. She can even merely be his suitor, while making eyes with her Cha 20 at everyone else she sees. She leaves other nobles wondering whether she's really all that chaste, after all, but incredibly curious... and jealousy seeps in. She also has excellent social skills, Charm Monster, and Minor Image, any of which are quite useful in her task. An illusory wave, silhouettes on a drawn window shade, or blown kiss across a stately ballroom can do more damage than a dragon's breath. Meanwhile, while upping the level of jealousy, publicly she decries immoral behavior, nonetheless continuing her assault on morality behind admirers' backs and closed doors. Malcanthet, for her part, is not just a target for lust- she also embodies the idea of female sexual power, and would certainly attract straight female followers, especially those who never realized their power before. The abused victim of predatory males, the streetwalker, the daughter unhappily dowried off to an unpleasant husband. A bestial creature may represent fertility, virility, even lust, but the symbol is not a universal one by any means. A hot person is a hot person, and biologically an object of lust. Both Demons and Devils have figured out desire is a quick and effective tool for soul acquisition. Again, though, both types of creature are capable of making a situation or individual seem to be what the victim wants it to be, between illusion and Polymorph respectively. So if you really want a six-armed skull-necklace wearing goat man, they can do that for you. For the record, either creature ditched is a bummer, and likely the 4E MM replacement will be some sort of Ooze Half-Dragon Construct garbage anyway, or a War Troll or such nonsense. Nothing wrong with either fiend unless you really want there to be.
ripvanwormer 09-07-07, 02:09 AM	The aspect of the Mimir article I was referencing was the idea that the succubus uses the power of lust to sow discord and chaos, while the erinyes uses it to increase oppression. This was a fantastic insight that really opened my mind to the difference between the two and how they should be played - so much more interesting and sensible than mere one-on-one seduction. The insight also applies to other corruptive fiends on their respective sides, including one devil from the MMV whose ability to cause discord would otherwise be puzzling in a lawful fiend, but which makes perfect sense if you imagine it causing discord in order to justify their victims cracking down with more severe laws and punishments (and perhaps making Faustian bargains with them) in reaction to the sudden rash of crime and violence. Like aushlo, I don't read the "influence" as anything other than the unmagical emotions created by the fiends' activities, rippling out from them in a wider and wider radius as evil begets further evil. The succubus sows jealousy, strife, and hatred, which causes more strife and hatred in those its victims interact with, and so on. I imagine that if you needed a mechanic, you could set a DC for corrupting a whole community, and have the fiend roll a Diplomacy check modified with bonuses for every citizen they seduce. Or maybe the erinyes would use Diplomacy, while the succubus would use Bluff. This is easier in 3e than it was in 2e. What the word "erinyes" meant in Greek mythology seems fairly trivial; it has its own meaning in D&D. They remain furies and tormentors, but they're so much more.
ArcTan 09-07-07, 02:35 AM	...Yeah, okay, no, sorry, "the CE seducer seduces people in such a way as to make them more Chaotic and the LE one does it to make them more Lawful" -- nope, still not getting it. I mean, yeah, sure, it's a brain-dead simple concept and it's easy to sound smart if you devote a lot of words to rephrasing it, for everything LE and CE. (Hey, hey, check it out -- the Quasit serves mortal masters but encourages them to break away from social norms and traditions and become dangerous outcasts, while the Imp serves mortal masters who become wealthy, well-connected tyrants! Check it out, I'm insightful!) I'm still at a loss as to how you can justify the Erinyes' various battle abilities as being a "Lawful Evil seductress" kind of thing -- why is the Succubus so much *better* at seducing than the Erinyes, and the Erinyes so much *better* at fighting? Is being a trophy wife something that requires better fighting skills than being an isolated prostitute? (Somehow I doubt it.) Why is being a trophy wife the best place for the Erinyes, anyway, except for this ill-conceived notion that her cover identity has to embody Lawfulness as well as simply encouraging it? Wouldn't it be just as effective for her to *also* become some kind of prostitute or street performer or otherwise exotic, frightening sex symbol and ignite a moral panic and anti-sexuality backlash? (Various real-life entertainers have been quite successful at doing so when they've tried.) And in what way can you be certain that this whole "People lust after me, and this makes them clamp down the law harder" is a net victory for Law? Isn't it supposed to be the goal of Law (whatever moral alignment it has) to get people to *accept* the yoke put upon them rather than chafing against it? If chafing against it ends up being a victory for either Chaos or Law depending on what point you check in on the revolution (the law *always* cracks down before it breaks), then what? Is it just a victory for Evil generally? Do we need a Neutral Evil, Yugoloth version of the Succubus? How come no one's mentioned *that*, while we're so busy being fair? Why isn't there a CN or LN version of the Succubus, while we're at it? And why are only CG Outsiders allowed to do the sensual seductress thing, while NG and LG Outsiders are animal-men or chaste fighting machines? The reason everyone is so damn intent on saving the LE Erinyes and doesn't give a crap about the nonexistent NE Succuloth is simple -- there's no real fundamental "logic" to what random stupid alignment extreme gets a sexy temptress or not. Gygax dropped an Erinyes in AD&D to be a version of the Furies. (Back then, it was pretty clear that she fought, and didn't "tempt".) 2e AD&D screwed with this in a misguided attempt to achieve "parity" between the Devils and Demons and turned her into the Lawful version of the Succubus. 3.5 tried to take it back and find some kind of in-between "hot chick who fights" role for her. But she's *always* been a hard-to-place and kind of annoying element in the Outer Planes, and the idea that she's a clear and obvious and *necessary* logical counterpart to the Succubus is an opinion only held by people who write articles at mimir.net and take Planescape way too seriously.
ripvanwormer 09-07-07, 04:35 AM	it's easy to sound smart So you're saying I sound smart? Thank you, ArcTan, that was big of you; I'm glad that at least I sound smart. The distinction I was making was between the simple "erinyes convinces mortal to sell his soul in exchange for looking at her boobs" and the more complex "erinyes corrupts an entire society using alarm at licentiousness as leverage to institute a new program of oppressive laws." The Mimir article went into much greater detail, but this was, indeed, a brilliant conceptual leap. It wasn't intuitive at all, since the monster books didn't go into it. I'm still at a loss as to how you can justify the Erinyes' various battle abilities as being a "Lawful Evil seductress" kind of thing "Still?" When did I ever try to justify such a thing in the past? Surely you don't think the stats for the erinyes haven't changed at all across editions? My issue isn't with stats - they've changed before, and I won't mind if they change again. Something I hope to impress on you, if nothing else, is that you cannot effectively debate someone unless you debate the things they're actually saying, rather than things you made up that you think it would be easy to debate. But FYI: In 1st edition, erinyes had the ability to cast polymorph self, illusion, fear, and charm person, and the flavor text said they were "the kind most commonly sent forth to garner more souls." Fear would be valuable too, in manipulating the psychologies of their victims. The carrot and the stick. In 2nd edition, they had an extra-potent charm person ability, suggestion, fear, advanced illusion, and polymorph self. In 3.0, they had charm monster, polymorph self, suggestion, and they retained the extra-strength charm person. In 3.5. their seductive abilities were reduced to charm monster and minor image, so obviously their effectiveness as seducers were reduced. This was corrected, in part, by the introduction of the pleasure devil (a form of advanced erinyes) in the Fiendish Codex II. If it was really a big deal for you that erinyes are poor seducers, it would seem a logical progression to complain about the fact that the 4e writing team evidently believes succubi would be an apt replacement for them. But you don't really care about that, do you? You were just reaching for an argument, any argument, that you thought you could win, whether or not it was one that we were currently having. You would, I suspect, defend any decision the 4e team came up with, regardless of your personal tastes, simply if you thought it would annoy the regulars here. Isn't it supposed to be the goal of Law (whatever moral alignment it has) to get people to *accept* the yoke put upon them Not necessarily, but in this case the erinyes does that quite effectively. Her goal is to change all of society to a more puritan, oppressed and oppressive, regime, from the top down. She infects the nobility, the clergy, the busybodies and the blacklisters. Where the succubus sows jealousy and discord, the erinyes sows guilt and suppression in all social castes. Do we need a Neutral Evil, Yugoloth version of the Succubus? Yugoloths, traditionally, don't care much about mortals, as they have no use for mortal souls. They reproduce by pulling new mezzoloths directly out of the substance of their planes. They manipulate other fiends. There is a neutral evil "succubus" in the form of the night hag, however. How come no one's mentioned *that* It's been settled long ago. It's old news. Most of us don't think the planes need to parallel one another perfectly. Acheron doesn't need negative energy to "balance" Ysgard's positive energy, for example. Tanar'ri and baatezu both have tempters because they use mortal souls to replenish their numbers, however. Yugoloths don't, because they're obsessed with purity and because they don't have a counterpart they're currently in a hot war with (the guardinals raid the Lower Planes on occasion, but Good and Evil are not in a hot war, as Law and Chaos are). Tanar'ri and baatezu need to replenish and expand their numbers more quickly because they're currently in a hot war of annihilation against their wicked counterparts.
aushlo 09-07-07, 10:23 AM	...Yeah, okay, no, sorry, "the CE seducer seduces people in such a way as to make them more Chaotic and the LE one does it to make them more Lawful" -- nope, still not getting it. I mean, yeah, sure, it's a brain-dead simple concept and it's easy to sound smart if you devote a lot of words to rephrasing it, for everything LE and CE. (Hey, hey, check it out -- the Quasit serves mortal masters but encourages them to break away from social norms and traditions and become dangerous outcasts, while the Imp serves mortal masters who become wealthy, well-connected tyrants! Check it out, I'm insightful!) I'm still at a loss as to how you can justify the Erinyes' various battle abilities as being a "Lawful Evil seductress" kind of thing -- why is the Succubus so much *better* at seducing than the Erinyes, and the Erinyes so much *better* at fighting? Is being a trophy wife something that requires better fighting skills than being an isolated prostitute? (Somehow I doubt it.) Why is being a trophy wife the best place for the Erinyes, anyway, except for this ill-conceived notion that her cover identity has to embody Lawfulness as well as simply encouraging it? Wouldn't it be just as effective for her to *also* become some kind of prostitute or street performer or otherwise exotic, frightening sex symbol and ignite a moral panic and anti-sexuality backlash? (Various real-life entertainers have been quite successful at doing so when they've tried.) And in what way can you be certain that this whole "People lust after me, and this makes them clamp down the law harder" is a net victory for Law? Isn't it supposed to be the goal of Law (whatever moral alignment it has) to get people to *accept* the yoke put upon them rather than chafing against it? If chafing against it ends up being a victory for either Chaos or Law depending on what point you check in on the revolution (the law *always* cracks down before it breaks), then what? Is it just a victory for Evil generally? Do we need a Neutral Evil, Yugoloth version of the Succubus? How come no one's mentioned *that*, while we're so busy being fair? Why isn't there a CN or LN version of the Succubus, while we're at it? And why are only CG Outsiders allowed to do the sensual seductress thing, while NG and LG Outsiders are animal-men or chaste fighting machines? The reason everyone is so damn intent on saving the LE Erinyes and doesn't give a crap about the nonexistent NE Succuloth is simple -- there's no real fundamental "logic" to what random stupid alignment extreme gets a sexy temptress or not. Gygax dropped an Erinyes in AD&D to be a version of the Furies. (Back then, it was pretty clear that she fought, and didn't "tempt".) 2e AD&D screwed with this in a misguided attempt to achieve "parity" between the Devils and Demons and turned her into the Lawful version of the Succubus. 3.5 tried to take it back and find some kind of in-between "hot chick who fights" role for her. But she's *always* been a hard-to-place and kind of annoying element in the Outer Planes, and the idea that she's a clear and obvious and *necessary* logical counterpart to the Succubus is an opinion only held by people who write articles at mimir.net and take Planescape way too seriously. What is happening here is that your argument has slowly turned into flailing for the sake of distraction. What SHOULD have happened? If the Erinyes are punishers, the designers should have altered them in such a way that they work. They did not. Instead, they left them as seductresses, and said, "Also... they punish transgressors!" New (well, old) spin, no rules to support it. Obviously, the DESIGNERS were remiss. Which is of course an excellent reason to eliminate a creature that some people obviously find interesting enough to have thought about how they accomplish their goals in a creative way (gasp! NOT in the rules! NOT spelled out so I can point at a book! BLASPHEMY! CONFUSING! UNCLEAR!). It is unfortunate only for you that an unusual interpretation seems to you pure drivel. I am looking forward to you gobbling up 4E like a new holy scripture of dorkdom, because definition, inflexibility and pointless standardization of course are wonderful tools for player/DM creativity. Like, oh, alignment. An EXCELLENT idea. The Succubus is a one-trick pony. The Erinyes is not. This is aproblem because....? You must LOVE the distinctive roles in the FC 1. Because it's spelled out. The performer making for a societal crackdown works in modern times for one important reason: Mass Media. People don't have to actually SEE something to rail against it, they are often given dubious cliff's notes by a news agency or word of mouth. THIS is what's responsible, ignorance and willfully limited understanding. There's no mass media in D&D, generally speaking. Law as represented by Baatezu is an extension of the absurdity of Baator, like it or not (I generally don't): the Law is absolute, but the nature of Evil is such that laws are to be abused. Not bucked, but subverted for one's own ends. No one can catch you breaking them, but loopholes are to be found. You know this. Also, you obviously HATE alignment, the Wheel, etc. Invoking it to strengthen an argument, even in sarcasm, makes you look silly. Especially when you invoke, then mock it in the same couple of paragraphs. Sure, there could be other aligned seductress types. But the non-evils have probably realized that lust is not an honest and effective tool for changing hearts and minds. Its long-term impact for another alignment is dubious, and limited in scope. A CG creature may sway one person, but is going to seem much less "Good" if they repeatedly undertake such shenanigans, what with all the lying and heartbreak. Destructive in the long run. Requesting a NE version after saying we only need one looks a lot like throwing a fit. Reel yourself in, then discuss.
ArcTan 09-07-07, 03:16 PM	What is happening here is that your argument has slowly turned into flailing for the sake of distraction. What SHOULD have happened? If the Erinyes are punishers, the designers should have altered them in such a way that they work. They did not. Instead, they left them as seductresses, and said, "Also... they punish transgressors!" New (well, old) spin, no rules to support it. Obviously, the DESIGNERS were remiss. Which is of course an excellent reason to eliminate a creature that some people obviously find interesting enough to have thought about how they accomplish their goals in a creative way (gasp! NOT in the rules! NOT spelled out so I can point at a book! BLASPHEMY! CONFUSING! UNCLEAR!). It is unfortunate only for you that an unusual interpretation seems to you pure drivel. I am looking forward to you gobbling up 4E like a new holy scripture of dorkdom, because definition, inflexibility and pointless standardization of course are wonderful tools for player/DM creativity. Like, oh, alignment. An EXCELLENT idea. You're defending how awesome a Mimir.net article that only even exists because of alignment stereotypes (Succubi do Chaotic things and bring about Chaos, Erinyes do Lawful things and bring about Law) and slamming me for disliking it... And then turning around and attacking me for being the kind of person who likes alignment? Strange. FWIW, I look forward to the idea of the Erinyes, or Fury, coming back as an actual Fury who actually punishes transgressors instead of being the Succubus' sexy twin sister. Rich Baker alluded to that being a strong possibility now that we no longer have to combine two incompatible concepts in one monster. The Succubus is a one-trick pony. The Erinyes is not. This is aproblem because....? You must LOVE the distinctive roles in the FC 1. Because it's spelled out. Well, yes, I do. They're Outsiders. Their purpose is to be stereotypes. That's evident from the moment you read the "They're ALWAYS EVIL because they're MADE OF EVIL! It's their SUBTYPE!" stuff. Besides, the version of the Succubus and Erinyes people seem to be celebrating in this thread is the 2e version, where they're both one-trick ponies. Hell, the Mimir.net article everyone thinks is a gift from the gods takes that one trick and *narrows* it -- it says Succubi and Erinyes always use their one trick in one way for one purpose. (*Not* that Succubi are the general secret agents of the Abyss, but that Succubi, apparently, have nothing better to do with their time than going around from town to town being prostitutes and getting everyone all randy and excited, leaving orgies and chaos in her wake like Debbie did to Dallas. And Erinyes spend all their time being trophy wives and putting Parental Advisory stickers on things.) The performer making for a societal crackdown works in modern times for one important reason: Mass Media. People don't have to actually SEE something to rail against it, they are often given dubious cliff's notes by a news agency or word of mouth. THIS is what's responsible, ignorance and willfully limited understanding. There's no mass media in D&D, generally speaking. There's still *media*. You don't think it was ever possible in medieval times for one particularly shocking story of sexual misconduct to spark a crackdown among everyone who heard of it? Hell, that concept is essential to the Mimir.net article. It actually assumes some degree of media -- a pretty high one, in fact -- must exist in that community, or else there's no mechanism by which the Succubus or Erinyes' influence can inexorably spread. The annoying thing being, of course, it talks about the "infection" of a Succubus or Erinyes as though it always happens the same way because it's obvious that one link in the chain always leads to the next one. (A hot trophy wife appears, social outcasts desire her, ???, everyone gets more puritanical, profit.) Law as represented by Baatezu is an extension of the absurdity of Baator, like it or not (I generally don't): the Law is absolute, but the nature of Evil is such that laws are to be abused. Not bucked, but subverted for one's own ends. No one can catch you breaking them, but loopholes are to be found. You know this. Well, yes. It's quite annoying that the supposed paragons of Lawful Evil in the Blood War define "Lawful Evil" as "pretending to be Lawful but actually being Evil". At least, sometimes they do. Other times they're Lawful to the point of suicidal behavior. I'm told that this kind of inconsistency is what makes the lore so "rich" and "deep". Also, you obviously HATE alignment, the Wheel, etc. Invoking it to strengthen an argument, even in sarcasm, makes you look silly. Especially when you invoke, then mock it in the same couple of paragraphs. I'm invoking it to mock it, yes. I'm pointing out that any argument that we *must* have a Succubus because "Chaos can be sexy" then totally fails to explain why we don't have a CN temptress -- is Chaos only sexy when it's Evil? Can just plain Evil, without Law or Chaos, also be sexy, or is just plain Evil always some kind of stretched-out deformed humanoid with a fish or jackal or bug head? Sure, there could be other aligned seductress types. But the non-evils have probably realized that lust is not an honest and effective tool for changing hearts and minds. Its long-term impact for another alignment is dubious, and limited in scope. A CG creature may sway one person, but is going to seem much less "Good" if they repeatedly undertake such shenanigans, what with all the lying and heartbreak. Destructive in the long run. Requesting a NE version after saying we only need one looks a lot like throwing a fit. Reel yourself in, then discuss. Wow, that sure doesn't sound like a made-up-after-the-fact justification at all. I'm glad you think the Slaadi are so committed to virtues like honesty and fair play that they see fit to look like wart-covered frogs to make sure their victims have a chance to know what they're dealing with. I'm wondering, now, why CN is so upright and honest and celibate while CG is swarming with various Eladrins who *do* take on the appearance of hot chicks all the time and *do* go around having "trysts" and "liaisons" (I presume consensual, but still hot) in the pursuit of their interests. I'm not "requesting" an NE fiend. I'm saying that all of this crap is ultimately arbitrary. There is no fundamental reason not to have an NE Succuloth. There is no fundamental reason to *have* a CE Succubus. It's all MADE UP. The definition of the alignments and what "goes" with what alignment is MADE UP. If we can excuse the lack of an NE Succuloth because we've decided "lust" doesn't fit into our conception of NE, why not excuse the lack of a CE Succubus by deciding our definition of Chaos, for the purposes of our imaginary fantasy game, means Lovecraftian beasts ripping things apart? Why *not* actually try to impose some sense on the senseless bestiary of the Great Wheel and try to put the human-looking Outsiders on one side and the bestial-looking ones on another? It's all made up anyway -- why not make up something accessible and interesting? That's really my point -- the more I learn about the Great Wheel the less I can swallow any argument that the Great Wheel makes any inherent sense or that anything in the Great Wheel has any particular logical reason to exist. It's decades' worth of random cruft. It could do with a thorough housecleaning.
ArcTan 09-07-07, 03:27 PM	If it was really a big deal for you that erinyes are poor seducers, it would seem a logical progression to complain about the fact that the 4e writing team evidently believes succubi would be an apt replacement for them. But you don't really care about that, do you? You were just reaching for an argument, any argument, that you thought you could win, whether or not it was one that we were currently having. *sigh* My point was that Erinyes have a pretty schizophrenic time of it in the rules, and that any real attempt to make Erinyes into a warrior Devil needs to uncouple the Erinyes from being the Succubus' counterpart. But whatever. You would, I suspect, defend any decision the 4e team came up with, regardless of your personal tastes, simply if you thought it would annoy the regulars here. Not really. But I am pretty fundamentally opposed to the weight of continuity under which D&D currently labors and which a lot of regulars here seem to delight in showing off about, and so sure, any change that lightens that weight gets a thumbs-up from me simply for reducing the total amount of continuity that exists. Do I like everything about Ultimate Marvel? Not at all. But I like Ultimate Marvel just for not being saddled with regular Marvel's eons of crap. Yugoloths, traditionally, don't care much about mortals, as they have no use for mortal souls. They reproduce by pulling new mezzoloths directly out of the substance of their planes. They manipulate other fiends. There is a neutral evil "succubus" in the form of the night hag, however. Who's kind of the opposite of sexy. She gives you nightmares and she gives you horrible diseases. If the Erinyes had ever actually branched out into being different from the Succubus the way the Night Hag is different from the Succubus (assuming the NH was ever supposed to be like the Succubus), I don't think they'd be cutting it. It's been settled long ago. It's old news. Well, *you* consider it settled. Most of us don't think the planes need to parallel one another perfectly. Acheron doesn't need negative energy to "balance" Ysgard's positive energy, for example. In other words, the planes are allowed to be randomly and wildly inconsistent for no real reason because designers making errors or putting their capricious stamp on things is "interesting", and these inconsistencies *continue* to be interesting no matter how long they're propagated. Tanar'ri and baatezu both have tempters because they use mortal souls to replenish their numbers, however. Yugoloths don't, because they're obsessed with purity and because they don't have a counterpart they're currently in a hot war with (the guardinals raid the Lower Planes on occasion, but Good and Evil are not in a hot war, as Law and Chaos are). Tanar'ri and baatezu need to replenish and expand their numbers more quickly because they're currently in a hot war of annihilation against their wicked counterparts. Yeah, the neverending Blood War. That whole "There's an infinite number of us and there's an infinite number of you so we're going to waste eternity trying to kill each other!" little plot device. There's another thing I'm looking forward to being cut or radically revised.
aushlo 09-07-07, 09:01 PM	Someoe wrote an article giving an explanation of how certain beings, as written, might function. It does not say "always". It does NOT tell you you can't change things as you see fit. AS WRITTEN, CE souls tend to go to the Abyss, LE to Baator. So yes, developing societies that reflect that is in the interest of the soul-sucking fiend women. If you want to call it dumb, you can. If you have no better ideas, then for the love of all just sulk quietly. Or POINT to an idea that is actually interesting, and makes sense. If your idea of interesting consists of all scaly horned humanoids in one plane, that's ok. No one else has to think it's "interesting". Do you have trouble remembering which are which? I don't. You on the one hand hate that the planes are stratified via Alignment. On the other, you feel they should be stratified by physical features common to inhabitants. Both are a product of the desires of primordial beings of great evil. So do you hate THAT idea? Why would Asmodeus have sole right to humanoid Outsiders? Why can't he make a beastly google-eyed monster? Because you don't like it? The variations in the Fiends are a good thing because you can't put all the Fiends, even of one race, in a box. If you could, would anyone deal with them, ever? Would a 'corruptor' ever get anything done if everyone knew what to expect? And no, I have read at least a million times about the evils of Alignment and the Great Wheel. Check it out: Optional. YOU can do what you want. In a new world, go for it. Changing the rules and the canon means if I DID want to switch to 4E, and take Alignment and the Wheel with me, I would have to convert anything I want to use from past editions for my use. Most people use something based roughly off the Wheel, and use Alignment. Making YOU happy is, in actuality, as easy as you deciding not to use these concepts. Check it out. Buy a sharpie, or some sticky-tabs. Blot out the offending material. Done. How exactly do you meet my needs, or Rip's, with your rewritten stuff? WE either use the new, or convert every dang thing. The reason anyone csticks with Planescape canon is that the mechanics have been changed, but the ideas still appeal to some of us. A lot of it is written from the standpoint of "This may or may not be true. Find out for yourself if you dare." That's not bad, that just means if someone wants to investigate, the mysteries are hints and can be crafted into whatever is desired. THAT is good story fuel, not a list of numbers and absolute truths. If you're driven buggy by something, sit down and write something better. A lot of us have seen what WOTC has for the planes of late, an we either do write, or have already seen, much better. It's your opinion. It's valid. Just stop pretending yours is the only right one. Snark away, but you convince no one. If the Outsiders are all the same, should I just start calling my Tanar'ri, for example, #1, #2, etc? I mean, they are all the same archetype. They all do the same thing. There's no variation or anything. And you certainly can't look at the list of abilities, read the description, and figure out how they work their evil given half a brain without the FC 1 bit on their Roles. No, sir. In fact, I want ALL monsters and classes written this way, as it is looking from everything I've read or watched. I NEED someone to walk me through it and change my diaper, and I need someone to hold my hand if I want to make a character or NPC who doesn't follow these guidelines... or better, talk me out of it. I would like everything to make perfect sense so I never have to think, or desire to think, about the hows and whys. Because Planescape is by no means about mystery, oddness, or illogical beliefs, and the exploration of out-there concepts. I said Mass Media. There is an enormous difference. Word of mouth is not media, apparently you don't understand the term. Television, radio, the internet, the printed word, are. If there ARE such medieval instances of media outcry, surely you've heard of, oh, just one? Let's have it. Didn't happen 'til the Printing Press, fella. Because previously it had never been possible. For that matter, give me an example of shocking behavior that caused a huge public outcry or policy change that didn't rely on some news source to spread to you. For that matter, cut and paste the mention of media or the allusion to it in the article. A hot trophy wife.prostitute with Cha 20 or 26, magical powers, and taking a possible 24 or so, minimum, on the relevant social skill, yes, can do exactly what is written. If the examples in the article or that I wrote aren't convincing you, I guess everyone in your D&D world has incredible Will saves and a Lawful, probably Good, alignment. And huge Sense Motive. Or you're selling these abilities VERY short. The one point on which I will agree here is that Baatezu politics and behavior make little sense whatsoever. The only way I can explain it satisfactorily myself is that Asmodeus is extremely powerful, and totally insane, or, that Asmodeus is pure fiction and no one ever actually talks to the Man Upstairs, he's a mythic bogeyman constructed to keep the other Lords in line. Having said that, some people have other takes on Baator that are well thought out. I do like my version better, but other people can keep theirs. There are other beings of other alignements that fill similar roles. The Bacchae are a good example of a CN Outsider fitting the bill. Do no Good outsiders employ seduction as a tactic? Maybe, but they probably don't feel good about it in general, because Good does tend to link intimacy and love as sacred. I can see the occasional Eladrin doing so. But a creature filling that role seems out of place in a Good race. If you disagree, give a good example of how seduction without affection and not ending in jealousy is possible, or if not, how jealousy can be used to create 'good radiation' as you put it, like the Succubus and Erinyes CAN practically achieve given their set of abilities. If Ssendaam and Ygorl were anything close to sane, they may well have cared to make 'Sexy Slaad.' If, y'know, their followers actually were created from Petitioners. They're not. Egg pellets, dude. Slaad are parasites. And it's not that NE or any other alignment isn't capable of having a seductress, it's just that for some races it makes almost no sense. A Modron? I don't want to go there. The Yugoloths' flavor just doesn't seem to support the archetype well. Their alignment could, but the Race doesn't, not currently. I don't see at all how variety in outsiders is the same thing as inaccessible. I don't see anyone else confused. And the Great Wheel is only set up the way it is, to MAKE SENSE OF IT. It's easier to remember them when conceptually each plane houses a 'home race' and tends toward a given alignment, and are conceptually something like a color wheel for belief. If you want to arrange things differently, do so! Why do you hate something that does make about as much sense as it's going to given what there is to work with? Where's your planar model? How would YOU reconcile the planes and make sense of the various worlds, pantheons, and outsiders? Beyond just 'scaly humanoids on that side of the pool, gribbly insectoids on the other'. Deliver us from the Great Wheel if you have a better idea. Humble us with your creativity. By all means, you want to destroy, show what you can create. Or, y'know, argue pointlessly.
ArcTan 09-07-07, 09:34 PM	Someoe wrote an article giving an explanation of how certain beings, as written, might function. It does not say "always". It does NOT tell you you can't change things as you see fit. AS WRITTEN, CE souls tend to go to the Abyss, LE to Baator. So yes, developing societies that reflect that is in the interest of the soul-sucking fiend women. If you want to call it dumb, you can. If you have no better ideas, then for the love of all just sulk quietly. Or POINT to an idea that is actually interesting, and makes sense. Here's an idea. "Devils are fallen angels, while Demons are Lovecraftian horrors". If your idea of interesting consists of all scaly horned humanoids in one plane, that's ok. No one else has to think it's "interesting". Well... they do if I want to make a product that I'm going to sell on the common market. I, personally, do not have this problem, but Mr. Rich Baker does. Do you have trouble remembering which are which? I don't. You on the one hand hate that the planes are stratified via Alignment. On the other, you feel they should be stratified by physical features common to inhabitants. Both are a product of the desires of primordial beings of great evil. So do you hate THAT idea? Why would Asmodeus have sole right to humanoid Outsiders? Why can't he make a beastly google-eyed monster? Because you don't like it? I do think it's kind of funny that a plane called "Hell" is supposed to be a place that's exactly the way Asmodeus wants it, rather than a place that Asmodeus is bound and trapped, yes. As for why he can't do this or why he can't do that -- I dunno. Because it's a game? Because things are easier and more fun when they have thematic consistency? The variations in the Fiends are a good thing because you can't put all the Fiends, even of one race, in a box. If you could, would anyone deal with them, ever? Would a 'corruptor' ever get anything done if everyone knew what to expect? Isn't that the point of the vaunted shapeshifting and disguise self abilities? C'mon, this particular argument is really lame. No one would deal with a Succubus who looked like a Succubus, with the wings and the tail and crap. A Succubus in her natural form *doesn't* look trustworthy, she just looks hot. That's where the deception stuff comes in. If you mean that the new concept for Demons is that they're not into the corrupting, well, great. I like that it's no longer an arbitrary issue, when being seduced by a demon-woman, to determine whether she's seducing you for Law or Chaos (and therefore to decide whether to stab her with a cold iron or silver weapon). And no, I have read at least a million times about the evils of Alignment and the Great Wheel. Check it out: Optional. YOU can do what you want. In a new world, go for it. Changing the rules and the canon means if I DID want to switch to 4E, and take Alignment and the Wheel with me, I would have to convert anything I want to use from past editions for my use. And NOT changing it means that if I did want to change to 4e, I'd have to houserule out all the alignment and Wheel stuff. Most people use something based roughly off the Wheel, and use Alignment. Well, sure. They have to. The fact that most people don't change something is not really a sign that it's perfect. (For one thing, most people, if you mean *people* in general, don't play D&D.) And, actually, my own experience with most campaigns is that they don't use the planes at all, largely because people don't want to deal with the Planescape stuff. It's only my own experience, but WotC has said they've found similar things in their market research, which is the reason they're doing things that seem to tick off forum regulars. I mean, the argument comes down to "What version will be useful to more people?" because *anything* -- not making a change, making a change -- will inconvenience someone in some way. Forum regulars are arguing that *obviously* the Great Wheel is great and should be kept, and their evidence is their own experience. *Other* forum regulars, like me, are pointing to *our* own experience of disliking the Great Wheel and finding it an annoying thing about the books, and wanting books with more *useful* fluff in them that we can pick up and use out of the box. Between us, we're just arguing he-said-she-said... except WotC, who are the people here with the resources and motivation to actually do research on this and try to figure things out, is apparently on my side. How do you explain that? Rampant stupidity? A suicidal desire to take the company down? What? Making YOU happy is, in actuality, as easy as you deciding not to use these concepts. Check it out. Buy a sharpie, or some sticky-tabs. Blot out the offending material. Done. How exactly do you meet my needs, or Rip's, with your rewritten stuff? WE either use the new, or convert every dang thing. The reason anyone csticks with Planescape canon is that the mechanics have been changed, but the ideas still appeal to some of us. A lot of it is written from the standpoint of "This may or may not be true. Find out for yourself if you dare." That's not bad, that just means if someone wants to investigate, the mysteries are hints and can be crafted into whatever is desired. It's phrased that way, but all too often take something and explicitly contradict it and, if it's something people think is "important", howls of rage erupt on the forums. (Hey, maybe Asmodeus *really was* a fallen angel all this time and *lied about it*.) THAT is good story fuel, not a list of numbers and absolute truths. If you're driven buggy by something, sit down and write something better. A lot of us have seen what WOTC has for the planes of late, an we either do write, or have already seen, much better. It's your opinion. It's valid. Just stop pretending yours is the only right one. Snark away, but you convince no one. Having an LE Succubus is somehow a "list of numbers and absolute truths" in a way that having an LE Erinyes isn't? Also, the fact that I haven't convinced *you* isn't evidence that I "convince no one". I mean, I'm not particularly out to convince anyone in particular, but I've had my fair share of people agreeing with me on the boards, as I'm sure have you all. I just get annoyed at the echo chamber that decides stalwarts like ripvanwormer and Shemeska the Marauder are the tastemakers of the D&D boards and people who don't like their stuff (or like the stuff they like) are obviously wrong. If the Outsiders are all the same, should I just start calling my Tanar'ri, for example, #1, #2, etc? I mean, they are all the same archetype. They all do the same thing. There's no variation or anything. And you certainly can't look at the list of abilities, read the description, and figure out how they work their evil given half a brain without the FC 1 bit on their Roles. No, sir. I never said all Demons do the same thing. Come on. I mean that each Demon should have something that it does and a reason it exists. It's not like they didn't already, *most of the time*, and FC:1 didn't just explain it. (The MM already says things like Balors and Mariliths are supposed to be the military leaders, and Quasits are little sneaky dudes who often serve mages, and so on.) They're just trying to make it a part of the design process rather than haphazard and random so that things like the Erinyes slip through the cracks. In fact, I want ALL monsters and classes written this way, as it is looking from everything I've read or watched. I NEED someone to walk me through it and change my diaper, and I need someone to hold my hand if I want to make a character or NPC who doesn't follow these guidelines... or better, talk me out of it. I would like everything to make perfect sense so I never have to think, or desire to think, about the hows and whys. Because Planescape is by no means about mystery, oddness, or illogical beliefs, and the exploration of out-there concepts. 1) We're talking about D&D core rules, not Planescape, which is a separate campaign setting. (Yes, it is.) 2) It's this kind of snark that, frankly, is one reason our hobby is so small. (I'm sure someone will rear up their ugly head to demand me to "prove" this assertion.) This kind of dismissive attitude to people who actually want *stuff they can use* when they plunk down money for a book is pretty annoying. I said Mass Media. There is an enormous difference. Word of mouth is not media, apparently you don't understand the term. Television, radio, the internet, the printed word, are. If there ARE such medieval instances of media outcry, surely you've heard of, oh, just one? Let's have it. Didn't happen 'til the Printing Press, fella. Because previously it had never been possible. For that matter, give me an example of shocking behavior that caused a huge public outcry or policy change that didn't rely on some news source to spread to you. For that matter, cut and paste the mention of media or the allusion to it in the article. I... don't really care enough to write you a research paper. I mean, sheesh, fine, there was no mass media, so there couldn't be a *nationwide* outcry against anything. In what way does this prevent a village-wide or a town-wide outcry? Isn't the point of the Mimir.net article to say that Succubi and Erinyes modify culture on a town-wide or village-wide or city-wide level? A hot trophy wife.prostitute with Cha 20 or 26, magical powers, and taking a possible 24 or so, minimum, on the relevant social skill, yes, can do exactly what is written. If the examples in the article or that I wrote aren't convincing you, I guess everyone in your D&D world has incredible Will saves and a Lawful, probably Good, alignment. And huge Sense Motive. Or you're selling these abilities VERY short. My point was that there's no particular reason for her to be a trophy wife. She could do what she does as a prostitute just as easily, and the Succubus could do what *she* does as a trophy wife just as easily. Or, y'know, any of the numerous social categories in between those two. The one point on which I will agree here is that Baatezu politics and behavior make little sense whatsoever. The only way I can explain it satisfactorily myself is that Asmodeus is extremely powerful, and totally insane, or, that Asmodeus is pure fiction and no one ever actually talks to the Man Upstairs, he's a mythic bogeyman constructed to keep the other Lords in line. Having said that, some people have other takes on Baator that are well thought out. I do like my version better, but other people can keep theirs. And it doesn't matter what version gets put in the printed books that we pay for? There are other beings of other alignements that fill similar roles. The Bacchae are a good example of a CN Outsider fitting the bill. Do no Good outsiders employ seduction as a tactic? Maybe, but they probably don't feel good about it in general, because Good does tend to link intimacy and love as sacred. I can see the occasional Eladrin doing so. But a creature filling that role seems out of place in a Good race. If you disagree, give a good example of how seduction without affection and not ending in jealousy is possible, or if not, how jealousy can be used to create 'good radiation' as you put it, like the Succubus and Erinyes CAN practically achieve given their set of abilities. If Ssendaam and Ygorl were anything close to sane, they may well have cared to make 'Sexy Slaad.' If, y'know, their followers actually were created from Petitioners. They're not. Egg pellets, dude. Slaad are parasites. And it's not that NE or any other alignment isn't capable of having a seductress, it's just that for some races it makes almost no sense. A Modron? I don't want to go there. The Yugoloths' flavor just doesn't seem to support the archetype well. Their alignment could, but the Race doesn't, not currently. Yeah, so, the races' links to the alignments are inconsistent and don't make that much sense. I'm not demanding that they make perfect sense, by the way. I'm just pointing out that the way the races are now is totally arbitrary and could easily be any other way. I don't see at all how variety in outsiders is the same thing as inaccessible. I don't see anyone else confused. On these forums? I guess not. But if you're going to tell me that no one you've ever gamed with has ever expressed confusion or dismay at the 3.0 Manual of the Planes (which is, as people like to say, a "dumbed-down" version of the full Planescape edifice), I raise my eyebrow in disbelief at you. And the Great Wheel is only set up the way it is, to MAKE SENSE OF IT. It's easier to remember them when conceptually each plane houses a 'home race' and tends toward a given alignment, and are conceptually something like a color wheel for belief. If you want to arrange things differently, do so! Why do you hate something that does make about as much sense as it's going to given what there is to work with? Where's your planar model? How would YOU reconcile the planes and make sense of the various worlds, pantheons, and outsiders? Beyond just 'scaly humanoids on that side of the pool, gribbly insectoids on the other'. Deliver us from the Great Wheel if you have a better idea. Humble us with your creativity. By all means, you want to destroy, show what you can create. Or, y'know, argue pointlessly. Well, no, it's the other way around. They started with the concept of a "wheel" of planes that fit the alignments, and then started shoving a whole bunch of random nonsense into each one until they weren't consistent anymore. Ripvanwormer keeps *bragging* about how the planes constantly violate the single organizational concept -- alignment -- that's supposed to make them make sense *at all* and how this shows what a "rich tapestry" the Great Wheel is. I don't have a planar model. If I were being paid a salary to work on the WotC design team, though, I might have some thoughts. I think starting with a specific and separate origin story for Devils and Demons, making Devils linked to Abrahamic mythologies of the Fall and Demons linked to Lovecraftian or older chthonic mythologies, would be a good start. Hit the idea that Law is the "young" concept that's tied to the existence of the human race and Chaos is the "old" concept that's tied to the primordial abyss. (You know, like the actual *source material* that we pulled this stupid Law/Chaos crap from *actually says*.) That kind of thing. But, y'know, it's not my responsibility to actually make the thousands of stories that will eventually be made in 4e to replace the stories being made in older editions. I'm just pointing out that those stories *can be told*. All they're doing now is laying down the foundations.
Taeldrin Laesrash 09-07-07, 10:14 PM	I don't have a planar model. If I were being paid a salary to work on the WotC design team, though, I might have some thoughts. I think starting with a specific and separate origin story for Devils and Demons, making Devils linked to Abrahamic mythologies of the Fall and Demons linked to Lovecraftian or older chthonic mythologies, would be a good start. Hit the idea that Law is the "young" concept that's tied to the existence of the human race and Chaos is the "old" concept that's tied to the primordial abyss. (You know, like the actual *source material* that we pulled this stupid Law/Chaos crap from *actually says*.) That kind of thing. Your ideas are okay (Except for linking CE to chthonic mythologies, which have little to do with evil). However, what If I have different ideas, say, that Chaos is a defect in the everpresent Cosmic Law? That devils are evil spirits who possess people and drive them to do evil things, make them mad and nasty? Those are just examples, but they can't really take place in a cosmology that limits the nature of each exemplar. Everyone has ideas about the planes, and the problem is that the designers want to put their ideas into game canon.
ArcTan 09-07-07, 10:19 PM	Your ideas are okay (Except for linking CE to chthonic mythologies, which have little to do with evil). I dunno. I'd say that the ancient Greeks thought of most of the denizens of Tartarus as "evil". Typhon and his brood, the ones Hercules had to hunt down and kill? However, what If I have different ideas, say, that Chaos is a defect in the everpresent Cosmic Law? That devils are evil spirits who possess people and drive them to do evil things, make them mad and nasty? Those are just examples, but they can't really take place in a cosmology that limits the nature of each exemplar. Everyone has ideas about the planes, and the problem is that the designers want to put their ideas into game canon. ...Well, yes. That's their job. Otherwise there wouldn't *be* a "game canon". The point is that Rich Baker's stated reasons for thinking that this particular game canon will be *better for the game* -- enjoyable and understandable and a good springboard for more people -- make sense to me. Arguments that dismiss this out of hand based on the assumption that what we have right now is the best possible canon we could ever have annoy the hell out of me. I *don't* violently hate Planescape. I've read great fiction from it. I thought Torment was a great computer game. But I definitely don't think Planescape is the best possible canon for the core game to be based on, *especially* in terms of being accessible to new players, and I like the philosophy that when you're starting to write something new you throw out the old stuff and let your imagination run free -- otherwise it would be almost impossible for new and interesting ideas to *ever* get done. Some people here seem to have the opposite attitude, and don't seem to *ever* want to pick up a D&D product they can't critique on the basis of their 20 years of familiarity with "canon". And I really dislike that attitude -- that attitude is the basis of 90% of the reasons I don't like geek communities.
Taeldrin Laesrash 09-07-07, 10:39 PM	I dunno. I'd say that the ancient Greeks thought of most of the denizens of Tartarus as "evil". Typhon and his brood, the ones Hercules had to hunt down and kill? The term techincally applies moreso to deities such as Demeter, Persephone, Hecate, and aspects of Dionysus, who have ties to the earth and fertility, and often being the focus of mystery religions. ...Well, yes. That's their job. Otherwise there wouldn't *be* a "game canon". The point is that Rich Baker's stated reasons for thinking that this particular game canon will be *better for the game* -- enjoyable and understandable and a good springboard for more people -- make sense to me. Arguments that dismiss this out of hand based on the assumption that what we have right now is the best possible canon we could ever have annoy the hell out of me. I *don't* violently hate Planescape. I've read great fiction from it. I thought Torment was a great computer game. But I definitely don't think Planescape is the best possible canon for the core game to be based on, *especially* in terms of being accessible to new players, and I like the philosophy that when you're starting to write something new you throw out the old stuff and let your imagination run free -- otherwise it would be almost impossible for new and interesting ideas to *ever* get done. Some people here seem to have the opposite attitude, and don't seem to *ever* want to pick up a D&D product they can't critique on the basis of their 20 years of familiarity with "canon". And I really dislike that attitude -- that attitude is the basis of 90% of the reasons I don't like geek communities. Rewriting is okay for many things-RPG settings aren't necessarily one of them. The personal games of many groups are dependent on what the previous books say. While you technically can keep playing with the new changes (Though it's much harder when these changes are written into the basic rules), playing against the new 'canon' can sometimes feel a bit uncomfortable. Again, I don't see the changes as simplifying the game as much as changing the basics to fit one viewpoint. Old: 'Devils are LE philosophies and actions incarnate'. New: 'Devils are angels who have fallen from grace'. The new could have easily fit within the old. The old devils could be simply dropped into a game without much thought or confusion: The agent of a evil wizard, the string-puller to spread evil. It's about striking a balance between the old fans who want a sense of continuity, and being able to attract new players. This move seems to be annoying the former, and won't necessarily do anything for the latter. The 4E designers seem intent on dropping 'sacred cows' that were sacred for a good reason.
ArcTan 09-08-07, 02:43 AM	Rewriting is okay for many things-RPG settings aren't necessarily one of them. The personal games of many groups are dependent on what the previous books say. While you technically can keep playing with the new changes (Though it's much harder when these changes are written into the basic rules), playing against the new 'canon' can sometimes feel a bit uncomfortable. So... RPG settings should never be rewritten? Ever? Besides, we're not talking about rewriting the "setting". We're talking about making core D&D's setting a different setting from the previous one (i.e. this new Points of Light setting rather than ersatz Greyhawk). The actual *settings* that still exist -- Forgotten Realms, Eberron -- will presumably deal with the edition change in different ways. But D&D itself is a system, not a setting -- and, as much as some people might like to think otherwise, Planescape is a *particular D&D setting* and isn't -- or shouldn't be -- simply the "meta-setting" every other setting uses. Again, I don't see the changes as simplifying the game as much as changing the basics to fit one viewpoint. Old: 'Devils are LE philosophies and actions incarnate'. New: 'Devils are angels who have fallen from grace'. The new could have easily fit within the old. The old devils could be simply dropped into a game without much thought or confusion: The agent of a evil wizard, the string-puller to spread evil. ...And tell me why Devils can't do the same thing now? They still are LE bad guys. Their origin story doesn't actually affect that that much -- I mean, how many people who use Devils now even know what their origin story *is*? (Frankly, do *we* know what it is? Are people all accepting the Pact Primeval thing as canon now?) It's about striking a balance between the old fans who want a sense of continuity, and being able to attract new players. This move seems to be annoying the former, and won't necessarily do anything for the latter. The 4E designers seem intent on dropping 'sacred cows' that were sacred for a good reason. You don't call something a "sacred cow" unless the primary reason to not drop it is certain people's offended reactions, as opposed to something concrete it does to benefit the game. (In case people didn't realize, the term "sacred cow" originally had negative connotations when people started using it for various D&D fixtures.)
Sundragon 09-08-07, 08:35 AM	What seems to escape those who are desperately longing for the Great Wheel to be the primary planar cosmology for 4e is that most people don't use the default non-setting, setting that is assumed in the D&D core books. Most DMs homebrew taking bits and pieces from whatever settings they prefer and others buy pre-published settings that have their own cosmological assumptions. The Great Wheel is a huge assumption and is fundamentally the cosmology of a pair of defunct settings ie. Planescape and Greyhawk. 3e played lip service only to Greyhawk and Planescape has been dead as a metasetting for years. NO other WoTC setting and no 3rd party setting assumes the reality of the Great Wheel. That is the reality. Where the devils came from, the nature of demons, whether or not gods need worshippers to exist, whether or not gods are the pinnacle of existance and ethos, etc. are questions answered by settings, not by a core set of rulebooks dedicated to teaching folks the ins and outs of a RPing game presumably dedicated to imagination. The fact is that the Great Wheel, just like a batch of Greyhawk gods floating around in 4e's future Deities and Demigods book without Greyhawk hamstrings imagination unless these things are used as examples of potential cosmologies and potential pantheons. 4e is from what I gathered while reading online about it, is going to divorce itself from Greyhawk's gods as core gods and just use a smattering of recognizable iconic beings from D&D's past ie. Bahamut and Tiamat as well as Thor and Asmodeus to give players and DMs a taste of the game and its possibilities. Lets keep the Great Wheel one of countless cosmological possibilities and nothing more. Sundragon
IlmrynXiltyn 09-08-07, 08:58 AM	I really hate the tyranny the concept of "continuity" holds over most geek media. It's the single thing that's made superhero comics unbearable for me. So you are quite happy for contradictions to continually occur?
ArcTan 09-08-07, 05:46 PM	So you are quite happy for contradictions to continually occur? Absolutely. More to the point, I'm quite happy to have continuity in limited, airtight boxes -- one author doing one series, sure, I like it when I feel like the plot is tight and coherent. But this *stops working* once you have several authors doing it in several different series with several different themes over the course of several years. It becomes stupid. You get contradictions *anyway* -- it's inevitable -- and rather than simply accepting them, you start to get the incredibly annoying phenomenon of the "retcon" to "fix" the contradictions that turns the "continuity" into a big messy spaghetti-ball. Much better to simply say "Okay, that guy's done with his Superman story. Now I'm going to do a different story about Superman, that's going to keep some of his stuff and totally change others, but it'll be awesome anyway." And you know what? It usually is. Life becomes so much better when you learn to enjoy each new book for what it is and you *stop* looking for "contradictions" and doing the Comic Book Guy thing where this episode is invalidated because it contradicts an episode that aired in 1998. Everything is more fun.
aushlo 09-08-07, 06:24 PM	What seems to escape those who are desperately longing for the Great Wheel to be the primary planar cosmology for 4e is that most people don't use the default non-setting, setting that is assumed in the D&D core books. Most DMs homebrew taking bits and pieces from whatever settings they prefer and others buy pre-published settings that have their own cosmological assumptions. The Great Wheel is a huge assumption and is fundamentally the cosmology of a pair of defunct settings ie. Planescape and Greyhawk. 3e played lip service only to Greyhawk and Planescape has been dead as a metasetting for years. NO other WoTC setting and no 3rd party setting assumes the reality of the Great Wheel. That is the reality. Where the devils came from, the nature of demons, whether or not gods need worshippers to exist, whether or not gods are the pinnacle of existance and ethos, etc. are questions answered by settings, not by a core set of rulebooks dedicated to teaching folks the ins and outs of a RPing game presumably dedicated to imagination. The fact is that the Great Wheel, just like a batch of Greyhawk gods floating around in 4e's future Deities and Demigods book without Greyhawk hamstrings imagination unless these things are used as examples of potential cosmologies and potential pantheons. 4e is from what I gathered while reading online about it, is going to divorce itself from Greyhawk's gods as core gods and just use a smattering of recognizable iconic beings from D&D's past ie. Bahamut and Tiamat as well as Thor and Asmodeus to give players and DMs a taste of the game and its possibilities. Lets keep the Great Wheel one of countless cosmological possibilities and nothing more. Sundragon I personally don't see as much home-brew settings going on that involve a lot of planar reimagining. Other gaming communities, of course, vary. My point is that yes, options are good. Scrapping a thing that works for others is foolish. There are a lot of alternate cosmologies, and some serious attention should be devoted to other variations. The Manual of the Planes does use the Wheel, but that's because the Wheel already contains the elements of all the other planar cosmologies, up to a point. You can use only what you like. I disagree with those who want to scrap the whole thing as useless in favor of 'whatever the next thing is', because I am one of those who likes very little of the recent official WOTC additions to planar lore. I do like the addition of the Obyriths, which sum up the Lovecraftian horror just fine, let alone any Far Realm strangeness one may want to use, in addition to feeling more like elder evils. ArcTan of course hasn't considered using Obyriths as the lovecraftian option, apparently, or has decided it's crap. The wealth of Abyssal information, the Law/Chaos war, IS good stuff overall, in a lot of people's opinion. People are lukewarm on the Hellish component, partially because the authors are just not doing much to add to the setting. Instead, they are lazily throwing a Judeo-Christian (2000 years old) blanket over Hell (which one can infer from the fact that the place is called Hell and the Archdevils are all monikers for Satan), then calling it 'new and evocative'. It's NOT that it's a bad take, it's just that almost everyone KNOWS the story already! The Obyrith borrow heavily from the Chthulu mythos, but it is NOT as familiar a story as The Fall. Honestly, I think Robin D. Laws can be an excellent game writer (I quite like Feng Shui for example). I just feel like this book presented very few NEW ideas. There is Planescape stuff I never felt was all that interesting. I never gave much though to Rilmani. A lot of upper-planars, even, aren't all that interesting unless you think of wierd things to do with them (again: Angels. With wings and swords. Um. How many types again?). But they are holdovers from early editions too. I'm just exasperated that it seems like some people feel that NOT using something is as much work for anyone as converting something. This is pure crap. Also, the following is an excerpt from a typical ArcTan 'discussion': Me: Kittens are difficult to take care of. ArcTan: So, you're saying no one should have kittens. *sigh* I think it's awful andstupid that you or anyone hate and murder kittens. Since I have a puppy, I think my point of view is particularly valid. Also, I heard that once there was a kitten who did algebra and cured cancer. Me: What? Prove it, stop spouting nonsense. ArcTan: I don't feel like it. Although I can respond to 10 posts a day, I feel zero responsibility to: a)Read others' posts or respond to any valid point, instead attacking tangental thoughts so as to redirect the conversation into nonsensland. b)Support my argument with anything other than pure conjecture and personal bias, even if it's just a Google away. c)Acknowledge that anyone else has a valid opinion. d)Understand that derivative ideas get boring for folks who read a lot, and that creative people occasionally like to sort out the details on their own. e)Aushlo, Rip and Shemeshka spread the Bubonic Plague to your kitten. Getting annoyed with those who tout advanced knowledge is understandable if you feel your point is being invalidated. If you can't make a case for your own point, maybe practicing your own skills of persuasion would be a good idea. Or presenting your view as an alternate one, rather than X, Y, and Z are crap and I'm mad! Then having nothing of YOUR OWN to add to the discussion. If you trust the design direction, cool. I don't, and neither of us is totally right or wrong.
LordofNightmares 09-08-07, 06:39 PM	-Too bad there is something called 'previously established canon', which can't be arbitrarily disregarded, without creating major plotholes and problems to continuity. You are wrong in this instance. These changed are for the new meta-setting, not for the previously established settings. These changes do not effect the canon of Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms or Eberron.
ArcTan 09-08-07, 11:19 PM	ArcTan of course hasn't considered using Obyriths as the lovecraftian option, apparently, or has decided it's crap. I like the Obyriths just fine. I don't like that the way they're presented in FC:1 is that almost all of them are dead, and the only ones that are left are the ones who've chosen to integrate themselves with the Tanar'ri (i.e. same ol' same ol' demons we've known since the 1980s). As a crunch category, they're basically useless, because the only important Obyriths we know of are super-powerful Archfiends. The wealth of Abyssal information, the Law/Chaos war, IS good stuff overall, in a lot of people's opinion. People are lukewarm on the Hellish component, partially because the authors are just not doing much to add to the setting. Instead, they are lazily throwing a Judeo-Christian (2000 years old) blanket over Hell (which one can infer from the fact that the place is called Hell and the Archdevils are all monikers for Satan), then calling it 'new and evocative'. It's NOT that it's a bad take, it's just that almost everyone KNOWS the story already! The Obyrith borrow heavily from the Chthulu mythos, but it is NOT as familiar a story as The Fall. Honestly, I think Robin D. Laws can be an excellent game writer (I quite like Feng Shui for example). I just feel like this book presented very few NEW ideas. What are we critiquing here? It sounds like now you're going on a rant about Fiendish Codex II, not the 4e PHB and Monster Manual. It's kind of early to say whether 4e core books will have "very few new ideas", considering nobody has read them yet. Of course we've heard very few new ideas *about* them -- BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT RELEASED YET. And yes, the frequent charge I hear that we're having "blind faith" in WotC because we think that a 300-page book might contain more information than a few Web articles and interviews is annoying. There is Planescape stuff I never felt was all that interesting. I never gave much though to Rilmani. A lot of upper-planars, even, aren't all that interesting unless you think of wierd things to do with them (again: Angels. With wings and swords. Um. How many types again?). But they are holdovers from early editions too. I'm just exasperated that it seems like some people feel that NOT using something is as much work for anyone as converting something. This is pure crap. It's not just not using something -- it's that useful stuff we might like to see in the books we buy gets displaced by stuff we don't want to use. Is that really that hard to understand? Is it confusing that someone might be upset to purchase Planar Handbook and realize that the majority of the book isn't useful to someone who isn't using the Factions of Sigil, despite the fact that it's supposed to be a "generic" sourcebook? Also, the following is an excerpt from a typical ArcTan 'discussion': Me: Kittens are difficult to take care of. ArcTan: So, you're saying no one should have kittens. *sigh* I think it's awful andstupid that you or anyone hate and murder kittens. Since I have a puppy, I think my point of view is particularly valid. Also, I heard that once there was a kitten who did algebra and cured cancer. Me: What? Prove it, stop spouting nonsense. ArcTan: I don't feel like it. Although I can respond to 10 posts a day, I feel zero responsibility to: a)Read others' posts or respond to any valid point, instead attacking tangental thoughts so as to redirect the conversation into nonsensland. b)Support my argument with anything other than pure conjecture and personal bias, even if it's just a Google away. c)Acknowledge that anyone else has a valid opinion. d)Understand that derivative ideas get boring for folks who read a lot, and that creative people occasionally like to sort out the details on their own. e)Aushlo, Rip and Shemeshka spread the Bubonic Plague to your kitten. Wow, good job! That does sound just like me! :rolleyes: What, exactly, do you think I've said for which empirical evidence is "just a Google away"? Also, in what way does it make sense to say that derivative ideas "get boring", and therefore the new setting should remain just as derivative of 2e Planescape as every bit of planar material WotC has produced since then? Getting annoyed with those who tout advanced knowledge is understandable if you feel your point is being invalidated. If you can't make a case for your own point, maybe practicing your own skills of persuasion would be a good idea. Or presenting your view as an alternate one, rather than X, Y, and Z are crap and I'm mad! Then having nothing of YOUR OWN to add to the discussion. If you trust the design direction, cool. I don't, and neither of us is totally right or wrong. I've been trying to make a case for my own point. Part of my point is responding to claims that are *themselves* pretty damn inflammatory, like saying the 4e team "cannot create, only destroy". Please don't try to pretend that everyone was having a happy civil discussion until the people who disagreed with you came along. Various conversations about this have been doing nothing less than verbally crucifying people like Rich Baker for altering Holy Canon -- they "cannot create, only destroy", the new decision is "crap", "a derivative piece of crap", "bland, generic crap", "appalling", etc. If you're allowed to get heated and upset on your side of the fence, other people are allowed to too.
aushlo 09-09-07, 04:17 PM	The thing is, there is more than a tiny tip of the hat to other ideas in the Manual of the Planes. It alters things for simplicity, but never delivers more than a smidge of information. What it does do, I noticed is that it serves up the Wheel as one (admittedly, fairly developed) possibility, removes the planes so strongly from alignment, and served up more other possibilities, sidebars, etc, than you can shake a stick at. I don't honestly recall if DMG 3.5 made a lot of changes to this stuff, haven't looked at it much in awhile. Treat the Wheel and Alignments as suggestions, not straightjackets. Looking at the Obyrith and being dismayed at them being mostly dead is fine, but you can IGNORE that! I might well run a 'Return of the Elders' game because I dig 'em. You're right, more low CR Obyriths should be presented so they aren't just a Big Bad. Give it time, there have been a number of new Obyrith delivered through Web enhancements and Dungeon/Dragon, we'll likely see more. My point in bringing up FC2 is that this direction for Hell was started in FC2 and it would seem that this is the direction they'll run with it. If this is the direction we're likely to see in Planar lore, I'm dubious and disappointed. They may surprise me, who knows. You need to be clearer on what you DO want out of a book, ans understand that making an old idea defunct and assuming the new will be better is both destructive to current campaigns that operate on the old, and yes, it is sort of blind faith. Is the newness going to be exciting, even if it sucks? If it's awesome, I might just switch. What I do know is that despite a number of wierd bits and flaws which I can rewrite or houserule away, as I often do, PS does keep me, and my players, interested. The setting remains interesting to lots of people. Since the last half-dozen new books I've picked off the shelf have been either of little use, or just bad in my opinion, I conclude that editorial direction may be going down the tubes. The presence of Sigil factions takes up a little space. What did YOU want? There are a few other classes in Manual of the Planes. Should they have been one book? Yes. I honestly rarely crack open the Planar Handbook. I'm not opposed to saying any dang thing you want. Just, you post in a community of opinionated people at least as passionate as yourself, who also hold valid opinions. If I state a case and you fight it with conjecture, then I ask to support conjecture (such as finding and citing the existence of Mass Media in medieval times, or the eruption of a moral backlash before its existence), responding that you don't feel like looking both strengthens my point for anyone who DOES look, and makes it look as though your debate opposite is paying attention while you don't do any research. It's about effective debate, and getting your voice heard if you want it to be. Y'know what? Rip or Shem can be huge knowitalls. The reason I don't get irritable with them is twofold: a)They usually back up their assertions with sources. If they're wrong when they state evidence, they usually recognize their misstep and grant it to their debate partner. Yep, they're snarky, and thus they get snark. So am I, and so do I. If I ask for it, it's par for the course. and b)They tend to write fiction and conjecture that is thought-provoking and creative, even if it's not what I'd write. Most of what I've read by both has been food for ideas, as has a lot of the stuff they've linked to. It's not all gold, but a lot is better than the actual game books I've been reading. Meanwhile, I read your rants and think that you just like to argue, but just to argue. If that's not true, get better at it! Your opinions are valid, back 'em up properly and people, including myuself, may listen. If you want snark, throw snark. If not, quit it! I see a ton of snark as soon as you post, almost without fail. You're probably perfectly bright, may have great ideas. Prove it.
ArcTan 09-09-07, 09:08 PM	The thing is, there is more than a tiny tip of the hat to other ideas in the Manual of the Planes. It alters things for simplicity, but never delivers more than a smidge of information. What it does do, I noticed is that it serves up the Wheel as one (admittedly, fairly developed) possibility, removes the planes so strongly from alignment, and served up more other possibilities, sidebars, etc, than you can shake a stick at. I don't honestly recall if DMG 3.5 made a lot of changes to this stuff, haven't looked at it much in awhile. Treat the Wheel and Alignments as suggestions, not straightjackets. It's still quite annoying that the vast bulk of the book is Great Wheel -- indeed, the Great Wheel takes up the first several chapters, and all alternate ideas -- including ideas that have actually been used on their own in published modules, like the Spirit World -- get about one chapter apiece. To say nothing of Planar Handbook, which drops the whole idea of multiple cosmologies as though it never existed and is basically a badly-written 3.5 conversion of the Planescape campaign setting (with, I hasten to add, ideas that are kind of offensive to the original concept of Planescape, like making each faction into a PrC). To an extent WotC has done this with other books too -- Frostburn is basically a campaign setting for a specific mystical Arctic-themed setting, not a general "How to play in the Arctic" book, but I can forgive that because said Arctic-themed setting is actually something I hadn't seen before. Looking at the Obyrith and being dismayed at them being mostly dead is fine, but you can IGNORE that! I might well run a 'Return of the Elders' game because I dig 'em. You're right, more low CR Obyriths should be presented so they aren't just a Big Bad. Give it time, there have been a number of new Obyrith delivered through Web enhancements and Dungeon/Dragon, we'll likely see more. See, I can't actually "ignore" that low-CR Obyriths don't exist. That involves creating low-CR Obyriths on my own, which means *working*, not ignoring. My point in bringing up FC2 is that this direction for Hell was started in FC2 and it would seem that this is the direction they'll run with it. If this is the direction we're likely to see in Planar lore, I'm dubious and disappointed. They may surprise me, who knows. Do you really think the new idea sounds that much like FC:2? The people who wrote FC:2 were, as far as I understand it, a completely different group from those working on 4e. (This is Rich Baker who's talking about the new Asmodeus stuff, not Robin D. Laws.) You need to be clearer on what you DO want out of a book, ans understand that making an old idea defunct and assuming the new will be better is both destructive to current campaigns that operate on the old, and yes, it is sort of blind faith. Is the newness going to be exciting, even if it sucks? If it's awesome, I might just switch. What I do know is that despite a number of wierd bits and flaws which I can rewrite or houserule away, as I often do, PS does keep me, and my players, interested. The setting remains interesting to lots of people. Since the last half-dozen new books I've picked off the shelf have been either of little use, or just bad in my opinion, I conclude that editorial direction may be going down the tubes. The presence of Sigil factions takes up a little space. What did YOU want? There are a few other classes in Manual of the Planes. Should they have been one book? Yes. I honestly rarely crack open the Planar Handbook. Planar Handbook was supposed to be like Manual of the Planes with more options for players. More player options based solely on the concept of "planes", without the Factions, would've been nice. As far as assuming the new will be better, I don't necessarily assume that -- I just like what I hear so far, and I think that, *yes*, freshness is valuable for its own sake. The thing about Planescape is that, whatever else you can say about it, *it already exists*. More than enough material is already there to run as many campaigns in it as you want, including plenty of fan-made conversions to 3e if that's what you really want. I'm sure 4e conversions will come in time too. But I want more out of a brand-spanking new set of books than conversions of things that already exist. I'm not opposed to saying any dang thing you want. Just, you post in a community of opinionated people at least as passionate as yourself, who also hold valid opinions. If I state a case and you fight it with conjecture, then I ask to support conjecture (such as finding and citing the existence of Mass Media in medieval times, or the eruption of a moral backlash before its existence), responding that you don't feel like looking both strengthens my point for anyone who DOES look, and makes it look as though your debate opposite is paying attention while you don't do any research. Okay, were you even paying attention during the whole "mass media" thing? Did you notice that that wasn't even what my point was about? The point is that the Mimir.net article *assumes* that there is such a thing as widespread communication within whatever-sized community the Succubus or Erinyes is trying to corrupt. Otherwise the whole concept of having one person there manipulating things and changing the whole culture around them *would not work*. There is nothing about "backlash" that is fundamentally more dependent than mass media than, for lack of a better word, "front-lash". If a Succubus can make the city more Chaotic all by her lonesomes, an Erinyes can *accidentally* make the city more Chaotic for exactly the same reasons. If "mass media" is not necessary for the kind of widespread corruption with everything going according to plan that the Mimir.net article talks about, it also isn't necessary for said plans to *go wrong*. What I was raw about was the Mimir.net article getting into the same annoying habit of saying that because an Erinyes is LE the stuff she does automatically makes people more LE, even if the described activities don't sound pro-Law at all (becoming a trophy wife and making people jealous and desirous of her makes them more puritanical... why?) I don't do research on things that are *completely tangential to my point* because people make a strawman out of it, no. It's about effective debate, and getting your voice heard if you want it to be. Y'know what? Rip or Shem can be huge knowitalls. The reason I don't get irritable with them is twofold: a)They usually back up their assertions with sources. If they're wrong when they state evidence, they usually recognize their misstep and grant it to their debate partner. Yep, they're snarky, and thus they get snark. So am I, and so do I. If I ask for it, it's par for the course. and b)They tend to write fiction and conjecture that is thought-provoking and creative, even if it's not what I'd write. Most of what I've read by both has been food for ideas, as has a lot of the stuff they've linked to. It's not all gold, but a lot is better than the actual game books I've been reading. ...Okay. The main thing is that I just don't like the stuff they like, and don't like being subjected to the assumption that everyone does. Meanwhile, I read your rants and think that you just like to argue, but just to argue. If that's not true, get better at it! Your opinions are valid, back 'em up properly and people, including myuself, may listen. If you want snark, throw snark. If not, quit it! I see a ton of snark as soon as you post, almost without fail. You're probably perfectly bright, may have great ideas. Prove it. *shrug* I post about things I care about because I care about them. I don't post as a way to insert fanfiction sidewise into a thread, or to cite chapter and verse from Planescape, and usually those things are irrelevant to what I'm talking about (as much as people try to *make* them relevant to what I'm talking about).
Fiery_Overlord 09-10-07, 01:49 PM	I guess it's sort of a paradox that I find it hard to imagine the point of view of someone with such a poor imagination that they can't think of a way to differentiate succubi from erinyes. I should feel pity. For those who are so impoverished, I direct you to The Ecology of the Succubus and Erinyes (http://mimir.net/essays/succubus.html). Now you are enlightened. Of course the difference between demons and devils is that one chaotic and the other is lawful. They're beings of chaos and law incarnate, respectively, so their alignment should be the primary focus. "Demons are bestial, devils are humanoid, and yugoloths are insectoid" might sound reasonable, but most of us understand that simplification is not always preferable to complexity. Complexity can make things interesting, and simplification for its own sake is only simple-minded. The primary issue is what happens to humanoid demon lords like Graz'zt and Malcanthet? Particularly Malcanthet, whose entire raison d'etre is now gone. Bestial-looking demons of lust just aren't the same. Simple-minded is the only word for it. It is, at least, confirmation that the Great Wheel is not ditched; D&D still has a default, implied setting, with apparently quite a lot of detail in the planes. I must strongly disagree that bestial demons of lust are a bad idea. They can be quite horrific especially if they can appear in forms other than their true form. There was a horror movie about a demon who seduced priests and then devoured them. It appeared to be an amazingly attractive woman but was revealed as a foul reptilian-dog zule-hound creature when the priest invoked its true name. I would hope and expect Demons to receive such a monstrosity as I think that well represents the nature and horror of CE better than Succubus. It was a pretty good movie, if someone else could remember the name I'd appreciate if they'd share it with me.
aushlo 09-11-07, 02:11 PM	It's still quite annoying that the vast bulk of the book is Great Wheel -- indeed, the Great Wheel takes up the first several chapters, and all alternate ideas -- including ideas that have actually been used on their own in published modules, like the Spirit World -- get about one chapter apiece. ------------ Yep, they should have given some more time to alternate ideas, but I think in what was a small book with a lot of stuff in it, they did pretty well. Also, I agree that PrC's were not a good way to go wth Factions. Personally, I might do it with Feats with prerequisites based on the Faction's flavor. I would probably start with a 'Namer' feat, which is more or less only to gain Faction benefits that aren't quasi-magical, and maybe a bonus to social interactions with them. As it is, though, I just eliminated the magical abilities for the most part, it's the philosophical meanderings I like the Faction for. Also, NPC rants and discussions on reality and all are what my players seem to like. I would have liked to see a good deal of attention devoted to ALL the Factions and groups, including 'Dead' or scattered ones. But the trend in books is crunch over ideas, so not likely to happen. As far as other ideas for PrC's, yes, wish they'd devoted more time. There were some decent ones in the Manual of the Planes. The Planar Substitution Levels were interesting, I think that helps a geat deal. --------------------- See, I can't actually "ignore" that low-CR Obyriths don't exist. That involves creating low-CR Obyriths on my own, which means *working*, not ignoring. --------------------- I'm of two minds here. I do like that there's a great-granddaddy race of monsters even the Tanar'ri fear and don't know much about, and the old lords suit this theme well. Making newer and weaker types would in some ways rob them of some of their mystery-if you can find them all over, in numbers, and without a lot of ancient power, you tend to stop thinking of them in the same way. There ARE Ekolids, and the Lhaghati(?Can't remember now) from this site. The general power level is definitely high, but then it is for Tanar'ri in general. I would like to see more of them, maybe not little ones to kick around unless you're in truly ancient Abyssal realms. ----------------------- Do you really think the new idea sounds that much like FC:2? The people who wrote FC:2 were, as far as I understand it, a completely different group from those working on 4e. (This is Rich Baker who's talking about the new Asmodeus stuff, not Robin D. Laws.) ----------------------- I really do. I think these ideas are not built in seclusion, certainly not in a vacuum. The ideas put forth by 4E writers are not dissimilar in many ways. They kick ideas around the office, you can bet. ------------------------ As far as assuming the new will be better, I don't necessarily assume that -- I just like what I hear so far, and I think that, *yes*, freshness is valuable for its own sake. ------------------------ I am simply not automatically equating 'new' material with innovation. As I said, some ideas, like Obyriths, the Princes, and the Eladrin war of extermination, are really evocative. Some, like this Fallen Angel garbage, are no-brainers and a huge yawn. Seriously, who couldn't have retold a Bible story in D&D terms? I'd be hard-pressed to find someone who couldn't have come up with this drunk and possibly asleep. I'm not invalidating the idea, I'm saying this is the default story anyone could blurt out. It's a HUGE part of Euro-American culture. Now, if they'd put a different creation myth spin out there, despite my general boredom with Hell, I might have sat up to take notice. Honestly, it depends on the writers they put to work. I think that writers I generally like, like Monte Cook or James Jacobs, need a lot of room to work but are consistently interesting. I don't see the current designers running with their ideas because they're going to say, "No, the kids won't get this, this is too out-there." I really doubt they'll run with a Faction or Sigil book because frankly it takes someone smart and ideally educated to run with these ideas properly, and they want to make the game more 'Player-Friendly', which does mean a certain amount of simplicity, which the Factions are not-the ideas are too sprawling when you actually start to discuss them. ---------------------- Okay, were you even paying attention during the whole "mass media" thing?............... Did you notice that that wasn't even what my point was about? ---------------------- I think someone with Suggestion, and huge social skills, in the arms or just the court of a political figure of considerable power, can absolutely have an effect as powerful as described. Keep in mind the average D&D town or city places a huge amount of power, militarily and personally, in its government. The lower labor classes are both uneducated, and often either complacent or apathetic. By the time change happens, people feel helpless. Also, they aren't the ones with a standing force for Martial Law or money to get what they want. Strike organizers are easily killed, jailed or exiled. Witness the real world. How many people in it are angry at their situation, but feel limited ability to affect change? Combine that with medieval education (i.e. non-existent if you're poor) and technology levels, the lack of a propaganda machine (Mass Media again) that will aid in unification.... the point is, Mass Media is what it took to reform a lot of injustices affecting the common folk in the real world. There were a few situations in which economic movers formed guilds and wrestled power back into their playing field, but D&D tends to assume a true peasant class. ------------------------ ..Okay. The main thing is that I just don't like the stuff they like, and don't like being subjected to the assumption that everyone does. *shrug* I post about things I care about because I care about them. I don't post as a way to insert fanfiction sidewise into a thread, or to cite chapter and verse from Planescape, and usually those things are irrelevant to what I'm talking about (as much as people try to *make* them relevant to what I'm talking about). ------------------------- And I feel you there. But the question is, are you actually reading any of the fan writing on your own, or seeing what ideas ARE out there on these sites, to see if there are ideas worth thinking about? I'll give you an example. My Dad, good man or not, is very conservative and regularly irks me because he won't bother to investigate new media or ideas because he never takes the time to see if they have any good points. He gets information from dubious sources and simply won't examine other viewpoints for merit. Now, if the fact that it's all Great Wheel/Alignment based is the sole factor that is keeping you stubbornly from reading it with an open mind, that's your deal. Having it shoved down your throat is not helping though, surely. I'm the same way. But some of it IS quite good, and honestly I'd rather have someone who's had ten or fifteen years elaborating on the Planes writing ideas than not, love or hate the stuff there' a huge amount of thought and energy poured into this stuff. I will wait and see what planar information comes out. I'm not particularly expecting new and interesting from the writers at this juncture. I mean, the Points of Light idea is totally retro D&D, which I kind of like, but that probably means you'll be out of luck if you want a new take. My guess is a vague 'the Planes are MYSTERIOUS and STRANGE. Most people don't know they exist at all.....Oooooooo!" Which is fine, but nothing new if you ever played Basic D&D. Gurgle.
aushlo 09-11-07, 02:31 PM	I must strongly disagree that bestial demons of lust are a bad idea. They can be quite horrific especially if they can appear in forms other than their true form. There was a horror movie about a demon who seduced priests and then devoured them. It appeared to be an amazingly attractive woman but was revealed as a foul reptilian-dog zule-hound creature when the priest invoked its true name. I would hope and expect Demons to receive such a monstrosity as I think that well represents the nature and horror of CE better than Succubus. It was a pretty good movie, if someone else could remember the name I'd appreciate if they'd share it with me. You have a good point, and the horror of bestial demons in this role is both repellent and potent. But the shapeshifter element still sort of has to be there, otherwise you start to stray into BoVD territory, which is cool if you can handle it with your group. But it's certainly not for kids, who are part of the target market. I think Succubi would be pushing it for a lot of parents. Having said that, there is really no reason that a number of demons who are scary monsters with a high Cha would be unsuited for the monstrous lust idea, even if it's not their assumed bag. The willing victim of a Succubus succumbs based on either a desire for sexual power or a surrender to that of the Succubus. A Glabrezu has a 20 Cha and can grant wishes, that could certainly be just as effective, especially in conjunction with its raw power. It's pretty yucky though.
johngamermage 09-11-07, 02:33 PM	I find it is something new to run with. ....aka mess with the PC's. :plotting: :evillaugh :schemes:
Thane26425 09-13-07, 04:06 PM	I don't mind so much that they are changing the Wheel itself because I use something different in my campaigns anyway. I'll explain that if anyone is interested. I can see their reworking of a few creatures. Combining Succubus and Erienyes makes sense as decribed since they do pretty much the same thing. If their natures had been more different, then that would be another story. Like a lot of the others, I'm worried that they are just looking to mess with the system just because they can. Things work pretty well now as far as the Good/evil and Law/Chaos axis go. Folks just need to realize that this is going to be a sticky question regardless. The more "neutral" they try to make it, the less useful it is going to be.
Aseran 09-13-07, 06:29 PM	Okay. Wonderful. I honestly do not care if they remove the Great Ring from the core setting, if there even IS a core setting. In fact, fine. Remove it entirely. Y'know why? It means that the Planes don't have to be watered-down to fit a generic setting, and that we're free to have Planescape restored in it's full, unique glory. Do whatever you want with core D&D, as long as the game is still fun to play. All else is free to be it's own thing.
Kain Darkwind 09-14-07, 05:53 PM	Do whatever you want with core D&D, as long as the game is still fun to play. All else is free to be it's own thing. Tell that to the Realms fans who just had the sky dropped on them. I'm liking the mechanics I see from 4e, but I can barely stomach the fluff. And whether one wants to admit it or not, some of us players are in it for the fluff.
ArcTan 09-15-07, 01:24 AM	Tell that to the Realms fans who just had the sky dropped on them. I'm liking the mechanics I see from 4e, but I can barely stomach the fluff. And whether one wants to admit it or not, some of us players are in it for the fluff. The Realms, frankly, ought to be used to it by now. Having a huge metaplot event to explain changes in the rules basically *is* a signature trait of the Realms.
Rohano 09-15-07, 04:47 AM	I dunno if I can respect R-Bake after a blog entry like that. I don't mean to say that I dislike it... I like anything that simplifies the game. I despise the great wheel set-up, and I think a lot of it should be simplified (Niflheim is a layer of the Yggdrasil, just as Ysgard is, and somehow that means Ysgard gets a plane and Niflheim is just a dumb layer somewhere that no one ever visits, yeah, that makes me happy knowing that someone out there knows wth they're doing /sarcasm). If we're going to simplify Baator to such an extent... Let's make a Devil template. Any angel that is cast down can inherit it. It warps the angel's appearance (a beautiful archangel becomes a hooved and horned red guy, i.e.) and powers, while binding them to Baator for eternity unless they're unbound (permanently) by an equally powerful act (some kinda Miracle use, dependent on a specific amount of spell power used, perhaps requiring a sacrifice, or emploring a god to do the release who has a high enough DR to match the DR of the binding) or released temporarily by a smaller act (a summon of some kind, probably requiring a divine plea or sacrifice). That could be interesting if you could get the new devils via Summon Planar Ally... they can only stay until they've fulfilled whatever the bargain says (but if you word it wrong, you end up screwed and cursed and so on). If 4E rewrites the planes and all the wonderful denizens, even if it's just rewriting the devils to be all fallen angel morons who live on a giant deadened divine realm (I wonder how buff the god was that had a realm that huge - must make Ao, Pelor, Cthulu, Chuck Norris, Goku, Superman, Batman, Spiderman, Optimus Prime, Voltron and Pikachu all simultaneously wet themselves), then I'm convinced that once I get my hands on the new DMG, I'm rewriting the planes and all the denizens, and until I manage to get all of that done, I'm going to a concentrated multiverse - likely Norse or Greek, perhaps Mesopotamian ("Marduk and the Tablets of Fate, everybody! Don't worry, we'll be here all week!"). I've had it. Custom planar settings all around! Bartender, get to serving! In the mean time, I'll consider setting myself on fire.
ripvanwormer 09-15-07, 06:43 PM	(Niflheim is a layer of the Yggdrasil, just as Ysgard is, and somehow that means Ysgard gets a plane and Niflheim is just a dumb layer somewhere that no one ever visits, yeah, that makes me happy knowing that someone out there knows wth they're doing /sarcasm). First of all, the realm of the Aesir is Asgard, not Ysgard. Asgard is a single realm on the first layer of the plane of Ysgard (which is just a meaningless name that David Cook came up with). Niflheim is a single realm on the second layer of the Gray Waste (which is also commonly called Niflheim, but this is just one of the names various cultures call it - the Celts call it Annwyn, for example). Vanaheim is another realm in Ysgard, Alfheim is another. Muspelheim is a realm in Ysgard's second layer. Nidvellir and Svartalfheim are realms in its third layer. Every world in the Norse cosmology is defined as a single realm in the Great Wheel cosmology, just as everything the gods make is. Personally, I ignore the size limits from the MotP - a realm is as big as it needs to be. Picture the Outer Planes as an infinite field of spiritual substance, which can be shaped by the various gods, mythologies, and philosophical currents of sentient beings. For simplicity, just to start with, imagine there's just one world - our world, the Earth. Imagine that all the different beliefs of the world have carved this strange universe up into different shapes, each "shape" a realm. Now imagine that great forces, older than the gods - Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil - also exert their own pressures on this great panoply of realms. And yet there are paths, like Yggdrasil, that link them along lines that have nothing to do with the alignments. It's equally valid to speak of Niflheim and Asgard in relation to Yggdrasil as it is to speak of them in relation to the hypothetical Great Ring the alignments and their exemplars have formed. Niflheim, if you're talking about realms in the Norse cosmology, is not "just a dumb layer" - it's not a layer at all. It's a realm, like all the realms in the Norse mythos. Whether or not "hardly anyone ever visits" it is a matter of personal taste. How many people do you want to be able to visit the Underworld and come back alive in your campaign? Officially there's no word on this.
Rohano 09-16-07, 07:30 AM	<Many explanations and word usages that make my headache worse.> See? Complicated. In Norse mythology, the Yggdrasil is a giant tree. So basic. It is the world. Also, basic. If you go up Yggdrasil, you eventually come to Asgard/Ysgard/Whatever it is on a branch - a giant walled city populated by supernatural beings, each with atleast one exotic power and one or two epics written about their deeds. The base of Yggdrasil is, arguably, where real land is, but the base is divided up into chunks, because it's a giant island (or a continent or whatever). One big section is Niflheim. Somewhere in Niflheim is Hel's hut/mansion/shopping mall that has a set of stairs that go down into the realm underground where the souls of the dead wander for eternity. When the souls of the dead escape, they take the form of mindless and/or evil undead that wander Niflheim (and get eaten by Nidhogg, who happens to have his niche in the part of Niflheim that meets the base of the Yggdrasil - because he's too lazy to go anywhere else than where his primary foodsource, the Yggdrasil's bark, is). At the edge of the great continent/island/world that Yggrasil is rooted upon is a great bottomless chasm. It used to extend forever (this is probably some kind of metaphor for space, which would mean the continent is actually Earth) but the realm of Muspelheim, another world/continent/island has slowly been drifting closer until now anyone can sit at the edge of the chasm and see the fiery eyes of the fire giant lords in the distance. In this manner, I think of the Norse cosmology as being very simplistic, because it's just a giant tree that sits on a planet. There's no divine realms - Asgard is a place anyone can travel to if they can either climb the tree or sneak onto the Rainbow Bridge without Heimdallr hurling them off the edge of the world. Getting to Muspelheim takes either wings or a lot of guts to brave the chasm and the world serpent that lives in it. Adventuring to the realm of the dead is as simple as distracting Hel with a shiny soul and then bolting into her basement (and going down a flight of stairs that will likely go on for many miles). The Great Wheel is far too esoteric. If it's going to be simplified, that's great, but if it's going to be the same and the little goodies are going to be all rewritten (the three primary evil outsider factions, for instance, that R-Bake cited), then it will be worthless to me. There will be nothing left to make me want to use it. 9 layers of emo angels, that's just so wonderful that I could take all of my best characters and make each of them commit seppuku in turn just out of shame. A bottomless pit full of bestial morons - what other use could there possibly be for a bottomless pit other than filling it with evil guys who have claws? That one makes my god-defying blackguard want to go back and stay a paladin, just so he can take a few feats to Smite Bad Ideas. Given my desire for simplicity that also leaves room for creativity, I'm still probably going to paperclip the 4E DMG's pages about the planes together and forget they exist and use a simpler build. I hope R-Bake did a decent job, though, so that I can atleast raise my eyebrow at whatever those pages say before I seal them away.
awaken_D_M_golem 09-19-07, 04:02 PM	First of all, the realm of the Aesir is Asgard, not Ysgard. My expectation would be the elimination of the word "Asgard" , for a simple reason. Anything connected to a currently functioning Earth religion, must be vague-ified. And people still worship (if you want to call it that) the Norse pantheon. It's kinda like Nirvana having it's name changed to Foo Lion Fighters. err ...
ArcTan 09-19-07, 06:17 PM	Nitpick: Nirvana never changed its name after it became Nirvana, and I'm not aware of any particular controversy that was associated with them using a term from Buddhism. (Indeed, I remember them having Buddhist fans who thought the term was perfectly appropriate for the weird kind of "transcendence" Kurt Cobain achieved by combining meaningless lyrics with repetitive guitar chords and screaming vocals into something beautiful. Or so the fans claimed, anyway -- I wasn't one of them in high school, I listened to hip-hop.) If anything, D&D's use of the term "Nirvana" for the "Clockwork Nirvana of Mechanus" is way more of an insulting distortion than Nirvana as a band name. The Foo Fighters are not Nirvana. No one could possibly, in a million years, claim that any band that existed after Kurt Cobain died was "Nirvana" without looking like the world's biggest asstard, and of all people Dave Grohl would not be a big enough fool to try. The Foo Fighters aren't Nirvana at all, and aren't even very similar to Nirvana, and the main reason Dave Grohl didn't get his Nirvana friend and bandmate Krist Novoselic to play in the Foo Fighters is because that would make it look like they were trying to bring back Nirvana, which would, again, make them look like the world's biggest asstards. Also, the Foo Fighters' name has nothing to do with "Foo Lions" or "Foo Dogs" (i.e. the stone guardian lions from Chinese architecture). "Foo fighter" is a term from WWII to describe UFOs seen by Allied fighter pilots.
ArgulFraster 09-19-07, 07:30 PM	This is exactly what I wanted to happen when I heard about a new edition -- dumping old sacred cows and rearranging the existing flavor so it makes more sense. LYNCH HIM!
Rohano 09-19-07, 11:51 PM	I think what D M meant was that Nirvana, as a religious concept, shouldn't be in D&D in exact terms. There are monks, and there is a 'nirvana' but the monks aren't necessarily buddhist (far from it, actually) and the 'nirvana' isn't in any way related, it's just a paradise for machinists. If there was a "Nirvana" in D&D identical to what Siddharta described, changing its name would probably help to make D&D a little more politically correct but changing more of it would be better. D&D used to have a policy page, on the Wizards website, saying that Wizards doesn't intend on ever putting Christian material in the game or material from any other existing religion. It is very true that there are still some Pantheists out there who worship Odin and teach their kids about Ragnarok. I don't see how anyone could be surprised by that. There are even some Greek and Italian traditionalists who still praise their ancient pantheons. Why is anyone surprised? The majority of America worships... a burning bush that told a guy to write laws into stone? A guy who taught about peace only to get ceremonially executed? Of course D&D would never try to mess with modern Christians - they'd make repraisals in force. But D&D should remove other existing religions as well. 2nd edition used to have even more real-world religions but Wizards didn't include them in 3E. Go back to your wives and tell them that people still worship Zeus and Odin and Marduk. Then direct them to Google "pantheism." Aesir do it on trees. I just thought up a new bumper sticker.
ArcTan 09-20-07, 12:16 AM	I think what D M meant was that Nirvana, as a religious concept, shouldn't be in D&D in exact terms. There are monks, and there is a 'nirvana' but the monks aren't necessarily buddhist (far from it, actually) and the 'nirvana' isn't in any way related, it's just a paradise for machinists. Which is misusing the word "Nirvana", and very very badly misusing it. Far worse than Ysgard/Asgard, actually. Anyway, he was talking about the band, not the D&D concept (which has never had its name changed to "Foo Lion Fighters"). If there was a "Nirvana" in D&D identical to what Siddharta described, changing its name would probably help to make D&D a little more politically correct but changing more of it would be better. D&D used to have a policy page, on the Wizards website, saying that Wizards doesn't intend on ever putting Christian material in the game or material from any other existing religion. ...Then they need to get rid of Rakshasa, which are a major mythological part of Hinduism, which is one of the biggest religions in the world. For that matter, Genies (jinn) are a major part of the Qu'ran, even though they didn't originate there. And Angels with wings and Devils with horns? C'mon. There's not much in D&D that doesn't step on the toes of some religion or mythology. I mean, that's the nature of the kind of fantasy D&D is. It's probably a better idea to own up to it and try to make it good than to reject it entirely.
Rohano 09-20-07, 01:11 AM	Like I was trying to say, D&D has a lot of material taken from obscurities in religions. However, winged angels and horned devils are a result of artists' depictions of various religious figures. The Bible, as I understand it (I'm no Christian, sorry to disappoint), doesn't say in bold print, "All angels are big folk with strangely-colored skin and huge swords and anyone deemed a devil has horns and big teeth and red skin and probably very large claws." Only one angel had a flaming longsword. And, following the roots of Christianity into the Torah and other writing before that (which many theologians might be familiar with), though there are other greater evils in the world than Satan, none of them look anything like Mephistopheles. Or Asmodeus. The Pentacle is a Wiccan symbol - another real-world religion. Upside down, it doesn't represent Satan, it rather represents a perversion of nature (when nature is aligned improperly), sometimes used in relation to real-world black magic (which seeks to align nature to unnatural ends - real-world black magic isn't all about evil). Undead and genies and Rakshasas and martyrs (BoED) aside, D&D isn't built on the idea of ripping on religions. It just so happened that myths work out like that. People are fascinated by the strange ways you can depict strange creatures and concepts, which often come from the bowels of real-world faiths. I try not to use a lot of religious material for that reason. My games are democratic in that I let my players choose the base concepts for each campaign but I discourage anything that's blasphemous, even if all of my players are atheists. Just the same, D&D does get away with ripping on LOTR. Gary Gygax admits to basing the original game on LOTR quite a bit, with orcs and elves and all, and that has carried through quite a bit today (but the same happened with Warhammer and other fantasy and/or mass combat games that were created before or around the same time D&D was). LOTR, as JRRT puts it, was supposed to be not just literature but mythology for England's enjoyment (he was of the opinion that England needed a proper mythology with real depth, like other world regions). And even if D&D uses a lot of this "mythology," is it not still blasphemous to steal races and terminology (and began a trend for nearly all modern fantasy epics to use the same races and cultures?). Anyway, the point of the thread was to discuss the possibility that R-Bake and Friends rewrote the planes and/or their inhabitants. Sorry to stray a bit.
ArcTan 09-20-07, 04:15 AM	Like I was trying to say, D&D has a lot of material taken from obscurities in religions. However, winged angels and horned devils are a result of artists' depictions of various religious figures. The Bible, as I understand it (I'm no Christian, sorry to disappoint), doesn't say in bold print, "All angels are big folk with strangely-colored skin and huge swords and anyone deemed a devil has horns and big teeth and red skin and probably very large claws." Only one angel had a flaming longsword. Well, sure, whatever. Christianity consists of more than just what is written down in the Bible itself, you know (as much as some hardcore Calvinist-types would like to deny it). If you're talking about public perception, public perception sees angels and demons as Christian angels and demons, like it or not. There was a point when D&D let itself get scared by the relatively few (yes, relatively few) conservative Christians who raised an uproar about it, and made up asinine names like Baatezu and Tanar'ri to obscure the matter, but hopefully we're past that now. Undead and genies and Rakshasas and martyrs (BoED) aside, D&D isn't built on the idea of ripping on religions. It just so happened that myths work out like that. People are fascinated by the strange ways you can depict strange creatures and concepts, which often come from the bowels of real-world faiths. Well, yes. Mythology and religion are intimately intertwined, and though they can be called two different things, ultimately they're part and parcel of each other. Trying to treat them as separate and unrelated isn't really possible.
Thanael 09-20-07, 10:38 AM	<Many explanations and word usages that make my headache worse.>See? Complicated. <than rambles on himself quite wordy and uses the word R-Bake repeatedly> :eek: :confused: :weep: Puhlease... So your headache derives from things not being enough simply-simply, huh? What do you think is the better official default cosmology: one that can handle all different kinds of simple(r) cosmologies by encompassing them (where you can pick and choose and emphasize whatever take you want) or a specific simple cosmology that pisses of anyone who: a. likes another cosmology that got shafted thus or b. likes things a bit more complicated and thinks that more simple =/= more interesting.
Rohano 09-20-07, 10:05 PM	Using a multiverse that includes all planar cosmologies is appealing but the Great Wheel just doesn't do it for me. How can I enjoy the specific cosmologies that are diced up to make the Great Wheel work? I'd rather that the cosmologies work and the Great Wheel get diced up. As I said, when the new DMG comes out, I might still use the Great Wheel and I might still use the outsiders out of the MM. Baator is in the air (so to speak) and there might still be other things that were... done right.
ArcTan 09-21-07, 01:25 AM	Using a multiverse that includes all planar cosmologies is appealing but the Great Wheel just doesn't do it for me. How can I enjoy the specific cosmologies that are diced up to make the Great Wheel work? I'd rather that the cosmologies work and the Great Wheel get diced up. You put it better than I could've. I never got the obsession with saying "And ALL THESE COSMOLOGIES are ALL TRUE and ALL EXIST SIMULTANEOUSLY", when this isn't really possible to do without making a hash out of all of them. Why can't we just have multiple *alternate* cosmologies, instead of one single meta-cosmology that tries to smush them all together? The Great Wheel, where Odin and Thor hang out with Zeus and the Jade Emperor and Asmodeus and Lolth and Takhisis -- it's just *dumb*. It makes every single one of those beings seem more petty and stupid than if you confronted them on their own, in a cosmology that were truly centered on them. It's why the Justice League is less fun than just having Batman by himself, and why most Batman stories that try to make any pretense of making sense carefully ignore that Batman is a member of the Justice League and could in theory go up to the JLA satellite and destroy this particular gang of thugs with aerial laser beams (or call the Flash and have the Flash solve the whole crime in the space of five normal human heartbeats, or...) And it's why the stupid-ass fanfic that tries to explain Harry Potter fighting the alliance of Voldemort and Magneto by joining up with the X-Men is, well... stupid-ass fanfic.
Bob the Efreet 09-21-07, 02:28 AM	Word from Chris Perkins on 4E cosmology: The D&D cosmology — largely unchanged since 1st Edition — is receiving its share of scrutiny as well. We're making revisions to the cosmology so that the planes work better as adventure sites. Case in point, the individual Elemental Planes (as described in 2E and 3E) aren't the most interesting adventure locations; their inhospitability, vastness, and uniformity discourage exploration, and the creatures that dwell there are predictable and easy to thwart if you're packing the right spells. (Of course, these planes don't hold a candle to 2E's hilarious Plane of Vacuum, which is truly the antithesis of fun.) In the Wizards Presents: Worlds and Monsters book, we'll present in more detail 4th Edition's alternative to the Elemental Planes of Water, Fire, Earth, and Air. My hope is that the cosmological changes will excite players and actually encourage DMs to set adventures in these far-flung locales. I have opinions on this, but as they're not as strong as most of the pro-Planescape people here (who I largely agree with), I'll let them argue it for me instead.
goldomark 09-21-07, 03:22 AM	Easy to thwart? Predictable? Tell that to the Padisha of the Marid! Half the fun of the Elemental planes was finding a way to survive in them. All it takes is a prepared DM, who thought about the adventure. Of course in the plane of Fire you expect to face creatures immuned to fire and vulnerable to cold, but those Effrets have alot of slaves, from all over the multiverse :D. The abandon white tower on the mineral plane? Yeah! Thats a great place to forge that new armor we're making for the fighter. Right? No crazy elemental lich there. Right? And that weird sect of Yuan-Ti. Why are they trying to awaken that huge Kraken, with snakes for tentacles. Isn't it better to leave it frozen on the plan of Ice (paradoxal for cold-blooded aberrations)?
ArcTan 09-21-07, 04:48 AM	You know, saying that things that aren't fun based on the simple description of what they are because some Planescape author made this awesome supplement that you should've bought 9 years ago when it was in print that talks about this great one particular story in it about this thing with the other thing that's enslaved to the third thing... Yeah. This is why non-Planescape fans tend to not like talking to Planescape fans about the planes. I mean, c'mon. The Quasielemental Plane of Vacuum *is* the antithesis of fun. Maybe it's not if you have some supplement (which I'm certain someone is going to bring up) about the thingy-thinger-thingamajig of the Void that stole the whatsit of the whatevers. But most of us don't. And most of us don't care. Most of us look at a plane that says "This is a great big empty vacuum that you can't survive in" and go "Ah-ha! The antithesis of fun!" and go elsewhere.
Ornum 09-21-07, 08:11 AM	You know, saying that things that aren't fun based on the simple description of what they are because some Planescape author made this awesome supplement that you should've bought 9 years ago when it was in print that talks about this great one particular story in it about this thing with the other thing that's enslaved to the third thing... Yeah. This is why non-Planescape fans tend to not like talking to Planescape fans about the planes. I mean, c'mon. The Quasielemental Plane of Vacuum *is* the antithesis of fun. Maybe it's not if you have some supplement (which I'm certain someone is going to bring up) about the thingy-thinger-thingamajig of the Void that stole the whatsit of the whatevers. But most of us don't. And most of us don't care. Most of us look at a plane that says "This is a great big empty vacuum that you can't survive in" and go "Ah-ha! The antithesis of fun!" and go elsewhere. You don't have to go back "9 years" for something on Vacuum. Try FC:1 for a little more on that. Really, they didn't get rid of the quasielemental planes in 3e. Sure, they didn't include them in the MotP or the 3.5 DMG, but there are more than a few sources that mentioned them, but instead of separate planes they were just treated as border regions between the elemental planes. And I really don't like anyone using the whole excuse of the various gods rubbing elbows with each other as being a bad thing and trying to make that a valid reason for the changes. I hate to break it to you, but in order to play the 4e game as WotC will present it to the players (without creating more gods), you will still have those gods interacting. It's already been stated that while some of the Greyhawk gods will be included as choices for clerics to worship from the start, they also wanted to included various other deities (Thor was specifically mentioned). Do you really think that they'll take up that much room in the Player's Guide to include all related gods as separate pantheons? I doubt it. See why that argument doesn't really hold any water? Now, as for the whole Elemental Plane changes. I really can't comment until I see some sort of final form. If mechanics are in place that make it easy to ignore the fluff, then I'll deal (change the fluff). But it looks as though I'm going to have to make wholesale changes to most of the fluff, so I'd really be wasting my money on something that only ends up offering me new rules to learn and no real flavor to back it up. I'd basically end up spending all that money on a new core books that had nothing to offer me beyond what I can get for free with the SRD.
sciborg2 09-21-07, 10:26 AM	arctan, you may find this unbelievable but the planar fan-base isn't divided so neatly into Planescape vs Non-Planescape. The Plane of Vacuum existed years, if not a decade or so before Planescape. please, for the love the Panda, stop putting everything you don't like about the Great Wheel at the door of Planescape.
goldomark 09-21-07, 01:02 PM	Well, ArcTan, all the stuff I mentionned were creations of the DM I play with. Yes we did have a few supplements, but I think everything came out of is imagination, with just a little inspiration from official sources. My point is that YOU can make the Elemental planes interesting. You see the plane of Vacuum as empty and boring. I see a place that needs to be filled :P .
Bob the Efreet 09-21-07, 05:29 PM	You know, saying that things that aren't fun based on the simple description of what they are because some Planescape author made this awesome supplement that you should've bought 9 years ago when it was in print that talks about this great one particular story in it about this thing with the other thing that's enslaved to the third thing... It seems like if some guy writing a Planescape supplement can come up with interesting ideas for an elemental plane, some of the rest of us could, too. I mean, c'mon. The Quasielemental Plane of Vacuum *is* the antithesis of fun. So is the Grey Waste. I've still seen and played a lot of good adventures there. Most of us look at a plane that says "This is a great big empty vacuum that you can't survive in" and go "Ah-ha! The antithesis of fun!" and go elsewhere. Really? Because when I see something like a huge planar vacuum, it makes me wonder what I can do with it. It seems like you really hate the idea of the planes as they stand, mostly because they had good 2e supplements that "nobody can get anymore" and thus nobody has the creativity to work with the 3e material and make them interesting. I say if you don't like the planes, do something about them. Maybe that involves whipping up a whole new cosmology, but it could also involve taking what we have with the current cosmology (that's the 3e one, so that you don't even have to seek out a decade-old campaign setting) and spice it up a bit.
Skeptical Clown 09-21-07, 06:22 PM	I can't count the number of fantastic adventures my group and I have had in the plane of vacuum. Roleplaying the suffocation of the player characters alone took two sessions, and then once someone finally managed to rig a way to survive there, there were endless sessions available to explore the vast nothingness. Imagine our delight and awe after three sessions of exploring Nothing when we ran into a giant vacuum-mold, and the horror as we ran away from its colossal, moldy body... well, not ran because there is nothing to run on, but you know...
Taeldrin Laesrash 09-21-07, 07:08 PM	I've had much fun with Vacuum, and many other planes that have had very little detail (And existed long before Planescape). The existing cosmology is a massive blank canvass that you're free to paint on, no supplements needed. We don't need to rewrite everything either to make it fun.
yrogerg 09-21-07, 08:46 PM	I can't count the number of fantastic adventures my group and I have had in the plane of vacuum. Roleplaying the suffocation of the player characters alone took two sessions, and then once someone finally managed to rig a way to survive there, there were endless sessions available to explore the vast nothingness. Imagine our delight and awe after three sessions of exploring Nothing when we ran into a giant vacuum-mold, and the horror as we ran away from its colossal, moldy body... well, not ran because there is nothing to run on, but you know... WIN
ripvanwormer 09-21-07, 09:01 PM	I can't count the number of fantastic adventures my group and I have had in the plane of vacuum. Yes, clever people can and have used the Plane of Vacuum to good effect, myself included. You're certainly not required to use it to prove your bona fides, but witlessly trying to mock the idea that it can be effectively used at all shows a staggering lack of imagination.
Skeptical Clown 09-21-07, 09:37 PM	Look, people are free to play whatever games they want. Far be it from me to stop them. But in order to run adventures in the plane of Vacuum, you sort of have to put things IN the plane of Vacuum. It sorta defeats the purpose of being a plane of vacuum if there are things there, you know? The more you add to the plane of Vacuum, the more you undo what it actually is. Also, I am humbled by your scathing dismissal of my intellect once again, Rip, etc. etc.
Suzu 09-21-07, 10:20 PM	For those who are so impoverished, I direct you to The Ecology of the Succubus and Erinyes (http://mimir.net/essays/succubus.html). Now you are enlightened. This article sucks. It is not how I see the two races at all, and, frankly, not how they are presented in the MM.
ripvanwormer 09-21-07, 10:25 PM	You know, saying that things that aren't fun based on the simple description of what they are because some Planescape author made this awesome supplement that you should've bought 9 years ago when it was in print that talks about this great one particular story in it about this thing with the other thing that's enslaved to the third thing... Yeah. This is why non-Planescape fans tend to not like talking to Planescape fans about the planes. I've met a lot of non-Planescape fans online who've seemed to love talking to me about the planes, so once again you're trying to attribute your own biases to some imagined "norm." Nearly the whole Planescape line is still available in PDF form, and it's been expanded upon tremendously (and in some cases brilliantly) by fans on the internet. The cosmology it describes is not unique to Planescape, but appears in 1st, early and late 2nd, and 3rd edition as well (and yes, the Plane of Vacuum is alluded to in the Fiendish Codex I). If you wanted, you could say things like "here's what I use instead of the Plane of Vacuum," and that would be a positive contribution. For example: I didn't much care for the new diabolic creation myth, so I posted a slightly modified version of it that I did like. I said I didn't like the wholesale removal of succubi from the Abyss, so I suggested that if they were made slightly more bestial, they could keep them in and still get their precious simplicity. Both of those are positive contributions that balance any negativity I have. Constantly whining about how stupid you think Planescape is isn't a positive contribution. My ideal ArcTan would say nice things about ideas that he liked and make only constructive criticisms about those he didn't like. He wouldn't spend most of his time on a jihad against previous-editions material that other people enjoy. Seriously, you're like a guy in the Eberron forum who goes on and on about how lame Eberron is, or the guy who goes to the Dragonlance forum to rant about how much better the Spawn of Tiamat are than draconians. In other words, a troll. People congregate in the Deities and the Planes forum because they like the D&D deities and planes, and want to talk to other people who enjoy them. Sometimes we get into it pretty hard-core, and if you don't want to get into it so deeply, that's fine too, but we'll keep on doing what we enjoy. "But there's a separate Planescape forum," you may demur. True, but the things you attack aren't unique to Planescape. The succubus and its paragons, the Plane of Vacuum, and the structure of the Great Wheel are all part of the 3rd edition canon in one form or another. And even the things that *are* unique to Planescape are still on-topic here. How about if I don't go into the 4th edition forums and say, effectively, that everyone who likes 4th edition is an idiot, you can refrain from doing the same in the 3rd edition forums? And if, in the 4th edition forums, I occasionally break in to say "this is how we did things in previous editions," you can perhaps be nice about it. I think you must somehow think you're playing a useful role, adding another perspective to a group that would otherwise be thoughtlessly compliant with years-old dogma. In fact, even if your blustering was intelligent or informed, the role of "loyal opposition" isn't one we need. Most of us are happy to consider other perspectives, and few of us run the planes exactly "out of the box." What we need is creative people with interesting ideas, not people who mistake unthinking hatred of everything more than a few years old for "creativity." I spend far more time than I want here feeling (ridiculously) obliged to defend things that I like when what I'd rather do is post new ideas, suppositions, and theories. I'll try to avoid that in the future.
Suzu 09-21-07, 10:46 PM	I do believe ArcTan was just wupped. On other topics: succubus + eyrines=new succubus? wtf? That is not good at all, they're completely bloody different!
ripvanwormer 09-21-07, 10:48 PM	This article sucks. It is not how I see the two races at all, and, frankly, not how they are presented in the MM. That article was based on how they were presented in 2nd edition (and written back in 1999). I linked to it as a way to demonstrate how a creative person can make even very similar races distinctively different. The 4e design team was saying they were throwing out the succubus because they thought she was too much like the erinyes. That's wrongheaded, in my mind. I didn't intend to say by it that the 2nd edition way was better than the 3rd edition or 4th edition way, only to show what a little imagination can do.
ArcTan 09-21-07, 11:08 PM	And I really don't like anyone using the whole excuse of the various gods rubbing elbows with each other as being a bad thing and trying to make that a valid reason for the changes. I hate to break it to you, but in order to play the 4e game as WotC will present it to the players (without creating more gods), you will still have those gods interacting. It's already been stated that while some of the Greyhawk gods will be included as choices for clerics to worship from the start, they also wanted to included various other deities (Thor was specifically mentioned). Do you really think that they'll take up that much room in the Player's Guide to include all related gods as separate pantheons? I doubt it. See why that argument doesn't really hold any water? ...And the continued inclusion of real-life deities in incongruous roles is one of the things I don't particularly like about what I've heard of 4e. So is the continued inclusion of things like Vancian magic. Did you really think my argument was "4e is PERFECT! There is no way to handle the planes and deities better than 4e!"?
ArcTan 09-21-07, 11:10 PM	Well, ArcTan, all the stuff I mentionned were creations of the DM I play with. Yes we did have a few supplements, but I think everything came out of is imagination, with just a little inspiration from official sources. My point is that YOU can make the Elemental planes interesting. You see the plane of Vacuum as empty and boring. I see a place that needs to be filled :P . Kind of by definition, if you fill it, it's not the Quasielemental Plane of Vacuum anymore.
ArcTan 09-21-07, 11:11 PM	I do believe ArcTan was just wupped. On other topics: succubus + eyrines=new succubus? wtf? That is not good at all, they're completely bloody different! ...And the conversation comes full circle. I guess ripvanwormer is right! We don't need new perspectives at all! I mean, it's kind of like how everyone here was posting constructively and nicely about Rich Baker's blog post, and I just came in and started being negative and talking about how "It seems the 4e design team cannot create, only destroy" and so on. Oh, wait.
Rohano 09-21-07, 11:39 PM	Rip, do you think that after the foreshadowed 4E planar and divine materials are out that you will be updating older materials to 4E mechanics? For example, if they completely throw out all of the elemental planes and go with some crazy plane that includes all elements, will you be writing up 4E rules for 4E conversions of the older elemental planes for people who want to use them? As much as I hate the Great Wheel, I'd still like to keep a few things that hail from both Planescape and pre-Planescape eras if I'm going to end up using the Great Wheel anyway. I mean, what's the point of the Great Wheel if it doesn't include an unquenchable torch the size of a universe, an endless ocean, a category Infinite hurricane, and <insert more elemental plane puns>? You may not have any plans yet but if you're going to be involved in some conversions then my faith will be somewhat restored. And by somewhat I mean I might actually keep the Great Wheel, just using your material instead of what Wizards publishes. But when all else fails, when all heroes have gone their seperate ways and no one's going to bother converting more rules, there's always alternate cosmologies! Wheeee!
ripvanwormer 09-22-07, 12:38 AM	Rip, do you think that after the foreshadowed 4E planar and divine materials are out that you will be updating older materials to 4E mechanics? Unless someone else does it first, yeah.
ripvanwormer 09-22-07, 01:26 AM	I guess ripvanwormer is right! We don't need new perspectives at all! I mean, it's kind of like how everyone here was posting constructively and nicely about Rich Baker's blog post, and I just came in and started being negative and talking about how "It seems the 4e design team cannot create, only destroy" and so on. Basically, yeah. Rich Baker's post (about succubi and erinyes, not so much the the devils as former minions of a dead god idea, which I find unsatisfying in itself but doesn't really destroy anything) is exactly the kind of unconstructive criticism that I'm complaining about. I tried to approach it constructively, suggesting more interesting ways to approach the problem (in this thread, I linked to a web article that I thought was a better solution - I thought this was the perfect response). But yes, obviously I am critical about that sort of thing, in him as well as you, and make no apologies for that. So when I said that line about creation and destruction, it's really the same complaint I'm making now.
Suzu 09-22-07, 11:57 AM	That article was based on how they were presented in 2nd edition (and written back in 1999). I linked to it as a way to demonstrate how a creative person can make even very similar races distinctively different. The 4e design team was saying they were throwing out the succubus because they thought she was too much like the erinyes. That's wrongheaded, in my mind. I didn't intend to say by it that the 2nd edition way was better than the 3rd edition or 4th edition way, only to show what a little imagination can do. Ah, I see. Well, on that note, the article is good.
EvilVegan 09-22-07, 02:38 PM	Hey all. The Great Wheel, present in one form or another since Gygax "invented the wheel". It was intimately tied to alignment and for the most part served a decent purpose of giving everything a place. Problem is when you then take EVERY SINGLE WORLD EVER and arbitrarily connect it to this Great Wheel. The various mythologies of infinite, unrelated worlds, are now all forced into this wheel, necessarilly connecting them. All of a sudden you have multiple gods bleeding into each other's domains and basically hanging out at the club house together. -Hey, Apollo, how's life in Greece? -**** off, Lathander. Shouldn't you be working on your popularity contest. WHY ARE THESE DEITIES TALKING TO EACH OTHER?! The Great Wheel is great, for Planescape, or other campaign worlds that want to be part of the fantasy equivalent of a space-travelling adventure. Yes, it is effectively turning a fantasy setting into a Star Gate rip off. If you don't see the correlation you're deluding yourself. Campaign settings should have the default option of not being intimately connected to every other world ever. There should not automatically be the chance that Pelor is going to attack Ra in his evil attempts to dominate the multiverse. There should be no automatic reason that the theory "St. Cuthbert might in fact be Tyr" has a chance to be true. It's absurd, and it involves hammering several distinct and very flavorful settings into the same hodge podge pile of crap. Lucky for me, my campaign worlds are in their own separate worlds with their own cosmologies, and absolutely no connection to Planescape. My Gods aren't rehashed Greyhawk gods in disguise and there is no chance of one appearing (except maybe as a mortal pretending to be a God). All that being said, I don't care what fluff they change. First thing I do is ignore it. I'd prefer if the fluff was in the side bars and the books were written with mechanics and suggestions how to integrate them into any campaign world/system, whether its a homebrew where everyone plays anthropomorphic turtle-people in mechs to one where you are a member of a crew that travels from world to world interacting with ridge-headed humans in crap makeup. I'm sorry if you don't like the change they're making. It affects me almost none, positively if at all. The old default meta-setting was stupid to begin with if you weren't playing Planescape, which is by itself a very fun setting. I just see no reason for every campaign setting ever made by anyone, even if they have nothing to do with anything ever made by anyone else, to be forced into this cosmology by default. "Oh your god is Lawful good, which part of Celestia does he live on, he might be my made-up god's neighbor? What do you mean you don't use Celestia? It's in the DMG!" Keep your meta-setting/multi-verse away from my worlds. If you do like Planescape, feel free to update. Don't feel free to force your concepts of what a multiverse always has to be on me. Thanks! In other words, Core Books should be setting free. The Great Wheel is a setting. Devils being fallen angels, Original? No. Elves being long lived, pointy-eared nature lovers, original? NO! Oh noes! My campaigns will forever be scarred! Oh wait, no. My devils aren't that. Nor were they involved in a retarded Blood War. Nor did they live on another plane with other devils from other worlds, because in my world those worlds don't exist. And my elves don't love nature, they view it as a resource for world domination and live in highly organized cities, ruling over the lesser races. Wow, look at that, I completely ignored all the pointless fluff they wasted my time with. Too bad they're going to waste my time with different fluff now. I should cry. :emo:
sciborg2 09-22-07, 03:55 PM	the plane of vacuum has no air, and is touched by Negative energy. that's its only requirement. you can easily put anything you want in it. i can't tell if you guys are that ignorant of the planes you're criticizing or just weaseling in falsehoods to win an argument.
EvilVegan 09-22-07, 04:00 PM	I must strongly disagree that bestial demons of lust are a bad idea. They can be quite horrific especially if they can appear in forms other than their true form. There was a horror movie about a demon who seduced priests and then devoured them. It appeared to be an amazingly attractive woman but was revealed as a foul reptilian-dog zule-hound creature when the priest invoked its true name. I would hope and expect Demons to receive such a monstrosity as I think that well represents the nature and horror of CE better than Succubus. It was a pretty good movie, if someone else could remember the name I'd appreciate if they'd share it with me.I'm pretty sure it was "Mr. Bean" the plane of vacuum has no air, and is touched by Negative energy. that's its only requirement. you can easily put anything you want in it. i can't tell if you guys are that ignorant of the planes you're criticizing or just weaseling in falsehoods to win an argument. If you're referring to the vacuum mold, I'm thinking it was a joke. Otherwise I haven't caught any posts where people said it was anything other than a plane without air next to the negative energy plane.
sciborg2 09-22-07, 04:17 PM	I was referring to posts like this one from Skeptical Clown: It sorta defeats the purpose of being a plane of vacuum if there are things there, you know? The more you add to the plane of Vacuum, the more you undo what it actually is.
BOZ 09-22-07, 04:58 PM	"But there's a separate Planescape forum," you may demur. True, but the things you attack aren't unique to Planescape. The succubus and its paragons, the Plane of Vacuum, and the structure of the Great Wheel are all part of the 3rd edition canon in one form or another. and, i might add, those concepts all *predate* Planescape, as well. that is to say, though they may have been touched by the Planescape setting, they have existed just fine independently of it as well.
ArcTan 09-22-07, 06:27 PM	the plane of vacuum has no air, and is touched by Negative energy. that's its only requirement. you can easily put anything you want in it. i can't tell if you guys are that ignorant of the planes you're criticizing or just weaseling in falsehoods to win an argument. Obviously that's not true. If I say that Vacuum is a gigantic plane filled with solid rock (that is touched by negative energy), that fits your description -- no air, negative energy -- but clearly contradicts what people expect the "Quasielemental Plane of Vacuum" to mean. The point of Vacuum is that it's a vacuum, which means a whole lot of empty space with nothing in it. The fact that there are still *some* things in it doesn't change that. Indeed, using that as a solution undermines the whole point -- that *as written* it is the antithesis of fun. (I mean, sure, Vacuum isn't boring if you change it. Nothing's boring if you change it. Sitting at home and staring at a wall with drying paint on it isn't boring if I replace the wall with drying paint with fifty thousand strippers. I really want to call this another version of the Oberoni Fallacy, only to do with flavor, not rules.)
Llawgoch 09-22-07, 06:28 PM	Niflheim is a single realm on the second layer of the Gray Waste (which is also commonly called Niflheim, but this is just one of the names various cultures call it - the Celts call it Annwyn, for example). Apologies for the pedantry, but Niflheim and Annwn are not necessarily analogous. The name Annwyn is an incorrect spelling of Annwn or Annwfn, and comes from Welsh mythology and thus isn't a universal Celtic term per se. Originally Annwn was not an underworld with hel(l)ish connotations but rather an otherworld characterised as a place of delight and eternal youth, similar in respects to otherworlds such as Tir na nOg, Mag Mell or even Avalon. We have certain other mythologies/religions, to thank for turning Annwn into a hellish realm.
BOZ 09-23-07, 11:17 PM	Sitting at home and staring at a wall with drying paint on it isn't boring if I replace the wall with drying paint with fifty thousand strippers. i will forgive WotC for *any* changes they make in 4E if they include a Plane of 50,000 Strippers!
sciborg2 09-24-07, 09:20 AM	Okay, I worded that badly. Vacuum is akin to the Plane of Air, save there's no air. It's a void. Other than that, it can have fortresses for the Doomguard faction, an ancient evil that the obyriths stumbled upon, a mold that feeds on nothingness. Though, as others have pointed out, the main problem is this idea that every plane has to be "fun". For me, the planes are fun because they are alien landscapes. I can see this isn't everyone's cup of tea, but I really think there needs to be a balance between the planes as a setting for players to star in and the planes as a vast cosmology that dwarfs the players. I think most people are in agreement with you ArcTan, at least part way. The difference is that many of us want new options for the planes as they stand rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater. i will forgive WotC for *any* changes they make in 4E if they include a Plane of 50,000 Strippers! You may want to make sure those aren't obyrith strippers....
Skeptical Clown 09-24-07, 09:45 AM	the plane of vacuum has no air, and is touched by Negative energy. that's its only requirement. you can easily put anything you want in it. i can't tell if you guys are that ignorant of the planes you're criticizing or just weaseling in falsehoods to win an argument. No, I simply know what a vacuum is. By definition, it is not simply an absence of air--it's an absence of MATTER. And indeed, if I recall the core Planescape book correctly, its emptiness is the primary feature of note in the Plane of Vacuum. It's not 100% empty (as there is no such thing as a PERFECT vacuum), but it's nearly so. So I think what I said stands up pretty well; the more you put in the plane of Vacuum, the less it is truly a Vacuum. And really, what can you put in the plane of Vacuum that wouldn't be just as much at home in some other plane like the Plane of Air, or the Negative Energy plane? In order to put something in the Vacuum plane you have to at least add matter for inhabitants to crawl around on. If you want to have inhabitants that normally have to breath, then you need to create some sort of atmosphere too. There is certainly nothing wrong with doing these things--but they contradict the nature of the plane; if we escape the lack of air and the lack of matter in the plane, then we're really not dealing with anything related to a vacuum anymore. It's like sticking a hermetically sealed, air conditioned bubble in the plane of Fire to adventure in. You can do it, but if there's no heat and fire there, what's the point? Btw you know, it IS possible for people to disagree with you planar types and NOT be liars or idiots, and it's kind of the height of arrogance to imply otherwise when disagreeing with someone.
BOZ 09-24-07, 09:56 AM	You may want to make sure those aren't obyrith strippers.... I'm not picky. ;)
EvilVegan 09-24-07, 10:13 AM	Though, as others have pointed out, the main problem is this idea that every plane has to be "fun". For me, the planes are fun because they are alien landscapes. I can see this isn't everyone's cup of tea, but I really think there needs to be a balance between the planes as a setting for players to star in and the planes as a vast cosmology that dwarfs the players.I don't want planes to be "fun" and I don't want my players thinking that they can easily travel to them. I want them to be surreal twisted landscapes that the characters, as mortals bound to their shell, can scarcely comprehend without major mental issues. These are different planes of EXISTANCE, not vacation spots or coolzorz dungeonz! They are necessarily alien. There is no reason there should be any mortals living on them. Primal forces, spirits, souls, demons, devils, angels; sure. Mortals living mundane lives, never! The plane of Vacuum should have extremely alien creatures, at most a sci-fi creature that belongs in the far reaches of deep space. NOT A FREAKING CITADEL FULL OF AIR-BREATHING, EMO HUMANOIDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Antithesis of fun? Antithesis of sense! I don't want to travel to the 9th level of Hell to pick up a bagel and I don't want to be able to stroll around in the plane of vacuum. I want to go there and immediately start suffocating, while freezing to death, and being inadvertantly devoured by a creature so alien that neither side can determine whether the other is actually a living being. I think most people are in agreement with you ArcTan, at least part way. The difference is that many of us want new options for the planes as they stand rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater.I would like the baths to be separated so that there aren't 50 babies in the same water. It's gross. You may want to make sure those aren't obyrith strippers....HOT! :coolcthul :88E:
sciborg2 09-24-07, 10:21 AM	Btw you know, it IS possible for people to disagree with you planar types and NOT be liars or idiots, and it's kind of the height of arrogance to imply otherwise when disagreeing with someone. I think I'm just one person, not a planar type. That said, I still think the plane of Vacuum can have lots of things in it without being filled to the brim with matter. That's like saying we can't put things in the Plane of Air or the Plane of Lightning. As for being a liar or an idiot, I don't think you're an idiot - if I did I'd just ignore your arguments as worthless. I think that you're taking this lack of matter thing to an extreme, but yeah that doesn't make you a liar. Apologies.
Naderion 09-24-07, 10:42 AM	Even IF the plane of vacuum is finite (and I think it shouldn't), it's still unbeliveable huge. You could likely put several prime worlds in there and crush them to ruble and there would still be an almost complete emptyness. You could even say that on the plane of vacuum, vacuum isn't just a lack of anything, but in fact the presence of Nothingness. If you but anything in a regular vacuum, it will form a cloud that infinetely expands, but on the plane of vacuum, this does not need to be the case and all matter brought their by portals would form anti-bubbles with the void itself remained almost perfectly clean. I don't have para- or quasi-elemental planes in my cosmology, but one of the layers of hell is practically an endless void. I think it's very cool. Of course there should be something in there, but really really few things. A handfull of structures brought there and hidden from other planes and a very small number of void-elemental creatures. Of course, you don't go there to explore and spend a lot of time there just for fun, but for specific reasons, it's really a very exciting environment, I think. You could have a wizards tower just standing in the wilderness, but you could also have a simple doorway in a small cave that is a portal to a citadel on the plane of vacuum. This can make a really exiting place, especially if the party is traped there, because there is really nowere they could go.
Bob the Efreet 09-24-07, 05:24 PM	You may want to make sure those aren't obyrith strippers.... I hear Pale Night is hiding wondrous things under that shawl of hers.
Rohano 09-25-07, 12:45 AM	The Plane of Vacuum has no brim. Back on that "best phylacteries" thread, I think someone once recommended putting a phylactery in the Plane of Vacuum. A decent lich can survive there just fine, while the heroes who are chasing it cannot. I would agree that planes should be places where mortals don't go to 'adventure' but I have to admit that the outer planes really are just... vacation spots. Full of societies and strange cultures and governmental systems (from Ye Olde Tyrannical Pitchfork-Wielding Red Guy to the Utterly Mute Democracy of Pointlessness [where they do everything via anonymous ballot box and if you speak you get stabbed]) and peoples... the outer planes are really just good places for adventure. The inner planes are where the "omg the elemental prince 98534091875 just totally pwnd all of my friends and now I'm <suffocating/drowning/disintigrating/being killed in some other horrendous manner>, whatever shall I do!" takes place. I'm hoping that if there's a new take on the inner planes... it will be interesting. I don't like the idea of one big elemental plane. I like my individual infinite elemental planes, thankyewmuch.
Naderion 09-25-07, 07:30 AM	In my setting, the place were are elements meet in constant chaos was proto-material plane. Since it's said that everything on the material plane is made of air, earth, fire and water, it just makes sense that there is nothing but raw elemental matter shaped into pleasant and hospitable worlds.
Skeptical Clown 09-25-07, 07:55 AM	I think I'm just one person, not a planar type. That said, I still think the plane of Vacuum can have lots of things in it without being filled to the brim with matter. That's like saying we can't put things in the Plane of Air or the Plane of Lightning. As for being a liar or an idiot, I don't think you're an idiot - if I did I'd just ignore your arguments as worthless. I think that you're taking this lack of matter thing to an extreme, but yeah that doesn't make you a liar. Apologies. I was probably being touchy. But thank you. Anyway, I understand and do not object to putting things in the plane of Vacuum. My point, however, was that there is precious little you can put there that at all benefits from the nature of the plane. OK, so I can understand why the Doomguard would try to lair there for purely symbolic reasons, weird as that is. But there aren't that many other things that would go there that wouldn't be equally at home in some other pocket of the Inner Planes. So when the designer noted that the Plane of Vacuum is the "antithesis of fun", I don't think he was ouf of line at all; he simply zeroed in on the nature of the plane and pointed out some flaws: that it is inherently kind of boring (given that it is a vacuum) and that there is very little interesting you can put into it that actually depends on the plane.
Bob the Efreet 09-25-07, 04:26 PM	The latest Design & Development article has me reasonably firmly convinced that they're dropping the Wheel for a new cosmology.
BOZ 09-25-07, 04:43 PM	not just the great wheel, but the elemental planes as we know them and probably really the whole shebang. bah, the planes should not make sense to mortals! they should be confusing! the gods like it that way! ;)
ripvanwormer 09-25-07, 10:52 PM	But there aren't that many other things that would go there that wouldn't be equally at home in some other pocket of the Inner Planes. Vacuum quasielementals, void mephits (extinct, but what stays dead in D&D?), egarus fungus, Zal the Destroyer, and Sun Sing (as it was defined in the FC1) are all features of the plane that really wouldn't fit anywhere else in the Inner Planes. With two big bads there already, plus a quarter of the Doomguard, you've got a an excuse to set the climaxes of three campaigns there without even having to come up with any new material. Another adventure involving the ghosts of the slaughtered void mephits also comes readily to mind. I find it more admirable, when confronted with a challenge, to try to think of ways to overcome it instead of simply saying, "Oh, that's obviously hilariously unworkable." Except coming up with fun things to do with the Plane of Vacuum isn't even that much of a challenge.
Rohano 09-26-07, 01:29 AM	The latest Design & Development article has me reasonably firmly convinced that they're dropping the Wheel for a new cosmology. I think I agree. Even if it stays, it's being totally reworked. Elemental tempest? In the center of it is the Abyss, which was created from the primordial seed of some chained god? Daemons are obsessed with wanton destruction? Devils are still emo and Hell is even more Christianized? Asmodeus is now a god (now there's a good thing)? And everything seems to be based in the... Astral Sea? Is that the word used for everything between planes now? Ok. So the 4th dimension is the Astral Plane and everything else is inside it. What's new? And what's the wheel becoming?
ArcTan 09-26-07, 02:22 AM	Vacuum quasielementals, void mephits (extinct, but what stays dead in D&D?), egarus fungus, Zal the Destroyer, and Sun Sing (as it was defined in the FC1) are all features of the plane that really wouldn't fit anywhere else in the Inner Planes. Why, exactly, doesn't Sun Sing work in the Negative Energy Plane? Or, for that matter, in Wildspace or the Phlogiston? (While we're bringing up things cherished by certain fans from defunct settings that later settings decided to pointedly ignore?)
ArcTan 09-26-07, 02:24 AM	I find it more admirable, when confronted with a challenge, to try to think of ways to overcome it instead of simply saying, "Oh, that's obviously hilariously unworkable." TV producers, movie executives, and book editors make most of their money because it's their job to decide what's "hilariously unworkable" and what's worth wasting time and money trying to make work, both of those being limited resources. And no, the fact that it works for a small number of dedicated fans (which is something you can say about *anything*, including most creative ventures that were total and utter disasters from a financial standpoint) is irrelevant from the perspective of a business.
AtomicKitKat 09-26-07, 06:23 AM	Obyrith strippers...Pale Night...HAWT!:thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Skeptical Clown 09-26-07, 09:55 AM	Oh well, void mephits. Yeah, I use those all the time, who doesn't? ...Yeah I'm sorry, but even though I've heard of most of those things, I forgot they even existed--because they're just not very interesting*. I don't see anything admirable about keeping stuff around if it's not interesting or if it doesn't fit. There is no virtue in keeping something just because it is there. Anybody who has had to write very much knows that editing and revising work requires throwing stuff out. There is nothing about an existing work that is so sacred that it can't be sacrificed if it leads to a tighter and better piece of work. Now, perhaps 4e will suck. Who knows? But I like what I've seen so far. *I know I'm an uncreative boob for not being able to find a thousand good adventures that incorporate the Quasielemental plane of void, but I can live with that.
sciborg2 09-26-07, 10:16 AM	And no, the fact that it works for a small number of dedicated fans (which is something you can say about *anything*, including most creative ventures that were total and utter disasters from a financial standpoint) is irrelevant from the perspective of a business. I have yet to see you prove that the Great Wheel has been a disaster, or that vast amounts of people found it uninteresting. If it didn't work for you, fine. But I find ditching a major piece of D&D based on personal opinion to be a bit irritating - which is what I at least feel the designers are doing.
AtomicKitKat 09-26-07, 12:26 PM	Know something funny? Come 5th Edition, they can bring us right back to the Great Wheel again, citing previous precedent. "They chucked out 30 years of mythos, we have no problem chucking out 3 years of theirs.":evillaugh
AaronDireBear 09-26-07, 04:48 PM	- -Too bad there is something called 'previously established canon', which can't be arbitrarily disregarded, without creating major plotholes and problems to continuity. Unfortunately, Wizards may Pull a Blizzards and screw over the original Established Canon through the mortal sin of retconning; the single laziest thing you can do to create continuity. Write a god damn future that fits the well written past, don't change the past to fit your poorly written future!!!
ArcTan 09-26-07, 06:07 PM	I have yet to see you prove that the Great Wheel has been a disaster, or that vast amounts of people found it uninteresting. If it didn't work for you, fine. But I find ditching a major piece of D&D based on personal opinion to be a bit irritating - which is what I at least feel the designers are doing. Why? It was *created* based on personal opinion in the first place. It's not like Gary Gygax did any market research or, really, had any reason at all to say "Hey! You know what fits best in-between Neutral Good and Lawful Good? A giant sandwich planet with Gnomes."
ArcTan 09-26-07, 06:08 PM	Unfortunately, Wizards may Pull a Blizzards and screw over the original Established Canon through the mortal sin of retconning; the single laziest thing you can do to create continuity. Write a god damn future that fits the well written past, don't change the past to fit your poorly written future!!! That only applies if the past really is well-written, as opposed to incredibly stupid. Also, it's not a "retcon"; it's a "reboot". Totally different concept.
ripvanwormer 09-26-07, 06:33 PM	...Yeah I'm sorry, but even though I've heard of most of those things, I forgot they even existed This is evidently because you're the type of person who makes confident, declarative statements without doing any research to see if what they said was in any way true. Before saying something like, "there is nothing else on the Quasielemental Plane of Vacuum that couldn't easily go elsewhere," it'd be best to either look that up or, if this isn't possible, ask someone who knows. You would end up looking less foolish. Your entire argument, however, is clearly futile. You're saying, in essence, this is something that can never be used. It ought to be obvious that this is impossible to prove. I have to present only one plot hook - it doesn't even have to be a good one, it only has to be something that somebody, somewhere, would consider "fun" - and everything you've said crumbles to nothingness. Oh! That line just now inspired another one - a weapon that spreads nothingness throughout the world, flowing across the land like a dark tide, powered by a pool of "condensed" nothingness called Oblivion's Heart in the Quasielemental Plane of Vacuum, guarded by Sung Sing and destroyable only with the Shard of True Creation, a fragment of the first thing ever to exist, which appeared in the void of pre-creation from parts unknown. I don't see anything admirable about keeping stuff around if it's not interesting or if it doesn't fit. All I ask for is the possibility that they still be around, so that even if certain unimaginative souls think something is worthless, future designers whose inner children haven't been crushed to powder can come along later and prove them wrong. I know I'm an uncreative boob for not being able to find a thousand good adventures that incorporate the Quasielemental plane of void, but I can live with that. I can't. I can't bear it. You make me cry inside. Gamer Jesus is crying, too. He's looking at you, crucified on his gigantic d20, wondering why bothered to willingly miss his saving throw for the sake of your sins. That is how sarcasm is done. Watch and learn.
ArcTan 09-26-07, 06:43 PM	This is evidently because you're the type of person who makes confident, declarative statements without doing any research to see if what they said was in any way true. Before saying something like, "there is nothing else on the Quasielemental Plane of Vacuum that couldn't easily go elsewhere," it'd be best to either look that up or, if this isn't possible, ask someone who knows. You would end up looking less foolish. No, it cements the argument that if something is only useful to people willing to "do research" (on a damn game) or kowtow to other people who have "done research", it's not actually useful. Your entire argument, however, is clearly futile. You're saying, in essence, this is something that can never be used. It ought to be obvious that this is impossible to prove. I have to present only one plot hook - it doesn't even have to be a good one, it only has to be something that somebody, somewhere, would consider "fun" - and everything you've said crumbles to nothingness. Oh! That line just now inspired another one - a weapon that spreads nothingness throughout the world, flowing across the land like a dark tide, powered by a pool of "condensed" nothingness called Oblivion's Heart in the Quasielemental Plane of Vacuum, guarded by Sung Sing and destroyable only with the Shard of True Creation, a fragment of the first thing ever to exist, which appeared in the void of pre-creation from parts unknown. ...Which means that WotC should have no editors, no page limits on their books, and their books should in fact be gigantic wikis on which anyone at all who has a random idea ("How about... a plane full of monkeys? And one giant banana?") can scrawl it down. Because it would be wrong of us to judge *relative* usefulness or uselessness when deciding what belongs in a published game product or not. All I ask for is the possibility that they still be around, so that even if certain unimaginative souls think something is worthless, future designers whose inner children haven't been crushed to powder can come along later and prove them wrong. Sure they can. There's nothing at all that prevents a 4e designer from creating a genuine Planescape Campaign Setting, which ignores all the stuff in the core rules and does its own thing, just like Eberron does now. That *possibility* is and always will be there. What they're not doing is giving the *guarantee* that older material will be used by forcibly plugging the existing core campaign setting into it. There is, similarly, always the *possibility* that someone somewhere will write a conversion to forcibly retrofit Eberron into the Great Wheel. There is just no necessity for the core Eberron books to write themselves around that possibility, as opposed to leaving the work of doing that in the hands of whoever would want to take up the task of proving the usefulness of such a monstrosity. I guess the producers of the show Heroes were also "cutting off possibilities" by not leaving any tantalizing hooks in the show's backstory by which I can link it to Marvel Comics, DC Comics, Star Trek, X-Files and Harry Potter simultaneously. I can't. I can't bear it. You make me cry inside. Gamer Jesus is crying, too. He's looking at you, crucified on his gigantic d20, wondering why bothered to willingly miss his saving throw for the sake of your sins. That is how sarcasm is done. Watch and learn. Well, that's how unnecessarily over-the-top sarcasm is done.
ripvanwormer 09-26-07, 06:45 PM	Why, exactly, doesn't Sun Sing work in the Negative Energy Plane? Because it doesn't represent negative energy. It represents nothingness. Totally different concept. Or, for that matter, in Wildspace or the Phlogiston? For the same reason fire elementals don't originate in the sun, and water elementals don't hail from the ocean. Because in D&D, beings who personify basic elemental substances come from planes that also personify those substances. And because the Phlogiston is a rainbow ocean filled with a preservative fluid that burns like oil and can be breathed like air. It's about as far from vacuum as you can imagine. You asked nicely, so that's the answer. I happen to think that elemental nothingness is a pretty damn cool idea. It makes my brain buzz in a happy way, countless ideas flowing into it. It has a different quality than mere material nothingness.
ripvanwormer 09-26-07, 07:06 PM	No, it cements the argument that if something is only useful to people willing to "do research" (on a damn game) or kowtow to other people who have "done research", it's not actually useful. <Looks at you with bemusement, then cracks up> Is that actually your argument? Have you forgotten the context of this debate entirely? I agree completely that the Quasielemental Plane of Vacuum isn't very useful to someone who doesn't know about it, but that's as far as your argument goes. Using that logic, Eberron is "not actually useful" because people have to buy sourcebooks describing it before they can make use of it. If you want to use the Eberron setting, some amount of research is necessary. Maybe this involves buying the campaign setting, or trying to make do with Wikipedia, or pestering people on message boards, but the more research you do, the more use you'll get out of what you discover. The point in contention was whether or not the Quasielemental Plane of Vacuum was "hilarious" and "anti-fun," not whether people could make use of game material that they had no access to. The point in contention was also not whether it even had to be mentioned in a game product. As I said, I only ask that the possibility exist that it might exist somewhere in the multiverse. People were taking issue with an outrageous and poorly considered statement made by a game designer. Other people decided to attempt the impossible task of defending that statement. That is all this is about. Skeptical, who doesn't remember much about the plane he's trying to prove is "anti-fun," is like a person trying to prove that Eberron is anti-fun because she can't remember anything of interest in the setting. If someone went into the Eberron forum and started ranting that Sarlona was useless because "all it has are quori, and they can easily be put somewhere else," someone who knew something about Sarlona would take issue with that, and if someone else tried to say "things you have to look up don't count!" they would rightly be dismissed as an idiot. In the specific line you were referring to, I was more urging Skeptical, in particular, to do some research on the subject he was debating than I was urging people to do homework for their home campaigns (which is of course optional - you can make everything up out of your own head if you want). It's like someone trying to argue about climate change or economics without any grounding in the subject. It's just generally good debating practice to know about something before you try to argue about it.
Irving 09-26-07, 08:11 PM	Because it doesn't represent negative energy. It represents nothingness. Totally different concept. You have one hundred words to explain the difference in a context meaningful to a DM who is writing an adventure for his gaming group next Tuesday. While you're at it, give me a one hundered pitch for at least one advenutre concept in the Plane of Vaccuum that makes the plane itself as interesting as the 4e Shadowfell. Do so without referring to any product that is out of print. Go.
ArcTan 09-26-07, 08:30 PM	rip, Are you really saying that there is *no difference* between something with a large amount of in-print material about it and something with a scattering of out-of-print material about it? Is there no difference in usefulness, moreover, between a setting that historically has had a lot written about it because a lot of people have had ideas seeded by it and something that's largely gone ignored because, frankly, it's stupid? (Woo-hoo! Vacuum Mephits! Can't believe I forgot about those! No intrinsic reason the 3e designers would've given them short shrift, no-sir-ee-bob!)
Rohano 09-26-07, 11:27 PM	arc, Are you really saying that you rely entirely on hugely popular and detailed settings to run games centered on them? Is there no difference in usefulness between a setting that has interesting little tidbits and scarcely-used gems such as void mephits and quasielemental princes and one that has everything up front where you have to make up your own little details? (Woo! Void mephits! OMGZ, have I ever said how much I love mephits? Probably my favorite familiars, actually, when I run neutral arcane casters. I dunno about you, but little details like void mephits and all that stuff Rip writes for Planescape makes me enjoy the current planar set-up, despite my qualms with the Great Wheel, because there's so many details that can be exploited to, as Rip said, write an entire campaign about.) /sarcasm Also, I'd like to point out that Arc likes to flame (or in this case, sputter and cough smoke at) perfectly reasonable material and/or writers and/or experts and/or intelligence and/or anything that disagrees with what Wizards unofficially tells him (ie That One Blog Everyone Hates, or TOBEH) just because he feels smarter to agree with what the Officials say when they're not in their Official roles. For those paying attention, I hope you learned the true meaning of Christmas. Or how to flame properly. Or how to run an exciting game in a tiny corner of the planes where no one else will bother you (because they all think that tiny corner is pointless and should be removed). Counterculture!
ArcTan 09-26-07, 11:36 PM	arc, Are you really saying that you rely entirely on hugely popular and detailed settings to run games centered on them? Is there no difference in usefulness between a setting that has interesting little tidbits and scarcely-used gems such as void mephits and quasielemental princes and one that has everything up front where you have to make up your own little details? I guess if we keep talking past each other, what with one man's stupid idea being another man's "gem", we can't prove anything. Of course, WotC still has to decide what to actually put in their books based on *some*thing. Rip seems to be of the opinion that there's no such thing as a bad idea or an unusable idea, and that the noble thing to do when a predecessor writes something stupid in a setting is to try valiantly to make something of it rather than simply fixing it. I would like to see rip try to follow this philosophy as an editor of any kind of publishing line and see how long he stays in business.
ArcTan 09-26-07, 11:37 PM	Also, I was talking trash about the Great Wheel long before the 4e announcement, and long before I had any idea they were going to be ditching it (indeed, I was highly bitter because all indications, from books like the Fiendish Codices, seemed to be that they weren't). Say what you will about my opinion, but it's not a bandwagon opinion.
AtomicKitKat 09-27-07, 12:36 AM	No, it cements the argument that if something is only useful to people willing to "do research" (on a damn game) or kowtow to other people who have "done research", it's not actually useful. Hmm. No. Really? You mean it takes effort to make for an immersive role-playing environment?:rolleyes:
ArcTan 09-27-07, 01:08 AM	Hmm. No. Really? You mean it takes effort to make for an immersive role-playing environment?:rolleyes: The point of the books you buy with flavor and rules in them is that the stuff they give you is supposed to be stuff you can actually use, not stuff that seems almost impossible to use and prompts you to "be creative" and make up a way to use it. I have no reason to pay $90 for books that contain the latter. I can generate the latter all by myself. I just have to find a little kid or a schizophrenic in a mental hospital and transcribe their babblings. ("Okay, and outer space is filled with fungus... fungus of the void... and there's ten million monkeys and one giant banana... and a stripper...")
RadicalTaoist 09-27-07, 01:24 AM	"Okay, and outer space is filled with fungus... fungus of the void... and there's ten million strippers and one giant banana... and a monkey..." Your post is better now.
pratputajao 09-27-07, 02:57 AM	I don't want planes to be "fun" and I don't want my players thinking that they can easily travel to them. I want them to be surreal twisted landscapes that the characters, as mortals bound to their shell, can scarcely comprehend without major mental issues. These are different planes of EXISTANCE, not vacation spots or coolzorz dungeonz! They are necessarily alien. There is no reason there should be any mortals living on them. Primal forces, spirits, souls, demons, devils, angels; sure. Mortals living mundane lives, never! The plane of Vacuum should have extremely alien creatures, at most a sci-fi creature that belongs in the far reaches of deep space. NOT A FREAKING CITADEL FULL OF AIR-BREATHING, EMO HUMANOIDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Antithesis of fun? Antithesis of sense! I don't want to travel to the 9th level of Hell to pick up a bagel and I don't want to be able to stroll around in the plane of vacuum. I want to go there and immediately start suffocating, while freezing to death, and being inadvertantly devoured by a creature so alien that neither side can determine whether the other is actually a living being. I would like the baths to be separated so that there aren't 50 babies in the same water. It's gross.HOT! :coolcthul :88E: I totally agree with this!
AtomicKitKat 09-27-07, 03:34 AM	The point of the books you buy with flavor and rules in them is that the stuff they give you is supposed to be stuff you can actually use, not stuff that seems almost impossible to use and prompts you to "be creative" and make up a way to use it. Uh-huh. And the fact is that in 3.5 DMG, they just said "So, the general atmosphere of this place is as such.", leaving you to flesh out the greater details. Then they charged you $90 for BoVD and FC1+FC2 for greater details. Core should always be open ended, or at least, more so than any splatbooks they wish to sell. Oh yes, and more obyrith strippers please.:D
Bob the Efreet 09-27-07, 04:19 AM	Also, it's not a "retcon"; it's a "reboot". Totally different concept. While I find myself disagreeing with ArcTan on most things planar (I've always felt, personally, that an arcsine is considerably more elegant), I do agree with this statement, and it disappoints me that people can't seem to tell the difference between the two. Enterprise had some ridiculous retconning in it. The new Battlestar Galactica was a reboot. Also, reboots can be bad if you liked the way things were going. But they're not as bad as a retcon, in a general sense. At least not with a roleplaying game.
Naderion 09-27-07, 04:24 AM	Take it as a alternate reality, that doesn't have to be connected in any way with the old one. They are different things that just share many similarities.
EvilVegan 09-27-07, 08:56 AM	Take it as a alternate reality, that doesn't have to be connected in any way with the old one. They are different things that just share many similarities.Except for the fact that in the old reality, all realities are automatically connected to it regardless of what they have to say about it. :P ... I just wanted to point out that Void Mephits and that stupid fungus of nothingness were both created specifically to populate the QEplane of void. For instance, I could make a plane of unending sour cream. People could then say that this plane was the "antithesis of fun" because there is nothing there worth doing/seeing/encountering. Then I could say, "No! There're plenty of reasons for this plane to exist, such as the sour cream mephit, the sour cream fungus, and the elder evil of sour cream. And the Burrito Faction (from my defunct, 2nd edition campaign setting) has a stronghold there. They believe the universe is composed of sour cream." It doesn't matter if you put templates on other things (like mephits and fungus) and squeeze them into the plane, the plane itself doesn't belong in the new D&D and doesn't automatically make it fun. I could think of at least 3 campaigns that spin off the Quasi-elemental plane of sour cream (the elder evil causes all sour cream to go bad all at once (chefs are mad), sour cream mephits raid the donut shops, the Burrito Faction finds a weapon that turns all things into sour cream). Simply being able to do this doesn't make the plane itself fun, logical, or, more importantly, necessary. 3rd edition didn't have quasi-elemental planes. 4th edition won't either. All that being said: I do like the thought of a plane of vacuum (in Planescape). I just don't think there should be anything on it, except perhaps an elder force. "The Nothing!" RUN ATREYU!
Skeptical Clown 09-27-07, 10:12 AM	This is evidently because you're the type of person who makes confident, declarative statements without doing any research to see if what they said was in any way true. Yeah my bad. I got better thing to do than read about the Plane of Vacuum. Which obviously is filled with tons of interesting stuff like fungus and void mephits. Anyway, you apparently aren't getting my point. It's not that it can't be used. Anything can be used. I could make an adventure out of ArcTan's Plane of Sour Cream. Or a plane of Teddy Bears. My point is not that these things could not possibly used. My point is that the Plane of Vacuum is lame. I don't know anybody who would would enjoy adventures in the Plane of Vacuum. Neither does the game designer. That is the problem--this is not an issue of logic, but of opinion. I mean seriously, do you think that evaluating whether something is "Fun" or not can be measured by the number of mephits or quasi-para-pseudo-elementals exist in the plane, or any other obvious calculation? There is no equation that produces a result that says whether a plane deserves to exist or not. Obviously you don't think the plane of Vacuum is lame. But despite your overpowering and awe-inspiring knowledge of things planar, you're still just one customer. WOTC's job is to make a game that sells--i.e., one that most people enjoy. If they think that 4e's cosmology will make the game better for people who buy 4e than the Great Wheel, then that's the right decision. I am pretty confident that the number of people who care about the plane of Vacuum are a tiny minority, so no wonder WOTC is tossing it out. But anyway, I'm out. It's obvious that it doesn't matter; no matter how absurd something is in the Great Wheel, defenders will defend it to the death. Consider yourself victorious, for what it is worth, and enjoy 4e.
Alas 09-27-07, 10:52 AM	I would just like to point out that there's still room for an elemental vacuum (or a Void, or Nothing) in the newly described cosmology; it is merely free to exist (or... not exist?) somewhere other than the corner of Air and Negative. All they're altering, it seems, is the coordinating metaphor. All the historic places can be restored or ignored as desired-- which seems to be the point.
EvilVegan 09-27-07, 11:02 AM	I could make an adventure out of ArcTan's Plane of Sour Cream.I don't know how many times I can point out we're not the same guy. :D Should I put it in my sig? I would just like to point out that there's still room for an elemental vacuum (or a Void, or Nothing) in the newly described cosmology; it is merely free to exist (or... not exist?) somewhere other than the corner of Air and Negative. All they're altering, it seems, is the coordinating metaphor. All the historic places can be restored or ignored as desired-- which seems to be the point.I just read the design and development thread and it definitely seems like it is easier to fit a vacuum plane in. The difference now is that the separate "planes" are all on the same "plane" and instead of being separate bubbles of elements, they bleed into one another. This makes it much more likely that quasi-elemental and para-elemental planes will see some form of use in 4e. You can't have bleed over in a bubble-plane setup. You can in an infinite plane containing all elements. All they did was pop the bubbles and move the abyss.
Kain Darkwind 09-27-07, 11:02 AM	Yeah my bad. I got better thing to do than read about the Plane of Vacuum. Which obviously is filled with tons of interesting stuff like fungus and void mephits. Anyway, you apparently aren't getting my point. It's not that it can't be used. Anything can be used. I could make an adventure out of ArcTan's Plane of Sour Cream. Or a plane of Teddy Bears. My point is not that these things could not possibly used. My point is that the Plane of Vacuum is lame. I don't know anybody who would would enjoy adventures in the Plane of Vacuum. Neither does the game designer. That is the problem--this is not an issue of logic, but of opinion. I mean seriously, do you think that evaluating whether something is "Fun" or not can be measured by the number of mephits or quasi-para-pseudo-elementals exist in the plane, or any other obvious calculation? There is no equation that produces a result that says whether a plane deserves to exist or not. Obviously you don't think the plane of Vacuum is lame. But despite your overpowering and awe-inspiring knowledge of things planar, you're still just one customer. WOTC's job is to make a game that sells--i.e., one that most people enjoy. If they think that 4e's cosmology will make the game better for people who buy 4e than the Great Wheel, then that's the right decision. I am pretty confident that the number of people who care about the plane of Vacuum are a tiny minority, so no wonder WOTC is tossing it out. But anyway, I'm out. It's obvious that it doesn't matter; no matter how absurd something is in the Great Wheel, defenders will defend it to the death. Consider yourself victorious, for what it is worth, and enjoy 4e. Like most shortsighted and self professed willfully ignorant people, you are missing both the point and the big picture. The Plane of Vacuum is not actually the real problem here. The problem lies with the attitude that 'this is a problem and unworkable, let's throw it out', without establishing either that it is a problem or that throwing it out is the best solution. The comments in the blogs reveal that this attitude is a popular one among the designers. And that's a problem for many people who like DnD. No one is against change, no one is against evolution. But doing it for $#!ts and giggles or because a designer is too lacking in originality to come up with something is a problem. I don't even mind a brand new cosmology, although I think it severs ties with the actual feel of Dungeons and Dragons. But don't spit on the old one because of your own personal lack of character and ingenuity to try and make the new one sound better or needed.
Skeptical Clown 09-27-07, 11:20 AM	Sorry EvilVegan. Was cruising through too many quotes.
EvilVegan 09-27-07, 11:21 AM	Like most shortsighted and self professed willfully ignorant people, you are missing both the point and the big picture. The Plane of Vacuum is not actually the real problem here. The problem lies with the attitude that 'this is a problem and unworkable, let's throw it out', without establishing either that it is a problem or that throwing it out is the best solution. The comments in the blogs reveal that this attitude is a popular one among the designers. And that's a problem for many people who like DnD. No one is against change, no one is against evolution. But doing it for $#!ts and giggles or because a designer is too lacking in originality to come up with something is a problem.Nice insults! "too lacking in originality to come up with something" is an odd choice of words considering they're coming up with completely new stuff. They didn't say it was an unworkable problem. They said it wasn't a fun concept. It didn't see much use. It didn't sell books. It didn't automatically put forth interesting adventure building ideas. It wasn't a great plane to begin with. The only counter to these arguments thus far has been "Vacuum mold rox!" and "We gots Mephits too!" Also, from 2nd to 3rd they removed quasi- and para- elemental planes. They don't make sense in a separated, infinite-bubble based planar system. If the planes are wholly separated, why would they bleed over and create quasi/para planes? They wouldn't. Vacuum disappeared with 3rd edition. Why complain about it's long time disappearance because of an offhand remark made in a personal blog about 4E? I don't even mind a brand new cosmology, although I think it severs ties with the actual feel of Dungeons and Dragons. But don't spit on the old one because of your own personal lack of character and ingenuity to try and make the new one sound better or needed.Read the Design and Develpment. It has some semantic difference from the great wheel. Other wise, move the abyss to the astral sea and your wheel and the rest of the established canon works fine. Luckily the new changes allow the recreation of the quasi- and para- elemental planes, though they aren't separate planar bubbles any more, but rather quasi- and para- elemental boundaries (which is what they should be). Now, when you're in the Elemental Tempest and you want to go from the City of Brass to the City of Djinn, you travel through Smoke to get there. If you want to go from Air to Negative Energy you have to trek through the Vacuum. Lucky for you guys, they threw out the 3rd edition planar setting and brought in a system that allows for all these cool ideas you wanted to use.
Deamon 09-27-07, 11:32 AM	Vacuum disappeared with 3rd edition. Why complain about it's long time disappearance because of an offhand remark made in a personal blog about 4E? Did you even read the bit you quoted where he stated that he wasn't complaining about that? Lucky for you guys, they threw out the 3rd edition planar setting and brought in a system that allows for all these cool ideas you wanted to use.I could use all my ideas in the 3rd edtion planes.
dfarnsworth 09-27-07, 11:35 AM	I think a plane filled with monkeys and 1 gigantic banana would be hilarious and provide an interesting adventure for my PCs.
EvilVegan 09-27-07, 11:40 AM	Did you even read the bit you quoted where he stated that he wasn't complaining about that? Did you read the blog? He said something like ". . .plane of vacuum (the antithesis of fun). . ." He mentioned one crappy plane from 2nd edition that he personally didn't have fun with and that no one else ever really used. And now all of a sudden that means "he's unoriginal and can't come up with something" and that he "isn't showing that it is a problem before throwing it out". Basically, that he's being an ass and not taking into account the feelings of the grognards. Well, it doesn't matter if it is a problem, it was already thrown out about 7years ago. Now, thanks to the changes I've seen, it can come back in the new cosmology, it will be more workable, it will spawn more adventure ideas. In other words, "throwing it out because it was a problem" (which he didn't do) brought back a more official way to incorporate the features of the old material. IE it is more backwards compatible to 2nd edition than 3rd edition, as long as you can wade through the semantic differences. IE they fixed the problem everyone is falsely complaining they created by having their own personal opinion about "what is fun". I could use all my ideas in the 3rd edtion planes.And you'll still be able to in 4e. What?
ArcTan 09-27-07, 02:24 PM	The difference now is that the separate "planes" are all on the same "plane" and instead of being separate bubbles of elements, they bleed into one another. This makes it much more likely that quasi-elemental and para-elemental planes will see some form of use in 4e. You can't have bleed over in a bubble-plane setup. You can in an infinite plane containing all elements. All they did was pop the bubbles and move the abyss. Good point. The thing is that in the old cosmology, the way things mechanically worked, when you tried to move from Inner Plane to Inner Plane, if they didn't explicitly *say* "Oh, this is the Quasielemental Plane of Vacuum", it couldn't exist. The planes were separate, discrete entities that *thematically* "bordered" each other or "combined" with each other, but in reality you couldn't go from one to the other without the use of plane shift. Now, with the list of separate planes being pared down so that most "separate planes" are merely regions of the same plane, it's a lot easier to have new planes or to make up planes that are combinations or border regions of other planes. Vacuum is no longer an infinitely large empty vacuum that you have to plane shift to from an infinitely large empty expanse of Air or Negative Energy. Now it's just a *kind* of place in the Elemental Tempest that you can walk or fly to, that could exist wherever a region of Air borders a region of Negative Energy. It's much more free and open. That's really what I like about it -- not that I'm in love with the jargon "Astral Sea" or "Elemental Tempest" per se, but that this cosmology means things can just *exist* in the meta-planes without having to fit into a particular *structure* of the meta-planes -- the Great Wheel without the Wheel.
Alas 09-27-07, 02:57 PM	The vacuum wouldn't even have to be limited to the Elemental Tempest. It could be the "over the edge" in the Shadowfell, or the final state of collapse of an abandoned realm in the Astral Sea. (Personally, I prefer the idea of a Void to a vacuum, but I think the options work either way.)
EvilVegan 09-27-07, 03:20 PM	The vacuum wouldn't even have to be limited to the Elemental Tempest. It could be the "over the edge" in the Shadowfell, or the final state of collapse of an abandoned realm in the Astral Sea. (Personally, I prefer the idea of a Void to a vacuum, but I think the options work either way.) I would imagine it would border the Abyss, the realm of Air, and the realm of negative energy.
Neutronium_Dragon 09-27-07, 03:26 PM	I don't think it's assumed that there is a specific "realm of air" a la the old planes. Rather, airy regions (and firey regions, and earthy regions, and etc) all morph in and out of being, mingling with each other along the way. The only stability exists where some force powerful enough to bring it about has decided to establish a more permanent state of affairs, such as the City of Brass.
EvilVegan 09-27-07, 03:35 PM	Either way. The way I interpretted the article was distinct regions with minor cross-elements, but even in the current elemental planes there were minglings. The City of Brass, for instance, was made of brass, which is obviously a metal, which belongs in the plane of earth (as it isn't fire). And there was air to breath (though it was very hot). And consequently when you burn stuff it actually produces water. (O2 + Organic Material (composed of Carbon and Hydrogen chains) releases CO2 and H2O). They were already linked via conduits and areas of variety, so now they're a little more intertwined (just like elements really should be).
ripvanwormer 09-27-07, 04:37 PM	Yeah my bad. I got better thing to do than read about the Plane of Vacuum. But evidently you don't have anything better to do than to write page after page bashing something you aren't even going to bother to read about? That doesn't work. If you have enough time in your day to waste hours ranting about something on the internet, you have enough time to do so with a smidgen of intellectual honesty. You, sir, are a nerd. So am I. Both of us are wasting tons of time debating something that no one of any sense cares about. At this advanced portion of the thread, any claims that you have anything "better to do" ring hollow. School thyself, nerd. Anyway, you apparently aren't getting my point. It's not that it can't be used. Anything can be used. I could make an adventure out of ArcTan's Plane of Sour Cream. Or a plane of Teddy Bears. A plane of desolate emptiness has more of a serious-fantasy feel than a plane of stuffed animals or condiments. A lost artifact of extreme evil or good (or Law or Chaos) thrown into the heart of an infinite void is the makings of an epic quest in fine high-fantasy style. An artifact cast into a realm of infinite plushies, not so much. The Plane of Vacuum is a rich source of story ideas not merely because anything can be a rich source of story ideas. It's a rich source of ideas because the idea of unending emptiness is inherently poignant and interesting. The ideas I have come directly from the nature of the plane. At this point, this is fact, not opinion. "I don't like the plane" is an opinion, but there comes a time when an honest person revises their opinion in the face of evidence to the contrary. The egarus fungi is pretty damn cool, too.
sciborg2 09-27-07, 04:42 PM	yeah, i liked that fungus because it was impressive they came up with something that felt so original when I read it. to me, doing creative things with Vacuum - and all the inner planes handled by Planescape - was like watching someone solve an elusive math proof or clever puzzle.
ArcTan 09-27-07, 04:50 PM	The Plane of Vacuum is a rich source of story ideas not merely because anything can be a rich source of story ideas. It's a rich source of ideas because the idea of unending emptiness is inherently poignant and interesting. The ideas I have come directly from the nature of the plane. Which is an opinion. At this point, this is fact, not opinion. "I don't like the plane" is an opinion, but there comes a time when an honest person revises their opinion in the face of evidence to the contrary. No, it's *not* fact, it's opinion. A great big empty void that, for some reason, has fungus that lives in it (by "consuming vacuum", despite the fact that vacuum, by definition, doesn't have anything in it to consume), and, for some reason, has little sprites who represent the "element" of empty void, and, for some reason, has one fortress in it full of crazy people who like empty void, is still pretty stupid (in my opinion, and Chris Perkins'). Hell, it's even *hilariously* stupid. The egarus fungi is pretty damn cool, too. Opinion.
ripvanwormer 09-27-07, 04:55 PM	You have one hundred words to explain the difference in a context meaningful to a DM who is writing an adventure for his gaming group next Tuesday. Negative energy is death, dissolution, darkness, and decay. It robs the world of its life force. It is a vampire that steals light and youth. It is the compressed remnants of all the life that ever was, ruined and excreted, the filth that remains after souls are digested. It is a complex, busy jungle filled with exhausted spiritual matter. Vacuum is emptiness, that which has never been created and never will be. It is not destructive. It is not creative. It is the void outside of creation, that which will remain at the end of time. While you're at it, give me a one hundered pitch for at least one advenutre concept in the Plane of Vaccuum that makes the plane itself as interesting as the 4e Shadowfell. It doesn't have to be as interesting as the Shadowfell. It doesn't have to be mentioned in the core books. It just has to be worth one good adventure for the existence of the plane to be worthwhile (just like a monster only has to be usable in one adventure to be worth printing in an MM). Do so without referring to any product that is out of print. I have a counterproposal. Explain to me why arbitrary restrictions in the possibilities of the multiverse produce a game superior to one that might, in theory, contain anything. You have exactly 76 words. Do not use the letter e. The letter e is made of lava and will burn you if you use it.
dfarnsworth 09-27-07, 04:57 PM	Anyone ever read Knaak's DragonRealm books? The void was put to some good use, though not of the same cosmology...
ArcTan 09-27-07, 05:07 PM	Negative energy is death, dissolution, darkness, and decay. It robs the world of its life force. It is a vampire that steals light and youth. It is the compressed remnants of all the life that ever was, ruined and excreted, the filth that remains after souls are digested. It is a complex, busy jungle filled with exhausted spiritual matter. Vacuum is emptiness, that which has never been created and never will be. It is not destructive. It is not creative. It is the void outside of creation, that which will remain at the end of time. And, of course, I don't think any of us needs to explain why adding a big dead jungle to a big puff of oxygen and nitrogen gets you total uncreated emptiness. It's obvious, right? Just like all the Quasielementals. Makes perfect sense. It doesn't have to be as interesting as the Shadowfell. It doesn't have to be mentioned in the core books. It just has to be worth one good adventure for the existence of the plane to be worthwhile (just like a monster only has to be usable in one adventure to be worth printing in an MM). ...That might be true if printing MMs cost no money, and WotC was a charity rather than a business. I have a counterproposal. Explain to me why arbitrary restrictions in the possibilities of the multiverse produce a game superior to one that might, in theory, contain anything. You have exactly 76 words. Do not use the letter e. The letter e is made of lava and will burn you if you use it. Please. The Great Wheel is no more "open" than any other cosmology. The Great Wheel was open only by virtue of first saying everything it contained, and then leaving the "Oh, and other stuff could also exist, too!" clause open. In that sense it is not different at all from 4e's Astral Sea cosmology. It just helpfully also lets us know that if we want to make up something totally new, we don't have to arbitrarily decide where it goes on a "wheel" of Law, Good, Chaos and Evil (or else demote it to a mere "demiplane"). We can have Lawful Evil deities who are more awesome and more powerful than Asmodeus, without having to "explain" why the realm of Baator still belongs to Asmodeus and not them (oh, boy, Takhisis, did they ever ruin you when they decided you were Tiamat). Just like if I wanted a Quasi/Para/Whateverelemental Plane of Clouds (or something), the Elemental Tempest lets me just *say* that sometimes when when Air and Water combine, they form a world of Cloud and Mist, without having to demote this to a mere "region" of the Plane of Air or else edit the existing Inner Plane cosmology to replace Ice or Steam or one of the other ones with Cloud (despite the fact that Steam should really be Water + Fire, except that they decided that was impossible, and that if Steam is Positive Water, Ice should really be Negative Water, except that they decided, helpfully, that Negative Water is the *absence* of water rather than cold water, and... aargh).
sciborg2 09-27-07, 05:17 PM	It just helpfully also lets us know that if we want to make up something totally new, we don't have to arbitrarily decide where it goes on a "wheel" of Law, Good, Chaos and Evil (or else demote it to a mere "demiplane"). There were planes beyond/outside the Wheel in 2e. And not just the Far Realms.
Skeptical Clown 09-27-07, 05:22 PM	Well Rip, I guess when I checked what planescape books I have, and what other D&D references I have, and even a few websites about the Plane of Vacuum, and I recalled the definition of Vacuum, and all of those things pretty much said "The plane of Vacuum is pretty much devoid of almost everything," I figured I kinda had a handle on it. Obviously, I'll need to spend a few hours of research before I toss off a zinger at the expense of the Plane of Vacuum in the future. I have a counterproposal. Explain to me why arbitrary restrictions in the possibilities of the multiverse produce a game superior to one that might, in theory, contain anything. You have exactly 76 words. Do not use the letter e. The letter e is made of lava and will burn you if you use it. I have no idea if you're serious or not, but ignoring the E thing, this one is easy: Because if anything is possible, then nothing matters. Narratives exist as a series of cause and effects; in a situation where anything is possible, causality doesn't really apply. Stories (and games) exist within artificial constraints--try playing a game of chess without the arbitrary constraint known as the rules. It's not very fun. It's a false choice of course. Cause if the multiverse contains "anything", then it contains the other multiverse too, doesn't it?
ripvanwormer 09-27-07, 05:22 PM	Rip seems to be of the opinion that there's no such thing as a bad idea or an unusable idea ArcTan proves once again that he's incapable of arguing with anything but ridiculous straw men of his own creation. I was, in fact, talking about a single, interesting plane. I showed why it was interesting by listing a number (I think I'm up to six, now) plot ideas related to it. Rather than arguing about that, ArcTan prefers to argue that some idea, at some point, may be bad. While I'm sure this is easier to do, it's not really the question here. Are you really saying that there is *no difference* between something with a large amount of in-print material about it and something with a scattering of out-of-print material about it? Once again, no. The parallel I used was just that: a parallel. Yes, the Quasielemental Plane of Vacuum is less useful to those who do no research on it. Yes, Sarlona is less useful to those who do no research on it. That doesn't mean that there's no difference between the two, but the parallel is apt. Everything in Planescape is effectively in print, anyway, thanks to PDFs on demand. The Plane of Vacuum also has elements described in the Planar Handbook and Fiendish Codex I. Distinguishing between "in print" and "out of print" material would be meaningful if the "out of print" stuff was impossible to get, but it's easy to get, and for dirt cheap. If a 4e adventure was published involving a plane of vacuum, it's safe to say it would include all the relevant material needed to play it, so ArcTan's point is even less meaningful. The question was whether or not the plane was unusable in a game from a WotC design standpoint, not whether ArcTan personally could make use of it today. I agree that it could be placed within or partly within the Elemental Chaos.
ArcTan 09-27-07, 05:27 PM	ArcTan proves once again that he's incapable of arguing with anything but ridiculous straw men of his own creation. I was, in fact, talking about a single, interesting plane. I showed why it was interesting by listing a number (I think I'm up to six, now) plot ideas related to it. Rather than arguing about that, ArcTan prefers to argue that some idea, at some point, may be bad. While I'm sure this is easier to do, it's not really the question here. You did, in fact, actually say that it was always a better thing to do to try to work with an older idea, no matter how much you dislike it, than throw it out and "close the door" on it. You've also said ridiculous things like claiming that if you can come up with *even one* good adventure hook (or, at least, an adventure hook *you* think is good) involving *anything* that thing deserves to be printed up in the Monster Manual. (I can easily come up with an adventure involving the Plane of Teddy Bears. Guess we better hurry and get that in the DMG.) Once again, no. You prove again you're so incapable of dealing with my actual arguments that you have to build your own scarecrows to argue against. The parallel I used was just that: a parallel. Yes, the Quasielemental Plane of Vacuum is less useful to those who do no research on it. Yes, Sarlona is less useful to those who do no research on it. That doesn't mean that there's no difference between the two, but the parallel is apt. The difference is that one of the reasons there's very little material on the Quasielemental Plane of Vacuum compared to nearly anything else you can name is that it is, in fact, a stupid idea. (Now that we're allowed to state opinions as facts.)
ArcTan 09-27-07, 05:30 PM	There were planes beyond/outside the Wheel in 2e. And not just the Far Realms. *sigh* The reason I get upset about arguments about the Great Wheel is that yes, indeed, after 30 years of history you can dig up a reference that contradicts nearly *any* foundational conceit of the Great Wheel. And people act like this is a strength of the setting rather than a fundamental weakness. Frankly, I DON'T CARE what obscure reference you have for some obscure thing existing "beyond" the Great Wheel. As everyone I've actually met understands the Great Wheel based on what the *main* sources on it actually said in 3e and 2e, it was supposed to be an all-encompassing setting, and everything outside it was supposed to be horrifying Lovecraftian and alien. I.e. if you wanted the Norse gods, the Greek gods, or the Chinese gods, they had to be in the Great Wheel somewhere -- and, inevitably, whenever a real-world pantheon appeared in D&D, it was given a shoehorned spot in the Great Wheel, no matter how inappropriate or demeaning this was for that pantheon. (I particularly liked sticking the Jade Emperor's palace in Mechanus.)
ripvanwormer 09-27-07, 05:49 PM	Well Rip, I guess when I checked what planescape books I have, and what other D&D references I have, and even a few websites about the Plane of Vacuum, and I recalled the definition of Vacuum, and all of those things pretty much said "The plane of Vacuum is pretty much devoid of almost everything," I figured I kinda had a handle on it. Hahaha! I thought you were done with this thread? And that you had no time to do research? You must have a lot more time on your hands than you thought. Obviously, I'll need to spend a few hours of research before I toss off a zinger at the expense of the Plane of Vacuum in the future. Not at all. But before arguing for page after page about something, it might be good to actually know what you're talking about. Or, if worse comes to worst and someone who knows a bit more corrects you, to accept the correction gracefully rather than to try to mock the very concept of knowing about an issue you care enough for to rant about for thousands of words. Narratives exist as a series of cause and effects; in a situation where anything is possible, causality doesn't really apply. A setting - particularly one intended to be generic - exists as a toolbox for a DM. The more limits it has, the less useful it is in this role. A chessboard is only good for playing chess or checkers with. The D&D multiverse needs to a place where you can play any number of fantasy-themed games. D&D isn't generic fantasy, of course - it has its own quirks - but it should be flexible enough to contain a plane of infinite vacuum if you damn well want one. And yes, I was serious about the letter e thing. It's an integral part of accepting arbitrary and meaningless limitations. It's a false choice of course. Cause if the multiverse contains "anything", then it contains the other multiverse too, doesn't it? Yes, it does, and it should. Multiple cosmologies can be a good thing, when they're distinctive.
Kain Darkwind 09-27-07, 05:52 PM	Nice insults! "too lacking in originality to come up with something" is an odd choice of words considering they're coming up with completely new stuff. Only if you are attacking my argument from a different (and incorrect) perspective. Let's set aside for a moment the fact that the 'new planar scheme' bears strong overt resemblance to other ideas like Umbra, and draws directly rather than indirectly off mythologies like the Satan-Devil connection. You focused nearly entirely on what admittedly seems to be the ending hyperbole of my post, rather than the actual point I made. Perhaps creativity would have been a better word to use in retrospect. They didn't say it was an unworkable problem. They didn't need to type it out in as many words. They threw it out, letting their actions speak for them. I can only assume they felt that the concept wasn't worth keeping. Based on the words of the designers and the fact that it isn't going to be there in 4e. And keep in mind, this is a smoke screen. Whether or not we agree the Plane of Vacuum was fun in previous editions or not, what I don't like is the pattern of thought and action emerging from their blogs. They said it wasn't a fun concept. It didn't see much use. It didn't sell books. It didn't automatically put forth interesting adventure building ideas. It wasn't a great plane to begin with. The only counter to these arguments thus far has been "Vacuum mold rox!" and "We gots Mephits too!" Now, let's for a minute imagine that the entire Inner Plane structure relied on each and every plane being interesting. It doesn't, but let's pretend. In such an imaginary world, the only solution to this problem is either to make every plane interesting or to throw out the ones that aren't. I'd much prefer to see them tackle the challenge of making the uninteresting planes interesting than see them throw them out. Now, let's return to reality. The fact is, not every single place in a given structure needs to be tailored to PC invasion and adventure. Whether that is a nation having spots that are slightly boring with nothing to do except relax, or a planar alignment having some areas see more attention than others, it just doesn't follow that one needs to make 100% of all places super adventurer friendly. So even IF the Plane of Vacuum was boring as all hell, and even IF there was absolutely no way to fix it and make it interesting, the option to leave it there, boring, still exists. Because there existed 7 other quasi planes and 4 para planes and 4 core elemental planes and 2 energy planes that can be utilized. Suggesting that because one minor quasi plane wasn't fun to the design team the entire Inner Planes needed to be scrapped and overhauled is a poor argument. "We didn't want to stick with the old cosmology at all, and wanted something new" works. That fits with what we've seen enacted. "You all didn't like the old way anyway and will like the new way" sucks. It offers everyone who did like the old way the opportunity to cry foul. Also, from 2nd to 3rd they removed quasi- and para- elemental planes. They don't make sense in a separated, infinite-bubble based planar system. If the planes are wholly separated, why would they bleed over and create quasi/para planes? They wouldn't. I thought the 3rd edition 'border regions' idea worked fine as the quasi/para planes. (Which you seem to think of as a 4e idea...it isn't) And I think it is obvious that when DnD uses the term 'infinite' they mean 'effectively limitless'. Vacuum disappeared with 3rd edition. Why complain about it's long time disappearance because of an offhand remark made in a personal blog about 4E? Are you serious? Did you not read my post? Attacking Vacuum simply reveals a poor design philosophy lacking in creativity. I could care less about Vacuum in and of itself. I do think that it can provide adventure material, no matter how obstinate ArcTan argues that he can't come up with anything good from it. But I'm not worried about Vacuum, I'm worried about the attitude that the old ways were worthless and lacking in potential. I'm worried about having people on the DnD design team that couldn't think up things to do with Vacuum and the best they came up with was 'cut it out'. As I am about having people who see Erinyes and Succubi and say "well, we can't have more than one sex fiend in the cosmos". As I am about people who look at Glasya and Fierna and say they are the same because they are sexy female devils. Avoiding the fact that there are at least three sexy males in Hell. Because they define a sexy female as nothing more. The characterization stops at that point. It doesn't matter that Fierna deals in fire and incest and Glasya deals in cancer, nature and growth. Two sexy females=too many sexy females. Because peabrains can't get past the sexy we've lost Malcanthet in 4e?
ripvanwormer 09-27-07, 06:01 PM	You did, in fact, actually say that it was always a better thing to do to try to work with an older idea, no matter how much you dislike it, than throw it out and "close the door" on it. *sighs* No, I didn't say that. I was actually very clear that "closing the door" meant setting up a situation where it couldn't be worked in later by more creative people. It doesn't mean that one is required to use every idea, only that it's better to leave the door open for possible use by others. It's possible to work around an idea even if you can't work with it. You've also said ridiculous things like claiming that if you can come up with *even one* good adventure hook (or, at least, an adventure hook *you* think is good) involving *anything* that thing deserves to be printed up in the Monster Manual. No, ArcTan, I didn't say anything close to that. I said if I can come up with even one good adventure hook, it means the plane isn't unusable, stupid, or ridiculous. I specifically said, several times, that this didn't mean it had to appear in a core book (let alone the MM). And yes, it's enough that I think it's good. If one person can honestly have fun with it, it can't really be the "anti-fun," can it?
ArcTan 09-27-07, 06:04 PM	*sighs* No, I didn't say that. I was actually very clear that "closing the door" meant setting up a situation where it couldn't be worked in later by more creative people. It doesn't mean that one is required to use every idea, only that it's better to leave the door open for possible use by others. In this context, you seem to think the only way to leave the door "open" is to keep a core setting that explicitly contains that concept, rather than merely saying "That's not true in the core setting, but may be true in a random other setting someone might make up at some point". No, ArcTan, I didn't say anything close to that. I said if I can come up with even one good adventure hook, it means the plane isn't unusable, stupid, or ridiculous. I specifically said, several times, that this didn't mean it had to appear in a core book (let alone the MM). It just has to be worth one good adventure for the existence of the plane to be worthwhile (just like a monster only has to be usable in one adventure to be worth printing in an MM). I don't care if it's the "core" MM or the MM4, every MM takes money to print. Every MM needs to pull its weight to be a book worth buying. I don't think my concept for an Undead Three-Headed Baby-Eating Teddy Bear *or* the stupid Vacuum Fungus is worth spending money printing in glossy color.
ArcTan 09-27-07, 06:10 PM	Now, let's for a minute imagine that the entire Inner Plane structure relied on each and every plane being interesting. It doesn't, but let's pretend. In such an imaginary world, the only solution to this problem is either to make every plane interesting or to throw out the ones that aren't. I'd much prefer to see them tackle the challenge of making the uninteresting planes interesting than see them throw them out. Right, people keep saying this, presumably based on the idea that the time and energy of a game designer or other creative person is inexhaustible and infinite. Yes, it is, in some ways, more interesting to see someone rescue a stupid idea than start with an idea that was good from the beginning. It's also a lot harder, more likely to fail, and generally a *waste of effort*. There's a reason I think most serious SF/F series should start out as serious ones based on original ideas, rather than be attempts to make a serious remake of a crappy old '70s series. (Sometimes you get a gem, like Battlestar Galactica -- more often you get something like the Lost in Space movie.) Now, let's return to reality. The fact is, not every single place in a given structure needs to be tailored to PC invasion and adventure. Whether that is a nation having spots that are slightly boring with nothing to do except relax, or a planar alignment having some areas see more attention than others, it just doesn't follow that one needs to make 100% of all places super adventurer friendly. So even IF the Plane of Vacuum was boring as all hell, and even IF there was absolutely no way to fix it and make it interesting, the option to leave it there, boring, still exists. Because there existed 7 other quasi planes and 4 para planes and 4 core elemental planes and 2 energy planes that can be utilized. It wasn't Vacuum itself, as the philosophy underlying Vacuum -- "All the Elemental Planes are uniform, infinitely large expanses of just one thing". That was itself boring and stupid and *guaranteed* that any Elemental Plane based on that template would be boring and stupid. The Elemental Tempest exists explicitly as a solution to this problem. Want lots and lots of fire? Great, but that doesn't mean that we have to have an entire universe made only of fire in every direction that stretches to infinity. Suggesting that because one minor quasi plane wasn't fun to the design team the entire Inner Planes needed to be scrapped and overhauled is a poor argument. "We didn't want to stick with the old cosmology at all, and wanted something new" works. That fits with what we've seen enacted. "You all didn't like the old way anyway and will like the new way" sucks. It offers everyone who did like the old way the opportunity to cry foul. It doesn't need to be true that *all* the people didn't like it to be true -- from their perspective, based on market research, focus groups, interviews, and their own intuition as creative folks -- that *most* of the people they're interested in buying the game didn't like it. The only objective thing worth saying about the planes is that -- is it simple enough and easy enough for most people who buy the game to use? -- and it seems to be the one everyone on your side of the fence is persistent in rejecting. Well, okay, whatever. I'm one of the "dumbed-down" masses. Look how dumb I am. Look at how much money and influence we have given that we're *most of the population*. Sheesh. It doesn't matter that Fierna deals in fire and incest and Glasya deals in cancer, nature and growth. Wow, this really speaks for itself. Yes, we absolutely needed an iconic representation of the twin forces of Fire and Incest in the planes. How could I have overlooked such a meaningful, narratively rich mine of possibility? *sigh*
Kain Darkwind 09-27-07, 06:29 PM	Right, people keep saying this, presumably based on the idea that the time and energy of a game designer or other creative person is inexhaustible and infinite. Nonsense. Do you believe your own 'facts' and 'presumptions' or do you just put them out there to sway weak minds? As a designer who doesn't get paid (which before you make some comment means that I DM and thus have to work for free), I know only too well how much work has to go into design. So this is absolute rubbish. Yes, it is, in some ways, more interesting to see someone rescue a stupid idea than start with an idea that was good from the beginning. It's also a lot harder, more likely to fail, and generally a *waste of effort*. Based on what? Your personal opinion? The utter financial failure of 3e DnD which was based on the very idea of building off the foundation laid out by previous editions? The Word of G-D? Go ahead, give me your source. There's a reason I think most serious SF/F series should start out as serious ones based on original ideas, rather than be attempts to make a serious remake of a crappy old '70s series. (Sometimes you get a gem, like Battlestar Galactica -- more often you get something like the Lost in Space movie.) One day I'll go see BG, so I can appreciate these analogies of yours. It wasn't Vacuum itself, as the philosophy underlying Vacuum -- "All the Elemental Planes are uniform, infinitely large expanses of just one thing". That was itself boring and stupid and *guaranteed* that any Elemental Plane based on that template would be boring and stupid. The Elemental Tempest exists explicitly as a solution to this problem. Want lots and lots of fire? Great, but that doesn't mean that we have to have an entire universe made only of fire in every direction that stretches to infinity. Again, you are trying to argue the specific issue rather than the overlying philosophy with me, which is what I have the biggest problem with. I'm a huge fan of cosmologies. I've in fact, never written to Blizzard, telling them that their cosmos is incompatible with the Great Wheel. So there actually exists within my soul, the potential to enjoy something that is a non-DnD planar scheme. Or alternate DnD planar scheme. It doesn't need to be true that *all* the people didn't like it to be true -- from their perspective, based on market research, focus groups, interviews, and their own intuition as creative folks -- that *most* of the people they're interested in buying the game didn't like it. You've never provided the source for any of this. You make these claims as if there is some actual data to back you up. The only objective thing worth saying about the planes is that -- is it simple enough and easy enough for most people who buy the game to use? -- and it seems to be the one everyone on your side of the fence is persistent in rejecting. Well, okay, whatever. I'm one of the "dumbed-down" masses. Look how dumb I am. Look at how much money and influence we have given that we're *most of the population*. Sheesh. Well, certainly one of us is in the vocal minority. The other clearly being in the vocal majority. I wonder how you tell the difference prior to the sales of 4e? Claiming to be part of the majority, like most of the rest of your post, is neither supported nor documented. Wow, this really speaks for itself. Yes, we absolutely needed an iconic representation of the twin forces of Fire and Incest in the planes. How could I have overlooked such a meaningful, narratively rich mine of possibility? *sigh* My point exactly. You can't possibly imagine a difference beyond the sexy female portion of their personality, thus they are the same. No matter what difference I come up with, I'm just clearly grasping for straws. People spent 5 pages (plus all the other dupe threads) providing you with their material for the Plane of Vacuum, but none of it met your standards. The universe is only big enough for one sexy fiend. And while I feel sorry for your inability to wrap your mind around this, I know in my heart that you are happily ignorant to your condition and so it doesn't bother you that much. That lets me sleep at night.
Skeptical Clown 09-27-07, 06:35 PM	A setting - particularly one intended to be generic - exists as a toolbox for a DM. The more limits it has, the less useful it is in this role. A chessboard is only good for playing chess or checkers with. The D&D multiverse needs to a place where you can play any number of fantasy-themed games. D&D isn't generic fantasy, of course - it has its own quirks - but it should be flexible enough to contain a plane of infinite vacuum if you damn well want one. Oh what rubbish. A setting is a limitation by default; if you're defining something, then you're saying what is and what is isn't in that particular setting. A chessboard could be anything by itself, but it is the set of rules we have arbitrarily declared that make it a game worth playing. Likewise, the setting is an arbitrary set of rules defining a place to tell stories. You can tell any number of stories in the setting, just like any number of different games of chess might be played out on the chessboard. The scale of D&D is much more vast scale of course. But, D&D is under no obligation to provide every tool; it's impossible to create a game where ANYTHING is possible. You are of course free to "break" the rules and change them of course, and no one is stopping anyone from adding a plane of Vacuum to their 4e D&D game if that is what their heart is set on. It's a component that not many people are interested in though, so it's not one they're continuing to work with. If people want it they can keep it themselves.
ripvanwormer 09-27-07, 06:40 PM	In this context, you seem to think the only way to leave the door "open" is to keep a core setting that explicitly contains that concept No, that's not what I think, and it's not what I said. It's enough to say "and there may be other planes that we're not describing here." Or, in this specific instance, to say there are border regions between the Elemental and Negative Energy planes, even if they're not immediately detailed. , rather than merely saying "That's not true in the core setting, but may be true in a random other setting someone might make up at some point". No, it needs to be possibly true in the core setting, because the core setting's the only one whose cosmology is ever going to see much use. While there may eventually be a 4e Planescape setting (Greyhawk seems to be almost definitely next after Eberron, but Planescape is the most popular request on online polls), there'd be little point in basing it around the 2e cosmology. It'd be less useful that way. Planescape works best when it flows seamlessly into other campaign settings, so that you can use it as an accessory to your FR or Greyhawk campaign even if you don't want to run a game entirely in the planes. This is a matter of pragmatism. It's why there will always be a detailed core cosmology, and it will always contain a tremendous amount of legacy material. Just watch. You're never going to get a complete reboot. I don't think we're ever going to see a "Planes of Eberron" or a "Planes of Faerun," either. They're just too niche - most people who play Eberron or FR don't even use the planes. Any plane-specific supplements will be based around the core, and those who want to use other cosmologies will have to spend some effort adapting things. The best place for developing an obscure and little-used setting element is an adventure module, in the same way that Bastion of Broken Souls developed the Positive Energy Plane (which I'm certain you would've claimed was the "anti-fun" before that module came out - a sea of endless light that makes you explode if you enter it? What's fun about that? That module proved it could be fun anyway). I don't care if it's the "core" MM or the MM4, every MM takes money to print. Every MM needs to pull its weight to be a book worth buying. I don't think my concept for an Undead Three-Headed Baby-Eating Teddy Bear *or* the stupid Vacuum Fungus is worth spending money printing in glossy color. WotC disagrees with you. If you've paged through the MMV, you'll see several unique monsters that are designed to only be used once. See this design and development essay (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20070803a): "Since 2000, the design directive for monsters has shifted more toward “one memorable encounter.” When all we had was the Monster Manual, every monster had to carry a lot of weight. Especially if the monster was intelligent and social, there was a lot of pressure for that monster to have the details you’d need to build an extensive adventure site around. "But after seven years of monster books, the DM of today has plenty of monsters to choose from. It’s OK to design a monster to be used once, memorably. Not every monster has to shoulder the weight of being an important, repeatable antagonist." I tend to agree. As for the egarus, if you don't know anything about it, you can't effectively mock it.
ripvanwormer 09-27-07, 07:02 PM	But, D&D is under no obligation to provide every tool; Certainly not. Something I say quite often (and, indeed, said in my previous post to you) is that D&D isn't, and isn't intended to be generic fantasy. In D&D, elves are a specific kind of creature, as are kobolds. There are other things they can be in your campaign, but that's not what they are in core D&D. There is, however, a difference between saying "elves live in the woods" and saying "elves never dwell in cities." One is a useful definition; the latter is a silly, arbitrary limitation. One keeps the door open, while the other closes it. While you weren't advocating this specific limitation, I think this effectively gets across my concerns. it's impossible to create a game where ANYTHING is possible. Is it satisfying for you to argue against obvious absurdities? I think you must be relieved to be not trying to argue for an obvious absurdity, as you were for most of this thread, so this particular straw man must be quite a delight. I asked someone (not you) to provide a case for arbitrary restrictions without using the letter e. This should not be taken as a defense of a game with no rules, or whatever it is you want me to have said. Again, D&D isn't generic fantasy. There is, however, a middle ground. You're energetically defending the concept of limitations in a pure sense, devoid of context, as if this were justification enough for the things we were specifically arguing about earlier in this thread. A cosmology with two planes has more possibilities than a cosmology with one; a cosmology with three has still more possibilities. Everything I said remains true. D&D is meant to be a DM's toolbox. A varied and flexible one is more useful than a homogeneous and limited one. You seem very enthusiastic about the prospect of being able to argue that limitations, in some general sense, can be useful. Bully for you. But I never said they couldn't be. Mostly I was mocking Irving for the preposterous and baroque restrictions he put on his "challenge" to me. To a lesser extent, I was arguing for a more expansive multiverse, with room for fascinating and quirky little corners.
ArcTan 09-27-07, 07:03 PM	No, that's not what I think, and it's not what I said. It's enough to say "and there may be other planes that we're not describing here." Or, in this specific instance, to say there are border regions between the Elemental and Negative Energy planes, even if they're not immediately detailed. ...And the Great Wheel doesn't do that particularly better than any other way to set up a cosmology. (Indeed, the point of the Astral Sea seems to be to make it easier to do this than in the Great Wheel.) No, it needs to be possibly true in the core setting, because the core setting's the only one whose cosmology is ever going to see much use. I think this is more because of how D&D publishing has traditionally worked than it is some immutable law of how RPGs work, or how all publishing works. If D&D didn't *insist* on making every single damn book exist in the same cosmology, people would be more comfortable with picking and choosing than they currently are. While there may eventually be a 4e Planescape setting (Greyhawk seems to be almost definitely next after Eberron, but Planescape is the most popular request on online polls), there'd be little point in basing it around the 2e cosmology. It'd be less useful that way. Planescape works best when it flows seamlessly into other campaign settings, so that you can use it as an accessory to your FR or Greyhawk campaign even if you don't want to run a game entirely in the planes. That's your opinion. Planescape's insistence that it takes place in the same universe as FR or Greyhawk or Krynn is the single most annoying thing about it -- indeed, the source of every other problem I have with it. Besides, it *doesn't* flow seamlessly into other campaign settings. It has to include the snarky, arrogant little clause "Oh, and all the stupid primes are mistaken about how the world actually works" in order to fit with other campaign settings. The people in FR are just misled when they say that the gods used to be able to exist independent of human belief before the Time of Troubles. And don't get us started on those idiot Krynn denizens, who don't even know the difference between the Abyss and Hell, who are barely aware of the fundamental importance of Law and Chaos to the cosmos, and are ridiculously obsessed with a deity of ultimate Evil who's just a tenant of the first layer of Hell. This is a matter of pragmatism. It's why there will always be a detailed core cosmology, and it will always contain a tremendous amount of legacy material. Just watch. You're never going to get a complete reboot. I can hope, at least. I don't think we're ever going to see a "Planes of Eberron" or a "Planes of Faerun," either. They're just too niche - most people who play Eberron or FR don't even use the planes. Again, I can hope, at least. At the very least I can hope for another Ghostwalk, and one that's around long enough to get a little bit of love. WotC disagrees with you. If you've paged through the MMV, you'll see several unique monsters that are designed to only be used once. See this design and development essay (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20070803a): I tend to agree. I don't read that the way you do. I read that to mean "A monster can exist even if it's the kind of thing you could only do once in an adventure, and that could only be used for one kind of encounter -- not everything has to be as flexible as a new Humanoid race that can take various classes and roles". I don't read that to mean "And it's totally okay to put a monster in the Monster Manual that only even makes sense in one very specific situation in a very specific cosmology." Which itself was a rule they *did* violate -- all the "Spawn of Tiamat" monsters in MMIV -- which made MMIV an infuriatingly useless, bad book for me. (And I don't think it was just me who had that reaction.) Notice that it's precisely that kind of thing -- what he calls "world-building around the monster" -- that he says is a bad thing and limits monsters' usability. Sounds like a textbook argument for ditching Erinyes and Succubi to me, or ditching any monsters who are only differentiated from other monsters by campaign-specific flavor rather than generic flavor based strictly on their appearance and abilities.
ArcTan 09-27-07, 07:08 PM	Well, certainly one of us is in the vocal minority. The other clearly being in the vocal majority. I wonder how you tell the difference prior to the sales of 4e? Claiming to be part of the majority, like most of the rest of your post, is neither supported nor documented. Neither of us, obviously, has any source. On the other hand, the people making 4e absolutely are doing it with years of market research and testing under their belt. And, unlike you, I prefer to go forward with the assumption that they might know something about what they're doing, rather than assuming that they're psychotic maniacs who purposely want to destroy the setting. The fact that they agree with me and that the phenomenon they're talking about (large swathes of the current planar structure going unused in games and being off-putting and counterintuitive) is something I have personally experienced makes it *easier* for me to agree with them, of course. But ultimately my argument is that I think the company's marketing department knows more about what's popular than you or I do. My point exactly. You can't possibly imagine a difference beyond the sexy female portion of their personality, thus they are the same. Er... no. I just think "This one gives you cancer!" and "This one sets things on fire!" is a stupid way to define the difference. The fact that you described these things in vague, mythological terms rather than actually telling me what it is about one's *personality* that makes her different from the other is telling. I mean, Fiera is about "fire and incest"? WTF is that? The fact that she has an incestuous relationship with her father, and that she's *thematically* associated with fire, is enough to differentiate her from Glasya? Despite the fact that in terms of *personality*, both of them are conniving, sneaky powers-behind-the-throne who love hedonism and pleasure and flamboyance and like taking lovers and killing them horribly?
ripvanwormer 09-27-07, 07:24 PM	...And the Great Wheel doesn't do that particularly better than any other way to set up a cosmology. I didn't say it did. Pay attention. My concern is that they make it easy for people in search of ideas to use older supplements with newer ones. As I said in either this thread or another one, the new cosmology isn't so bad in this respect. The main problems are the succubi and the Blood War, but I suggested ways to overcome those obstacles. I think this is more because of how D&D publishing has traditionally worked than it is some immutable law of how RPGs work, or how all publishing works. It's not an immutable law, but it's the best choice from a pragmatic perspective. It's absurd to force players to learn an entirely new cosmology every time they play a new published adventure. A default is useful. Planescape needs to interact with this default cosmology for the same reason. Besides, it *doesn't* flow seamlessly into other campaign settings. I didn't say it did. I said it should. The people in FR are just misled when they say that the gods used to be able to exist independent of human belief before the Time of Troubles. FR supplements say the same thing. Auppenser and Amauntor, as well as Moander, are proof that the deities were always dependent on mortal belief. The idea that that's somehow new was retconned long ago, and that has nothing to do with Planescape. Get over it. As for Krynn, they didn't lay it on nearly as thick as you're trying to make out. It's a fundamental tenet of that setting that the planes are far away and inaccessible to mortals - Raistlin could only open a portal to the Abyss in one certain tower in an almost singular circumstance. Krynnish can't be expected to know how complex the multiverse is. This doesn't mean they're stupid, or even wrong. They're correct that Takhisis dwells in the Abyss, if you define "the Abyss" as meaning all the lower planes and the Astral considered together. They're correct that Takhisis is a greater power who helped create their world and the races on it. But it's not my purpose in this thread to defend Planescape, and it shouldn't be your purpose to attack it. This has, as I keep saying, nothing to do with Planescape. Planescape is a red herring. I bring Planescape up only because you keep insisting that "oh, it doesn't matter if they render it very difficult to use older game supplements with newer ones because that'll mesh with all the old canon." They won't. That won't happen. It'd be impractical to spend so much space detailing a cosmology separate from the one they're mainly using, when they need that space to detail things like Sigil, the factions, new locales, and new monsters. A new Planescape book would be more useful if it's more compatible with core. There's nothing about Planescape that requires it to be ghettoized. If they decide they don't want all gods on all worlds to be dependent on belief, they don't have to say they are in a hypothetical 4e Planescape sourcebook. The setting will continue on just fine. They want more people to buy and use the book, not less. The more ghettoized they make it, the less will use it. That's why we likely won't see Planes of Eberron, either. But Planescape in particular uses elements that are going to be in the core cosmology anyway, like Pandemonium and the Abyss and the Nine Hells, so there's no point at all to deliberately make it incompatible with that cosmology. I don't read that the way you do. I read that to mean "A monster can exist even if it's the kind of thing you could only do once in an adventure You're reading it wrongly. Several of the monsters in that book are unique creatures that can only be used once, ever. I mean, in theory you could resurrect them or have them escape, but that's true with any unique NPC. It's not their primary purpose. When they say they don't have to be repeatable antagonists, they mean just that. It's not their intent that an encounter with them necessarily needs to be repeated. Ever. The meaning of the quote is perfectly plain, but you've never been very good at reading things literally when they don't suit your purposes.
Kain Darkwind 09-27-07, 07:32 PM	Neither of us, obviously, has any source. On the other hand, the people making 4e absolutely are doing it with years of market research and testing under their belt. And, unlike you, I prefer to go forward with the assumption that they might know something about what they're doing, rather than assuming that they're psychotic maniacs who purposely want to destroy the setting. What is it like to swim in an ocean of hyperbole and invented data? Is it even still called hyperbole at that point, or something more vast, like omnibole? The fact that they agree with me and that the phenomenon they're talking about (large swathes of the current planar structure going unused in games and being off-putting and counterintuitive) is something I have personally experienced makes it *easier* for me to agree with them, of course. But ultimately my argument is that I think the company's marketing department knows more about what's popular than you or I do. I'm sure they have a better idea of what might work. But if being a marketing department guaranteed 100% successful ideas, they'd be getting paid a hell of a lot more. Unlike you who wholeheartedly and mindlessly latches on to whatever bone they throw you so long as it is being called 'something new and innovative, I tend to adopt an actual wait and see method. I'm sure the sales figures of 4e will determine whether they were right in their move or horribly wrong. Er... no. I just think "This one gives you cancer!" and "This one sets things on fire!" is a stupid way to define the difference. The fact that you described these things in vague, mythological terms rather than actually telling me what it is about one's *personality* that makes her different from the other is telling. I mean, Fiera is about "fire and incest"? WTF is that? The fact that she has an incestuous relationship with her father, and that she's *thematically* associated with fire, is enough to differentiate her from Glasya? Despite the fact that in terms of *personality*, both of them are conniving, sneaky powers-behind-the-throne who love hedonism and pleasure and flamboyance and like taking lovers and killing them horribly? Actually, Glasya is not a power behind the throne, she's the clear cut ruler. Depending on the version, either Fierana or Belial have been the 'power behind the throne' in the 4th. Glasya is more of a tease than a s!ut. She uses her beauty like she uses all of her advantages at her disposal, in the pursuit of power. That's why she's 'teaching' Fierana how to wield her power better, despite only recently coming to the throne of the sixth. Glasya innately understands power and authority. She understands manipulation through subtlety. Fierana on the other hand, understands pleasure and self indulgence. She was previously content to let her father run everything for the most part, despite being more than capable of doing so. She was cruel, and smart and capable, but she was lacking in ambition. Fierana has a sex shtick. The entire 4th hell has this fires of passion and pain motif going for it. Glasya does not have a sex shtick beyond being hot. In 1e, she used to be Mammon's consort. She clearly has interests in what sex can bring her in the future, rather than the orgasm that Fierana seems to expect it to bring her now. Otherwise, why sleep with a fat pudgy Lord?
ArcTan 09-27-07, 07:34 PM	It's not an immutable law, but it's the best choice from a pragmatic perspective. It's absurd to force players to learn an entirely new cosmology every time they play a new published adventure. A default is useful. Is it, really? I've played in homebrew campaigns or one-shots that were explicitly based on never-seen-before cosmologies. Often they weren't very deep, but they didn't have to be, for the purpose of that campaign. But it's not my purpose in this thread to defend Planescape, and it shouldn't be your purpose to attack it. This has, as I keep saying, nothing to do with Planescape. Planescape is a red herring. I bring Planescape up only because you keep insisting that "oh, it doesn't matter if they render it very difficult to use older game supplements with newer ones because they'll just publish a full Planescape line that'll bring everything back." They won't. That won't happen. Then I would rather have a core setting that doesn't *privilege* old elements of Planescape above and beyond other random things I might add to it. Which the new setting does better. It'd be impractical to spend so much time detailing a cosmology separate from the one they're mainly using. A new Planescape book would be more useful if it's more compatible with core. There's nothing about Planescape that requires it to be ghettoized. If they decide they don't want all gods on all worlds to be dependent on belief, they don't have to say they are in a hypothetical 4e Planescape sourcebook. The setting will continue on just fine. But it is not *necessary* to force Planescape to plug into Greyhawk, or Forgotten Realms, to make Planescape a good or interesting setting. It makes it a lot easier to make up new stuff in Planescape if that doesn't have to be true. You're reading it wrongly. Am I? The section that it's in talks a lot about snipping down the number of SLAs and other abilities monsters have, and about cutting down on their total flavor. It explicitly says *not* to make Spawn of Juiblex so that you don't have to have Juiblex in your campaign to feel like you can use the Spawn of Juiblex. It feels like they're talking about basing the monster around the "just one encounter" it's in and *taking out* the idea that monsters' memorable place in the planes is important. Several of the monsters in that book are unique creatures that can only be used once, ever. I mean, in theory you could resurrect them or have them escape, but that's true with any unique NPC. It's not their primary purpose. When they say they don't have to be repeatable antagonists, they mean just that. It's not their intent that an encounter with them necessarily needs to be repeated. Ever. If that's the case, then I disagree intently with it and am not going to buy MMV. I mean, it could be the case in multiple ways. I don't necessarily have a problem with flavor that merely says "This is a one-of-a-kind monster", like the Tarrasque, without saying much else. But more stuff like the Spawn of Tiamat ("this monster is the one-and-only Herald of Asmodeus!") is lame and is a bad idea. The article *says* as much, when it talks about "limit your world-building!" as a precept. The meaning of the quote is perfectly plain, but you've never been very good at reading things literally when they don't suit your purposes. The article as a whole is about making monsters with fewer special abilities and less specific flavor. Why would I logically conclude from this that they want more monsters that are specific characters from specific planar locations?
ArcTan 09-27-07, 07:39 PM	Actually, Glasya is not a power behind the throne, she's the clear cut ruler. ...She is *now*, after years of being the power behind the throne (so far behind it she was effectively invisible). Depending on the version, either Fierana or Belial have been the 'power behind the throne' in the 4th. Glasya is more of a tease than a ****. She uses her beauty like she uses all of her advantages at her disposal, in the pursuit of power. Except Glasya is the one with the ability where she has sex with you and you die horribly, and is described as using it often and appreciating doing so as a work of art. (That whole "cancer" thing, remember?) I appreciate that you are *able to create* a distinction by writing out one right now. That doesn't mean there obviously was one in the original text. That's why she's 'teaching' Fierana how to wield her power better, despite only recently coming to the throne of the sixth. Glasya innately understands power and authority. She understands manipulation through subtlety. Fierana on the other hand, understands pleasure and self indulgence. She was previously content to let her father run everything for the most part, despite being more than capable of doing so. She was cruel, and smart and capable, but she was lacking in ambition. One interpretation, but one that contradicts BoVD, which paints Fierna as the "real" ruler who's using her father as a figurehead. (Remember that he is nominally the actual ruler of the layer.) Fierana has a sex shtick. The entire 4th hell has this fires of passion and pain motif going for it. Glasya does not have a sex shtick beyond being hot. In 1e, she used to be Mammon's consort. She clearly has interests in what sex can bring her in the future, rather than the orgasm that Fierana seems to expect it to bring her now. Otherwise, why sleep with a fat pudgy Lord? The thing about Glasya not actually enjoying sex seems at odds, actually, with the "cancer, nature and growth" thing, which is all tied to her "twisted fertility goddess" thing. It would be kind of cool if it *actually said* Fierna was about sex in the heat of the moment and Glasya about twisting sex to cold, long-term goals, but *it doesn't actually say that*. And, of course, by making Fierna the one who only cares about orgasms, you've now successfully argued her out of Baator and into the Abyss. (Unless they're "Lawful" orgasms, somehow.)
Kain Darkwind 09-27-07, 08:04 PM	...She is *now*, after years of being the power behind the throne (so far behind it she was effectively invisible). No, she was no power at all. 1e she was Mammon's consort, 2e she was reined back into Nessus where she enjoyed a status as Asmodeus' daughter. No power, she was on her own. Except Glasya is the one with the ability where she has sex with you and you die horribly, and is described as using it often and appreciating doing so as a work of art. (That whole "cancer" thing, remember?) I appreciate that you are *able to create* a distinction by writing out one right now. That doesn't mean there obviously was one in the original text. I'm pointing out that Glasya as written isn't particularly focused on sex. Any more than saying Mephisto is focused on it since BoVD has stats for his illegitimate daughter. One interpretation, but one that contradicts BoVD, which paints Fierna as the "real" ruler who's using her father as a figurehead. (Remember that he is nominally the actual ruler of the layer.) Do you actually read things? Or just make them up? What does this suggest to you? "Technically, the Lady Fierna rules the fourth layer of the Pit, known as Phlegethos. most devils know, however, that Belial, her father than the former ruler of the layer actually runs things from behind the scenes" -p. 151, BoVD "Fierna has no interest in ruling, gaining power, or taking part in the complicated politics of hell. Instead she is much more interested in taking advantage of her position and wealth to live an existence of comfort and pleasure." - p. 152, BoVD The thing about Glasya not actually enjoying sex seems at odds, actually, with the "cancer, nature and growth" thing, which is all tied to her "twisted fertility goddess" thing. It would be kind of cool if it *actually said* Fierna was about sex in the heat of the moment and Glasya about twisting sex to cold, long-term goals, but *it doesn't actually say that*. No, it instead implies it, through their personalities, powers and goals. And, of course, by making Fierna the one who only cares about orgasms, you've now successfully argued her out of Baator and into the Abyss. (Unless they're "Lawful" orgasms, somehow.) Possibly the stupidest thing I've heard you say. I guess paladins can't have babies?
ripvanwormer 09-27-07, 08:08 PM	Is it, really? Yes, I think so. It's too much of a burden on both the players and the DM, and it wastes too much space re-explaining everything. It is odd that you're saying you enjoyed one-shot cosmologies but think the idea of one-shot planes or monsters is somehow ridiculous. Then I would rather have a core setting that doesn't *privilege* old elements of Planescape That wasn't something that I was advocating. But it is not *necessary* to force Planescape to plug into Greyhawk, or Forgotten Realms No, but it's far more convenient. And, honestly, the Greyhawk and FR elements improve Planescape. I'd be happy enough with a purely generic Planescape book to love and treasure and make out with, but I know it won't happen. Would I be happier with a Planescape book that retained all the old canonical elements? Probably. I'm arguing this from WotC's perspective. I don't think we'll see it. There'd be little point. It explicitly says *not* to make Spawn of Juiblex so that you don't have to have Juiblex in your campaign to feel like you can use the Spawn of Juiblex. That part confuses me, because MMV has a Spawn of Juiblex in it. Pages 162-164. It comes in Lesser, Greater, and Elder sizes. I'm not sure what David Noonan was getting at there. If that's the case, then I disagree intently with it and am not going to buy MMV. That is indeed the case. For example, two of the monsters are singular, unique, named vampires. There's only one Black Duke and only one Red Widow. More than one would just get repetitive - another vampire who calls himself the Black Duke and has the same combination of character classes? No, he's a one-shot. Why would I logically conclude from this that they want more monsters that are specific characters from specific planar locations? I didn't say anything about planar locations; where are you getting that? I was talking mainly about the vampires, which are presumedly Material Plane-based. Although, at least two of the unique monsters are specific characters from a specific place on a specific plane (Pandemonium and a certain layer of the Abyss). However, they did say "But after seven years of monster books, the DM of today has plenty of monsters to choose from. It’s OK to design a monster to be used once, memorably. Not every monster has to shoulder the weight of being an important, repeatable antagonist." There really aren't two ways to interpret that. They're specifically saying that some of the monsters are designed only to be used once and not repeated. There's no reasonable way to interpret that as "oh, they mean only once in an adventure." That's not what they said.
ArcTan 09-27-07, 08:43 PM	Possibly the stupidest thing I've heard you say. I guess paladins can't have babies? Paladins aren't solely focused on sex as a means of physical gratification and all about the orgasm, no.
ArcTan 09-27-07, 08:48 PM	Yes, I think so. It's too much of a burden on both the players and the DM, and it wastes too much space re-explaining everything. It is odd that you're saying you enjoyed one-shot cosmologies but think the idea of one-shot planes or monsters is somehow ridiculous. I don't think one-shot anything is ridiculous. I think it's usually not worth writing into a core setting, though. I think that it's great to have a module that has a homebrew plane that's only useful in that module (if, for example, said plane is created and destroyed in the course of that module). I think it's gratuitous to have core material that plugs into that module and depends on it to make sense. (I'm particularly annoyed at the recent decision to fill up space and time with stuff related to the Temple of Elemental Evil in random core books.) That part confuses me, because MMV has a Spawn of Juiblex in it. Pages 162-164. It comes in Lesser, Greater, and Elder sizes. I'm not sure what David Noonan was getting at there. I think this article is as much about mistakes in MMV as it is things that MMV did right. That is indeed the case. For example, two of the monsters are singular, unique, named vampires. There's only one Black Duke and only one Red Widow. More than one would just get repetitive - another vampire who calls himself the Black Duke and has the same combination of character classes? No, he's a one-shot. Oh, you mean the stat blocks for individual *examples* of monsters. Well, sure, whatever. They're examples. They're convenient examples you can plop into an adventure and use, but they're not their own unique *kind* of monster, like the Tarrasque. I didn't say anything about planar locations; where are you getting that? I was talking mainly about the vampires, which are presumedly Material Plane-based. Although, at least two of the unique monsters are specific characters from a specific place on a specific plane (Pandemonium and a certain layer of the Abyss). However, they did say "But after seven years of monster books, the DM of today has plenty of monsters to choose from. It’s OK to design a monster to be used once, memorably. Not every monster has to shoulder the weight of being an important, repeatable antagonist." There really aren't two ways to interpret that. They're specifically saying that some of the monsters are designed only to be used once and not repeated. There's no reasonable way to interpret that as "oh, they mean only once in an adventure." That's not what they said. ...Well, they clearly don't mean once *ever*, since I can presumably kill the Red Widow, start a new game in which the events of the previous game never happened, and kill the Red Widow again. This doesn't read like it's talking about from a flavor or "game history" standpoint. It's talking about the *function* of a monster, not the fact that there's only one of this monster that exists -- it's talking about how after the first time you fight a Rust Monster you know the tactics necessary for handling Rust Monsters and so Rust Monsters aren't interesting anymore. A lot of the "puzzle" monsters from books like MM2 fit this category.
ArcTan 09-27-07, 08:49 PM	I'm pointing out that Glasya as written isn't particularly focused on sex. Any more than saying Mephisto is focused on it since BoVD has stats for his illegitimate daughter. So, you're saying she *doesn't* consider it one of her favorite pastimes to take lovers and have them die horribly in her arms. I guess FC:2 was mistaken, then.
ripvanwormer 09-27-07, 09:12 PM	I think it's usually not worth writing into a core setting, though. Since that wasn't what we were talking about, I'm not sure what your point is. I think this article is as much about mistakes in MMV as it is things that MMV did right. It's possible, but it seems unlikely that WotC would publish an article criticizing themselves. Well, sure, whatever. They're examples. They're convenient examples you can plop into an adventure and use, but they're not their own unique *kind* of monster, like the Tarrasque. There's no salient distinction between the two. They take up an equal amount of space in the book. If you don't like Dalmosh, a singular unique demon described in the MM V, or Garngath, a unique creature created by Erythnul, why would you like the Red Widow, a unique vampire with class levels? Why would it matter that one was its own kind, and the other was an example of an existing kind (a standard vampire from the MM 1)? If you wouldn't want to see the former in an MM, you shouldn't want to see the latter there either. it's talking about how after the first time you fight a Rust Monster you know the tactics necessary for handling Rust Monsters and so Rust Monsters aren't interesting anymore. Uh, no.
ArcTan 09-27-07, 09:27 PM	Since that wasn't what we were talking about, I'm not sure what your point is. If they want to do a module about a giant empty vacuum with a fortress hovering around in it, and the module is a good module, great. That doesn't mean the core setting of the core books needs to have a giant empty vacuum in it for the purpose of "inspiring" future fortresses that may or may not end up in it. It's possible, but it seems unlikely that WotC would publish an article criticizing themselves. Why? They did that when they published "Proud Nails", which was just about the various sacred cows in D&D that certain designers don't like. (Including the existence of Beholders.) Same when Mike Mearls published a series of articles explaining why core monsters like the Rust Monster, the Ogre Mage and the Beholder are badly written and rewrote them. This wouldn't be any different. (And it's from Mearls' article that I got the description of a Rust Monster as a bad monster because you can't use it more than once in an adventure.)
ripvanwormer 09-27-07, 09:40 PM	That doesn't mean the core setting of the core books needs to have a giant empty vacuum in it for the purpose of "inspiring" future fortresses that may or may not end up in it. You keep saying that as if it's an argument I've actually made, or which anyone has actually made. I must have said I don't need to see the Plane of Vacuum mentioned in the core books at least five times now. My problem is exactly what I said it was: that I don't think it's stupid, lame, hilarious, or anti-fun. I've made good use of it, and so have others who've posted in this thread. They did that when they published "Proud Nails", which was just about the various sacred cows in D&D that certain designers don't like. Those articles were about decisions that were made years ago, in monsters described in the MM1, which just about anyone who plays D&D owns or is going to buy regardless. They weren't about decisions made in new books that they're still trying to sell.
Kain Darkwind 09-27-07, 09:41 PM	Paladins aren't solely focused on sex as a means of physical gratification and all about the orgasm, no. Go one step further, now. Orgasms are chaotic and non-orgasms are lawful. Seriously, when you suggest stuff like this, as wildly off topic and wrong as it is, how do you propose to defend it? Is your position so lacking in any substance whatsoever that you must flee from an actual confronting of the facts? For that matter, may I assume that everything I pointed out that you were wrong, horribly wrong, etc that you didn't bother to quote or respond to is just being accepted as fact by you? So, you're saying she *doesn't* consider it one of her favorite pastimes to take lovers and have them die horribly in her arms. I guess FC:2 was mistaken, then. Well, FC: 1 was mistaken because it mentions succubi as demons, so I don't know why you'd be so shocked that FC:2 might be wrong as well. However, no, you're wrong. FC: 2 isn't mistaken, since it is a canon source of DnD. It actually can't be wrong until retconned. What I am saying is not what you are saying I'm saying. Like seems to be your bread and butter, you are misrepresenting my position entirely. I said she wasn't focused on sex. I never said she didn't have sex. Nor did I say that she didn't take lovers and had them die. I said she wasn't focused on sex in the same manner as Fierna, nor did she deserve to be lumped in the same category as being effectively the same concept. Which of course, brings us far from the actual point that I am concerned with a design philosophy that sees dumping existing ideas superior to working with them and expanding on them. And the point that while the unimaginative who can't get past sex may not be capable of seeing a difference, plenty of other people are mature and creative enough to do so. Allowing for more than one creature/being that has sex as an important, but not the sole defining facet of their nature. It's almost frightening to see how studiously you attempt to ignore one's actual points throughout an argument, and refuse to even acknowledge your own gross mistakes and false statements.
Rohano 09-27-07, 10:54 PM	I have a few questions. 1) Has anyone else noticed that the 4E Great Wheel is a giant jelly-filled sprinkled pastry? I'm going to have to make some kind of Great Consumer deity-figure whose goal is to eat said pastry. His name will be Homer, and when he takes a bite of the multiverse, no one will be able to stop him (unless they have <obscure artifact>). /analogy, major campaign figure and plot hook 2) Does anyone realize that this forum is capable of italicization, underlining and bold tags? Putting asterisks around words doesn't make you sound smart. It makes you look like you're incapable of writing. But appearances aren't deceiving, in this case. 3) Does Arctan spend his entire evening futilely ignoring points made against him and fending off randomly-chosen lines from randomly-chosen posts and feeling proud about it? 4) Anyone else realize that Rip isn't just a customer as certain persons keep repeating? Yes, he's probably one of the most important non-Wizards writers in the business. Wizards does, actually, endorse his work. Officially. Official material writer. Therefore, I would take what he says to be credible and justifiable, and not just random babbling from someone who has an artificial ego. Thank you. Meanwhile, back at the ranch... The point of the thread was that 4E seems to be rewriting the Great Wheel. The reasoning is mixed (to add new plot hooks, to rewrite the things that were considered old and unusable, and to provide better adventuring experiences for casual gamers) but somewhat solid, and it's what the people in charge have decided to do. If you don't like it, either keep using the Planescape material or write your own. It's the same thing I've been saying from the start. "...gonna have to pick between the new one and old one... or I'm writing my own, the Great Wheel be damned!" Indeed. Whoever said that was smart. Oh. /toots own horn
yrogerg 09-27-07, 11:13 PM	Yes, he's probably one of the most important non-Wizards writers in the business. Wizards does, actually, endorse his work. Officially. Official material writer. Therefore, I would take what he says to be credible and justifiable, and not just random babbling from someone who has an artificial ego. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority There are, in fact, a great number of published non-Wizards writers on these boards. Heck, there are even a decent number of *good* ones. Personally, that doesn't stop me from disagreeing with, or even arguing with, any of them, if I have different opinions. I don't claim to know who rip is in Real Life, or, by what, exactly, you mean when you say that he's "endorsed" by Wizards, but I personally tend to judge people's arguments on their own merits, not who they're coming from. And I certainly don't discard critical thinking because some ideas come from someone who's "well respected". Of course, I've never published anything and I'm no one of note, so feel free to completely ignore this post as all the same. :P
ArcTan 09-27-07, 11:53 PM	Go one step further, now. Orgasms are chaotic and non-orgasms are lawful. Seriously, when you suggest stuff like this, as wildly off topic and wrong as it is, how do you propose to defend it? Is your position so lacking in any substance whatsoever that you must flee from an actual confronting of the facts? Hey, let's actually rephrase that. Does Glasya like orgasms? By definition, probably. Does Fierna like orgasms? Probably. Does anyone who has orgasms like orgasms? Barring some kind of medical condition, yes. What is it called when the *only reason you have sex* and, in fact, the *reason you base your life around the pursuit of sex* is for the momentary gratification of orgasms? (Or any kind of momentary gratification?) In what way does that fit any definition of "Lawful"? It's no different from me pointing to someone who's entirely driven by physical hunger and the desire to eat more, more, more food and saying "That doesn't seem Lawful". Paladins like eating, or they wouldn't survive -- does that mean Doresain's insatiable hunger isn't part of what makes him Chaotic?
ArcTan 09-27-07, 11:59 PM	For that matter, may I assume that everything I pointed out that you were wrong, horribly wrong, etc that you didn't bother to quote or respond to is just being accepted as fact by you? *sigh* Fine, you got me. Fifty points. I said she wasn't focused on sex. I never said she didn't have sex. Nor did I say that she didn't take lovers and had them die. I said she wasn't focused on sex in the same manner as Fierna, nor did she deserve to be lumped in the same category as being effectively the same concept. At most, what you can say is that Fierna is a less-mature version of Glasya. Glasya really, really, really likes having sex. (Yes, she does. It is much more a part of her character and much more emphasized, even in her special abilities, than it is for, say, Baalzebul, or Levistus, or Asmodeus.) Fierna really, really, really likes having sex. Glasya can put aside her desires to seek power. Fierna can't, yet, but wants to learn how to do so from Glasya. It's not exactly a huge split. Which of course, brings us far from the actual point that I am concerned with a design philosophy that sees dumping existing ideas superior to working with them and expanding on them. And the point that while the unimaginative who can't get past sex may not be capable of seeing a difference, plenty of other people are mature and creative enough to do so. There are people willing to spend the time and effort to *write up* a difference, yes. If you created two absolutely identical twin monsters right now, I or anyone else on this forum could then write ten paragraphs describing how those monsters were subtly different. The question is always whether it's *worth spending time and effort to do so*. Allowing for more than one creature/being that has sex as an important, but not the sole defining facet of their nature. It's almost frightening to see how studiously you attempt to ignore one's actual points throughout an argument, and refuse to even acknowledge your own gross mistakes and false statements. Whatever.
ArcTan 09-28-07, 12:02 AM	4) Anyone else realize that Rip isn't just a customer as certain persons keep repeating? Yes, he's probably one of the most important non-Wizards writers in the business. Wizards does, actually, endorse his work. Officially. Official material writer. Therefore, I would take what he says to be credible and justifiable, and not just random babbling from someone who has an artificial ego. What does that mean? Given that people who say "I don't like the Great Wheel" are saying they don't like something written up by several different "official" designers of a much more "official" caliber than ripvanwormer, including Gary Gygax himself, telling people to shove off because they're disagreeing with someone "officially sanctioned" doesn't amount to much.
NobodyRemembersThis 09-28-07, 12:04 AM	Unfortunately, Wizards may Pull a Blizzards and screw over the original Established Canon through the mortal sin of retconning; the single laziest thing you can do to create continuity. Write a god damn future that fits the well written past, don't change the past to fit your poorly written future!!!As I pointed out in another thread, retcon only applies when they change the fluff of a specific setting or rework it to fit something else in. They are not doing so here. They are ignoring the Greyhawk/Great wheel setting/meta setting and creating something new. Not a retcon.
EvilVegan 09-28-07, 10:05 AM	Negative energy is death, dissolution, darkness, and decay. It robs the world of its life force. It is a vampire that steals light and youth. It is the compressed remnants of all the life that ever was, ruined and excreted, the filth that remains after souls are digested. It is a complex, busy jungle filled with exhausted spiritual matter. Vacuum is emptiness, that which has never been created and never will be. It is not destructive. It is not creative. It is the void outside of creation, that which will remain at the end of time. And herein lies the problem. It is not an elemental plane of nothingness. It is a plane of sucking air. Like under a vacuum cleaner. It is NOT "that which has never been created. . ." Elemental, meaning the basic building blocks of all matter in the multiverse. Even negative energy is a building block, or rather a deconstructing force of entropy, so it could be construed into being an element. Forces can be elements. There is no reason to have an elemental plane of nothingness. There is nothing made of matter or force which has even one component made of nothingness. Vacuums are logically elemental in nature, it is the force created when something leaves an area. A large sucking sound. This is not the same as the "existence of non-existence" and all the metaphysical mumbo-jumbo previous writers added to it. They did this in an effort to make the plane "cooler" while in the process they muddled it up by combining the "essense of nothing" with suck. I don't mind a plane of absolute nothingness (which is in no way an "elemental" plane, but rather a meta-plane). I mind a plane that sucks being thought of as a cool place to be. I mean really. It is the elemental plane of sucking. If anything the Void plane you are describing should be 1) a transitory plane (like astral, ethereal, shadow, etc), 2) a completely separated realm like the Far Realms. It doesn't exist. It is the existence of non-existence. It isn't made of "air plus negative energy" it is made of "nothing beyond nothing".
EvilVegan 09-28-07, 12:31 PM	Now, let's for a minute imagine that the entire Inner Plane structure relied on each and every plane being interesting. It doesn't, but let's pretend. In such an imaginary world, the only solution to this problem is either to make every plane interesting or to throw out the ones that aren't. I'd much prefer to see them tackle the challenge of making the uninteresting planes interesting than see them throw them out. Now, let's return to reality. The fact is, not every single place in a given structure needs to be tailored to PC invasion and adventure. Whether that is a nation having spots that are slightly boring with nothing to do except relax, or a planar alignment having some areas see more attention than others, it just doesn't follow that one needs to make 100% of all places super adventurer friendly. So even IF the Plane of Vacuum was boring as all hell, and even IF there was absolutely no way to fix it and make it interesting, the option to leave it there, boring, still exists. Because there existed 7 other quasi planes and 4 para planes and 4 core elemental planes and 2 energy planes that can be utilized. Suggesting that because one minor quasi plane wasn't fun to the design team the entire Inner Planes needed to be scrapped and overhauled is a poor argument. "We didn't want to stick with the old cosmology at all, and wanted something new" works. That fits with what we've seen enacted. "You all didn't like the old way anyway and will like the new way" sucks. It offers everyone who did like the old way the opportunity to cry foul. Not every plane has to be fun. In fact, it makes more sense for most planes to be decidedly "not fun". The problem is, when writing a new sourcebook, which parts are "funner" and deserve more attention. Let's say you're creating a generic core source book, not a planar substitute. You have 100 pages to fit 100 planes into. You could have 1 page per plane, regardless of how interesting/useful these planes have shown themselves to be over the past 30 years of gaming. Each one gets as much detail as the next. Or You could have 5 pages for the planes that have several static points of interest and lots of use over the past 30 years (City of Brass, Nine Hells, Abyss, Arborea) and squeeze the less used planes into paragraph form with a descriptive blurb and planar qualities Which one is more useful? It is easier, more efficient, and ultimately more useful to focus on the good material and not so much with including "unused crap" when producing core rulebooks (which is what they're working on right now, which is what his blog is about, which is what started this whole thread). The "crap" can fall into planar specific books, but as has been shown clearly throughout this thread, it is very easy for someone to come up with adventure ideas without official sanction. Are you serious? Did you not read my post? No I skimmed, you are wordy and insulting. But so am I. Also, I am at work so I get distracted. :PAttacking Vacuum simply reveals a poor design philosophy lacking in creativity. Or it represents one man's opinion and shows nothing about his design philosophy. It has absolutely nothing to do with his level of creativity.I could care less about Vacuum in and of itself. I do think that it can provide adventure material, no matter how obstinate ArcTan argues that he can't come up with anything good from it.Amusingly to me, ArcTan fully admitted you can come up with ideas for it and that he is fully capable of doing so himself. He further went to show how that doesn't matter. You can come up with ideas for anything. He happened to use planes of teddy bears and monkeys I believe. And since you can come up with an adventure idea from it, it automatically has value and should be always included in every iteration of the game, ever. But I'm not worried about Vacuum, I'm worried about the attitude that the old ways were worthless and lacking in potential.Did he say that? I think he said that the plane of vacuum was the opposite of fun. Not that people were stupid 15 years ago and everything they did was wrong. The ways weren't worthless. He never said they were worthless. He implied that small portions of the old might be worthless now, in the present tense. I'm worried about having people on the DnD design team that couldn't think up things to do with Vacuum and the best they came up with was 'cut it out'. They said it wasn't fun. Not that they couldn't come up with anything. The plane. By itself. Not fun. And it isn't. I really don't see the direct connection people are drawing between a person's opinion of a plane equating to them being unimaginative knaves. "I don't like pizza" =/= "You obviously know nothing about cooking" As I am about having people who see Erinyes and Succubi and say "well, we can't have more than one sex fiend in the cosmos".I would love to see where they made the succubi a unique creature. As it stands they made the archetype of seductive/temptress devil into a single creature with variability. This is in keeping with the streamlined mutability I've seen throughout the design process. Vengence demons (erinyes) will likely be present in another (hopefully more appropriate) form.As I am about people who look at Glasya and Fierna and say they are the same because they are sexy female devils. Avoiding the fact that there are at least three sexy males in Hell. Because they define a sexy female as nothing more. The characterization stops at that point. It doesn't matter that Fierna deals in fire and incest and Glasya deals in cancer, nature and growth. Two sexy females=too many sexy females. Because peabrains can't get past the sexy we've lost Malcanthet in 4e?No one said they combined Glasya and Fierna into one entity. They said that the succubus and erinyes creatures are now the same creature. Glasya may be one of them, Fierna may be another one. They are still different entities with exactly the same qualities as you want them to have. Nothing about them is changed except that they may use the same base race. The precise number of sexy outsiders has been reduced by 0. For instance you have Joe Sexy, the CE wizard succubus, and Steve Hawt, a LE cleric Erinyes. Almost all of their abilities and flavor come from their alignment and class (basically everything but race). Then you combine the race part into the same base creature. Joe the CE wizard succubus and Steve the LE cleric succubus are exactly the same as they were before, they have a new name for their race. WHOOPITYDOO! Are you guys really that hung up on semantics that you have to make these extreme claims? I mean, on one hand you insult the designers for "being unable to make things work" while on the other hand you are stubbornly refusing to do exactly the same thing.
sciborg2 09-28-07, 12:59 PM	Are you guys really that hung up on semantics that you have to make these extreme claims? I mean, on one hand you insult the designers for "being unable to make things work" while on the other hand you are stubbornly refusing to do exactly the same thing. I think it's more along the lines of seeing the designers make bold claims telling us what is or is not fun. Or, more to my irritation, about how devils and demons never made sense prior to 4e, when they recently released to whole books on the races. Just few months ago the devils and demons as presented throughout the last three decades were great, so great you should spend $60 to get the info on them. It's this that annoys me. This idea that the old was so horrible that it had to be done away with. The devil = human stuff is so much garbage to me, as if the last 30 years haven't shown us enough differences beyond physical form. It's this idea that a temptress can't be chaotic, or that beings who plan and scheme are by definition lawful. Is it easy to reconcile the idea of planning with chaos? No, because we as a species tend toward patterns, toward Order in our lives. The planes and alignments presented in the past weren't always easy to understand, but that doesn't mean that dumbing them down is a good thing. This reminds me of a mathematician who defended the abstract language used in proofs by noting that removing these symbols and ideas would be like saying "Shakespeare would be better if it was in simpler language". Not everything thing should be easy on the first try, some things take a lot of time to understand, to contemplate. The reason the Great Wheel was so interesting was that it spanned the levels of fun. It could just be a place where you fight monsters, or it could be a complex philosophical canvas. In that vein, Eberron seems the most Planescape thing to me...
ripvanwormer 09-28-07, 02:19 PM	It is not an elemental plane of nothingness. It is a plane of sucking air. Like under a vacuum cleaner. Uh, no. Not at all. All I can say is, do your homework before making assertions like that. The Quasielemental Plane of Vacuum is the death of air, just as salt is the death of water, ash is the death of fire, and dust is the death of earth. But it's more than that. It's the absence of everything. It doesn't "suck" air like a vacuum cleaner. Air ceases to exist at all. There is no reason to have an elemental plane of nothingness. There's no reason to have an elemental plane of anything, except that it's cool, and an interesting generator of plot hooks and scenarios. The Plane of Vacuum is all of those things. Yes, nothingness can be a building block of the multiverse, which is at least as much nothing as it is something. To some extent, it requires accepting a sort of "fantasy logic." Just as, in D&D, darkness is more than simply the absence of light, and death is more than the absence of life, and cold is more than the absence of heat, and evil is more than the absence of good - just as these things are all elemental forces of various kinds - so nothingness is more than absence. It's a thing, a presence. It's possibly the most terrifying force of all. The Neverending Story comes to mind.
EvilVegan 09-28-07, 03:46 PM	Uh, no. Not at all. All I can say is, do your homework before making assertions like that. The Quasielemental Plane of Vacuum is the death of air, just as salt is the death of water, ash is the death of fire, and dust is the death of earth. But it's more than that. It's the absence of everything. It doesn't "suck" air like a vacuum cleaner. Air ceases to exist at all.You missed my point. The elemental planes shouldn't be like that. I'm fully aware of the bullcrap that the previous writers attached to the plane. I personally think what they attached made it necessarily not an elemental plane. In other words, I can state my opinions as fact too!There's no reason to have an elemental plane of anything, except that it's cool, and an interesting generator of plot hooks and scenarios. The Plane of Vacuum is all of those things. All of those things, except for not being an element. I don't mind a meta-plane, separate plane. I just see no reason to include it in a wheel, or as an inner plane, or even to keep the planes situated the way they are.Yes, nothingness can be a building block of the multiverse, which is at least as much nothing as it is something.Hm. No. There is always something when there is something. If there is nothing then it isn't nothing made up of nothing. It's just nothing. It isn't "made up of anything" because if it was it would be something. That's just how it works. To some extent, it requires accepting a sort of "fantasy logic." Just as, in D&D, darkness is more than simply the absence of light, and death is more than the absence of life, and cold is more than the absence of heat, and evil is more than the absence of good - just as these things are all elemental forces of various kinds - so nothingness is more than absence. It's a thing, a presence. It's possibly the most terrifying force of all. Evil isn't an element either. Despite that stupid temple. So you're saying nothing is a thing. Nice. I guess this works if Shadow is an element for you.The Neverending Story comes to mind.I would hope so!
ripvanwormer 09-28-07, 04:21 PM	In other words, I can state my opinions as fact too! But you'd be wrong. My opinions have a basis in the game products we're talking about, while yours don't. You're not correct about what the Quasielemental Plane of Vacuum is, as it's been defined in the past. And it's not really fair to make up your own version to deride. Evil isn't an element either. It is, in the sense that it's a building block of the multiverse. It's just that it's a spiritual element rather than a material one. Nice. I guess this works if Shadow is an element for you. It is. And it is in the game, in the sense that it's a real, physical substance. It's not just a place where the light has been blocked off. It's a thing. This is fantasy-thinking, but it should come naturally after being exposed to much fantasy or horror fiction.
ArcTan 09-28-07, 04:28 PM	Uh, no. Not at all. All I can say is, do your homework before making assertions like that. The Quasielemental Plane of Vacuum is the death of air, just as salt is the death of water, ash is the death of fire, and dust is the death of earth. But it's more than that. It's the absence of everything. I still consider the arbitrariness of "Negative Energy + Air = Total absence of everything" annoying. To some extent, it requires accepting a sort of "fantasy logic." Just as, in D&D, darkness is more than simply the absence of light, and death is more than the absence of life, and cold is more than the absence of heat, and evil is more than the absence of good - just as these things are all elemental forces of various kinds - so nothingness is more than absence. It's a thing, a presence. It's possibly the most terrifying force of all. The Neverending Story comes to mind. Why can't that description simply attach to Negative Energy itself?
ArcTan 09-28-07, 04:29 PM	But you'd be wrong. My opinions have a basis in the game products we're talking about, while yours don't. You're not correct about what the Quasielemental Plane of Vacuum is, as it's been defined in the past. And it's not really fair to make up your own version to deride. Saying that someone has written something in the Quasielemental Plane of Vacuum is not proof that Vacuum isn't lame. Unless you take it for granted that everyone agrees that Sun Sing, Void-Eating Fungus and Vacuum Mephits aren't lame, which is far from a consensus opinion.
ripvanwormer 09-28-07, 04:39 PM	Saying that someone has written something in the Quasielemental Plane of Vacuum is not proof that Vacuum isn't lame. Since I never said anything like that, you're once again just arguing with yourself. I still consider the arbitrariness of "Negative Energy + Air = Total absence of everything" annoying. One reason is that Air is the most insubstantial of the elements, the closest to absolute nothingness. Vacuum is the next step on that chain. But really, the Inner Planes have been reconfigured more than once in their in-game history. Steam isn't really simply Water + Positive Energy, for example; it's Fire +Water, cataclysmically merged with a plane that combines water and positive energy eons ago. Dust, likewise, isn't simply Earth + Negative Energy; it similarly merged with an ancient plane that combined Earth and Air. The history of the Inner Planes is complex, and the present formation doesn't tell the whole story. Why can't that description simply attach to Negative Energy itself? Because it's a completely different concept. Negative Energy isn't nothingness; it's the energy of death and entropy. It's like growth and life, but its antithesis. It's a dreadful husk made up of destroyed souls. It's as much something as the Positive Energy Plane is; its mirror twin. The Plane of Vacuum, the Void, is something else. It has nothing to do with destruction. It existed before there was anything to destroy, and will exist afterwards. The Negative Energy Plane is ever-hungry, ravenous, vampiric. Vacuum is patient, eternal. If you combined the two, you'd lose the distinct feel of either one or the other.
ArcTan 09-28-07, 04:42 PM	Since I never said anything like that, you're once again just arguing with yourself. Okay. Arguing that Vacuum isn't lame because all this *really cool* stuff has been done with Vacuum that's *so awesome* and is still sparking *really cool* ideas to you right now is still not an auto-win argument, when you're dealing with people who, in fact, think all this *really cool* stuff is also lame. The fundamental point here is that lameness is subjective, and that even if you don't think it's lame, that doesn't mean someone else doesn't have the right to. The *more* fundamental point is that if I think something is lame, I have no obligation to go out of my way to "open doors" for other people to fanfic it into my cosmology.
ripvanwormer 09-28-07, 04:50 PM	Okay. Arguing that Vacuum isn't lame because all this *really cool* stuff has been done with Vacuum that's *so awesome* and is still sparking *really cool* ideas to you right now is still not an auto-win argument Well, yes it is, actually. It's not "anti-fun" if someone's having fun with it. It's not "lame" either, if you're using the word in a sense that contains actual meaning, rather than just being a random schoolyard put-down. Whether you admit you've lost the argument or not, you've lost it.
ArcTan 09-28-07, 05:41 PM	Well, yes it is, actually. It's not "anti-fun" if someone's having fun with it. It's not "lame" either, if you're using the word in a sense that contains actual meaning, rather than just being a random schoolyard put-down. It's "anti-fun" if the number of people who don't have fun with it vastly outnumbers the people who do. The fact that one person, or ten people, or a thousand people who all work on a website together enjoy it proves nothing. You can find fans for *anything* on the Internet. If I made a company about my Quasielemental Plane of Teddy Bears and published some books about it and depleted my life savings and went out of business three months later, ten years later there'd probably still be fansites about how awesome the teddy bears are and how it's a travesty they didn't catch on. It doesn't matter if *most people think it's lame*. And while none of us own polling research companies by which to test this claim, this is *exactly* the kind of question WotC's R&D department exists to confront, and claiming that because *you* like it means that WotC must, obviously, be wrong, and the idea must, obviously, be awesome is pretty arrogant. We can sling insults back and forth all day about who's more arrogant for assuming he's in the majority, but in the end I have more evidence that my POV is in the majority than you do -- which is that the company, who is the only entity here big enough to actually fund market research into this kind of thing, agrees with me.
ripvanwormer 09-28-07, 06:17 PM	It's "anti-fun" if the number of people who don't have fun with it vastly outnumbers the people who do. No, this isn't a democracy. Something doesn't become unfun just because a bunch of people who haven't even tried it have voted that it is. If something is "anti-fun," it's something that's impossible to have fun with. The Plane of Vacuum is a source of much fun. Therefore, the term "anti-fun" is inaccurate. It's not a question of whether you personally think it wouldn't be fun, because you haven't even tried it. If you took part in an adventure set there that I ran, you would have fun. And such a poll has never been counted, in any case. claiming that because *you* like it means that WotC must, obviously, be wrong I didn't say that, Mr. Straw Man. You're, by far, the worst debater I've ever encountered.
ArcTan 09-28-07, 06:20 PM	No, this isn't a democracy. If something is "anti-fun," it's something that's impossible to have fun with. The Plane of Vacuum is a source of much fun. Therefore, the term "anti-fun" is inaccurate. Oh, if you want "anti-fun" to be an impossible word to use, sure. I didn't say that, Mr. Straw Man. You're, by far, the worst debater I've ever encountered. This is getting annoying. I think it's anti-fun. WotC thinks it's anti-fun. You think it's *not* anti-fun. How is that a straw man? You may think that there is no such thing as anti-fun, and no one has any right to call anything anyone else likes anti-fun, but I disagree. If I were earning a living in the game industry I'd be in a position where deciding which definition fun was the most important and profitable fun was pretty damn important to me earning my salary.
ripvanwormer 09-28-07, 06:37 PM	You may think that there is no such thing as anti-fun I didn't say that. You do that so often, so automatically, that I'm finally convinced you're really not doing it on purpose. For a while I wasn't sure if you were intentionally distorting everyone's words or if that was actually how you thought - unconsciously picking an extreme position that was conveniently easy to argue against. It's really how you think. Wow. I think "anti-fun" is a silly phrase, but it probably applies to various activities. Doing your taxes, for example. Watching paint dry. It doesn't apply to an epic adventure involving a journey through a region of infinite void, confronted by hostile quasielementals and the ghosts of a slaughtered race.
Bob the Efreet 09-28-07, 06:37 PM	It's no different from me pointing to someone who's entirely driven by physical hunger and the desire to eat more, more, more food and saying "That doesn't seem Lawful". Paladins like eating, or they wouldn't survive -- does that mean Doresain's insatiable hunger isn't part of what makes him Chaotic? Mammon. It is not an elemental plane of nothingness. It is a plane of sucking air. Like under a vacuum cleaner. It is NOT "that which has never been created. . ." Vacuums are logically elemental in nature, it is the force created when something leaves an area. A large sucking sound. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum Glasya may be one of them, Fierna may be another one. They are still different entities with exactly the same qualities as you want them to have. Nothing about them is changed except that they may use the same base race. The precise number of sexy outsiders has been reduced by 0. Maybe you hadn't noticed (as you vehemently hate all D&D planar material), but Glasya and Fierna are, in fact, both devils. Kain was drawing a parallel between them and the erinyes/succubus merger, because the exact same logic used to merge them could be used to merge Glasya and Fierna. You'd probably be taken more seriously if you made more of an effort not to look like an idiot.
aushlo 09-28-07, 08:55 PM	What this planar crap comes down to is, some people treat the Planes, or gaming in particular, as a blank canvas with maybe an inspirational sketch by a peer (as in the case of Vacuum). WotC has pretty much decided that it's too confusing to mix paints, and they have decided to hand everyone a coloring book, so no one feels left out. Meanwhile, they're stopping producing paints while giving out the crayons. It seems to be how the whole design process is going (Thinking is hard. People don't like it. Look! Shiny!). Everything feels a lot like the gamer is being talked down to, and the assumption is that gamers are lazy and need to be spoonfed. Read a White Dwarf magazine and compare. Same crap, different company. It's revolting.
Tarascon 09-28-07, 09:20 PM	All I'm gonna say is this: Be afraid. Be very afraid.
yrogerg 09-28-07, 09:52 PM	What this planar crap comes down to is, some people treat the Planes, or gaming in particular, as a blank canvas with maybe an inspirational sketch by a peer (as in the case of Vacuum). WotC has pretty much decided that it's too confusing to mix paints, and they have decided to hand everyone a coloring book, so no one feels left out. Meanwhile, they're stopping producing paints while giving out the crayons. It seems to be how the whole design process is going (Thinking is hard. People don't like it. Look! Shiny!). Everything feels a lot like the gamer is being talked down to, and the assumption is that gamers are lazy and need to be spoonfed. Read a White Dwarf magazine and compare. Same crap, different company. It's revolting. Weird. Because This Article (http://forums.gleemax.com/leaving.php?destination=http://www.wizards.com/default.asp%3Fx%3Ddnd/drdd/20070926a) seems to be saying the exact opposite, that the cosmology is intentionally written to be an open-ended blank canvas, as opposed a score of themed planes that *do* serve as little boxes saying "X goes here". I mean, seriously, the fact that the current default cosmology has a plane called the Beastlands that effectively says "animals go here" is *much* closer to a coloring book mentality than, "Here's an Astral Sea. Put whatever the :censored: plane you want to put in it, wherever the :censored: you want to put it, and make it however the :censored: central to your cosmology as you want to." And, lo and behold, people are now complaining about how it reduces Asmodeus to "a mere god", rather than supreme ruler of a quarter of the cosmology, and how it 'ruins' the game by allowing DMs to let players kill Asmodeus without completely derailing the cosmology. Or not, if they'd perfer not to. Because goodness knows a good default cosmology should keep DMs from running certain games. I seriously think that there's no pleasing people who already made up their minds as opposed to the changeover. See, that's the thing people seem to be missing: NOTHING IN THE NEW COSMOLOGY PREVENTS YOU FROM USING THE PLANE OF VACUUM. Or any of the 2 dozen other planes of the Great Wheel for that matter. You can even have an alignment-obsessed setting that treats multiple domains in the Astral Sea them as a continuum of planes representing fundamental truths. Wow, that was hard. And hey! Now, you can have Planescape coexist in the same meta-setting as, say, Eberron, or Krynn, without running into situations where the denizens of one of those worlds is sadly deluded about the way the universe works, or else having to spend lots of time retconning away multiple power-levels of the same god across different settings. Personally, I'd call that an improvement.
RadicalTaoist 09-28-07, 10:07 PM	I mean, seriously, the fact that the current default cosmology has a plane called the Beastlands that effectively says "animals go here" is *much* closer to a coloring book mentality than, "Here's an Astral Sea. Put whatever the :censored: plane you want to put in it, wherever the :censored: you want to put it, and make it however the :censored: central to your cosmology as you want to." Wait a bloody second. There's absolutely nothing stopping a DM from dropping the Vacuum Plane in the Astral Sea or the Elemental Tempest, now is there? EDIT: And this is what happens, folks, when you post a response to someone who's editing their post that very minute. NOTHING IN THE CURRENT CAMPAIGN PREVENTS YOU FROM USING THE PLANE OF VACUUM. No there isn't. I seriously think that there's no pleasing people who already made up their minds as opposed to the changeover. REALLY? This should not come as a surprise to anyone.
yrogerg 09-28-07, 11:34 PM	REALLY? This should not come as a surprise to anyone. Maybe not, but it makes them annoying as heck to argue with, since they'll argue that the changes make the default cosmology "more like a coloring book so world-builders don't have to think" while simultaneously complaining about the fact that it doesn't actively prevent DMs from including plots that they don't like (like killing Asmodeus, or simply having other gods or devils be more important), and that it doesn't also force DMs to accept things like the Plane of Vacuum as automatically part of the default cosmology.
ArcTan 09-28-07, 11:39 PM	What this planar crap comes down to is, some people treat the Planes, or gaming in particular, as a blank canvas with maybe an inspirational sketch by a peer (as in the case of Vacuum). Except the main difference between Planescape and the Astral Sea is that Planescape has way more "colored-in" areas than the Astral Sea. The argument people have been making isn't that the Great Wheel has "more room for invention" than the Astral Sea (which would be a stupid argument), but that the huge swathes of colored-in, pre-defined areas in the Great Wheel are worth keeping (which not everyone is convinced they are) and that it's somehow easier or better or more fun to create stuff and have to fit it with the pre-defined structure of the Great Wheel than have a setting where you can make up anything and stick it anywhere. I'm at a loss as to how you think the Great Wheel actually had more wide-open space to make things up than this new cosmology. It seems like all the important changes from one to the other involve getting rid of the walls and boundaries that made the Great Wheel the Great Wheel.
ArcTan 09-28-07, 11:42 PM	Mammon. Yes. In other words, they've always been inconsistent and stupid about what "Law" means. I especially liked that FC:2 basically said Lawful Evil means "hypocritically Lawful".
RadicalTaoist 09-28-07, 11:44 PM	Right alongside with the arguments that 4e will remove all the customizability and roleplaying detail from D&D with cookie-cutter classes, since they're removing all the blinkered, caricature-producing sacred cow restrictions on how those classes work. That all increases munchkin powergaming, by the way. *sigh* You can't win for losing sometimes, man. EDIT: this was a response to yrogerg.
goldomark 09-29-07, 02:36 AM	Right alongside with the arguments that 4e will remove all the customizability and roleplaying detail from D&D with cookie-cutter classes, since they're removing all the blinkered, caricature-producing sacred cow restrictions on how those classes work. That all increases munchkin powergaming, by the way. Preaching to the choir man :bow: .
ArcTan 09-29-07, 02:53 AM	Preaching to the choir man :bow: . I think the choir needs a better sarcasm detector.
goldomark 09-29-07, 04:34 AM	I think the choir needs a better sarcasm detector. Damn!
Rohano 09-29-07, 07:14 AM	So... 4E cosmology: More freedom, less of Planescape's awesome history 3E cosmology: Slightly more rigid, but by no means restrictive Did I mention that these arguments are all moot?
EvilVegan 09-29-07, 08:59 AM	But you'd be wrong. My opinions have a basis in the game products we're talking about, while yours don't.I don't care what you base your opinion on. My opinion is more important to me than yours is. You're not correct about what the Quasielemental Plane of Vacuum is, as it's been defined in the past. And it's not really fair to make up your own version to deride. I am absolutely correct. As far as my games are concerned that is exactly what you get when you combine air with negative energy. It isn't fair? Of course it's fair. Every game everyone plays is different from every other game. If you do any one thing in the game world, you have changed that game world separate from other players within that world. This isn't a comic book, we're all playing different games. It is, in the sense that it's a building block of the multiverse. It's just that it's a spiritual element rather than a material one.Outer planes contain evil, inner planes contain building blocks. Try again. Maybe one day you'll notice that I'm not using default cosmology, but yet mine is infinitely better than the default. It is. And it is in the game, in the sense that it's a real, physical substance. It's not just a place where the light has been blocked off. It's a thing. This is fantasy-thinking, but it should come naturally after being exposed to much fantasy or horror fiction.Sure. Or not. Please try to realize that everything you are saying is opinion. We are discussing the quality/worth of fictional material that has been changed many times over the last 30 years. There is no "fact" when talking about this crap. From your argument I've been seeing a trend. Basically you're mad at Chris Perkins because he claimed a plane wasn't fun (his opinion). To you it was fun, or rather you could make it fun (your opinion). And somehow this makes him stupid or uncreative or poorly suited to design work. Please show how opinion determines creativity? You have an opinion. Does that mean you can't be creative? So far your opinion is "I like what these other people made, I'll use it and try to come up with things that make sense, using their material as a base." And his opinion is "I don't like what these other people made, I'll try to come up with something I like better and hopefully other people will be able to use my material as a base." Please, restate your argument. You keep saying that ArcTan is making things up, but so far here's the argument I've seen put forth. Chris doesn't like the plane of vacuum, so he's dumb. He's dumb because the plane of vacuum is teh awesome, and since he doesn't see that it is awesome he must not be creative. Shut up ArcTan, I'm not arguing about the plane of vacuum being awesome. This is really what I've seen, so if I missed something, please restate the argument in a less misrepresented way. And yes I did misrepresent some of what you said, but it was mostly in jest, so please don't get mad. I know you're a smart/creative guy. I really do just want to know what your base claim is. A late thread regroup if you will. Maybe you hadn't noticed (as you vehemently hate all D&D planar material), but Glasya and Fierna are, in fact, both devils. I gathered that they were both devils (they both rule hells and are not trying to kill each other directly), but no, I've never read FC1 or 2, nor BoVD, and don't like dwelling on evil. And it isn't that I vehemently hate the D&D planar material, I actually enjoy it thoroughly when I play Planescape. However, I do hate forced convention and a reliance on tradition over quality.Kain was drawing a parallel between them and the erinyes/succubus merger, because the exact same logic used to merge them could be used to merge Glasya and Fierna.I realize his effort. It was a failed effort. In fact, he proved the opposite point of what he was trying to do. He showed perfectly well how two creatures with the same race are fully capable of filling separate rolls. It was strange to me that the comparison was even being made. "They're combining succubus and erinyes because their monstrous roles have been muddied into an overall 'seductive temptress outsider' over the last 30 years" does not mean "we're combining every NPC, including greater devils ruling the separate lower planes, into single NPCs because they have some features in common". Its a ludicrous slippery slope that was created by the people complaining, not by the people who made the change to the "succubi archetype". When making a Monster Manual, how many different seductive, soul-sucking outsider races do you need? Once you have this race you can make any number of characters based on it. Glasya and Fierna are characters and prove this point. The reverse of the slippery slope argument would be like wanting the PHB to be have at least 2 different human races because Elminster and Khelben part their hair differently.You'd probably be taken more seriously if you made more of an effort not to look like an idiot.Nice. I almost reported your flagrant insult, especially since I was never actually talking to you and you didn't add anything to the argument. Please, be more respectful and take your own advice. And thanks, but I know what a vacuum is. The Elemental Plane of Vacuum does not fit the description of "true vacuum" any more than the area under a vacuum cleaner. A true plane of vacuum would be full of nothing, not void mephits (something), fungus (something), and a fortress (Something), and. . . and . . . and. . . and. . . And again I'm not opposed to a force of void/nothing (a la neverending story) or even a meta-plane, I'm opposed to calling it an element created by combining Air with Negative and attaching metaphysical crap to it. Fantasy Metaphysics belong in the outer planes, not the inner planes... If you add two things together it doesn't make "that which existed before existence".[/opinion]
Kain Darkwind 09-29-07, 10:52 AM	I gathered that they were both devils (they both rule hells and are not trying to kill each other directly), but no, I've never read FC1 or 2, nor BoVD, and don't like dwelling on evil. However, I do hate forced convention and a reliance on tradition over quality.I realize his effort. It was a failed effort. In fact, he proved the opposite point of what he was trying to do. He showed perfectly well how two creatures with the same race are fully capable of filling separate rolls. Well, I'm glad you agree with me, since it is then anything BUT a failed effort. I was actually responding to ArcTan's earlier comment (possibly on one of the clone-threads) that Malcanthet, Glasya and Fierna all were effectively the same thing. (And could then be combined, removed, just like the succubus/erinyes) What you say I proved was exactly what I was trying to prove. It was strange to me that the comparison was even being made. "They're combining succubus and erinyes because their monstrous roles have been muddied into an overall 'seductive temptress outsider' over the last 30 years" does not mean "we're combining every NPC, including greater devils ruling the separate lower planes, into single NPCs because they have some features in common". No it doesn't, does it? Except you know...all the former NPCs that existed as part of the combined race. Malcanthet (Queen of Succubi) doesn't exist anymore because of the merger. Grazz't is probably looking at the chopping block with the new superficial definitions of demon and devil. There are at least 4-5 NPCs who used to be succubi and they don't work as devils. Or fallen angels, if that's what you prefer calling them. The same logic used to make those changes was the same logic ArcTan was using to support his claim that Fierna and Glasya might as well be the same being. Which is what I was addressing. Thank you for taking my side, inadvertent as it might have been. Its a ludicrous slippery slope that was created by the people complaining, not by the people who made the change to the "succubi archetype". When making a Monster Manual, how many different seductive, soul-sucking outsider races do you need? Once you have this race you can make any number of characters based on it. Glasya and Fierna are characters and prove this point. I realize you don't read a lot of planar stuff, but you are completely wrong here. Neither Glasya nor Fierna are erinyes. You are really arguing about something you aren't totally getting the big picture on and it makes some of what you say sound off. Not 'Senator Stephens talking about the Internet' bad, but dissonant all the same. The reverse of the slippery slope argument would be like wanting the PHB to be have at least 2 different human races because Elminster and Khelben part their hair differently.Nice. I almost reported your flagrant insult, especially since I was never actually talking to you and you didn't add anything to the argument. Please, be more respectful and take your own advice. "Pot, this is Kettle. You're BLACK!" Bob was actually correct in telling you to take another look at what you'd said. Because you weren't getting it. Hopefully it fits better now, but honestly I think more reading material (both on the planes and on the other threads where ArcTan might have mentioned his claim) would be required to completely get where I was coming from. ArcTan did, which is why his argument against me, while containing his usual omnibole, fallacy and disdain for facts, made sense and attacked my position and yours didn't.
yrogerg 09-29-07, 11:42 AM	No it doesn't, does it? Except you know...all the former NPCs that existed as part of the combined race. Malcanthet (Queen of Succubi) doesn't exist anymore because of the merger. Grazz't is probably looking at the chopping block with the new superficial definitions of demon and devil. There are at least 4-5 NPCs who used to be succubi and they don't work as devils. Or fallen angels, if that's what you prefer calling them. As far as I'm aware, neither of these things have been said by any designers, and frankly, if the demon/devil split is no longer going to be framed around alignment, it's hardly a given that the designers are writing them out of existence. You're overstating things. I realize you don't read a lot of planar stuff, but you are completely wrong here. Neither Glasya nor Fierna are erinyes. You are really arguing about something you aren't totally getting the big picture on and it makes some of what you say sound off. Not 'Senator Stephens talking about the Internet' bad, but dissonant all the same. Err, nobody said they were. What EvilVegan *did* say is that they have all ended up drifting into the same role, of "sexy tempting seductress". The fact that there currently are two outsider races and (at least) three major overlords based on the same archetype is, frankly, excessive, and probably the sort of thing that contributes to the scarcity of women in this hobby. That alone's probably a good enough reason to fold them all into the same race, so that we have to deal with one fewer race like this. Personally though, I wish they'd gone the other direction, and re-established Erinyes as something more in-line with their mythological roots, as personification of vengeance aimed at punishing oath-breakers. But, that's just me.
ripvanwormer 09-29-07, 12:01 PM	I am absolutely correct. As far as my games are concerned that is exactly what you get when you combine air with negative energy. That's nice, but not very relevant. I designed my game so that the Negative Energy Plane, if it existed, would be as lame as possible isn't a very compelling argument about anything. Chris Perkins was talking specifically about the plane as it existed in 2nd edition. When discussing if his opinion had any merit, we have to look at what he was actually talking about, not your game. I specifically described the plot hooks that appeared in 2nd edition sources before I built on that and suggested new plot hooks. This is why my opinion is based more solidly on fact. Whether or not it's a potential place for a fun adventure is a matter of fact, not opinion. It either is, or it isn't. Saying "You're wrong, there's no potential" is a false statement. Saying "There's no potential the way I would use it in my campaign" is probably true, but not relevant to this discussion. It's perfectly valid to say "this person shouldn't be venturing an opinion on this subject" in situations where they honestly shouldn't. This applies to every subject, at all times. You don't have a right to your opinion. You only have a right to an informed opinion. More to the point, your "it's just my opinion!" defense is disingenuous because this isn't about you defending your opinion, or Chris Perkins' opinion. It's about you, ArcTan, and Skeptical trollishly attacking setting elements that many of us enjoy. Then, when I point out "things aren't as clear-cut as you think they are - the plane actually could be used this way and this way and this way" you decide to play victim: "Oh, how can you possibly attack my opinion, don't you know that peoples' opinions are sacrosanct?" You're not a victim, Vegan, and there's no reason for me to handle your (or anyone's) random opinions with kid gloves. You're a person who made some inconsiderate remarks on an Internet forum and got schooled. It probably would have been different if you three had said something more along the lines of "I don't mind Chris Perkins' comment because I probably wouldn't have ever used the Plane of Vacuum anyway." I don't think anyone would've had a problem with that. That'd be an opinion with a sound basis, and no one could've contested it. Saying "Chris Perkins is right! It's the elemental plane of suck!" is an attack. You're an attacker, Vegan. You're attacking something I like, and it's no more legitimate for you to pretend to be the put-upon victim now than it would be for me to do so. I'm attacking right back. I'm not any more morally virtuous than you are in this debate, but I'm not any less so either. Chris doesn't like the plane of vacuum, so he's dumb. He's dumb because the plane of vacuum is teh awesome, and since he doesn't see that it is awesome he must not be creative. Shut up ArcTan, I'm not arguing about the plane of vacuum being awesome. ArcTan keeps trying to pretend I'm demanding that the Quasielemental Plane of Vacuum be put in the core books (he even claimed at one point that I insisted it be in the Monster Manual, an oddly specific claim I never made). I never said I didn't think the plane was awesome. You two have different "voices" and you're obviously quite a bit more intelligent than ArcTan is, but evidently you're both fond of straw men. As for the first two bullet points, yes - that's more or less my opinion. I'll qualify that by saying Chris Perkins has done some fairly interesting work in the past (some of his Dungeon adventures) and some awful work (Warriors of Heaven). That statement he made was thoughtless and indefensible, in my opinion.
ripvanwormer 09-29-07, 12:18 PM	No it doesn't, does it? Except you know...all the former NPCs that existed as part of the combined race. Malcanthet (Queen of Succubi) doesn't exist anymore because of the merger. Grazz't is probably looking at the chopping block with the new superficial definitions of demon and devil. For what it's worth, they (WotC employees) have more or less said now that Graz'zt still lives in the Abyss, and he's a demon. They said the articles were full of gross generalizations, and don't necessarily apply on the individual level. I still dislike that they've set things up so that demons no longer care (or have any reason to care) about tempting mortals, however.
Kain Darkwind 09-29-07, 01:10 PM	As far as I'm aware, neither of these things have been said by any designers, and frankly, if the demon/devil split is no longer going to be framed around alignment, it's hardly a given that the designers are writing them out of existence. You're overstating things. Rip clarified that Grazzt is going to remain in the Abyss. Please explain to me where Red Shroud, Malcanthet, Shami-Amourae, Lynkhab, Fall-from-Grace, lilitu in general and all of the other concepts are going. Will they be from Hell, since that is where succubi are from? Or will they simply disappear from the game? I'm overstating nothing. I'm pointing out that certain well developed NPCs are going to disappear with the move. Err, nobody said they were. What EvilVegan *did* say is that they have all ended up drifting into the same role, of "sexy tempting seductress". Wrong. Pay attention. He clearly thought that Glasya and Fierna were some form of advanced erinyes, or at the least built 'from the same creature'. And he never made any comments regarding what they've drifted into. He stated that I showed quite clearly that separate NPCs from the same origins can have different and separate roles. The fact that there currently are two outsider races and (at least) three major overlords based on the same archetype is, frankly, excessive, and probably the sort of thing that contributes to the scarcity of women in this hobby. That alone's probably a good enough reason to fold them all into the same race, so that we have to deal with one fewer race like this. No, it isn't. That sort of lame logic is not really going to hold. Especially when you advocate a better solution in the very next paragraph. Even if it came down to two creatures with sex as a large part of their motif, you could easily differentiate them, if you gave but half a thought to the idea. Otherwise, why have different colored dragons? Why have more than a single 'giant', since they all boil down to 'big melee creature' and vary only slightly from there? Sex based creatures aren't what keep women out of the hobby. This erinyes-succubus merger isn't going to suddenly result in a never before seen influx of females to the genre. Personally though, I wish they'd gone the other direction, and re-established Erinyes as something more in-line with their mythological roots, as personification of vengeance aimed at punishing oath-breakers. But, that's just me. No, it isn't. This is one of the points ArcTan and I actually agree on. This would have been a far superior move to deal with the problem, especially since the erinyes in 3.5 had begun to move in that direction anyway. (Hence the release of the brachina in FC2...something more sexual and temptation based than the current erinyes provided.)
EvilVegan 09-29-07, 01:25 PM	Do me a favor right quick. Go read the actual post I was responding to. You may quickly notice where my confusion came from. Specifically it fed off of Bob's confusion. Check it out: Kain was drawing a parallel between them and the erinyes/succubus merger, because the exact same logic used to merge them could be used to merge Glasya and Fierna. So I responded to Bob and put your name in it. If it was ArcTan that was making this argument I apologize. Maybe you hadn't noticed (as you vehemently hate all D&D planar material), but Glasya and Fierna are, in fact, both devils.So he said Devils. With my infinitessimal grasp of all things planar even I know that devils rule hells. I responded to this statement and assumed from his arrogance that he knew more than me about planes (which is apparantly untrue). Anyway, on to your post (which I may or may not be arguing/agreeing with interchangably throughout): Well, I'm glad you agree with me, since it is then anything BUT a failed effort. I was actually responding to ArcTan's earlier comment (possibly on one of the clone-threads) that Malcanthet, Glasya and Fierna all were effectively the same thing. (And could then be combined, removed, just like the succubus/erinyes) What you say I proved was exactly what I was trying to prove. Yes, they are all effectively the same thing. Elminster is effectively the same thing as Khelben. Making humans a combined race does not negate the existence of either. They aren't the same character but they are the same thing. They both fill the role of "ultimate magus". No it doesn't, does it? Except you know...all the former NPCs that existed as part of the combined race. Malcanthet (Queen of Succubi) doesn't exist anymore because of the merger. Grazz't is probably looking at the chopping block with the new superficial definitions of demon and devil. There are at least 4-5 NPCs who used to be succubi and they don't work as devils. Or fallen angels, if that's what you prefer calling them.This is just absurd. Everything that already exists can still exist. You may have to be creative and use your imagination. Chances are good that we won't have to though, they've updated all these beings every other time. I don't care if it is you or ArcTan who's being absurd though. I'm often absurd. Some of my favorite things are absurd. This whole board is absurd.The same logic used to make those changes was the same logic ArcTan was using to support his claim that Fierna and Glasya might as well be the same being. Which is what I was addressing. Thank you for taking my side, inadvertent as it might have been.They may as well be, but they aren't. You're welcome. :D I realize you don't read a lot of planar stuff, but you are completely wrong here. Neither Glasya nor Fierna are erinyes. You are really arguing about something you aren't totally getting the big picture on and it makes some of what you say sound off. Not 'Senator Stephens talking about the Internet' bad, but dissonant all the same.I'm sorry, did I say hell. I meant the other hell. I'm sorry I don't care enough about your semantic argument enough to cross reference threads and books I don't own or care to read. The lower planes are hells. If you rule a layer of the abyss you're ruling a hell. Not a HELL, but a hell. (This is one reason I don't like distinctions of the Great Wheel, they are arbitrary, unecessary, and lead to semantic tom-foolery.) I recognized the fallacy of the argument and pointed it out. If you have to nitpick over the unimportant semantic parts, have at it. I don't care if Glasya and Fierna are beagles and they're standardizing the "Dog" entry, the point is: it is a fallacious argument (regardless of who made it). All separate and unique beagles will remain separate and unique dogs. ". . . the demon princes (and) the archdevils are the greatest of their kind and wholly unique." -BOVD "Pot, this is Kettle. You're BLACK!" Bob was actually correct in telling you to take another look at what you'd said. Because you weren't getting it. Hopefully it fits better now, but honestly I think more reading material (both on the planes and on the other threads where ArcTan might have mentioned his claim) would be required to completely get where I was coming from. ArcTan did, which is why his argument against me, while containing his usual omnibole, fallacy and disdain for facts, made sense and attacked my position and yours didn't.I'm sorry you guys can't keep your arguments limited to one thread. I will not go read them because I don't care what you or ArcTan said on the subject. My original points are all correct within the context I made them. My summed up point (feel free to argue/agree with the actual point at any time): Two characters with vastly different qualities based on personality but not type will remain exactly the same if you standardize their type. If they are of a type that ceases to exist or changes drastically, such as Malconthet, I don't know what will happen. You don't either. Conjecture is pointless at this time. As is your/arctan's slippery slope. If that isn't exactly refuting your argument in another thread, I'm fine with it. The point stands on its own as a defense of the change for Succubi. If I inadvertantly argue with ArcTan I'm okay with that. I like arguing (which should be abundantly obvious by now). So does he. I'll punch him right in his face. It is entirely possible that there will be a hell dimension of chaotic evil devils of which Malconthet is one. Lets see what I can recall about Graz'zt (I know, I know, I'm infinitely stupid about everything extra-planar; just because I don't like it obviously I don't know anything about any of it, and have no right to discuss it ever :rolleyes:). He would probably fit fine as an advanced succubi devil (4e definition of devil). He is both twisted humanoid and he grants power and sexual favors to people who summon him. This actually fits the new archetype of devil rather well - better than he fit the archetype of demon before in my opinion. First of all, he's a demon (2nd ed definition) who wants to be a prince, uses spies, speaks well, uses weapons and tactics, and doesn't (in most tangible ways) represent a being of pure chaos and evil. Hell, there are even instances of him being bound to his plane, similar to the 4e devils. If anything Graz'zt is a major inspiration to the changes for devils in the new metasetting, which is fitting since he was one of the original demon princes and has been downgraded several times before. Jubilex on the other hand fits better as a 4e demon. A chaotic amalgamation of ooze and teeth that seeks the destruction of everything, even other demons? Yeenoghu stole his power from another deity (sounds like 4e) and grants power to people who contact him. "Before Yeenoghu took over the layer, it was known as the Savage Searing, ruled by the fallen Celestial known as Azael. Even before Azael, the layer was realm to the obyrith Lord of Storms and Tempests, Bechard." Yeah, that fully fits the 4e definition. Baphomet is a big minotaur in a labyrinthine dimension that fits well as a dungeon-hell dimension for 4e. Please, show that Malconthet doesn't work as a 4e devil. I know it sounds snarky, but I really am honestly interested. The things I learned about her in my readings since she is a newer creation, appearing first in Dungeon magazine #112, circa 2004. Current world champ of succubi. Humped/stabbed her way to the top (empower those women!). Lives on 507th level of the abyss in a renovated jiggy-flesh domain. Other than changing "507th level of abyss" to "hell dimension in the astral sea" I don't really see a problem with the 4e changes. Is it really the creation semantics of "fallen angel" vs "self-originated force of humping" that you have a problem with? That's really not that hard to reconcile (retconcile) if you really have to. Also, as a twist to tie it all together, how do we know that the demons/devils weren't lying about their origin. Maybe all of them were fallen angels in the great wheel and everyone forgot because they're that good at lying (or it's part of the true Pact Primordial).
yrogerg 09-29-07, 02:38 PM	Rip clarified that Grazzt is going to remain in the Abyss. Please explain to me where Red Shroud, Malcanthet, Shami-Amourae, Lynkhab, Fall-from-Grace, lilitu in general and all of the other concepts are going. Will they be from Hell, since that is where succubi are from? Or will they simply disappear from the game? Fall-from-Grace was an interesting character to drop in there, since she's hardly a landmark setting NPC. She was a CRPG NPC -though admittedly an interesting one- whose backstory is barely changed by having her originate from Hell instead of the Abyss, particularly if the law-chaos axis of alignment is being strongly de-emphasized in the new cosmology, as appears to be the case. Also, most hardcore fandoms still consider video games, particularly ones with multiple endings, to occupy quasi-canon, at best, unless referenced in later publications. I'm overstating nothing. I'm pointing out that certain well developed NPCs are going to disappear with the move. Or, they *change*. They move somewhere else in the cosmology. They change appearance. They become more or less important to their cosmologies and planes. They *aren't* automatically going to be killed off or vanish. You *are* overstating things. Wrong. Pay attention. He clearly thought that Glasya and Fierna were some form of advanced erinyes, or at the least built 'from the same creature'. And he never made any comments regarding what they've drifted into. He stated that I showed quite clearly that separate NPCs from the same origins can have different and separate roles. Barely. Which, I gathered, was EvilVegan's actual point. Do you need several races of soul-sucking, seductive outsiders? Not really. Once you have one, can you use it as a starting point for NPCs? Yes. Do you need several races and a dozen or more NPCs statted out along this general conceit? No, no, a thousand times over, no. No, it isn't. That sort of lame logic is not really going to hold. Especially when you advocate a better solution in the very next paragraph. Even if it came down to two creatures with sex as a large part of their motif, you could easily differentiate them, if you gave but half a thought to the idea. Otherwise, why have different colored dragons? Why have more than a single 'giant', since they all boil down to 'big melee creature' and vary only slightly from there? Actually, it has a lot to do with the fact that they're both playing off of the same extremely offensive stereotype, whereas the various dragons and giants, as a rule, *aren't*. If there were such a thing as a Blackface Dragon, and people didn't find it annoying and offensive and want to get rid of it, you'd have a point here. Sex based creatures aren't what keep women out of the hobby. This erinyes-succubus merger isn't going to suddenly result in a never before seen influx of females to the genre. Even if B) is true, it's not actually follow that A) is true. I mean, have you actually asked women who don't play D&D why they don't play it? Most women I know to tend not to like being treated as sexual objects or otherwise defined solely by their sexuality. Just, in general. And this is true of *many*, if not most, of the female characters and exclusively female races in D&D. In five minutes on wikipedia, I stumbled upon Succubi, Eryines, Nymphs, Glasya, Fierna, Lilith, Naome, Malcanthet, and Iggwilv. Which is by no means an exhaustive list. But, I think there's plenty there for a woman to be offended about (starting with, 'female Devils usually gain power by having sex with male Devils!'), and I know that plenty of women *have* complained about the oversexualized images of women that pervade fantasy writing and games. I mean, hell, this is the sort of thing that the D&D geek community self-consciously mocks itself over, unless you're saying you've never seen Fear of Girls (http://www.deadtroll.com/video/fearofgirls.html), or never made ironic reference to "chain-mail bikinis". Paring down the number of races and characters that reinforce this stereotype really doesn't strike me as a bad thing. No, it isn't. This is one of the points ArcTan and I actually agree on. This would have been a far superior move to deal with the problem, especially since the erinyes in 3.5 had begun to move in that direction anyway. (Hence the release of the brachina in FC2...something more sexual and temptation based than the current erinyes provided.) And yet, look at this move: most of the change is fairly minor, and everyone's up in arms about how their favorite NPCs "are getting axed," even though the designers have *said* that's not what they're doing. Imagine how people would have responded if Erinyes were instead converted into not-especially-attractive, bloody-eyed LN enforcers of vengeance against oath-breakers and murderers, or even only came out and explicitly made this their backstory. Do you really think the complaining would have been any different, or that anyone'd be any less upset that they were "killing off Glasya", or some nonsense? Because I don't.
EvilVegan 09-29-07, 02:42 PM	That's nice, but not very relevant. I designed my game so that the Negative Energy Plane, if it existed, would be as lame as possible isn't a very compelling argument about anything.Lame as possible? I'll tell the Taoists you think so. I incorporate elements of my own philosophy into my elemental planes. Negative energy is the lingering long energy of Yin, not the subtly evil destructive force of undeath (though it is mildly destructive). Positive energy is the short lived, powerful Yang (also capable of destruction). Undead are created by an imbalance of Positive/negative energy (positive energy undead burn out quickly, but can wreak horrible destruction in a short time, negative energy undead live almost indefinitely). And no, my campaign world is not Oriental at all. My cosmology is infinitely more internally consistent. But thats because it was created by me, and not swarms of other people trying to smash things into a wheel, each with different opinions on how things should be and changing bits willy nilly. But thanks for your direct attack on something I've created without fully understanding my concepts (which there is no way for you to have known about). But, none of this has relevance, so I digress. Chris Perkins was talking specifically about the plane as it existed in 2nd edition. When discussing if his opinion had any merit, we have to look at what he was actually talking about, not your game. I specifically described the plot hooks that appeared in 2nd edition sources before I built on that and suggested new plot hooks. This is why my opinion is based more solidly on fact.Sure. Your opinion is based on one fact, mine is on another. How does that relate to Chris Perkins being stupid? Whether or not it's a potential place for a fun adventure is a matter of fact, not opinion. It either is, or it isn't. Saying "You're wrong, there's no potential" is a false statement. Saying "There's no potential the way I would use it in my campaign" is probably true, but not relevant to this discussion.Anything is a potential place for a fun adventure. Some have more potential, some have less.It's perfectly valid to say "this person shouldn't be venturing an opinion on this subject" in situations where they honestly shouldn't. This applies to every subject, at all times. You don't have a right to your opinion. You only have a right to an informed opinion.Ludicrous. This is his blog and his thoughts on subjects. Yes he's a sanctioned game designer and fully versed on the subject. I agree that he's right to a degree (the plane of void is not immediately as interesting/adventure spawning as other planes), you don't agree. You've shown ways to create multiple/interesting adventures using the plane of void to prove that it has potential to not suck. We've shown that we can do the same with obviously crappy planes, negating the validity of the argument "I can create X from Y, so Y obviously doesn't suck". To which you reply "I'm not arguing that Void doesn't suck". Oki doki! More to the point, your "it's just my opinion!" defense is disingenuous because this isn't about you defending your opinion, or Chris Perkins' opinion. It's about you, ArcTan, and Skeptical trollishly attacking setting elements that many of us enjoy. Then, when I point out "things aren't as clear-cut as you think they are - the plane actually could be used this way and this way and this way" you decide to play victim: "Oh, how can you possibly attack my opinion, don't you know that peoples' opinions are sacrosanct?"I don't know how trollish I'm being. I'm a little upset that people determine creativity by how closely someone else's opinion aligns with theirs, but other than that I agree with a lot of your points. You're not a victim, Vegan, and there's no reason for me to handle your (or anyone's) random opinions with kid gloves. You're a person who made some inconsiderate remarks on an Internet forum and got schooled. We're all victims. :weep: [/emo] Schooled? I don't think you've taught me anything except you think people who don't agree with your opinion are stupid. It probably would have been different if you three had said something more along the lines of "I don't mind Chris Perkins' comment because I probably wouldn't have ever used the Plane of Vacuum anyway." I don't think anyone would've had a problem with that. That'd be an opinion with a sound basis, and no one could've contested it. Saying "Chris Perkins is right! It's the elemental plane of suck!" is an attack. You're an attacker, Vegan. You're attacking something I like, and it's no more legitimate for you to pretend to be the put-upon victim now than it would be for me to do so. I'm attacking right back. I'm not any more morally virtuous than you are in this debate, but I'm not any less so either.I don't know if saying "this plane isn't fun for me" is really an attack, but really I don't know what to tell ya. I like a Plane of Void as you described it. I don't like it's official placement in the great wheel, nor the great wheel at all really (outside of Planescape/Greyhawk). I agree that the plane you describe is ultra-cool, but doesn't fit where they said it fits (in my opinion). It doesn't make sense with the concept of inner planes as I consider them to be (opinion). Nor should it necessarily be considered over other material (which historically may have inspired several more adventure hooks than Void has) for inclusion in the initial stages of core rules creation (the focus of Chris Perkin's Blog). You can't combine two things to create "that which existed before existence", it's nonsense even from a fantasy logic standpoint. The difference between you and I is, I'm not calling anyone stupid for not sharing my opinion. ArcTan keeps trying to pretend I'm demanding that the Quasielemental Plane of Vacuum be put in the core books (he even claimed at one point that I insisted it be in the Monster Manual, an oddly specific claim I never made). I never said I didn't think the plane was awesome. You two have different "voices" and you're obviously quite a bit more intelligent than ArcTan is, but evidently you're both fond of straw men.If we only had a brain. . . <whistles> I'm a bit older and somewhat nicer occasionally, but I don't know if internet discussions are the best indication of IQ. Nor are opinions. :P As for the first two bullet points, yes - that's more or less my opinion. I'll qualify that by saying Chris Perkins has done some fairly interesting work in the past (some of his Dungeon adventures) and some awful work (Warriors of Heaven). That statement he made was thoughtless and indefensible, in my opinion.I'm sure he should avoid ever having an "indefensible opinion" that does not match yours in the future. As should everyone. Lest they be stupid.
sciborg2 09-29-07, 03:10 PM	when did rip claim chris perkins was stupid?
EvilVegan 09-29-07, 03:34 PM	It wasn't solely his claim. But when I asked him, he agreed that it was a portion, or at least an underlying assumption. Actually I would frame the true argument as : "Chris Perkin's shouldn't make ironclad descriptive comments on the nature of his opinions, because the language he used indicates that he was tossing out canon that other people may appreciate for the sole reason that 'he don't like it' and, as a trusted/official game designer, he should handle any changes made to canon cosmology with more care and respect. Had Mr. Perkins instead said 'in these first stages of game design we're choosing to focus first on the planes that players historically found more inspiring and then determining which more specific niche planes to update, such as the Plane of Vacuum, and at what level of play these Planes would enter the realm of possibility for our heroes' we would have less room to nitpick his opinion and derride his creativity/intellect based on opinionated statements." And while I'll always agree that things can always be said better (if you watch carefully, most (80%) of my posts are editted rapidly and repeatedly), I don't have a problem with the language used. And the rest of the thread has been amusing back and forth about the nature of elemental suck.
Kain Darkwind 09-29-07, 04:36 PM	Fall-from-Grace was an interesting character to drop in there, since she's hardly a landmark setting NPC. She was a CRPG NPC -though admittedly an interesting one- whose backstory is barely changed by having her originate from Hell instead of the Abyss, particularly if the law-chaos axis of alignment is being strongly de-emphasized in the new cosmology, as appears to be the case. Also, most hardcore fandoms still consider video games, particularly ones with multiple endings, to occupy quasi-canon, at best, unless referenced in later publications. Almost as interesting as the fact that you focused on that single 'nonlandmark' and refused to say anything of merit about the others. Or, they *change*. They move somewhere else in the cosmology. They change appearance. They become more or less important to their cosmologies and planes. They *aren't* automatically going to be killed off or vanish. You *are* overstating things. No, you are simply refusing to understand the implications. If I merge bugbears, hobgoblins and goblins into a single 'goblin' creature, former bugbears are now goblins or they don't exist. The succubi characters have no place to go unless they are now devils, something at odds with their background flavor. Regarding Malcanthet, I see three possible options. 1. She's gone. 2. She's a devil. 3. She's a demon lord, but has some oddities considering her patroned race are devils. [quote]Barely. Which, I gathered, was EvilVegan's actual point. Do you need several races of soul-sucking, seductive outsiders? Not really. Once you have one, can you use it as a starting point for NPCs? Yes. Do you need several races and a dozen or more NPCs statted out along this general conceit? No, no, a thousand times over, no. I'm not going to address this "issue" of yours further until you bother to go back and actually read everything that was said and can display a partial grasp of the facts. Suffice to say at this point, you are wrong because you are not comprehending what was said and why. Actually, it has a lot to do with the fact that they're both playing off of the same extremely offensive stereotype, whereas the various dragons and giants, as a rule, *aren't*. If there were such a thing as a Blackface Dragon, and people didn't find it annoying and offensive and want to get rid of it, you'd have a point here. Yeah, I noticed a ton of 'get rid of the succubus' threads out there. If the concept was offensive, it still remains and isn't going to make anyone offended by it happier. Just like dropping racial slurs to only once per two pages wouldn't make people happier. Even if B) is true, it's not actually follow that A) is true. I mean, have you actually asked women who don't play D&D why they don't play it? Most women I know to tend not to like being treated as sexual objects or otherwise defined solely by their sexuality. Just, in general. And this is true of *many*, if not most, of the female characters and exclusively female races in D&D. In five minutes on wikipedia, I stumbled upon Succubi, Eryines, Nymphs, Glasya, Fierna, Lilith, Naome, Malcanthet, and Iggwilv. Which is by no means an exhaustive list. But, I think there's plenty there for a woman to be offended about (starting with, 'female Devils usually gain power by having sex with male Devils!'), and I know that plenty of women *have* complained about the oversexualized images of women that pervade fantasy writing and games. I mean, hell, this is the sort of thing that the D&D geek community self-consciously mocks itself over, unless you're saying you've never seen Fear of Girls (http://www.deadtroll.com/video/fearofgirls.html), or never made ironic reference to "chain-mail bikinis". And for all that, plenty of females take part in the hobby around my area. What keeps more from doing so is much more vast than 'DnD is sexist'. Keep in mind it is also social suicide in some circles. While religious groups don't openly march against it as much anymore, plenty of people who grew up in the eighties still have it in their head that the hobby is demonic. If I were to ask a random sampling of college girls (which I will do this coming week) why they don't play DnD, I suspect 'because it is for fricken nerds who don't bathe' is more common than 'because it is sexist and demeans me as a female and human being' But we'll see. And yet, look at this move: most of the change is fairly minor, and everyone's up in arms about how their favorite NPCs "are getting axed," even though the designers have *said* that's not what they're doing. Imagine how people would have responded if Erinyes were instead converted into not-especially-attractive, bloody-eyed LN enforcers of vengeance against oath-breakers and murderers, or even only came out and explicitly made this their backstory. Do you really think the complaining would have been any different, or that anyone'd be any less upset that they were "killing off Glasya", or some nonsense? Because I don't. Are we still on the idea that Glasya is an erinyes? You are displaying the same gross ignorance of the topic that EV did. How can you expect to carry on an intelligent conversation on a subject you don't know much about?
Bob the Efreet 09-29-07, 05:15 PM	If I were to ask a random sampling of college girls (which I will do this coming week) why they don't play DnD, I suspect 'because it is for fricken nerds who don't bathe' is more common than 'because it is sexist and demeans me as a female and human being' But we'll see. I look forward to seeing your results :D
yrogerg 09-29-07, 05:58 PM	Almost as interesting as the fact that you focused on that single 'nonlandmark' and refused to say anything of merit about the others. No, you are simply refusing to understand the implications. If I merge bugbears, hobgoblins and goblins into a single 'goblin' creature, former bugbears are now goblins or they don't exist. Yes. But so what? I'm pointing out that the designers' comments have put them a lot closer to the 'bugbears are goblins' camp than the 'bugbears don't exist' anymore. You immediately jumped to ZOMFG THEIR RITING BUGBARS OUT OF TEH SETTING, in spite of decent evidence to the contrary. I like how you decided to pick bugbears, hobgoblins and goblins, rather than, say, bugbears and orcs, or hobgoblins and goblins alone, both of which commonly occur in homebrews, and aren't actually that big a deal, and deal with creatures that are already very similar to each other and occupy similar places in most settings, and are therefore a much more appropriate analogy to this particular move. The succubi characters have no place to go unless they are now devils, something at odds with their background flavor. Regarding Malcanthet, I see three possible options. 1. She's gone. 2. She's a devil. 3. She's a demon lord, but has some oddities considering her patroned race are devils. Well, all the other succubi are devils, so it makes sense that she would be, since she IS a succubus. And, heck, by the looks of it, the demon/devil split doesn't look likely to be one that's based primarily on alignment, so I don't see why it's a big deal, or why it 'destroys the game'. Great. She's a devil. Big whoop. Heck, if there's no Blood War in the new cosmology (and I'm not really sure what justification they could come up with for one), she even gets to keep her backstory and affiliations, in the form of a weird demon fetish. What's the problem? Yeah, I noticed a ton of 'get rid of the succubus' threads out there. If the concept was offensive. You haven't noticed it, so it must not be offensive? If things like chainmail bikinis and the overwhelming prominence of women as sex objects or sexual manipulators in D&D and similar genres keeps women away, why would you expect a lot of threads on these topics in a place like this? And if it's such a pervasive feature of the genre, what makes you think they'd be particularly inclined to speak up? it still remains and isn't going to make anyone offended by it happier. Just like dropping racial slurs to only once per two pages wouldn't make people happier. Right, but it's also possible that WotC is trying to cut their pervasiveness in the game without completely ticking off existing fans, causing them to take incomplete half-steps. And, to be completely honest, the jump from "the vast majority of female outsiders" to only the presence of succubi is much more like the difference between blackface minstrelry and modern sitcoms in terms of offensiveness. And for all that, plenty of females take part in the hobby around my area. Ah, the good ol' "I know people who (aren't offended)/(accept it even if they are offended), so it must not be offensive." What keeps more from doing so is much more vast than 'DnD is sexist'. Keep in mind it is also social suicide in some circles. While religious groups don't openly march against it as much anymore, plenty of people who grew up in the eighties still have it in their head that the hobby is demonic.These things keep people of both genders away, and most likely in equal numbers. This is rather irrelevant. If I were to ask a random sampling of college girls (which I will do this coming week) why they don't play DnD, I suspect 'because it is for fricken nerds who don't bathe' is more common than 'because it is sexist and demeans me as a female and human being. But we'll see. Whatever. I am, to be fair, mainly extrapolating based on what girls who do game, or at least hang out with gamers, have said makes them less-than-comfortable with a lot of fantasy as a genre, rather than the opinions of women who don't interact with D&D or gamers at all. Which means that my sample is biased in favor of women who suffer nerds, and do play or have considered playing, and therefore have more to go on than prejudice. Which, I suspect, is a the specific demographic that WotC is trying to market to right now. It's also worth noting that once Astrid's Parlor went up, lengthy threads about sexism in D&D weren't actually that far behind. I submit that it was probably on a lot of peoples' minds even before then. Are we still on the idea that Glasya is an erinyes? You are displaying the same gross ignorance of the topic that EV did. How can you expect to carry on an intelligent conversation on a subject you don't know much about? Not an Erinyes, but strongly associated with them, by BoVD and FCII's accounts. Like I said, it seems inevitable that some people would complain that they were trying to write her out of the cosmology if they got moved somewhere else. Or, at very least, about how 'it doesn't make sense'. Heck, Rip's complained about the decision to move the Rakshasa out of Acheron and into the material plane, despite the fact that it was a move that made them *much* more in-line with their mythological roots than they'd been otherwise. So I don't think expecting similar complaints about a mythologically appropriate Erinyes is baseless conjecture.
ripvanwormer 09-29-07, 05:59 PM	Lame as possible? I'll tell the Taoists you think so. I incorporate elements of my own philosophy into my elemental planes. Now you're changing the argument. Either you're arguing that the Plane of Vacuum, as defined in your campaign, is "lame" or you aren't. Either way, it doesn't matter - I'd rather discuss the official, 2nd edition version that Chris Perkins was deriding. For what it's worth, my view of Positive (http://www.geocities.com/ripvanwormer/yang.htm) and Negative Energy (http://www.geocities.com/ripvanwormer/negativeenergy.html) is also based directly on Taoism. But thanks for your direct attack on something I've created without fully understanding my concepts For crying out loud. I'm not deriding anything; I'm summing up your own argument. I don't care about your own campaign. I don't know anything about it other than what you've told me. I have no opinions on it one way or the other. I don't care. I don't care about you, and I don't care about what you do in your campaign. I have no interest in attacking or defending your cosmology. What you said was: "It is not an elemental plane of nothingness. It is a plane of sucking air. Like under a vacuum cleaner. It is NOT "that which has never been created. . ." I don't mind a plane of absolute nothingness (which is in no way an "elemental" plane, but rather a meta-plane). I mind a plane that sucks being thought of as a cool place to be. I answered, "You're not correct about what the Quasielemental Plane of Vacuum is, as it's been defined in the past. And it's not really fair to make up your own version to deride." You responded: As far as my games are concerned that is exactly what you get when you combine air with negative energy. What you're saying is, There is a place called the Plane of Vacuum in my campaign. It is as I described. It sucks. It is not a cool place to be. That means, to me, that YOU think it's "lame." I used that word because it's been used a lot in this thread (mostly by ArcTan, he of the broad vocabulary), by people whose opinions you've been backing up. It's not a word I tend to use very often, because it's not very descriptive. It doesn't have much content to it. Because you were describing (and attacking) a version of the Plane of Vacuum that exists only in your campaign, I think I'm justifyied in saying your opinion isn't particularly relevant to this thread. You're completely out of line attacking me for summing up your own argument. If you don't think your version of the Plane of Vacuum is "lame," (defined here as not "a cool place to be") then what are you even arguing about? If you say your Plane of Vacuum isn't "lame," fine. I'll take your word for it. If you say it is, fine, I'll take your word for that. Maybe it's lame, or maybe it's cool. Either way, it has nothing to do with anything. Your opinion is based on one fact, mine is on another. Mine is based on the facts that Chris Perkins were referring to. Yours are based on your own idiosyncratic campaign, which Chris Perkins was assuredly not talking about when he called the plane "ridiculous" and "anti-fun." How does that relate to Chris Perkins being stupid? Your words, not mine. I said you were "more or less" right, but added some qualifiers. I'm a little upset that people determine creativity by how closely someone else's opinion aligns with theirs I would be too, if that's what I was doing. I don't think it's very nice of you to assume it is. I don't know if saying "this plane isn't fun for me" If you'd added those qualifiers before, we wouldn't be arguing now. You can't combine two things to create "that which existed before existence", it's nonsense even from a fantasy logic standpoint. I didn't say the Plane of Vacuum was a combination of two things. I said the Planes of Dust and Steam were. But the realignment of the Planes of Dust and Steam precipitated a realignment of the Inner Planes as a whole, moving the Void from its initial placement. That's the theory, anyway. The realignment is canon - whether that affected the Plane of Vacuum or not is a matter of speculation. I'm not calling anyone stupid for not sharing my opinion. Neither am I, but you sure are eager to accuse me of all sorts of malignant motivations. Somehow, though, portraying me as someone whose sole criterion is whether or not people agree with me is okay? You don't think that's insulting at all? You're the only one who's used the word "stupid." And then you used it, over and over again, as a kind of hammer against me, in lieu of any serious argument about our ostensible topic of discussion. After all those ad hominem attacks from you, you're really still trying to take the moral high ground? Evidently so.
ArcTan 09-29-07, 08:01 PM	That's nice, but not very relevant. I designed my game so that the Negative Energy Plane, if it existed, would be as lame as possible isn't a very compelling argument about anything. Chris Perkins was talking specifically about the plane as it existed in 2nd edition. When discussing if his opinion had any merit, we have to look at what he was actually talking about, not your game. I specifically described the plot hooks that appeared in 2nd edition sources before I built on that and suggested new plot hooks. This is why my opinion is based more solidly on fact. As long as fun is a subjective quality, so is the potential for fun. The only factual claim you can make about subjective qualities is what the majority thinks -- and in a free market economy, yes, rip, we live in a democracy. More to the point, your "it's just my opinion!" defense is disingenuous because this isn't about you defending your opinion, or Chris Perkins' opinion. It's about you, ArcTan, and Skeptical trollishly attacking setting elements that many of us enjoy. I don't think it should be in the game. You think it should be in the game. This is, in fact, an opinion relevant to what the designers choose to put in the game. It probably would have been different if you three had said something more along the lines of "I don't mind Chris Perkins' comment because I probably wouldn't have ever used the Plane of Vacuum anyway." I don't think anyone would've had a problem with that. That'd be an opinion with a sound basis, and no one could've contested it. Saying "Chris Perkins is right! It's the elemental plane of suck!" is an attack. "I don't mind Chris Perkins' comment because I probably wouldn't have ever used the Plane of Vacuum anyway, and NEITHER DO MOST OF THE CUSTOMERS WHO ACTUALLY MATTER." Sure, that's an attack. Still doesn't change it from being true, at least in my view. ArcTan keeps trying to pretend I'm demanding that the Quasielemental Plane of Vacuum be put in the core books (he even claimed at one point that I insisted it be in the Monster Manual, an oddly specific claim I never made). I never said I didn't think the plane was awesome. You said that any monster that can be used for even one encounter in one game based on one lousy premise deserves to be in a Monster Manual. I disagreed with that. Go back and read the damn argument yourself. I don't think Vacuum should be in the core books. I *also* don't think the core books have to "open doors" for Vacuum to be in the core books by writing the mythology around the presumption that they might exist.
Kain Darkwind 09-29-07, 08:35 PM	NEITHER DO MOST OF THE CUSTOMERS WHO ACTUALLY MATTER." Could you define which customers actually matter, ArcTan?
ArcTan 09-29-07, 10:41 PM	The ones who make up the majority, according to WotC's market research?
ArcTan 09-29-07, 10:45 PM	And for all that, plenty of females take part in the hobby around my area. What keeps more from doing so is much more vast than 'DnD is sexist'. Keep in mind it is also social suicide in some circles. While religious groups don't openly march against it as much anymore, plenty of people who grew up in the eighties still have it in their head that the hobby is demonic. If I were to ask a random sampling of college girls (which I will do this coming week) why they don't play DnD, I suspect 'because it is for fricken nerds who don't bathe' is more common than 'because it is sexist and demeans me as a female and human being' But we'll see. Part of the reason they think we're sexist nerds, of course, is our obsession with succubi.
Kain Darkwind 09-29-07, 11:13 PM	The ones who make up the majority, according to WotC's market research? Yes, but how do you propose to divide the customer base into groups to establish a majority? Part of the reason they think we're sexist nerds, of course, is our obsession with succubi. I've not said that they do think we are sexist nerds. I said fricken nerds.
ArcTan 09-29-07, 11:31 PM	Yes, but how do you propose to divide the customer base into groups to establish a majority? I don't. I assume WotC's well-remunerated marketing department has already been working on this, and much of what we see in 4e is the result. I've not said that they do think we are sexist nerds. I said fricken nerds. Sexist or not, the succubus obsession doesn't actually make us seem cool, attractive and mature.
dfarnsworth 09-30-07, 12:27 AM	:drool: They said Succubus.
Rohano 09-30-07, 06:35 AM	I entirely lost interest when the debate degraded into personal attacks against people who actually know what they're talking about but I do want to say... How would women be able to call D&D a sexist game if they've never been exposed to it? And since when are all D&D players obsessed with succubi? As I understand it, only a small minority of artificial persons bear that regrettable obsession. Just because I own atleast one Sophie miniature doesn't mean I'm obsessed with succubi, nor does it mean I objectify them as symbols of how I worship hawt wimmenz (and I don't, anyway). I, as a proudly popular local DM, haven't even used a single succubus in... atleast five years. I did, however, use an erinyes a couple months ago. Even so, I'm not sexist. Although... a lot of my major NPCs are male, this is because I despise having relationship tension between myself and my players because they want to start something with a female character - not because I have anything against women or gender equality. When female players are at my table, I'm nothing but respectful. If anything distasteful occurs that they have a problem with, I'm the first to hand out the "STFU" memo. While I like erinyes more than I like succubi, I also like pit fiends more than I like balors. But this doesn't mean I like 3E demons more than I like 3E devils - I use them equally, though the archdevils make for more immersive plots (in my opinion, which is irrelevant). But, while everyone's shouting about how succubi are sexist, I want to casually point out that incubi are... the same thing but male? Did no one notice but me? Yes, seduction is utilized by both genders. There are playaz (males) and there are homewreckers (females) and there are prostitutes of both genders. There are strippers of both genders. There are exotic dancers of both genders. There are 'seducer' devils/demons of both genders - therefore the existence of succubi does not further any sexism in Dungeons and Dragons any more than the existence of incubi does. Who came up with the chainmail bikini, originally? They need to be slapped. Hard. I despise objectivism of the female body (but I also despise objectivism of the male body, though it isn't relevant here). While I'm on this subject of sexism... I'll add that females never appear in archetypical roles in my games. Every NPC is as complex as the next - if he or she has a name. If it's a nameless NPC, archetypes abound - but we ignore those cases. If your female NPCs or characters are merely sex objects, you need to rethink your style. Even if your style is a good one, if you're making a sexist environment, you're probably not making your game enjoyable for everyone. Going off of my primary reason for giving a damn momentarily, I'd like to point out that yrogerg attacked someone's grammatical errors and then took advantage of them to call their argument stupid, despite the fact that his side attacked the side I respect for doing the same thing. Is there a third faction in this argument that I'm missing or is this really as clear cut as flamers vs. everyone else? So that makes... how many fallacies so far? Too many. *Leaves*
EvilVegan 09-30-07, 09:14 AM	OH NOES! Sorry Kain. I replied to someone who said that Glaxinzakof an Faifafia were devils and assumed he was right, since I've not read anything about those two ultimately redundant and lame NPCs I didn't care to double check his incorrect statements. Sorry Kain. I posted an entire post about recanting my description of those two pointless, fictional extra planar *****s and restated the actual point of the original post and you ignored it. If you want to ignore the point and hammer on my non-existent "lack of knowledge", go ahead. The point is you're ignoring my points in favor of nitpicking semantics and insults. Sorry Kain, You seem to think combinining Monster Manual archetypes removes the possibility to have unique creatures from the game and I do not share this wholely incorrect opinion. Sorry Rip. You used the wrong word to describe my created planar set up. I said it "sucks", in the literal sense of the word as a vacuum sucks, you said it was "as lame as possible". I personally think a whirling vortex of sucking, similar to being inside an infinitely large tornado, makes an excellent setting, but only because it is such a horrible place to be (it sucks to be there). "Can we survive long enough here to accomplish goal X?". I guess you should learn not to call things other people created "lame as possible" and Chris Perkins should learn to not say "antithesis of fun". I'm sorry I did exactly the same thing you did when you did exactly the same thing Chris did, when I defended that which I appreciated. Sorry. Sorry Rip. I asked you if your argument was "Chris is stupid because of his opinion" and you agreed. I then assumed you agreed. Sorry guys, so very sorry. (lay off the insults, thanks)
pratputajao 09-30-07, 09:53 AM	The debate is interesting. Logically I am in agreement fully with Kain and Rip. I, for one, would vote to keep the great wheel as is....plane of vacuume and all. But I do have to admit I like at least one of the new directions- from what I have heard they are ending the blood war yes? I hope so. Never saw a reason for it, plus it came from 2e which just had some bad Ideas period. Well thats the good... Now the bad... from what i am reading 4e cosmology looks so differant that it appears that it was created ONLY to look differant. Its as if they intentitionally wanted to get so far away from the one thing that has remained unchanged in 3 editions of the game that there could be no connection?- Asmodieus is now the god of hell, the Abyss is filled with elementals who came too close to that very abyss. That Abyss BTW is a sort of black hole sitting in the Elemental tempust ( and was created by a god that only exists in the Greyhawk universe-Therizdun) and the divine relms (including Hell) *float* about in the Astral sea... ummm, yeah... I believe in the time tested addage- if it aint broke dont fix it. ( Of course we will be told that people complained that it was needlessly complicated. Yeah, sure..) Unlike others I will come out and say I dont like it so far. It doesnt appear to be a better interpretation of what the planes should be but rather just another interpretation that they are going with becouse it isnt the great wheel. -Lets just throw things on their head becouse we can becouse we own the game licence.. whoo hoo!! Time to fully move away from 1e ADnD and make this our game.- For shame, that ADnD had some good ideas ya know? Well I am sure most on this board will probaly be singing the praises in a year or so...I actually hope I will too ( doubt it given what I have read)
EvilVegan 09-30-07, 10:01 AM	I answered, "You're not correct about what the Quasielemental Plane of Vacuum is, as it's been defined in the past. And it's not really fair to make up your own version to deride." . . . What you're saying is, There is a place called the Plane of Vacuum in my campaign. It is as I described. It sucks. It is not a cool place to be. That means, to me, that YOU think it's "lame." I used that word because it's been used a lot in this thread (mostly by ArcTan, he of the broad vocabulary), by people whose opinions you've been backing up. It's not a word I tend to use very often, because it's not very descriptive. It doesn't have much content to it. Because you were describing (and attacking) a version of the Plane of Vacuum that exists only in your campaign, I think I'm justifyied in saying your opinion isn't particularly relevant to this thread. You're completely out of line attacking me for summing up your own argument. If you don't think your version of the Plane of Vacuum is "lame," (defined here as not "a cool place to be") then what are you even arguing about? If you say your Plane of Vacuum isn't "lame," fine. I'll take your word for it. If you say it is, fine, I'll take your word for that. Maybe it's lame, or maybe it's cool. Either way, it has nothing to do with anything.It has to do with the language you used to describe my plane. I said it sucks. You said it's lame. The plane of vacuum in 2nd edition also sucks. In my mind it is a void of sucking air, even with the flavor you gave it. When I think of standing in the Plane of Vacuum (mine or 2nd edition canon) I imagine a roaring wind and a force of suction trying to pull me into nothingness. The Nothing in the Neverending Story (one of my favorite movies) was a destructive force of nothingness, it was really cool. And it sucked. Remember when Atreyu almost got sucked into it? It was a really pivotal and exciting part. That is what I view as the nature of "nonexistence before existence". The problem is the structure of the inner planes necessarily makes the plane of vacuum the addition of two things to create something else. Quasi-elements are a fusion of an element and a force. It's nonsense to have "the nothingness which existed before existence" be the combination of anything regardless of how insubstantial those things are. More importantly than all this, it shows that occasionally language can be misinterpreted and lead to misunderstanding. Also, there are better ways to say things. Did you see my post (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13940847&postcount=256) where I restated what I think your actual argument is? And as a side: I do care about you, even if you don't care about me. Granted, your opinion and this discussion doesn't really affect me, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't be sad if you stopped posting because you were dead. I don't care about Kain though, he can go to hell with his sexy devils. He directly called me stupid which is probably the most offensive thing someone can do to me. :D
BOZ 09-30-07, 10:31 AM	when you say the plane of vacuum sucks, could you be more clear: are you saying it sucks as in what vacuums do to matter (powerful sucking action!), or: are you saying it sucks for PCs to be there because it's not a fun experience, or: are you saying it sucks because it's mostly empty and you find it difficult to run an adventure in it, or: are you saying that it sucks because you think it's a terrible idea that shouldn't exist, or: all of the above? it would help to clarify your statements, so people don't come across thinking you've said "the plane of vacuum sucks because it sucks, and it's hard to suck with a suck suck suck." :D [/smartass mode] (for now, at any rate)
EvilVegan 09-30-07, 10:40 AM	Kain, Just for you I went and did some reading. And nothing I read changed anything about any point I'd made previously, aside from semantically. Glasya and Fierna. They're lawful evil arch-devils. Thematically they "fit the bill" of an advanced and unique version of Brachina, which are in turn advanced Erinyes. It seems that as time goes on, various authors attach/create new things that muddy the water. "Advanced Erinyes" are "the devilish counterpart of the demonic succubus". One theory of arch-devils is that they are "the greatest of the baatezu". Thematically, the devils (if you run with the "Greatest" title) can be the 'most advanced'. Granted they could also be elder evils in a guise or yugoloths (yugoloths are actually my favorite fiends, one of the reasons I never bothered reading 3.x planar information was their nearly absolute absence in the earliest material), or whatever other explanation you want to use (there is no "official" canon on the source of fiends). Thematically, despite being unique creatures and arch-devils, Glasya and Fierna fit most of the flavor of a doubly advanced erinyes. Look at a picture of Glasya. It's a effectively a picture of an Erinyes on a throne (this proves nothing of course). Erinyes > Brachina > ?? > Glasya/Fierna > Profit. I'm not saying that they aren't unique or belong to the lesser Baatezu tier, I'm saying that their theme fits well enough with the theme of Brachina. And none of this changes the fact that you could make all demons into devils and say that all devils were 3 feet tall chubby, red-skinned cherubim with pitchforks and comically undersized wings, and every archfiend would remain exactly what they have been since 1st edition. Unique. Please, debate points and not semantics. If I misspelled anything or perhaps miscategorized anything, please skim over it, and try to comprehend and focus on my point. Makes you seem a slight bit less flamey.
EvilVegan 09-30-07, 10:42 AM	when you say the plane of vacuum sucks, could you be more clear: are you saying it sucks as in what vacuums do to matter (powerful sucking action!), or: are you saying it sucks for PCs to be there because it's not a fun experience, or: are you saying it sucks because it's mostly empty and you find it difficult to run an adventure in it, or: are you saying that it sucks because you think it's a terrible idea that shouldn't exist, or: all of the above? it would help to clarify your statements, so people don't come across thinking you've said "the plane of vacuum sucks because it sucks, and it's hard to suck with a suck suck suck." :D [/smartass mode] (for now, at any rate) Buffalo, buffalo Buffalo buffalo, buffalo Buffalo buffalo. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_ buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo) Language is fun. I used the exact language I needed to use to prove a point. Things can be said better.
Grod_The_Giant 09-30-07, 11:05 AM	I have to say, I think these changes were made with newer players in mind. It may be a bit "simple" and "unimaginative" but if you think so...change the flavor! It's your campaign! All this not fitting in with continuity...what continuity? In the MM? Nope, nothing about that in here. Must be from *gasp* an optional book.
EvilVegan 09-30-07, 11:32 AM	The debate is interesting. Logically I am in agreement fully with Kain and Rip. I, for one, would vote to keep the great wheel as is....plane of vacuume and all. But I do have to admit I like at least one of the new directions- from what I have heard they are ending the blood war yes? I hope so. Never saw a reason for it, plus it came from 2e which just had some bad Ideas period. Well thats the good... Now the bad... from what i am reading 4e cosmology looks so differant that it appears that it was created ONLY to look differant. Its as if they intentitionally wanted to get so far away from the one thing that has remained unchanged in 3 editions of the game that there could be no connection?- Asmodieus is now the god of hell, the Abyss is filled with elementals who came too close to that very abyss. That Abyss BTW is a sort of black hole sitting in the Elemental tempust ( and was created by a god that only exists in the Greyhawk universe-Therizdun) and the divine relms (including Hell) *float* about in the Astral sea... ummm, yeah... I believe in the time tested addage- if it aint broke dont fix it. ( Of course we will be told that people complained that it was needlessly complicated. Yeah, sure..) Unlike others I will come out and say I dont like it so far. It doesnt appear to be a better interpretation of what the planes should be but rather just another interpretation that they are going with becouse it isnt the great wheel. -Lets just throw things on their head becouse we can becouse we own the game licence.. whoo hoo!! Time to fully move away from 1e ADnD and make this our game.- For shame, that ADnD had some good ideas ya know? Well I am sure most on this board will probaly be singing the praises in a year or so...I actually hope I will too ( doubt it given what I have read)I agree with a lot of what you said here. I don't agree that the Great Wheel wasn't broke, or rather, it worked fine for somethings, was broken for others. The Great Wheel is specifically for Greyhawk and Planescape. The Primes from Greyhawk uses different language to describe the planes (concordant opposition vs Outlands), because they aren't as savvy as the Planescape people, but ultimately Greyhawk is just a portion of the Planescape setting. Any changes to the DMG/PHB/MM are not specifically for Greyhawk and Planescape. Anything included in any book specifically for Greyhawk and Planescape should be prefaced as such. The Bloodwar, a feature of the Planescape setting, should not be necessarily included in the default MM. It would be 100% fine in the Greyhawk monster manual or DMG, and could actually benefit more by having it's own section to put things in more detail than they are in the Monster Manual. If anything they should cut out most of the flavor and give variants (as they did in MM3, with a general description followed by specific variations for Eberron and Forgotten Realms). With the 4e changes the Blood War can continue fine, in theory. The creatures of the abyss still seek the destruction of the Devils. They just happen to want everything to be destroyed. It isn't as detailed in the general setting, but in a Greyhawk or Planescape suppliment they can include just as much of these features as the canon as they see fit, just as they included cosmology changes for Eberron and Faerun. As it stands in 3rd edition they're walking a line in almost every book they print. The line teeters between being specific to Planescape and trying to be as accessible to non-planescape players as possible. Occasionally they succeed, but often they release things that suck (Planar Handbook). It's a matter of trying to appeal to a broad group and a niche at the same time. Personally I would love a Planescape book (at least 3 actually) with details of every plane and feature of the Great Wheel. But, for several (and I would hope obvious) reasons, the Core books need to be as accessible as possible to as broad a base as possible. They aren't doing it for the "woo hoo" factor. They're doing it to attract new people and build a broader consumer base. If you want an analogy, the core rules are the foundation, the campaign settings are the buildings. Including portions of the Blood War in the Monster Manual / DMG is effectively giving someone a half-built building, supplements like FC 1 and 2 add a wall here and there. However, If you want to "live" in a building you either have to tear down the current structure and rebuild a new one on a slightly weaker foundation (from the tearing down) or they have to build on that structure to get a complete buidling. If they create an astral sea where it's possible to have anything floating anywhere, it isn't that hard to use that foundation to solidify the astral sea into a wheel-like structure based solely on alignments. Access to information comes from understanding the basic concepts behind the information. If a new player comes to the game with a basic understanding of real life mythology/religion, he will be able to easily access the concepts of the devils as fallen angels. If he comes into the game and devils are self-created beings involved in a pointless/eternal war with self-created demons this information isn't quite as accessible. It builds on 3 decades of information from a specific fictional setting of which he knows nothing about. Obviously, it isn't hard for him to learn, but there is no good reason for him to learn it either. His gaming is unaffected by the historical canon if he doesn't use it and the canon is there to access if he's joining a group that does. Old players on the other hand are steeped in the information of the bloodwar, and WotC assumes that they are smart enough to adjust to the changes they're making to let new players grasp the concepts. I've heard people say that this "dumbing down" (simplification for accessability) of the meta-setting/rules insults the intelligence of the people who've been playing it for so long. This is untrue. If they said "The grappling rules/blood war/(other stuff) are complex topics, some people have trouble understanding them" and you fully understand these topics that would show that you are capable of concepts they view as complex. In other words, you are smarter than the people they're describing. "Congrats on your higher intelligence, didn't mean to offend you by saying you're smart." [/wordy] "We don't like that Planescape/Greyhawk isn't the default setting anymore". Too bad. [/not as wordy]
ArcTan 09-30-07, 12:01 PM	But, while everyone's shouting about how succubi are sexist, I want to casually point out that incubi are... the same thing but male? Did no one notice but me? I guess not, because it was impossible to "notice" the existence of Incubi in D&D 3.5 unless you had a subscription to Dragon Magazine. They don't exist out of that article. They also, I suppose, exist in a footnote in the 3.0 Monster Manual that was never referenced again (oh, by the by, sometimes Succubi are male, kthxbai).
EvilVegan 09-30-07, 12:21 PM	I guess not, because it was impossible to "notice" the existence of Incubi in D&D 3.5 unless you had a subscription to Dragon Magazine. They don't exist out of that article. They also, I suppose, exist in a footnote in the 3.0 Monster Manual that was never referenced again (oh, by the by, sometimes Succubi are male, kthxbai).I slept through an Incubus concert once.
yrogerg 09-30-07, 12:38 PM	I entirely lost interest when the debate degraded into personal attacks against people who actually know what they're talking about but I do want to say... How would women be able to call D&D a sexist game if they've never been exposed to it? What about women who *have* been exposed to it, and have been turned off by the sexism? Like I said before, I rather suspect that WotC is trying to market more to women that hang out in nerdy circles, or are already a part of other fandoms, or already playing other RPGs like Vampire or GURPS. Y'know, groups of women who aren't prejudiced against nerds or RPGs and already represent a significant market share of other RPGs? And since when are all D&D players obsessed with succubi? As I understand it, only a small minority of artificial persons bear that regrettable obsession. Just because I own atleast one Sophie miniature doesn't mean I'm obsessed with succubi, nor does it mean I objectify them as symbols of how I worship hawt wimmenz (and I don't, anyway). Be that as it may, the actual source material and art don't really reflect that. I'm willing to concede that only a small minority of comic book fans actually fixate on the large-breasted, super-idealized female forms present therein, for example but that doesn't make their prevalence any less pernicious. I, as a proudly popular local DM, haven't even used a single succubus in... atleast five years. I did, however, use an erinyes a couple months ago. Even so, I'm not sexist. Although... a lot of my major NPCs are male, this is because I despise having relationship tension between myself and my players because they want to start something with a female character - not because I have anything against women or gender equality. When female players are at my table, I'm nothing but respectful. If anything distasteful occurs that they have a problem with, I'm the first to hand out the "STFU" memo. While I like erinyes more than I like succubi, I also like pit fiends more than I like balors. But this doesn't mean I like 3E demons more than I like 3E devils - I use them equally, though the archdevils make for more immersive plots (in my opinion, which is irrelevant). But, while everyone's shouting about how succubi are sexist, I want to casually point out that incubi are... the same thing but male? Did no one notice but me? Incubi aren't actually statted anywhere that I'm aware of, unless it's from a Dragon issue, for one. If I'm wrong, it would have still been in a minor splatbook that's gotten extremely poor support since then, while both Succubi and Erinyes are extremely well-supported races promoting the same stereotype. Also note the asymmetry between the dozens of notable female NPCs that fit this stereotype and... Grazzt. One NPC. Yes, seduction is utilized by both genders. There are playaz (males) and there are homewreckers (females) and there are prostitutes of both genders. There are strippers of both genders. There are exotic dancers of both genders. There are 'seducer' devils/demons of both genders - therefore the existence of succubi does not further any sexism in Dungeons and Dragons any more than the existence of incubi does. Even though they're barely mentioned, and when they are, their sexuality is depicted as a *sign* of their power, rather than the *source* of it? Who came up with the chainmail bikini, originally? They need to be slapped. Hard. I despise objectivism of the female body (but I also despise objectivism of the male body, though it isn't relevant here). Hardly a new idea. It's been around as long as fantasy art and/or superhero comics have been, really. The point was always to show off the subjects 'perfect' Olympian bodies. "Chainmail bikinis" are a way to ironically refer to this tendency in fantasy art, where it also runs into issues of impracticality, moreso than most comic books. Witchblade aside. While I'm on this subject of sexism... I'll add that females never appear in archetypical roles in my games. Every NPC is as complex as the next - if he or she has a name. If it's a nameless NPC, archetypes abound - but we ignore those cases. If your female NPCs or characters are merely sex objects, you need to rethink your style. Even if your style is a good one, if you're making a sexist environment, you're probably not making your game enjoyable for everyone. Good for you. But I'm criticizing the way women are presented in D&D material, not in your campaigns. WotC can (and is trying to) do something about one of those two to make the game more appealing to a female, geeky demographic. Care to guess which one? Going off of my primary reason for giving a damn momentarily, I'd like to point out that yrogerg attacked someone's grammatical errors and then took advantage of them to call their argument stupid, despite the fact that his side attacked the side I respect for doing the same thing. Is there a third faction in this argument that I'm missing or is this really as clear cut as flamers vs. everyone else? It'd be really nice if you could point out where I actually did this, being as I've been addressing the content of peoples' posts, not their grammar.
ripvanwormer 09-30-07, 12:46 PM	As long as fun is a subjective quality, so is the potential for fun. "Fun" is subjective, but whether or not someone has fun is objective. I can say "this isn't fun for me," but I can't say "you're not having fun." That's the crucial difference here. I'm not talking about the market economy, or anything else subject to anything resembling democracy. I see Chris Perkins and Skeptical making comments that take for granted the idea that the Plane of Vacuum could never be fun for anyone. They're not saying "this isn't fun for me." They're saying "this isn't fun for you, either, and it's ridiculous to think it ever could be." I'm making a narrow argument correcting that impression, and what I see is people, after being severely schooled about how wrong their assumptions were, disingenuously taking the the defensive. "How dare you tell me something is fun when it might not be fun for me, should I ever at some point decide to try it?" is essentially your argument (as I see it), but that's not what I've been saying at all. I'm just saying it can be fun, that it's not inherently "lame" or "anti-fun," and your hyperbolic references to planes of teddy bears or sour cream are just as foolish as they sound. If I say I enjoy checkers, but none of the people you know personally have ever played it and you don't think it looks like very much fun, calling it the "anti-fun" is a pretty ignorant statement. Even if you and your friends have tried it, and didn't personally enjoy it, it's still you acting as if your subjective opinion has some merit beyond being simply your personal opinion. Even if I'm into some really obscure game that hardly anyone plays (let's say I'm a Dragon Dice fanatic), the mere fact that there are a lot of people who aren't interested in playing the game doesn't make the game less inherently fun. If you said, "personally, I didn't enjoy it," I wouldn't have a problem with that, but that's not what you've been saying. It would still be be perfectly accurate for me to say, "No, it's fun," because the mere fact that I enjoy it makes that statement accurate. It doesn't automatically mean it'll be fun for you, but if it's fun for anyone it is, in fact, fun. "Fun" is not defined by market forces or public referendums. You're also making a lot of silly assumptions that WotC has done "market research" about exactly what planes need to stay and which need to go. They haven't. I've seen reports of the research they did for 3.0, and while they asked things like "how often does your party go into the planes?" they didn't break it down any further than that. The changes we're seeing are the result of a small group of designers, heavily immersed in groupthink, saying things like "Oh, I think this would be a cool idea." They're not dictated by market research, and that's a good thing. Frankly, trying to design anything creative based on polls is going to result in crap. They have, I'm willing to wager, no data about whether or not people like the 2e or 3e Inner Planes or not. And, more to the point, neither do you. You're making things up, as usual. You think it should be in the game. This has got to be about the tenth time I've told you that this isn't my position. I know you find it very very easy to argue against, but you're arguing with yourself. You said that any monster that can be used for even one encounter in one game based on one lousy premise deserves to be in a Monster Manual. That's (minus the "lousy") the current WotC design philosophy, and I agree with it. That doesn't mean I think the Plane of Vacuum needs to be in a Monster Manual. Sure, it could be. But needs to be and "could be" are very different. I can easily see stats for the vacuum quasielemental, egarus, spectral death, and vacuous along with an encounter map for an abandoned, drifting citadel and basic rules for the plane fitting with the design philosophy that guides the current MMs. They've done many similar things lately - describing both the monster and a map of its lair, introducing a monster that needs to be used only once. When you've got thousands of monsters available, how often are you really going to use any new obscure creature in the sixth official hardcover anyway? It might arguably be more appropriate to do this sort of thing in an adventure (where you could enhance the value of the site by connecting it to a greater plot), but it would fit right in with the Monster Manual IV or V as a "Whoa! We've fallen through a random portal or vortex!" type of encounter that can be easily slotted into any adventure. With all WotC's legendary "market research," they must know better than you, right? Except, the new MM formats probably aren't based on market research (their surprised reaction to criticism of the MM IV is proof of that). And neither, I'm willing to bet, is the new cosmology.
EvilVegan 09-30-07, 12:49 PM	<snip>:nod: Just wanted to agree. My wife plays, hates most of the art. I hope they stop with the "women with power got it through sex and dress like tramps, if they dress at all", just to make her more comfortable when looking through the books. Let's change "women" to "african americans". Let's change Succubi to Gan'gsta: "The Gan'gsta demon has dark brown skin, sharp gold teeth, loves repetative music, and fried cockatrice meat." "Hey, that's offensive to african americans!" "African americans think D&D is nerdy, so they don't play it anyway." :rolleyes:
EvilVegan 09-30-07, 01:35 PM	Gonna let ArcTan handle the direct arguments, just wanted to point some stuff out. "Fun" is subjective, but whether or not someone has fun is objective. I can say "this isn't fun for me," but I can't say "you're not having fun." That's the crucial difference here. I'm not talking about the market economy, or anything else subject to anything resembling democracy. You've been making very sweeping statements, saying things are "lame" and "not fun" without any of the qualifiers needed to make them accurate. This is equivalent to saying you're not having fun, even if you think you are. This is factually wrong.So you don't like that Chris didn't say "the plane of vacuum isn't fun for me" when he was discussing his personal opinion? You're also making a lot of silly assumptions that WotC has done "market research" about exactly what planes need to stay and which need to go. They haven't. I've seen reports of the research they did for 3.0, and while they asked things like "how often does your party go into the planes?" they didn't break it down any further than that.True. If the amount of people going to the planes was low (less than 30%), then there is a good chance that they saw that as a bad thing. Something about the planes warranted a change. They could do further research on it. Call them up and fill out their survey. I don't know the exact percentage, and would love to see it, but I personally never use planar material in my games, and outside of Planescape campaigns I've never cast planeshift or seen it cast even once in 3rd edition. Etherealness and Gate saw some use as a tactical spell, that was about the extent of planar travel. I think I went to a faerie plane once during a 2 year campaign, but it was by no means connected to the default cosmology. Personal Anecdotes aren't exactly useful, but market analysis would only be relying on statistical collections of anecdotal samples. The changes we're seeing are the result of a small group of designers, heavily immersed in groupthink, saying things like "Oh, I think this would be a cool idea." They're not dictated by market research, and that's a good thing. Frankly, trying to design anything creative based on polls is going to result in crap. 105% agree (I'm good at math). You shouldn't base fictional material on what the majority of people want, because chances are they'll disagree on just enough that you create a balance of elements that amounts to a pile of crap. As for core books without fictional settings, these should remain as bland as possible while still generating interest. Like tofu. High in nourishment, low in taste. Cook it how you like. Then release settings to compliment/focus. I'm hoping they do this, but it isn't likely. They aren't an ideal company being telepathic and pleasing 100% of their consumer-base with every product. They have, I'm willing to wager, no data about whether or not people like the 2e or 3e Inner Planes or not. And, more to the point, neither do you. You're making things up, as usual.I'm sure a quick tally of visits to Planewalker.com would give a decent estimation, but such a tally would be almost impossible to verify. Yet, some of the designers have stated that Planescape was one of their favorite settings for 2nd edition. Some still play it, for whatever that's worth. Not much I'm sure. Nothing is these days. Also I think sales #s can be considered "research" but the only problem with this is you have to assume the product being sold was good to begin with. Perhaps they saw the lower sales of the Planar Handbook and assumed this meant nobody liked the material, when actually it was that this material was just not very good and the specific information in that specific book wasn't very useful. TSR actually had a similar and comically more absurd problem, with regards to computer games. Market Analysis based on sales: "Hey, nobody is buying Iron And Blood: Warriors of Ravenloft our Ravenloft-based Tekken rip off, we better not release Ravenloft video games any more!" Nobody wanted another watered down fighting game regardless of setting, so they ultimately didn't release any high-quality horror games based on the Ravenloft setting, which probably would have sold to Ravenloft fans. WotC has made some good moves and some bad moves, but I don't think this change to the meta-setting is on par with Iron and Blood influencing marketting decisions. That's (minus the "lousy") the current WotC design philosophy, and I agree with it. That doesn't mean I think the Plane of Vacuum needs to be in a Monster Manual. Sure, it could be. But needs to be and "could be" are very different.Yea, they're different. Anything could be in the MM. What does get in there are the things that someone determines will get more use, even if it is just "this seems right" or "I don't think anyone used this before". You should maybe put in an application to fill that job. They can't release books with infinite pages. I'm glad they're not making ".5 Greyhawk 4e" like 3.x was. The core books of 3rd edition include just enough Greyhawk to make the parts they included pointless "I can worship Pelor! What city am I from? . . . Hm . . . Lets play Eberron!" I do hope they release a separate campaign line for Greyhawk (before 2011). I wouldn't buy it, but it has worth to the community. I'm sorry they were disrespectful of the setting you liked. Edit for an edit: I can easily see stats for the vacuum quasielemental, egarus, spectral death, and vacuous along with an encounter map for an abandoned, drifting citadel and basic rules for the plane fitting with the design philosophy that guides the current MMs. They've done many similar things lately - describing both the monster and a map of its lair, introducing a monster that needs to be used only once. When you've got thousands of monsters available, how often are you really going to use any new obscure creature in the sixth official hardcover anyway? It might arguably be more appropriate to do this sort of thing in an adventure (where you could enhance the value of the site by connecting it to a greater plot), but it would fit right in with the Monster Manual IV or V as a "Whoa! We've fallen through a random portal or vortex!" type of encounter that can be easily slotted into any adventure.I had typed out something almost identical to this and deleted it because it wasn't relative to what you said before you editted it to make it relevent. What I had said was "It would make perfect sense to include a void elemental and list the more important features of the plane of vacuum as an entry in the monstrous manual. I would personally love an entry like this. But really things like this would be better served in a separate focused source book or module." I then made a point after this, but it probably wasn't very good. I hit my head very hard last night and am having trouble typing corectly. With all WotC's legendary "market research," they must know better than you, right? Except, the new MM formats probably aren't based on market research (their surprised reaction to criticism of the MM IV is proof of that). And neither, I'm willing to bet, is the new cosmology.I liked MM IV's set up. Could have been better, but I liked it more than 1-3 (and the previous editions). Is there even a slight possibility that the people complaining might be in the minority? Perhaps the "surprise criticism" you speak of is the minority complaining while the majority of pleased customers don't have anything to complain about? I mean, that's just as likely a scenario as them not basing anything on market research. The complaints I know about were on these boards. Meaning, while the boards are surely a good sample, they aren't all encompassing entirity of the gaming community. Some people don't have time to get on here and argue/complain/compliment. And who really gets on line to say "Gee this system is great", people complain and that's about all they do.
pratputajao 09-30-07, 02:14 PM	[QUOTE=EvilVegan;13947367]I agree with a lot of what you said here. I don't agree that the Great Wheel wasn't broke, or rather, it worked fine for somethings, was broken for others. The Great Wheel is specifically for Greyhawk and Planescape. The Primes from Greyhawk uses different language to describe the planes (concordant opposition vs Outlands), because they aren't as savvy as the Planescape people, but ultimately Greyhawk is just a portion of the Planescape setting. Any changes to the DMG/PHB/MM are not specifically for Greyhawk and Planescape. Anything included in any book specifically for Greyhawk and Planescape should be prefaced as such. The Bloodwar, a feature of the Planescape setting, should not be necessarily included in the default MM. It would be 100% fine in the Greyhawk monster manual or DMG, and could actually benefit more by having it's own section to put things in more detail than they are in the Monster Manual. If anything they should cut out most of the flavor and give variants (as they did in MM3, with a general description followed by specific variations for Eberron and Forgotten Realms). With the 4e changes the Blood War can continue fine, in theory. The creatures of the abyss still seek the destruction of the Devils. They just happen to want everything to be destroyed. It isn't as detailed in the general setting, but in a Greyhawk or Planescape suppliment they can include just as much of these features as the canon as they see fit, just as they included cosmology changes for Eberron and Faerun. As it stands in 3rd edition they're walking a line in almost every book they print. The line teeters between being specific to Planescape and trying to be as accessible to non-planescape players as possible. Occasionally they succeed, but often they release things that suck (Planar Handbook). It's a matter of trying to appeal to a broad group and a niche at the same time. Personally I would love a Planescape book (at least 3 actually) with details of every plane and feature of the Great Wheel. But, for several (and I would hope obvious) reasons, the Core books need to be as accessible as possible to as broad a base as possible. They aren't doing it for the "woo hoo" factor. They're doing it to attract new people and build a broader consumer base. If you want an analogy, the core rules are the foundation, the campaign settings are the buildings. Including portions of the Blood War in the Monster Manual / DMG is effectively giving someone a half-built building, supplements like FC 1 and 2 add a wall here and there. However, If you want to "live" in a building you either have to tear down the current structure and rebuild a new one on a slightly weaker foundation (from the tearing down) or they have to build on that structure to get a complete buidling. If they create an astral sea where it's possible to have anything floating anywhere, it isn't that hard to use that foundation to solidify the astral sea into a wheel-like structure based solely on alignments. Access to information comes from understanding the basic concepts behind the information. If a new player comes to the game with a basic understanding of real life mythology/religion, he will be able to easily access the concepts of the devils as fallen angels. If he comes into the game and devils are self-created beings involved in a pointless/eternal war with self-created demons this information isn't quite as accessible. It builds on 3 decades of information from a specific fictional setting of which he knows nothing about. Obviously, it isn't hard for him to learn, but there is no good reason for him to learn it either. His gaming is unaffected by the historical canon if he doesn't use it and the canon is there to access if he's joining a group that does. Old players on the other hand are steeped in the information of the bloodwar, and WotC assumes that they are smart enough to adjust to the changes they're making to let new players grasp the concepts. I've heard people say that this "dumbing down" (simplification for accessability) of the meta-setting/rules insults the intelligence of the people who've been playing it for so long. This is untrue. If they said "The grappling rules/blood war/(other stuff) are complex topics, some people have trouble understanding them" and you fully understand these topics that would show that you are capable of concepts they view as complex. In other words, you are smarter than the people they're describing. "Congrats on your higher intelligence, didn't mean to offend you by saying you're smart." I agree that this probably was done for marketing reasons (bring in new players) I just believe that the great wheel works well enough(nothing is perfect, esp when talking of ideas on this magnatude) and that most new players are not that interested in the workings of the Planes in the first place. I mean I really doubt that a former DnD enthusiast had the wind taken from his sails when he started delving into the planes and gave the game up entirely becouse he didnt like/couldnt grasp it. I do find myself a little bit dismayed that all this attention is going into the cosmology of the game. I am getting the Idea that they also did this to make the planes "easier". Not only in the understanding part but in the adventuring part as well. This I am against. I have never thought the planes should be easy! With this it seems the game will go more toward planar adventuring at low and mid levels. This, to me, just does not feel like DnD. To me DnD was about slaying dragons and fighting goblins not about Slaying Demon lords and fighting githyanki.(unless you are totally in to some aspects of planescape which I am not. Not that it should be thrown out though) Sure, at high levels the planes open up. But to have your mid level average Knight of whatever giving them much thought does not interest me. There are other areas to work with that have more relevence to the majority of players than reworking the entire planar system that has existed in game for 30 years. (the basic great wheel anyway) I almost think they are running out of Ideas- so lets just throw out existing cannon and make something totally new. I know they have to worry about the marketplace but I REALLY dont see how this change will increase the gamming audience in even an insignifigant way?
HamHam 09-30-07, 02:26 PM	Incubi aren't actually statted anywhere that I'm aware of, unless it's from a Dragon issue, for one. If I'm wrong, it would have still been in a minor splatbook that's gotten extremely poor support since then, while both Succubi and Erinyes are extremely well-supported races promoting the same stereotype. Also note the asymmetry between the dozens of notable female NPCs that fit this stereotype and... Grazzt. One NPC. Incubi are just Succubi who's true form is male. They would have the same stats as Succubi. Strictly speaking, you wouldn't even need them because nothing in the Succubi description actually says they aren't equally likely to take a male form if the target happens to be female. On a more general point of the illustrations: Looking through the MM, there are basically three sexy female monsters: Succubus, Dryads, and Nymphs. There are also various non-sexy female monsters, like Hags. But if you look, all the male outsiders, like the Astral Deva, have perfect bodies and are wearing very little practical armor. Now lets look at the FC I: We have one sexy male demon, Graz'zt, and one sexy female demon, Malcanthet. And that's it. The rest are at best only vaguely humanoid. Now lets look at the FC II: Both Dispater and Levistus are good looking. Fierna, admittedly, looks like she's wearing underwear in favor of actual clothes, but Belial is equally ludicrious with his tight leather pants and lack of shirt. And there's also Glasya. It seems to me that this supposed sexism in DnD art is more a product of cognitive bias than anything else.
sciborg2 09-30-07, 02:42 PM	The Bloodwar, a feature of the Planescape setting, The Bloodwar predates (and outdates) planescape.
EvilVegan 09-30-07, 03:08 PM	The Bloodwar predates (and outdates) planescape. Only by the amount of time that Greyhawk existed before Planescape was invented. Greyhawk predates and outdates Planescape, but is a part of the Planescape setting. The Blood War is part of the Greyhawk setting, which is part of the Planescape setting. There is no Blood War outside of the interchangable Greyhawk/Planescape setting. Eberron doesn't have a Blood War. Forgotten Realms doesn't have one. Dark Sun doesn't. Dragon Lance doesn't. I use the term "Planescape" to include the residing Prime Material Plane of Greyhawk and all of it's source material including any references to features of Greyhawk within 3.x. Thanks for the nitpick. :D
EvilVegan 09-30-07, 03:15 PM	Incubi are just Succubi who's true form is male. They would have the same stats as Succubi. Strictly speaking, you wouldn't even need them because nothing in the Succubi description actually says they aren't equally likely to take a male form if the target happens to be female. On a more general point of the illustrations: Looking through the MM, there are basically three sexy female monsters: Succubus, Dryads, and Nymphs. There are also various non-sexy female monsters, like Hags. But if you look, all the male outsiders, like the Astral Deva, have perfect bodies and are wearing very little practical armor. Now lets look at the FC I: We have one sexy male demon, Graz'zt, and one sexy female demon, Malcanthet. And that's it. The rest are at best only vaguely humanoid. Now lets look at the FC II: Both Dispater and Levistus are good looking. Fierna, admittedly, looks like she's wearing underwear in favor of actual clothes, but Belial is equally ludicrious with his tight leather pants and lack of shirt. And there's also Glasya. It seems to me that this supposed sexism in DnD art is more a product of cognitive bias than anything else.. . .There are multiple ugly men and there is Mialee. The sexism is not limited to the art, the source material can also be considered biased. It isn't as over-the-top sexist as it used to be, nor even as much as World of Warcraft or comic books. But it could be better. It was slightly worse in previous editions, but it is pretty much a staple in fantasy/fiction that the women are always attractive and available.
EvilVegan 09-30-07, 03:29 PM	I agree that this probably was done for marketing reasons (bring in new players) I just believe that the great wheel works well enough(nothing is perfect, esp when talking of ideas on this magnatude) and that most new players are not that interested in the workings of the Planes in the first place. I mean I really doubt that a former DnD enthusiast had the wind taken from his sails when he started delving into the planes and gave the game up entirely becouse he didnt like/couldnt grasp it. But there is no good reason that this DND enthusiast should have to learn the current specific planar setting. Any planar setting will work fine. Especially if he isn't playing in the one it is used for. If he's going to be playing in any setting other than the generic partially-Greyhawk-based setting of 3.x, the current default cosmology is already useless. As is the new cosmology. That's why I'm hoping for less strict cosmology, just enough for play and foundation, with vastly superior books focused on each cosmology of the campaign world they're playing in. "Planes of" should definitely be it's own book line (similar to "Races of" and the "Completes"). Planes of Eberron, Planes of Faerun, Planes of Greyhawk . . . Obviously, I don't see this happening any time soon. That doesn't mean a change to the default is going to affect anything other than internet debates. I do find myself a little bit dismayed that all this attention is going into the cosmology of the game. I am getting the Idea that they also did this to make the planes "easier". Not only in the understanding part but in the adventuring part as well. This I am against. I have never thought the planes should be easy! With this it seems the game will go more toward planar adventuring at low and mid levels. This, to me, just does not feel like DnD. To me DnD was about slaying dragons and fighting goblins not about Slaying Demon lords and fighting githyanki.(unless you are totally in to some aspects of planescape which I am not. Not that it should be thrown out though) Sure, at high levels the planes open up. But to have your mid level average Knight of whatever giving them much thought does not interest me. There are other areas to work with that have more relevence to the majority of players than reworking the entire planar system that has existed in game for 30 years. (the basic great wheel anyway) I think some of the changes are taking into account the inclusion of 20-30 level play into core. I'm speaking from opinion/assumption, but if they're making epic play core and planar travel is a common feature of epic level play, they would need to update it in order to keep it in line with the rest of the changes. I don't see them as setting it up for your 1st level adventure arch to be "Hey, let's kill Graz'zt, he's a douche". I almost think they are running out of Ideas- so lets just throw out existing cannon and make something totally new. I know they have to worry about the marketplace but I REALLY dont see how this change will increase the gamming audience in even an insignifigant way?I really haven't seen anything tossed out. I've seen a divergence from using a half-hearted Greyhawk setting as the default.
sciborg2 09-30-07, 03:36 PM	I use the term "Planescape" to include the residing Prime Material Plane of Greyhawk and all of it's source material including any references to features of Greyhawk within 3.x. When you're this far off the mark, it's not nitpicking.
EvilVegan 09-30-07, 03:44 PM	When you're this far off the mark, it's not nitpicking.It is when it adds absolutely nothing to the discussion. I like that you ignored the remainder of the post to nitpick, again! Thanks!
HamHam 09-30-07, 03:54 PM	. . .There are multiple ugly men and there is Mialee. Not really. Mialee is easily the ugliest iconic in the PHB. All the male class illustrations are very far from ugly. And there isn't one chainmail bikini in the lot. The sexism is not limited to the art, the source material can also be considered biased. Such as? Not one of the books I have has had anything remotely biased. It isn't as over-the-top sexist as it used to be, nor even as much as World of Warcraft or comic books. But it could be better. It was slightly worse in previous editions, but it is pretty much a staple in fantasy/fiction that the women are always attractive and available. Actually, it's a staple in fantasy/fiction that the protagonist and anyone potential love interest the protagonist meets are always attractive and available.
EvilVegan 09-30-07, 04:25 PM	Not really. Mialee is easily the ugliest iconic in the PHB. All the male class illustrations are very far from ugly. And there isn't one chainmail bikini in the lot.I don't think any of the males are all that attractive. But then again, I'm a straight male. I don't think D&D is that bad. I didn't say there was a bikini. Alias from 2nd edition literature was wearing a chainmail bikini, and I think it was in an optional equipment guide (Voldo's Guide to the Realms if memory serves). Such as? Not one of the books I have has had anything remotely biased.Uhh. You can't possibly expect me to debate this can you? No single book has anything remotely biased? I mean, even if the book is on the whole balanced with equally biased either way it still contains something biased. How about these: Monster Manual. A succubus can be either male or female. They drew a female. Not a male. That is biased against incubi. Why didn't they draw an attractive male and female pair to represent both? Also everything I've read states that there are "more" succubi than incubi. "More" is a strange word to use considering there are an infinite amount of them. What percentage of infinity determines "more". I mean I know its >50%, but that's got to be a lot. 51% of infinity? Doesn't that mean there are infinitely more Succubi than Incubi? I don't even know what that means. Glasya. She is an arch-devil. Unlike the male archdevils, her rise to power involved sleeping around. It is her method to gain power. The male arch-devils on the other hand have sex because they're powerful, not to gain power. There is nothing in the fictional canon about Asmodeus having to hump Mammon to ascend to the throne. (Maybe in the fan-fic though!) Actually, it's a staple in fantasy/fiction that the protagonist and anyone potential love interest the protagonist meets are always attractive and available.Sure. What I said before includes this option. All females > Some females. There are exceptions of course. Sometimes the love interest is betrothed to the villain (Princess Bride), etc.
HamHam 09-30-07, 05:02 PM	I don't think any of the males are all that attractive. But then again, I'm a straight male. Exactly. Cognitive bias. I don't think D&D is that bad. And yet it's chasing away women with it's imense sexism? Uhh. You can't possibly expect me to debate this can you? No single book has anything remotely biased? I mean, even if the book is on the whole balanced with equally biased either way it still contains something biased. How about these: What? That's not how it works. If it's blanced as a whole then it's not biased. Overwise your point becomes that a book cannot present any females in a, in your opinion, negative light without somehow becoming rabidly misgoinistic. Which is stupid. Monster Manual. A succubus can be either male or female. They drew a female. Not a male. That is biased against incubi. Why didn't they draw an attractive male and female pair to represent both? The succubus is also human looking, which doesn't seem fair to gnomes, dwarves, halflings, elves, catfolk, goliaths, etc. Drawing more than one version seems silly, especially since these are just examples, all succubi do not have to look identical. So choosing to use a human female succubi is not biased unless all monsters in the monster manual chose half-naked females whenever possible, but this isn't true. Also everything I've read states that there are "more" succubi than incubi. "More" is a strange word to use considering there are an infinite amount of them. What percentage of infinity determines "more". I mean I know its >50%, but that's got to be a lot. 51% of infinity? Doesn't that mean there are infinitely more Succubi than Incubi? I don't even know what that means. Assuming it does make sense, that's actually sexist toward men, not women, implying it's easier to seduce the former than the latter. Glasya. She is an arch-devil. Unlike the male archdevils, her rise to power involved sleeping around. It is her method to gain power. The male arch-devils on the other hand have sex because they're powerful, not to gain power. There is nothing in the fictional canon about Asmodeus having to hump Mammon to ascend to the throne. (Maybe in the fan-fic though!) Belial is the patron of domination and seduction. In other words, gaining power through sex. And from what I can tell, Glasya's rise to power involved Asmodeus going "here, have a layer to rule". And then there's Graz'zt. Sure. What I said before includes this option. All females > Some females. There are exceptions of course. Sometimes the love interest is betrothed to the villain (Princess Bride), etc. No. You're trying to claim that fantasy is sexist cause the hero will almost inevitably run into countless attractive females all of whom seem to instantly fall in love with him. However, this happens in reverse in most books with female protagonists; every guy they run into is either a handsome prince, a dashing scoundrel, etc and they're all single. Thus, the phenomenon is not indicative of sexism but rather of crappy writers and their Mary Sue protagonists.
ArcTan 09-30-07, 05:22 PM	That's the crucial difference here. I'm not talking about the market economy, or anything else subject to anything resembling democracy. I see Chris Perkins and Skeptical making comments that take for granted the idea that the Plane of Vacuum could never be fun for anyone. They're not saying "this isn't fun for me." They're saying "this isn't fun for you, either, and it's ridiculous to think it ever could be." That's just as much a straw man as anything you've accused me of, rip. That's like saying I can't say "Heaven's Gate was a dull and boring movie" because there is probably someone in the country who really, really liked Heaven's Gate and contributed to the $3 million intake that utterly failed to cover its production costs. Obviously I don't mean "Every single member of the human race in the entire freaking world must agree with me that it's dull and boring". I mean "I think it's dull and boring, and I'm pretty damn sure any human being who thinks the least bit like me, which I assume is the way most people think based on my experience as a film critic and reviewer and my knowledge of the box-office intake of Heaven's Gate and the other critics I've seen review it, also thinks it's dull and boring". No one's trying to say the people who think egarus fungus was the shiznit doesn't exist. At most, we're saying they're wacked-out weirdos whose opinions are so unrepresentative of ordinary red-blooded human beings that it's a waste of time to try to market to them and to a general audience at the same time. Which you're certainly free to be offended by, but don't pretend you've summarily disproven the right of anybody to criticize anything ever because you can pull out an example of one, two, or a small Internet-based community of people who liked it. P.S. What Perkins said, which is now becoming a dangerously consistent misquote, was not "anti-fun" but "the antithesis of fun". I mean, whatever, it's not that different, but the latter sounds more like what I think he meant, which is "the opposite of what I -- or people I think of as reasonable, normal human beings -- consider to be fun", whereas "anti-fun" makes it sound like he's accusing the Plane of Vacuum of somehow actively seeking out and destroying fun in the rest of the game, which is nonsense -- as far as I know most people just ignored it. "The antithesis of fun" is a great phrase, and one I've used to describe all kinds of things that I'm sure are enjoyed by people all over the world. I once ran into a guy who likes going to the dentist and getting anesthetized for oral surgery. It's a big world.
ArcTan 09-30-07, 05:28 PM	Incubi are just Succubi who's true form is male. They would have the same stats as Succubi. Strictly speaking, you wouldn't even need them because nothing in the Succubi description actually says they aren't equally likely to take a male form if the target happens to be female. Except that "succubus" means a female demon, that every reference to a Succubus both there and in the rest of D&D 3.5 refers to Succubi as female in their "true" forms, and that the Succubus' true form is right there, female as all get-out. "Nothing in the description says they aren't male" is not the same thing as actually having males. Otherwise Dragon Magazine would've had no reason to commission that article on Incubi in the first place.
ArcTan 09-30-07, 05:30 PM	Exactly. Cognitive bias. Astrid's Parlor has discussed this issue to death, and most of the women there *also* think D&D has a dearth of attractive, sexualized males. The only people who repeatedly argue that D&D has just as many hot guys as hot girls are straight guys trying to defend D&D, who apparently think over-muscled Conan-types are what the average straight woman considers hot.
HamHam 09-30-07, 05:56 PM	First of all, would you stop it with the triple, quadruple, etc posting? Is it really that hard to take an extra ten seconds and put it all in one post. Except that "succubus" means a female demon, that every reference to a Succubus both there and in the rest of D&D 3.5 refers to Succubi as female in their "true" forms, and that the Succubus' true form is right there, female as all get-out. "Nothing in the description says they aren't male" is not the same thing as actually having males. Otherwise Dragon Magazine would've had no reason to commission that article on Incubi in the first place. Well, the reason Succubi and not Incubbi are in the MM are more historic than anything. It's really not that big of an issue. Astrid's Parlor has discussed this issue to death, and most of the women there *also* think D&D has a dearth of attractive, sexualized males. The only people who repeatedly argue that D&D has just as many hot guys as hot girls are straight guys trying to defend D&D, who apparently think over-muscled Conan-types are what the average straight woman considers hot. That has more to do with the fact that most of the art in the books is somewhere between Bad and Horrible, with occasinal exceptions. In the PHB, only Krusk and maybe Regdar could possibly described as over-muscled. On the other hand, you have Gimble, Hennet, Devis, Kerwyn, etc. There's variety there. What is probably part of the problem, to the extent that there is a problem, is that the majority of the artists are straight males, which carries over into the illustrations. But this is something that goes far deeper than WotC has any influence on, and thus can't really be addressed by them all that much. PS EDIT: Although I will admit that my knowledge of what females find attractive is based on Ouran High, and thus might be slightly skewed. PPS: I mean, the Mature Board doesn't seem to have the same issues...
Bob the Efreet 09-30-07, 06:54 PM	Sorry Kain. I replied to someone who said that Glaxinzakof an Faifafia were devils and assumed he was right, since I've not read anything about those two ultimately redundant and lame NPCs I didn't care to double check his incorrect statements. I was all ready to complain that Glasya and Fierna are, in fact, devils and Kain never said otherwise, but then I saw this: Just for you I went and did some reading. And nothing I read changed anything about any point I'd made previously, aside from semantically. Glasya and Fierna. They're lawful evil arch-devils. and realised that you had since done some research and understood the point I made in the first place.
goldomark 09-30-07, 07:21 PM	Is it really necessary to argument with ArcTan and EvilVegan? They just like to contradict what people say and monopolize the thread. Some ego thing, I guess.
ArcTan 09-30-07, 07:41 PM	First of all, would you stop it with the triple, quadruple, etc posting? Is it really that hard to take an extra ten seconds and put it all in one post. *shrug* I find it easier to read posts myself when the separate topics are in separate posts than when it's all in one mega-post. Well, the reason Succubi and not Incubbi are in the MM are more historic than anything. It's really not that big of an issue. ...To you. I mean, it's "historic" in that it harks back to the original D&D core books, which had stuff like a "Courtesan Table" in it and so on. That doesn't make it not sexist. The most likely place to find sexist stuff in D&D is the "historic" stuff, because D&D was at its most sexist back when Gary Gygax was making it up. And maybe it's not annoying *to you*, but I can probably pull out just as many women I've known who find the constant presence of things like Succubi in fantasy off-putting as you can women who think it's no big deal. In general it definitely does have an impact on how fantasy is perceived by the mainstream. That has more to do with the fact that most of the art in the books is somewhere between Bad and Horrible, with occasinal exceptions. In the PHB, only Krusk and maybe Regdar could possibly described as over-muscled. On the other hand, you have Gimble, Hennet, Devis, Kerwyn, etc. There's variety there. The PHB itself is relatively tame. However, once you get into splatbooks and -- ESPECIALLY -- Dragon magazine, the un-PC-ness asserts itself again in full force. I'm betting the core books were heavily policed to try to bring them in line with 21st-century values, while the freelancers who worked on books like Complete Warrior and the people who made stuff for Dragon felt free to let old fantasy art traditions reassert themselves (bare midriffs aplenty, etc.) What is probably part of the problem, to the extent that there is a problem, is that the majority of the artists are straight males, which carries over into the illustrations. But this is something that goes far deeper than WotC has any influence on, and thus can't really be addressed by them all that much. The fact that the PHB looks a lot less sexist than other books proves it *can* be addressed by them, they just seem to find it more effort than it's worth.
ArcTan 09-30-07, 07:41 PM	Is it really necessary to argument with ArcTan and EvilVegan?. They just like to contradict what people say. Some ego thing, I guess. ...And piling on Rich Baker and Chris Perkins over the past few weeks hasn't been an "ego thing" for the various complainers all over the boards?
HamHam 09-30-07, 07:58 PM	...To you. No, really. Nymph's are basically the same thing, but not evil, and have a bigger and more ridiculious picture. I mean, it's "historic" in that it harks back to the original D&D core books, which had stuff like a "Courtesan Table" in it and so on. That doesn't make it not sexist. The most likely place to find sexist stuff in D&D is the "historic" stuff, because D&D was at its most sexist back when Gary Gygax was making it up. And maybe it's not annoying *to you*, but I can probably pull out just as many women I've known who find the constant presence of things like Succubi in fantasy off-putting as you can women who think it's no big deal. In general it definitely does have an impact on how fantasy is perceived by the mainstream. "Constant presence"? I have never seen a sucubus in-game. I have used one once while DMing. I find the idea that having a Succubus in the MM is somehow going to drive away females by the boat-load ludicrious. The PHB itself is relatively tame. However, once you get into splatbooks and -- ESPECIALLY -- Dragon magazine, the un-PC-ness asserts itself again in full force. I'm betting the core books were heavily policed to try to bring them in line with 21st-century values, while the freelancers who worked on books like Complete Warrior and the people who made stuff for Dragon felt free to let old fantasy art traditions reassert themselves (bare midriffs aplenty, etc.) Since I don't read Dragon, I wouldn't know. But Dragon is a seperate level than the PHB, DMG, MM; or the Completes and other suppliments. If Dragon has problems, then that's Dragon's problem not D&Ds. As for CW, I see one possible offender, the Frenzied Berserker pic. I just flipped through Complete Arcane, and didn't see any problems. The fact that the PHB looks a lot less sexist than other books proves it *can* be addressed by them, they just seem to find it more effort than it's worth. Not really. The PHB looks rather prudish. What they need to do is have male artists do the female pictures, and female artists do the male pictures. This should result in sufficent eye-candy for all possible audiences. However, this requires a sufficently large pool of female fantasy artists who aren't Rebecca Guay.
Kain Darkwind 09-30-07, 09:13 PM	OH NOES! Sorry Kain. I replied to someone who said that Glaxinzakof an Faifafia were devils and assumed he was right, since I've not read anything about those two ultimately redundant and lame NPCs I didn't care to double check his incorrect statements. They are devils. What exactly are you talking about? Perhaps if you could quote the relevant passages I could forgive you, but as it stands I think we're off the same page. Sorry Kain. I posted an entire post about recanting my description of those two pointless, fictional extra planar *****s and restated the actual point of the original post and you ignored it. If you want to ignore the point and hammer on my non-existent "lack of knowledge", go ahead. The point is you're ignoring my points in favor of nitpicking semantics and insults. Are you referring to me mentioning you in a response to someone else? And you seem very touchy about insults for someone whose first interaction with me was to call me lazy. I'm not suggesting you committed some deadly sin here. I'm pointing out that you, at one point in this thread, were arguing something without actually knowing much about the subject material. You apologized and went to go read about it, that's good. It doesn't change the example that I was making to someone else...you were arguing about something without knowing about it, that person was also making the same general mistakes about the subject that showed they didn't know either. But instead of what you did (which was to go read up on the subject), they chose to argue about it. I'm not quite sure why you are upset about that though. You clearly aren't really apologizing and I doubt you'd like my forgiveness. Sorry Kain, You seem to think combinining Monster Manual archetypes removes the possibility to have unique creatures from the game and I do not share this wholely incorrect opinion. Combining and wholly. But more to the point, you are wrong. I don't think that it removes the possibility to have unique creatures in the game. I think that when you eliminate a concept from the game that NPCs who were of that concept disappear. Demon succubi are gone from the game. Thus, demon succubi NPCs are gone too. If you'd removed humans from the game, I think Elminster and Mordenkainen would be gone. If you removed drow from the game, Drizzt and Jarlaxle would be gone. If you removed demons in their entirety from the game, Orcus and Demogorgon would be gone. If you remove Bar-lgura from the game, Ilsidahur would most likely be gone. I think this is just common sense. Let's say DnD decides that they are tired of playing to racial stereotypes and that the black skinned elves no longer need to be monolithically evil, or even separate from normal elves. So they merge them, eliminating drow. How do you propose that such a change affects Drizzt? He's suddenly an elf or an anachronism. Either change plays havoc with his story and background. (lay off the insults, thanks) You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
ArcTan 09-30-07, 09:45 PM	Combining and wholly. But more to the point, you are wrong. I don't think that it removes the possibility to have unique creatures in the game. I think that when you eliminate a concept from the game that NPCs who were of that concept disappear. Demon succubi are gone from the game. Thus, demon succubi NPCs are gone too. If you'd removed humans from the game, I think Elminster and Mordenkainen would be gone. If you removed drow from the game, Drizzt and Jarlaxle would be gone. If you removed demons in their entirety from the game, Orcus and Demogorgon would be gone. If you remove Bar-lgura from the game, Ilsidahur would most likely be gone. I think this is just common sense. Well, no. If they really said "Humans never existed in the world of Forgotten Realms", then they'd probably retcon Elminster to be an Elf or something. *Or* retcon him out of existence, but that's hardly the only option. Let's say DnD decides that they are tired of playing to racial stereotypes and that the black skinned elves no longer need to be monolithically evil, or even separate from normal elves. So they merge them, eliminating drow. How do you propose that such a change affects Drizzt? He's suddenly an elf or an anachronism. Either change plays havoc with his story and background. *shrug* He's from the nation of dark-skinned Elves who happened to live underground and be jerks, but who weren't racially different from other Elves. In any case, red herring. Drizzt is a character from Forgotten Realms, a specific setting with a specific backstory. Malcanthet is a character from the unfortunately unnamed "generic" campaign setting of D&D 3.5 -- effectively the setting we call "the Great Wheel" or "Planescape". Creating a new cosmology doesn't "play havoc" with Malcanthet, it just means that either Malcanthet doesn't exist in this world or she's different in this world. That's all. Just like creating the Forgotten Realms didn't "play havoc" with Mordenkainen -- it just created a new setting where Mordenkainen didn't exist. Creating Eberron didn't "play havoc" with, say, Tiamat -- it just created a new setting where Tiamat, like the other gods, is distant and withdrawn from earthly life and her existence is in question, rather than being a real, physical presence on the first layer of Hell.
ArcTan 09-30-07, 09:50 PM	Also: They are devils. What exactly are you talking about? Perhaps if you could quote the relevant passages I could forgive you, but as it stands I think we're off the same page. Sheesh, Kain. He means he doesn't CARE who Glasya and Fierna are because it was irrelevant to his post. Why is that so hard to grasp? In general, the attitude of "You have to prove that you have the right to dislike something by quoting it chapter and verse back to people who really, really love it" is very annoying. Of *course* I know less about the Great Wheel than people who really, really love the Great Wheel. That's because I *don't like it*. Does that somehow invalidate my not liking it? (Especially given that I *did* know more about it back when I was playing games in it and decided I didn't like it anymore, and have since forgotten, because I, again, *don't like it*?)
dfarnsworth 09-30-07, 11:37 PM	Just to ask a question and to possibly point something out, but aren't the FR novels considered cannon? And if so, one novel popped the characters into Sigil and had an interesting time.
Kain Darkwind 10-01-07, 12:06 AM	Also: Sheesh, Kain. He means he doesn't CARE who Glasya and Fierna are because it was irrelevant to his post. Why is that so hard to grasp? I don't believe he is saying that at all. Considering that he's shown himself to be one of the more intelligent members of the opposition, I seriously doubt that he would have made such a big deal out of professing willful ignorance. However, I will allow him to speak for himself on what he meant before making any assumptions. In general, the attitude of "You have to prove that you have the right to dislike something by quoting it chapter and verse back to people who really, really love it" is very annoying. Of *course* I know less about the Great Wheel than people who really, really love the Great Wheel. That's because I *don't like it*. Does that somehow invalidate my not liking it? No, it simply invalidates you getting involved in a meaningful discussion regarding particulars. I'm sorry that it annoys you that you are expected to have a good grasp of the subject you are arguing over. One should not form strong uninformed opinions. Well, no. If they really said "Humans never existed in the world of Forgotten Realms", then they'd probably retcon Elminster to be an Elf or something. *Or* retcon him out of existence, but that's hardly the only option. And if they said 'succubi never existed as demons in the world of DnD", they'd probably have to retcon or eliminate Malcanthet. I'm not sure if you are being willfully obstinate on this point or simply don't get it. It seems fairly simple. *shrug* He's from the nation of dark-skinned Elves who happened to live underground and be jerks, but who weren't racially different from other Elves. In any case, red herring. Drizzt is a character from Forgotten Realms, a specific setting with a specific backstory. Malcanthet is a character from the unfortunately unnamed "generic" campaign setting of D&D 3.5 -- effectively the setting we call "the Great Wheel" or "Planescape". It isn't a red herring, learn your debate terms. I'm simply giving a more relevant example to further people's understanding of what the change means to me. An analogy if you will. Malcanthet, I can imagine, is not as important to the bulk of DnD players as she is to me or other planar buffs. Drizzt on the other hand, is quite popular. Using him as an example allows others to grasp the implications to a character that quite possibly means more to them. The implications, incidentally. I don't want you misquoting me later on saying I said Drizzt was getting axed. This is simply a hypothetical example of a merger of concepts that would require serious retcon or elimination of the character. And the level of retcon required would be tantamount to the elimination of the character anyways. Creating a new cosmology doesn't "play havoc" with Malcanthet, it just means that either Malcanthet doesn't exist in this world or she's different in this world. That's all. It is clear you take a different outlook on Malcanthet. We plainly agree on what will happen, although you seem to be convinced we don't. What we do not agree on is what kind of impact this has on the character. Just like creating the Forgotten Realms didn't "play havoc" with Mordenkainen -- it just created a new setting where Mordenkainen didn't exist. Creating Eberron didn't "play havoc" with, say, Tiamat -- it just created a new setting where Tiamat, like the other gods, is distant and withdrawn from earthly life and her existence is in question, rather than being a real, physical presence on the first layer of Hell. Except like you stated earlier, this is now a generic default setting in which Malcanthet doesn't exist. Mordenkainen and Tiamat are both still part of the default setting until humans and chromatic dragons are removed from the default game. Even if in specific settings they don't exist or have an active role. Removing Malcanthet from the default setting is the same thing as removing her from the game. Once removed, she won't ever again appear in a supplement or adventure because there would be no point. If there are no demon succubi in the default DnD game, there is no reason to make a demon lady that is their queen. And certainly no need to mention her. Rip already has explained why the planar setting matters to the default setting in terms of adventures and supplements. If you don't understand why, you can reread his ideas on the subject; I don't need to repeat them.
ripvanwormer 10-01-07, 12:07 AM	That's like saying I can't say "Heaven's Gate was a dull and boring movie" because there is probably someone in the country who really, really liked Heaven's Gate I don't mean to question your right to say things, ArcTan; I'm just saying that it might be best if you stick to things you know something about or have at least thought about for any length of time. To use your analogy, you're like the guy who claims a movie is "dull and boring" without even bothering to have watched it. Chris Perkins, who ought to know better, did the same thing. You're not like someone criticizing Heaven's Gate based on its box-office receipts; you're like someone criticizing the original Godzilla based on something a friend told you. This is really an argument you need to stay out of, if you're going to be intellectually honest. Your "fungi don't sound very interesting" comments are unintentionally hilarious. It's a bad analogy, though, since we're talking about a game, not a movie. The relevant criterion is how useful it is in a game, not how enjoyable it is to read. That makes a big difference, which is why the analogy I used referred to games rather than more passive forms of entertainment. Passive media need to be judged as themselves, while interactive forms (and really, computer games are passive in this sense) are completed by the user to a much greater degree. When you call a game the "antithesis of fun," you're talking about the possibilities inherit in the form rather than merely the work as it stands. Even as it stands, however, the Plane of Vacuum has as many story hooks as any other quasi-elemental or para-elemental plane, on an objective count. No one could single it out as "lame" or "anti-fun" who bothered to know what they were talking about. And honestly, yes, if I enjoyed Heaven's Gate I certainly have the right to demur if someone claims it's inherently boring. I can even say you're wrong about the movie, just as much as you can say I'm wrong about that. If I've seen the movie and you haven't, I can say my opinion has more basis than yours does. And I will be right. No, lots of people not liking something doesn't make it bad. In this case, you don't even have the statistics available to say that much.
ArcTan 10-01-07, 12:48 AM	And if they said 'succubi never existed as demons in the world of DnD", they'd probably have to retcon or eliminate Malcanthet. I'm not sure if you are being willfully obstinate on this point or simply don't get it. It seems fairly simple. There is no single "world of D&D". It isn't a red herring, learn your debate terms. I'm simply giving a more relevant example to further people's understanding of what the change means to me. An analogy if you will. Malcanthet, I can imagine, is not as important to the bulk of DnD players as she is to me or other planar buffs. Drizzt on the other hand, is quite popular. Using him as an example allows others to grasp the implications to a character that quite possibly means more to them. The implications, incidentally. I don't want you misquoting me later on saying I said Drizzt was getting axed. This is simply a hypothetical example of a merger of concepts that would require serious retcon or elimination of the character. And the level of retcon required would be tantamount to the elimination of the character anyways. It's a red herring because you're talking about editing the Forgotten Realms, when no such editing is being done to the Great Wheel. The Great Wheel is simply being dropped as the default setting. Except like you stated earlier, this is now a generic default setting in which Malcanthet doesn't exist. And there's a generic default setting in which Drizzt doesn't exist (because Forgotten Realms and the "generic default setting" of D&D 3.5, Greyhawk, are two different settings). Mordenkainen and Tiamat are both still part of the default setting until humans and chromatic dragons are removed from the default game. Even if in specific settings they don't exist or have an active role. Okay. The "default" D&D game doesn't have Warforged in it. Does that mean that the Lord of Blades has been "removed from the game" (and was, paradoxically, "removed from the game" years before he was created)? Of course not. It means the Lord of Blades and the rest of his race don't exist in generic D&D, but do exist in Eberron. Removing Malcanthet from the default setting is the same thing as removing her from the game. Once removed, she won't ever again appear in a supplement or adventure because there would be no point. If there are no demon succubi in the default DnD game, there is no reason to make a demon lady that is their queen. And certainly no need to mention her. Wow, you're bitter, aren't you? The Spelljammer hasn't been mentioned since they discontinued that setting, either. It doesn't mean you can't use it, can't import it into your campaign, and can't make fan modules about it. Hell, it doesn't even mean they can't at some point release a Spelljammer module or setting book that does include info about the legend of the Spelljammer. Just because you like a character isn't a reason to demand that she exist in the default setting. And I don't see why "planar" material needs to get special treatment in this regard.
ArcTan 10-01-07, 12:51 AM	I don't mean to question your right to say things, ArcTan; I'm just saying that it might be best if you stick to things you know something about or have at least thought about for any length of time. To use your analogy, you're like the guy who claims a movie is "dull and boring" without even bothering to have watched it. Chris Perkins, who ought to know better, did the same thing. I recall reading about the Quasielemental Plane of Vacuum a very long time ago in published material. I clicked on the link for your webpage about it. In what other sense am I supposed to have "watched the movie"? You're not like someone criticizing Heaven's Gate based on its box-office receipts; you're like someone criticizing the original Godzilla based on something a friend told you. This is really an argument you need to stay out of, if you're going to be intellectually honest. Your "fungi don't sound very interesting" comments are unintentionally hilarious. The thing about the Quasielemental Plane of Vacuum is that it's not a movie. It's a stupid bit of setting detail from an RPG. It's a bad analogy, though, since we're talking about a game, not a movie. The relevant criterion is how useful it is in a game, not how enjoyable it is to read. That makes a big difference, which is why the analogy I used referred to games rather than more passive forms of entertainment. Passive media need to be judged as themselves, while interactive forms (and really, computer games are passive in this sense) are completed by the user to a much greater degree. When you call a game the "antithesis of fun," you're talking about the possibilities inherit in the form rather than merely the work as it stands. Even as it stands, however, the Plane of Vacuum has as many story hooks as any other quasi-elemental or para-elemental plane, on an objective count. No one could single it out as "lame" or "anti-fun" who bothered to know what they were talking about. Not really. Saying "I don't think any of these story hooks are fun, and, really, it doesn't spark my imagination that much" is not fundamentally different from saying "I watched that movie and I didn't see what was so exciting about it". I mean, *yes*, the story hooks you're talking about objectively *exist*. That doesn't make them objectively *good* just because you like them, any more than the fact that the visuals in Heaven's Gate exist means that the visuals in Heaven's Gate are objectively interesting and compelling rather than dull and boring. This really does feel like the same scenario as when a few critics defend a movie the other critics hate -- say, Showgirls -- by churning out a big list of "questions the film raised" and "examples of symbolism from the movie" and "moments of thematic resonance" from the movie and having the other critics shake their heads and say "Y'know, I just don't see it", and then railing against the mainstream critics for being "blind" and "ignorant". No, rip, the fungus really does sound dumb. It's fungus. It exists in a fundamentally contradictory makes-no-sense way. (It used to eat everything, but then it drifted into a place where there was nothing to eat, so now it eats... nothing!!!) I read your page on it. I read other pages about it. I know what it is. It does not spark any great thunderous insights in my imagination. I know about Sun Sing. I know about the Doomguard (one of the most one-dimensional factions in Planescape). My imagination is still not sparked. I mean, what do you seriously expect me to do? Run a campaign that takes place in the Quasielemental Plane of Vacuum and write all kinds of material for it and *then* say I've given the plane a fair shot? Isn't this kind of a pointless standard, since the only people who would ever be willing to waste the time doing this are people who already don't think the plane is worthless? I "watched the movie" in the sense of reading the flavor. It does nothing for me. You're being the equivalent of the person who says that no one who hasn't watched the movie straight through four times and then written a detailed analysis of the themes therein doesn't "understand" the movie, or hasn't given the movie a fair shot. That's not arguing in good faith. You're basically saying that I can't walk up and say that the SAGA cards system, or Dragon Dice, or a movie like Showgirls, or a book like Gord the Rogue is "bad" (forget colorful terms like "antithesis of fun", just "bad") unless I've given it the same amount of thought that someone who's a great big huge fan of it has. Well, no. I looked at it. I think it's bad. Chris Perkins, who gets paid to do this crap for a living, has probably thought about it more than I have and also thinks it's bad. So what?
goldomark 10-01-07, 01:21 AM	...And piling on Rich Baker and Chris Perkins over the past few weeks hasn't been an "ego thing" for the various complainers all over the boards? No, not ego. Just alot of deception and some positive comments.
pratputajao 10-01-07, 03:18 AM	[QUOTE=EvilVegan;13949407]But there is no good reason that this DND enthusiast should have to learn the current specific planar setting. Any planar setting will work fine. Especially if he isn't playing in the one it is used for. If he's going to be playing in any setting other than the generic partially-Greyhawk-based setting of 3.x, the current default cosmology is already useless. As is the new cosmology. That's why I'm hoping for less strict cosmology, just enough for play and foundation, with vastly superior books focused on each cosmology of the campaign world they're playing in. "Planes of" should definitely be it's own book line (similar to "Races of" and the "Completes"). Planes of Eberron, Planes of Faerun, Planes of Greyhawk . . . Obviously, I don't see this happening any time soon. That doesn't mean a change to the default is going to affect anything other than internet debates. I really haven't seen anything tossed out. I've seen a divergence from using a half-hearted Greyhawk setting as the default. Well i mean tossed as in nothing official will be done using the great wheel again ( unless they do as you described above. I kinda doubt they will). Anyway I see what you are saying and it does make sense. But I am not sure all the work involved in revamping the cosmology is really something that was needed. Time will tell. To me it does change DnD. I will just have to see if it is a change that I can use. I cant say I am impressed with what they have come up with so far however.
Soel Griffin 10-01-07, 03:19 AM	If you haven't noticed, the thread title is about the end of the Great Wheel, which has thankfully come to pass, at least the hard-coded alignment aspect of it. Lots of people seem to be upset about this, but you can just change it in your games. You can still have a plane of Vacuum if you want. Just put in in yourself. Furthermore, you don't have to use 4e. 3.5 will still work fine. I didn't like the changes that Faction War wrought on the PS setting back in 2e, so I ignored them! My ps games played just as fine. There is no need to include every bit of old D&D lore into a new edition. Not everyone cares about things they didn't read about or even more importantly, considering this is a GAME, play with. The question is not "can you write a story using succubi and the plane of vacuum, etc." but can you run a game without them. The answer is a resounding yes.
yrogerg 10-01-07, 07:10 AM	Except like you stated earlier, this is now a generic default setting in which Malcanthet doesn't exist. Mordenkainen and Tiamat are both still part of the default setting until humans and chromatic dragons are removed from the default game. Even if in specific settings they don't exist or have an active role. Removing Malcanthet from the default setting is the same thing as removing her from the game. Once removed, she won't ever again appear in a supplement or adventure because there would be no point. If there are no demon succubi in the default DnD game, there is no reason to make a demon lady that is their queen. And certainly no need to mention her. As far as I'm aware, there *was* a generic default setting where she didn't exist to begin with. She definitely didn't appear in any of the core three. Nor did Tiamat. Changing the default setting isn't actually about changing the landmark NPCs, except by implication. They really don't have any special claim to 'default' status, no matter how many non-core books reference them. More to the point, though, so what? So they make Malcanthet a devil, just like the other succubi, and keep the rest of her flavor as 'the first succubus', and all that crap. What's actually changed, other than the letters after her name? Especially if 'devil' and 'demon' mean radically different things in 4e, as the designers have suggested? Or if there's no Blood War, and therefore nothing stopping her from humping demons left and right anyway? In what way does her not being a demon break her character? What about the word 'demon', absent all the heaped-up stuff about alignment, is actually integral to her character? I mean, seriously. She was only a demon because succubi were demons, and she was the first one. If succubi are devils, and that makes sense in the new cosmology, then why wouldn't she just be a devil instead?
Weenie 10-01-07, 07:33 AM	Can I just say that I, an avid Planescape fan, actually like what I've seen of the new cosmology, at least the Rich Baker article? Actually, I'm surprised at how much it resembles the (old) World of Darkness cosmology. It has the High Umbra (Astral), the Low Umbra (Shadowfell), the Faerie/Dreaming/Spirit-Realms (Feywilds), and an undefined "Outside" (Elemental Chaos). This setup makes it a better fit for my d20 Modern campaign than it does for generic D&D, but I try to take the syncretistic approach when it comes to different campaign worlds. If I end up playing Planescape in the future, I intend to keep the Great Wheel, the Blood War, the Quasielemental Planes, maybe even the crystal spheres of the Material Plane (though this last bit I always thought was a bit dumb). The official take on cosmology issues will have very little effect on that decision.
BOZ 10-01-07, 08:23 AM	Buffalo, buffalo Buffalo buffalo, buffalo Buffalo buffalo. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_ buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo) Language is fun. I used the exact language I needed to use to prove a point. Things can be said better. In other words, to quote Homer Simpson, "they're the suckiest bunch of sucks that ever sucked"? ;)
BOZ 10-01-07, 08:28 AM	Is it really necessary to argument with ArcTan and EvilVegan? They just like to contradict what people say and monopolize the thread. Some ego thing, I guess. you win! really, this discussion isn't super productive for anyone involved, but i think the ones who are getting into the most are just having fun. welcome to the internet! :D
EvilVegan 10-01-07, 08:51 AM	Exactly. Cognitive bias.Yep. I fully agree that there is bias in both directions. I don't know which one is greater (bias to favor focusing on sexist material or biast that creates it). I imagine the cognitive bias is greater in this case. And yet it's chasing away women with it's imense sexism? Nope. Some of the pictures offend my wife. I've played with other girls who spent most of the game drawing their "sexy characters". I've said a few times now that I don't think D&D is as sexist as other mediums. I'll never admit that anything has no bias though. Such a source doesn't exist. Anything done by humans will contain bias. What? That's not how it works. If it's blanced as a whole then it's not biased. Overwise your point becomes that a book cannot present any females in a, in your opinion, negative light without somehow becoming rabidly misgoinistic. Which is stupid. It was the nature of your claim. "Nothing remotely biased". There are things that are remotely biased, even if they balance out in the end. By the way you're talking it seems that a book with extremely racist pictures and commentary wouldn't have any racist material in it as long as it had one and only one racist picture and commentary for each race so that it "balanced out". The succubus is also human looking, which doesn't seem fair to gnomes, dwarves, halflings, elves, catfolk, goliaths, etc. I will fully admit that the game is "humano-centric". Notice that humans aren't even in the monster manual. Humans aren't monsters, but elves are. It's a public relations issue, but there is definitely a bias in favor of humans. Showing that something is biased against two unrelated things doesn't show that it isn't biased. Drawing more than one version seems silly, especially since these are just examples, all succubi do not have to look identical. So choosing to use a human female succubi is not biased unless all monsters in the monster manual chose half-naked females whenever possible, but this isn't true. Silly? I think it would be fair to draw a masculine version of the one demon for whom sexuality is it's driving focus. Nymphs and dryads are always female and they represent various feminine aspects of nature. Succubi are not always female and they are distinctly tied to the nature of sex and sexuality. It makes less sense to draw a female only. I want more hot men in the books. That's why I super-impose david Duchovny's face on all the males. :inlove: Assuming it does make sense, that's actually sexist toward men, not women, implying it's easier to seduce the former than the latter. But it also shows that men are capable of rising to power without using thier bodies. But, I mean, these are devils so it isn't exactly like they're the paragons of "good examples" of rising to power. It's just the stuff that has the most detailed literature in my experience. I mean, there are other examples, but most of the big ones are in Forgotten Realms (drow matrons, the Simbul, etc) and thats due to the author of that setting being very forward thinking. I don't like the setting, but I like his gusto. Belial is the patron of domination and seduction. In other words, gaining power through sex. And from what I can tell, Glasya's rise to power involved Asmodeus going "here, have a layer to rule". And then there's Graz'zt.Yes. See my previous point: they're fiends, not great examples for either side of the argument. If they're sexist, that shows that fiends are sexist which is entirely likely and sensible considering they're effectively representing our negative/destructive natures. No. You're trying to claim that fantasy is sexist cause the hero will almost inevitably run into countless attractive females all of whom seem to instantly fall in love with him. However, this happens in reverse in most books with female protagonists; every guy they run into is either a handsome prince, a dashing scoundrel, etc and they're all single. Thus, the phenomenon is not indicative of sexism but rather of crappy writers and their Mary Sue protagonists.Am I trying to claim that? I hadn't noticed. I claimed that fiction in general and fantasy specifically tends to have every woman be attractive / available. I mean this reaches across a broad spectrum. There are always exceptions, but it has been a trend in the past 10,000 years for people to write stories/create art where they work out some personal issues. And one of those issues is being able to attract members of the opposite sex. Also books with attractive people on them sell better (I don't believe this claim, marketting people do). Call it the "beer commercial effect". And I don't really even feel that strongly about any of this. On a scale of 1 to 10 I'd put D&D at about a 3 or 4 on the sexist scale, which is about as low as anything can get without being crappy and Politically Correct to the point of absurdism. But World of Warcraft would be at about a 5 to 6, just from the fact that they predominantly represent females from only the "attractive" races in their materials, and they're always flopping out of their clothes. They're not calling for husbands to beat/rape their multiple mute wives (a 9) or anything, but they could maybe draw a female troll and maybe put some real clothes on people. But it's "fantasy" and that's how people dress in 'fantasy land'. So whatever, my wife stopped playing it because of things like this. But she still plays D&D, so that's saying something, but this may have to do with the fact that we've gotten to the point that she doesn't have to look through the book too often. On a scale of 1 to 10 of how much I care about this minor sexism its about a 2. I care just barely enough to respond. So I think I'm going to lower that to a 1 and bow out of this portion of the thread. I don't really disagree with anything you said specifically, but I do notice bias. It isn't much, but it qualifies for "remotely".
sciborg2 10-01-07, 09:02 AM	There is no need to include every bit of old D&D lore into a new edition. Not everyone cares about things they didn't read about or even more importantly, considering this is a GAME, play with. The question is not "can you write a story using succubi and the plane of vacuum, etc." but can you run a game without them. The answer is a resounding yes. That answer is the same for just about everything in the game.
sciborg2 10-01-07, 09:10 AM	various complainers all over the boards? ArcTan, are you saying you're not a complainer?
sciborg2 10-01-07, 09:16 AM	I like that you ignored the remainder of the post to nitpick, again! Think of it more as some basic fact checking. Conflating the Blood War, Planescape, and Greyhawk just screams "I don't know what I'm talking about but I'll talk anyway!"
ripvanwormer 10-01-07, 09:53 AM	I recall reading about the Quasielemental Plane of Vacuum a very long time ago in published material. I clicked on the link for your webpage about it. In what other sense am I supposed to have "watched the movie"? You're getting most of your information second hand, filtered through people you don't like very much. More to the point, you haven't played the game. I mean, *yes*, the story hooks you're talking about objectively *exist*. That doesn't make them objectively *good* For the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't matter if you think they're "objectively good" or not. The criticisms of the Plane of Vacuum depend entirely on the hooks not existing at all. Sputtering, "Okay, maybe there are just as many hooks there as in any other minor plane... BUT THEY'RE NOT VERY GOOD!" reeks of desperation. You're just trying to save face. You've shifted from a very confident, very general statement (having fun on a plane of Vacuum is obviously ludicrous!) to a very nitpicky one (well, okay, the Doomguard are interesting, I'm going to ignore Sung Sing, and I don't know anything about vacuum quasielementals or spectral deaths, I'm going to ignore the possibility of ghost mephits... egarus are fungus, though! That's something I can probably mock somehow!) as you're confronted by inconvenient facts. The point of the original charges levied by Chris Perkens, Skeptical, and yourself boil down to, "It's a bunch of empty space. What's fun about that?" Objectively, it has as much that's fun about it as a plane that's just a bunch of ash, or a bunch of salt, or any other substance. Saying "the specific hooks associated with this plane aren't as powerful as the specific hooks associated with other planes" sounds more reasonable, but aren't the reason you originally decided to pick on the plane. Switching to that argument is disingenuous. No, rip, the fungus really does sound dumb. See, that's funny to me. Even if you did know what an egarus was - and you don't, not really - it's very easy to mock things. Okay, it's not easy to mock them well, but that's never been something you worried about. Whether you can chortle about something about something you don't really understand is not in question. It also isn't meaningful. "I don't like the idea of an Abyssal lifeform that feeds on nothingness" is a long ways from "combat with an egarus isn't as much fun as combat with most other creatures of its CR." I read your page on it. I read other pages about it. <Laughs> Yeah, and I can read a Wikipedia entry about pretty much anything I choose. It doesn't mean I'm going to know what I'm talking about when I'm done. You're basically saying that I can't walk up and say that the SAGA cards system, or Dragon Dice, or a movie like Showgirls, or a book like Gord the Rogue is "bad" (forget colorful terms like "antithesis of fun", just "bad") unless I've given it the same amount of thought that someone who's a great big huge fan of it has. No, I'm not. But you do have to've played the games a few times, or watched the movie, or read the book. For our purposes here, you've done none of these things.
ripvanwormer 10-01-07, 10:03 AM	It's a red herring because you're talking about editing the Forgotten Realms, when no such editing is being done to the Great Wheel. The Great Wheel is simply being dropped as the default setting. In every sense that's meaningful, the Great Wheel has been changed into this thing we have now. It still contains everything the Great Wheel did, however, and more (for example, it also contains within it the Forgotten Realms cosmology). There is a world of D&D, and this is it. Of course, the "world" contains many worlds. The default setting is, and has always been, as much a setting as any other.
EvilVegan 10-01-07, 10:57 AM	Ready for a mega-post? If I didn't quote you I probably agree with what you said or don't disagree or don't care. Or you didn't respond to my last post to you and I've nothing new to add. I was all ready to complain that Glasya and Fierna are, in fact, devils and Kain never said otherwise, but then I saw this: and realised that you had since done some research and understood the point I made in the first place.Caught it just in time to look like a Total AssTM! :D I stand by my ass-ness. I wear it proudly. (:weep:) Is it really necessary to argument with ArcTan and EvilVegan? YOU MISSPELLED ARGUE! LOLNOOB!They just like to contradict what people say and monopolize the thread. Some ego thing, I guess.No we don't! [/tongue-in-cheek] Okay, let me point out that I do, in fact, like to debate things. I freely and openly admit it. That doesn't mean that I'm wrong. This whole thread is a collection of opinions combined with analysis of things about which few people have knowledge (market research for instance). In other words, why you gotta hate? We're all here to argue. I gather that you didn't notice that people were arguing back. Or is it just that you agreed with them and not with us? Say that then! No need to be all mean. . . though it is funny. If you took the time to read most of my comments (I'm very wordy, so I don't expect it) you'd notice that I often include agreements with the very people I am disagreeing with and I also will admit when I am wrong (sometimes). They are devils. What exactly are you talking about? Perhaps if you could quote the relevant passages I could forgive you, but as it stands I think we're off the same page.Wasn't even in the same book, let alone page. Please refer to my statement above. Are you referring to me mentioning you in a response to someone else? And you seem very touchy about insults for someone whose first interaction with me was to call me lazy. Still on the lazy bit? Didn't catch when I said it isn't bad to be lazy, I'm lazy, everyone wants to be lazy, and I wasn't insulting you? It was a joke man! You're a paragon of industriousness! I retract all manner of insult directed your way. And honestly by 'lazy' I humorously meant "seeking the easiest way to accomplish a goal". Efficient and lazy can be very similar if you stretch a little (well, a lot). If you set everything up in a way that prevents future work (efficiency) you can be lazy. Seeking laziness is good. Especially in game design. Reduced work to get something functional in a game enhances "fun". (sometimes) ymmv I'm not suggesting you committed some deadly sin here. I'm pointing out that you, at one point in this thread, were arguing something without actually knowing much about the subject material. You apologized and went to go read about it, that's good. It doesn't change the example that I was making to someone else...you were arguing about something without knowing about it, that person was also making the same general mistakes about the subject that showed they didn't know either. But instead of what you did (which was to go read up on the subject), they chose to argue about it. I'm not quite sure why you are upset about that though. You clearly aren't really apologizing and I doubt you'd like my forgiveness.I wasn't fully versed in the fictional/canonical aspects of the issue, no, but I knew enough about it to make the point that I made. The point had no bearing on the actual subject matter. It could have been any NPC in any setting with any change anywhere. The nature of their stories was completely irrelevant to the point I was making, hence I didn't need to read it to make the point. It would have avoided semantic debates over the nature of fiends, but I wasn't talking about the nature of fiends. I was discussing unique characters staying unique in their setting compared to changes to the general rules (that doesn't affect their setting). The fact that I knew very little specific info about these sexy devils didn't matter. I still think they're thematically advanced erinyes (through brachina channels), even if they aren't mechanically/semantically. Combining and wholly. But more to the point, you are wrong. I don't think that it removes the possibility to have unique creatures in the game. I think that when you eliminate a concept from the game that NPCs who were of that concept disappear. Demon succubi are gone from the game. Thus, demon succubi NPCs are gone too.Demon succubi are gone. Now they're devil succubi. They can still be chaotic evil. They can have every single quality that the demon succubi had before the change other than the word 'demon', which you can change. Demons are more like elemental/primal forces of destruction now. Devils can be a force of destruction, but a succubi still wants to drag your soul back to the underworld and still does exactly the same thing as before. So does an erinyes actually (requires a little "buffing" to get them up a CR, add a level of fighter hand them a bow, swap the social with the physical, viola!). If you have them in your world they do exactly what they did before. They aren't a separate entry in Core.If you'd removed humans from the game, I think Elminster and Mordenkainen would be gone. If you removed drow from the game, Drizzt and Jarlaxle would be gone. If you removed demons in their entirety from the game, Orcus and Demogorgon would be gone. If you remove Bar-lgura from the game, Ilsidahur would most likely be gone. I think this is just common sense.It isn't common sense. It's an extreme leap. First of all, combining monstrous manual entries in the Core does not negate the existence of anything in a Campaign Setting. Second of all they aren't removing anything. They changed the meaning of words to combine brachina/erinyes with succubi and gave succubi the ability to be different alignments and have personalities/abilities that exactly mimic brachina/erinyes. Ultimately it is merely a semantic change. If it saves a redundant entry in the MM to create space for a non-redundant one, good! I wouldn't mind if they removed the chromatic/metallic dragon archetypes either. I don't need color-coded dragons. I've not used aligned dragons or "always" alignments at all for years (thanks for ripping me off EBERRON!). I use colors to determine the element of their breath/resistances and that's about it. I doubt they'll be this extreme, but dragons see a bit more use and are a bit more iconic than succubi. The extreme opposite postion of your claim is that there should be one separate race for each NPC in a campaign setting. Waterdeepian vs Shadowdalan vs Sharnian, all humans with similar but minor differences from different settings would be included in core MM as a separate entry. The combination of ultimately redundant entries is not a bad thing. I hope they make a more distinct vengeance demon without the baggage of "advancing to be more like a succubi". I personally think the Erinyes is awesome. I think they were "muddied" and need a good cleaning. The archetype of seductress gets separated from them and (hopefully) we'll get a true vengeance fiend that isn't just a **** with a bow who "everybody" confuses for a succubi. Not 'everybody' everybody obviously, but apparantly enough different writers get them mixed up when writing "canon". I don't see why an advanced erinyes is "the equivalent of a succubus". They're a fiendish force of vengeance! Let's say DnD decides that they are tired of playing to racial stereotypes and that the black skinned elves no longer need to be monolithically evil, or even separate from normal elves. So they merge them, eliminating drow. How do you propose that such a change affects Drizzt? He's suddenly an elf or an anachronism. Either change plays havoc with his story and background.I would say this affects Drizzt absolutely none at all, since he's a character from a setting which contains drow. And . . . are you saying . . . Drizzt isn't an elf? :eek: Are there dark-skinned humans in forgotten realms? Are they still classified as "humans"? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.INCONCIEVABLE! I don't believe he is saying that at all. Considering that he's shown himself to be one of the more intelligent members of the opposition, I seriously doubt that he would have made such a big deal out of professing willful ignorance. However, I will allow him to speak for himself on what he meant before making any assumptions.While I did get confused for a second on the nature of Glasya and Feirna I'm not recalling the underlying point (restated above). Pardon my ignorance. I have never used a named devil or demon in any game, ever, and had forgotten most of the reading I did on the subject 10 years ago when I was playing Planescape. I did overreact. But only because it was focusing on the least important portion of my statement. And if they said 'succubi never existed as demons in the world of DnD", they'd probably have to retcon or eliminate Malcanthet. I'm not sure if you are being willfully obstinate on this point or simply don't get it. It seems fairly simple."world of DND"? You mean Greyhawk? I don't play in Greyhawk. 4E isn't set in Greyhawk. Malcanthet is still sitting on her throne on the 507th level of the Abyss of Greyhawk. Except like you stated earlier, this is now a generic default setting in which Malcanthet doesn't exist. Mordenkainen and Tiamat are both still part of the default setting until humans and chromatic dragons are removed from the default game. Even if in specific settings they don't exist or have an active role. Removing Malcanthet from the default setting is the same thing as removing her from the game. Once removed, she won't ever again appear in a supplement or adventure because there would be no point. If there are no demon succubi in the default DnD game, there is no reason to make a demon lady that is their queen. And certainly no need to mention her.I still see absolutely no reason Malcanthet doesn't work as a devil queen of the devil succubi. I mean other than "it says she's a DEMON!" I see no reason she doesn't work as "the first fallen angel to turn to sexual predation and evolve into a succubus" rather than "the first ?? to come into being as a succubus". (I don't know where demons specifically come from, as far as I know they're self-generated from random soul material, which isn't automatically cooler than a fallen force of good, different, but not "better") Tiamat is only around to save the party from Venger! Tiamat Ex Machina! Well i mean tossed as in nothing official will be done using the great wheel again ( unless they do as you described above. I kinda doubt they will). Anyway I see what you are saying and it does make sense. But I am not sure all the work involved in revamping the cosmology is really something that was needed. Time will tell. To me it does change DnD. I will just have to see if it is a change that I can use. I cant say I am impressed with what they have come up with so far however.I doubt they will either. :weep: Hopefully, there will be another company that picks up the marketting slack, but without adequate resources I feel the material would again be sub-par, if it happens at all. Though, with 30 years of material to work with though, I think I can do a pretty faithful conversion of anything I want at this point. In other words, to quote Homer Simpson, "they're the suckiest bunch of sucks that ever sucked"? ;)DOH!
sciborg2 10-01-07, 11:06 AM	I don't play in Greyhawk. 4E isn't set in Greyhawk. Malcanthet is still sitting on her throne on the 507th level of the Abyss of Greyhawk. You're conflating settings again. :) ps. I have to admit, you're very likable EvilVegan. :)
ripvanwormer 10-01-07, 11:21 AM	Demon succubi are gone. Now they're devil succubi. They can still be chaotic evil. They can have every single quality that the demon succubi had before the change other than the word 'demon' They don't dwell in the Abyss. They don't dwell in Malcanthet's layer of Shendilavri, or Socothbenoth's layer of Goranthis. Malcanthet isn't Demogorgon's consort anymore. They don't serve Graz'zt. Demons are more like elemental/primal forces of destruction now. I want demons who are interested in dragging your soul down to the underworld. I want demons who want to incite sin and vice in mortals, who want to whisper cruel enticements into your ear. "world of DND"? You mean [I]Greyhawk? I don't play in Greyhawk. 4E isn't set in Greyhawk. Malcanthet is still sitting on her throne on the 507th level of the Abyss of Greyhawk. No, you don't get it. These cosmological changes apply to every setting. The Forgotten Realms is getting the same changes. If Greyhawk is revived as a 4th edition setting (and it's listed among the 4th edition settings in the 4e forums, so this seems likely) they'll apply to Greyhawk as well. If Planescape is revived, it'll also apply to Planescape. In all of D&D, there's only one Abyss now. One cosmology to rule them all, Vegan. The D&D game has a coherent story all to itself, not dependent on any one particular world. Things like the story of Gith's rebellion, or the Reckoning in Hell, or the corruption of the drow - those aren't Greyhawk stories. They're D&D stories. I still see absolutely no reason Malcanthet doesn't work as a devil queen of the devil succubi. As a devil, she wouldn't be Demogorgon's consort. She wouldn't have spawned children with him, or have the mistress of Broken Reach as another daughter. She wouldn't be a rival of Graz'zt's, or an ally of Soccothbenoth's. She wouldn't have a layer under her control. She'd have to be a servant of one of the Lords of the Nine, not an independent lord in her own right. Most of the flavor associated with her would have to be dumped, and she wouldn't be Malcanthet anymore.
EvilVegan 10-01-07, 11:31 AM	Think of it more as some basic fact checking. [/nitpick + semantics] Conflating the Blood War, Planescape, and Greyhawk just screams "I don't know what I'm talking about but I'll talk anyway!"Ok. While you are still nitpicking, please show that the Blood War is not a feature of Planescape or Greyhawk. Then show that the cosmology of Greyhawk as it stands in the original PHB (or before) and Greyhawk campaign setting is not the basis of Planescape as it was in 2nd edition. I love knowing things, but all of my memory on the subject and everything I've tried reading to prove myself wrong shows that the Blood War is in Greyhawk. And since you aren't presenting anything other than pointless semantic issues, I have to continue with the level of information I have access to. I know for a fact that it isn't in Eberron (angels are up in the mix and it's just about battle), I'm relatively sure that Forgotten Realms has a different cosmology. Please show that I am wrong, rather than simply nitpicking without showing anything contrary. AND THEN SHOW HOW IT MATTERS TO MY POINT. I know what I'm talking about. Specifically, I'm talking about 4e and how changes made to generic settings don't affect separate canon settings. Everyone else is debating the nature of fiends in a specific setting, which I don't care to know about. My level of knowledge on the subject matter does not alter my point/argument in any way. My point is that 100% of all of the subject matter remains unchanged. It doesn't matter if I know 100% or 1% of the subject matter for my point, none of it is changing.
EvilVegan 10-01-07, 11:48 AM	They don't dwell in the Abyss. They don't dwell in Malcanthet's layer of Shendilavri, or Socothbenoth's layer of Goranthis. Malcanthet isn't Demogorgon's consort anymore. They don't serve Graz'zt. Sure they do. In Greyhawk. I want demons who are interested in dragging your soul down to the underworld. I want demons who want to incite sin and vice in mortals, who want to whisper cruel enticements into your ear.Play in Greyhawk. Also, the difference between what you're saying and the devils in 4e is almost null.No, you don't get it. These cosmological changes apply to every setting. The Forgotten Realms is getting the same changes. If Greyhawk is revived as a 4th edition setting (and it's listed among the 4th edition settings in the 4e forums, so this seems likely) they'll apply to Greyhawk as well. If Planescape is revived, it'll also apply to Planescape. In all of D&D, there's only one Abyss now. Please show this to be true.One cosmology to rule them all, Vegan.Cute. This hasn't been true in any previous edition, nor has it been claimed for this one (cite a reference please).The D&D game has a coherent story all to itself, not dependent on any one particular world. Things like the story of Gith's rebellion, or the Reckoning in Hell, or the corruption of the drow - those aren't Greyhawk stories. They're D&D stories.I'm sorry that you have yet to realize that there is no such thing as a D&D game with a story. There are worlds with stories and they don't necessarily interact. There are snippets of flavor in the core rules, most of it tied to Greyhawk, some of it tied to other worlds. It's all optional. Changing it is optional. Changing it back is optional. Unless you're claiming that me and the hundreds of thousands of homebrew players aren't 'playing D&D'. Which is fine. I'll add that to my list.As a devil, she wouldn't be Demogorgon's consort. She wouldn't have spawned children with him, or have the mistress of Broken Reach as another daughter. She wouldn't be a rival of Graz'zt's, or an ally of Soccothbenoth's. She wouldn't have a layer under her control. She'd have to be a servant of one of the Lords of the Nine, not an independent lord in her own right. Most of the flavor associated with her would have to be dumped, and she wouldn't be Malcanthet anymore.All of the above will remain true in Greyhawk. Also, nothing prevents a devil from breeding/consorting with a demon. At least, I imagine nothing will, since we're all just working off of conjecture. Nothing prevents this new/optional unique creature from a magazine article from keeping all of her new/optional flavor. Happy gaming!
Ornum 10-01-07, 12:11 PM	No, you don't get it. These cosmological changes apply to every setting. The Forgotten Realms is getting the same changes. If Greyhawk is revived as a 4th edition setting (and it's listed among the 4th edition settings in the 4e forums, so this seems likely) they'll apply to Greyhawk as well. If Planescape is revived, it'll also apply to Planescape. In all of D&D, there's only one Abyss now. Please show this to be true. Well, they've already said these changes would apply to the Realms. It's just logical for them to also apply to other settings, as well (with the possible exception of Eberron, which never had a cosmology that involved the Great Wheel). Why throw out a good deal of the old planar set-up and create a new one, only to ignore it in other settings? It seems counterproductive and a waste of time, to me. I'll freely admit that I don't know that they will make these changes across the board in the other settings, but because they haven't given any definite answers about the cosmologies of future settings, your statement is also not based on any real facts that have been presented. Until we know for sure, who knows what they will do? Of course, if they HAVE said something about it, I haven't seen it nor seen it presented as fact in any argument to date.
ArcTan 10-01-07, 12:12 PM	ArcTan, are you saying you're not a complainer? I'm a meta-complainer, which is different.
ripvanwormer 10-01-07, 12:16 PM	This hasn't been true in any previous edition, nor has it been claimed for this one (cite a reference please). http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=13926345#post13926345 - According to Rich Baker, each D&D world uses the same cosmology, but with different "astral dominions." However, some planes, like the Nine Hells, will appear in every world. In the Forgotten Realms (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13932726&postcount=554), for example. And this has been true in every previous edition, except the third. And the Great Wheel isn't "Greyhawk." It's never been tied exclusively to that world, not even in 3e (when there were lots of other worlds in the same cosmology). I'm sorry that you have yet to realize that there is no such thing as a D&D game with a story. I'm sorry that you have yet to realize that there is. There absolutely is, and that's always been true. The "snippets of lore" build upon each other to form a story. The D&D game isn't generic fantasy - it's D&D, full of specifically D&D things. It's all optional. Changing it is optional. Regardless of what we do in our campaigns, the changes will take place in every future product, in every campaign setting. That matters. It makes future products less useful to those who don't change along with them. Nothing prevents this new/optional unique creature from a magazine article from keeping all of her new/optional flavor. Reasons of practicality make it difficult/unlikely. Ok. While you are still nitpicking, please show that the Blood War is not a feature of Planescape or Greyhawk. Since the 3e Faerunian cosmology and even the Eberron cosmology contains the Blood War in it (in the form of the demons and devils eternally warring on Shavarath), it's not specifically a feature of Planescape or Greyhawk. The Blood War was first mentioned in 1991, while Planescape didn't appear until 1994. It was first mentioned in the Outer Planes Appendix, which was utterly generic. It wasn't Planescape or Greyhawk (it made references to both Oerth and Toril). It was D&D. Yes, the Blood War has been tied to Greyhawk (in Carl Sargent's various works). It shouldn't be conflated with Greyhawk, and neither should the assumed cosmology in which it takes place.
ArcTan 10-01-07, 12:20 PM	You're getting most of your information second hand, filtered through people you don't like very much. More to the point, you haven't played the game. I've played 2e AD&D, actually. (It's amazing how people assume based on my attitude about it that I must never have played D&D before 2000.) For the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't matter if you think they're "objectively good" or not. The criticisms of the Plane of Vacuum depend entirely on the hooks not existing at all. How so? We've already established that it's possible to create hooks about anything at all, whatsoever. It's possible to generate an infinitely long list of hooks for "This campaign takes place in my right sock". Sputtering, "Okay, maybe there are just as many hooks there as in any other minor plane... BUT THEY'RE NOT VERY GOOD!" reeks of desperation. You're just trying to save face. You've shifted from a very confident, very general statement (having fun on a plane of Vacuum is obviously ludicrous!) to a very nitpicky one (well, okay, the Doomguard are interesting, I'm going to ignore Sung Sing, and I don't know anything about vacuum quasielementals or spectral deaths, I'm going to ignore the possibility of ghost mephits... egarus are fungus, though! That's something I can probably mock somehow!) as you're confronted by inconvenient facts. I never said the Doomguard were "interesting". I said they were the most one-dimensional faction in Planescape, or among the most. I don't, in fact, think Sun Sing is interesting, and what's interesting about it certainly doesn't depend on the Quasielemental Plane of Vacuum. The point of the original charges levied by Chris Perkens, Skeptical, and yourself boil down to, "It's a bunch of empty space. What's fun about that?" Objectively, it has as much that's fun about it as a plane that's just a bunch of ash, or a bunch of salt, or any other substance. Right. Did you not notice my general critique that uniform, infinite planes of one substance are a generally lame idea, which is why the Elemental Tempest was probably created in the first place? Saying "the specific hooks associated with this plane aren't as powerful as the specific hooks associated with other planes" sounds more reasonable, but aren't the reason you originally decided to pick on the plane. Switching to that argument is disingenuous. One can invent hooks for anything. Plane of Teddy Bears, anyone? (And no, for all your "It's not the same!", it feels the same to me. In fact, I'd rather play in the Plane of Teddy Bears, at least for a laugh.) See, that's funny to me. Even if you did know what an egarus was - and you don't, not really - it's very easy to mock things. Okay, it's not easy to mock them well, but that's never been something you worried about. Whether you can chortle about something about something you don't really understand is not in question. It also isn't meaningful. "I don't like the idea of an Abyssal lifeform that feeds on nothingness" is a long ways from "combat with an egarus isn't as much fun as combat with most other creatures of its CR." We're arguing about flavor, not mechanics. If the element of "fun" we're now arguing about is the tactical challenge from killing something, you can usually reflavor the tactical challenge of killing whatever-it-is to something totally different without changing the mechanics of the fight. The point is whether the *idea* is dumb, not whether fighting it is dumb. Since fighting it can still happen even if you completely change the concept of what it is. <Laughs> Yeah, and I can read a Wikipedia entry about pretty much anything I choose. It doesn't mean I'm going to know what I'm talking about when I'm done. No, I'm not. But you do have to've played the games a few times, or watched the movie, or read the book. For our purposes here, you've done none of these things. We're talking about a gaming product in and of itself, here. From a DM's perspective, reading the book is watching the movie. The player's perspective is in a way irrelevant because they never interact with the tools directly -- they interact with what the DM builds from the tools. It's like asking people who live in a house to rate the tools used to build the house -- they don't know, because they don't know how much of the workmanship can be attributed to the quality of the tools used to make it and how much can be attributed to the builder's skill compensating for whatever qualities the tools lacked. This is why "I had a totally fun adventure with setting X!" is not a very good argument for why setting X is a good setting.
ArcTan 10-01-07, 12:20 PM	Reasons of practicality make it difficult/unlikely. A devilish Malcanthet would be very different from the demonic one. Only according to the outdated alignment-based definition of a "Devil".
ArcTan 10-01-07, 12:27 PM	Well, they've already said these changes would apply to the Realms. It's just logical for them to also apply to other settings, as well (with the possible exception of Eberron, which never had a cosmology that involved the Great Wheel). Eberron may have been the only one that explicitly resisted the 2e "Let's pile everything we can into the Wheel" frenzy, but that doesn't mean it's the only setting not-very-associated-with-the-Wheel. Planescape and similar supplements often shoved settings into the Wheel without their creators' permission, but I, for one, *never* thought of Athas or Krynn as being part of the Great Wheel multiverse, and a lot of Dark Sun and Dragonlance fans agree. Indeed, as another poster on these boards pointed out, Sovereign Press worked pretty hard to de-Great-Wheel-ify Dragonlance in 3e, and stuff like Lord Soth showing up in the Demiplane of Dread has been retconned out. I don't like the idea of a meta-setting at all. However, if we have to have one, one that makes it a lot more possible to say "And here's a little self-contained alternate universe floating in a bubble with NO CONNECTION to anything else" is better. Having the *possibility* that there could be two versions of the Abyss each floating in their own bubble and each connected to a different Prime world is better. Anything that reduces overlap by minimizing how much structure the world-between-the-worlds has and therefore reducing how much you have to assume about "the planes" when you write up a new Prime world is better. I'm not okay with Eberron being plugged into a meta-setting, but I'd rather it be plugged into this one than the Great Wheel, by far. I'd much rather have Fernia and Risia be particular floating bubbles in the Elemental Tempest that happen to be associated with Eberron than have them "really" be layers of Hades, or have Shavarath "really" be a region of Hades where the Blood War is being fought, or some other BS that allows berks from Sigil to wander around talking about how they know the dark of everything and you dumb primes don't.
ripvanwormer 10-01-07, 12:51 PM	I've played 2e AD&D, actually. That's not what I meant. You weren't criticizing 2e's rules, so that wouldn't be relevant (and I probably wouldn't disagree with any criticisms you might make). I mean you've never played in an adventure with the Quasielemental Plane of Vacuum in it. How so? Because if the Quasielemental Plane of Vacuum, as officially presented, has as many hooks as any other plane, then you're entire argument is just nit-picking - and, in fact, it's a different argument from the one you were initially making. You've essentially conceded the original argument. We've already established Hahaha, no we didn't. Your "plane of teddy bears" example just makes you look foolish. If you were capable of making an argument without using absurd hyperbole, you might someday learn to be a decent debater. I never said the Doomguard were "interesting". Okay - that was just an example, not intended to be a direct quote. I recommend you read the Doomguard netbook (http://www.deathstar.org/~krlipka/ps/people/npc/organization/Doomguard_Netbook.pdf), however. Ignore the mechanical parts. And you still don't really know anything about all the other elements you're dismissing. You simply don't have any business trying to argue about them. Right. Did you not notice my general critique that uniform, infinite planes of one substance are a generally lame idea No, I didn't, but if that's what you think, pointing out the Plane of Vacuum specifically - or trying to critique its individual elements - is even more disingenuous. We're arguing about flavor, not mechanics. Nonsense. We're talking about the egarus, which is a combination of both. Now you're really reaching. I think you know how disingenuous it is to make up rules like "Game mechanics don't count!" after the fact. About as much as saying, "Oh, okay, the Plane of Vacuum may be full of story hooks, but none of them count!" The point is whether the *idea* is dumb No, the point of it is whether or not it's fun in a game. This is why "I had a totally fun adventure with setting X!" is not a very good argument for why setting X is a good setting. It's the only relevant argument.
EvilVegan 10-01-07, 01:24 PM	http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=13926345#post13926345 - According to Rich Baker, each D&D world uses the same cosmology, but with different "astral dominions." However, some planes, like the Nine Hells, will appear in every world. In the Forgotten Realms (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13932726&postcount=554), for example. And this has been true in every previous edition, except the third. And the Great Wheel isn't "Greyhawk." It's never been tied exclusively to that world, not even in 3e (when there were lots of other worlds in the same cosmology). I'm sorry that you have yet to realize that there is. There absolutely is, and that's always been true. The "snippets of lore" build upon each other to form a story. The D&D game isn't generic fantasy - it's D&D, full of specifically D&D things. Regardless of what we do in our campaigns, the changes will take place in every future product, in every campaign setting. That matters. It makes future products less useful to those who don't change along with them. Reasons of practicality make it difficult/unlikely. K. Even one of the designers say I'm not playing D&D. Fantastic. I am. I'm aware of the astral dominions theory, or crystal spheres if you're a spelljammer fan. The Great Wheel hasn't been tied exclusively to Greyhawk, because as a metasetting one of it's qualities is "anything created for any campaign world anywhere automatically defaults to this planar set up". They even tried to tie Darksun into the cosmology (for no reason, but it really stretched the quality of the backstory). But the concepts for the great wheel from 1st edition, since the 70s, were designed by Gary Gygax for use in his world, Greyhawk. A good number of the demons/devils are presented in the books about Gord the Rogue, by Gary Gygax, set in Greyhawk. Even the fiendish codex refers to the history and interaction between Greyhawk and the Abyss. All of the major NPCs listed as interacting with any planar beings are Greyhawk NPCs, such as Zagyg, the summoner who trapped Graz'zt for a time, and his apprentice Iggwilv, who birthed some of his offspring. The planar set up of the 1st edition book was set up along alignment in a wheel structure. This was the default planar setting of the time because it was the default planar setting of the creator of the game who was playing in Greyhawk. Everything after that was a development/evolution of these concepts. Every writer after that who saught official sanction had to tie in his cosmology to the default cosmology. The default cosmology was derived from Greyhawk's. In other words, I'm saying that the game you're calling "D&D" is actually "D&D in Greyhawk" because everything based on these concepts is a bastard grandchild of Gary Gygax. Everyone since that time has been writing to fit the canon. The canon is based on Greyhawk. Since the 3e Faerunian cosmology and even the Eberron cosmology contains the Blood War in it (in the form of the demons and devils eternally warring on Shavarath), it's not specifically a feature of Planescape or Greyhawk. The Blood War was first mentioned in 1991, while Planescape didn't appear until 1994. It was first mentioned in the Outer Planes Appendix, which was utterly generic. It wasn't Planescape or Greyhawk (it made references to both Oerth and Toril). It was D&D. Yes, the Blood War has been tied to Greyhawk (in Carl Sargent's various works). It shouldn't be conflated with Greyhawk, and neither should the assumed cosmology in which it takes place.Thank you. I still want a book report from sciborg though. :D
EvilVegan 10-01-07, 01:34 PM	Just wanted to point out this from Rich Baker, which is what Rip was referencing: Well, I see that the D&D Insider fellas went and posted my cosmology article. We've all been knocking out little pieces like that for months as we find an hour or two to spare, and frankly I'd just about forgotten I wrote it. I'm really pleased to see that it's generated as much positive buzz as it has (and likewise with Chris Sims' article on demons and devils) -- especially after that whole succubus-erinyes imbroglio of a couple of weeks ago. Here's one of the really cool features of the new cosmology that isn't explicitly called out in the article: Each world has its own set of astral dominions. You can make up as many celestial courts or reeking hells as you need to support your pantheon. So, for example, just about all of the godly planes listed in Forgotten Realms "Great Tree" cosmology can fit right in, no shoehorning necessary. Customize your own pantheons, and you can create each outer plane you need. I think it's good if some planes appear in every world's cosmology (the Nine Hells spring to mind), but there's no reason they have to. The constraints imposed by the Great Wheel aren't tying our hands anymore (but if you really really like the Great Wheel, well, no reason you can't have each of those planes as the astral dominions for your own campaign). Oh, and regarding the Abyss: When I said thousands, I think I was thinking of Jupiter thousands. Jupiter's like 80,000 miles across and 300 times the size of the Earth. The Abyss is big like that. Thanks for agreeing with everything we've said Rich! A meta-setting that isn't an arbitrary wheel shape. A meta-setting that doesn't automatically force all planes to be connected to every other plane.
Terraneaux 10-01-07, 01:49 PM	If the designers went ahead and said "okay, we're not using the great wheel as the default setting for 4th because that's not the style we're looking for" that would be fine. Instead it seems that they are going ahead and saying that the great wheel never really existed, and are putting greyhawk and forgotten realms into a situation where more odious retcons have to take place for the system to make sense. If they wanted to do more settings like Eberron that weren't within the great wheel cosmology, fine. Eberron has its own unique cosmology that fits very well with the world. But to me planescape and greyhawk are very much intertwined and I can't really see a good reason to try to seperate the two.
EvilVegan 10-01-07, 02:10 PM	More Rich Baker Quotes (thanks for the link rip!) 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. One quick point of clarification I'd like to make... Don't assume that we're going to apply the 'Points of Light' conceit to existing campaign worlds. I think Realms and Eberron would prosper if they got just a little more points-of-lightish, but we're not going to overthrow worlds with that much breadth and history.Wow Rich, thanks for further backing up our claims!
Adrez Nesnsid 10-01-07, 02:30 PM	This is exactly what I wanted to happen when I heard about a new edition -- dumping old sacred cows and rearranging the existing flavor so it makes more sense. But the "Sacred Cows" as you call them are, at this point, the only thing which distinguishes 3.0 and 3.5 as being "Dungeons and Dragons" and not "Some Random Generic Fantasy Role-Playing Game". If they get rid of the stuff that distinguishes Dungeons and Dragons as Dungeons and Dragons, you might as well just play GURPS instead, and if 4e is going to be anything like it looks like its going to be, that's probably what I'm going to do. To h!ell with 4e
HamHam 10-01-07, 02:41 PM	By the way you're talking it seems that a book with extremely racist pictures and commentary wouldn't have any racist material in it as long as it had one and only one racist picture and commentary for each race so that it "balanced out". It would not be racist. If you took some material out of context, it might become racist because it was out of context. But the book itself would not be. Silly? I think it would be fair to draw a masculine version of the one demon for whom sexuality is it's driving focus. Nymphs and dryads are always female and they represent various feminine aspects of nature. Succubi are not always female and they are distinctly tied to the nature of sex and sexuality. It makes less sense to draw a female only. But then, you would have to have two pictures for every monster that could be either male or female. There is no logical reason to single-out Succubi when you have Centaurs, Angels, and many others with only male pictures; Medusas, Werewolves, Half-fiends, and others only get female pictures. But it also shows that men are capable of rising to power without using thier bodies. Okay? The Trumpet Archon pic in the MM is female. I'm going to assume that Trumpet Archons don't use sex to gain power. It follows that the MM shows that women are capable of rising to power without using their bodies. I claimed that fiction in general and fantasy specifically tends to have every woman be attractive / available. But this isn't sexist. So I don't see what it has to do with this discussion.
sciborg2 10-01-07, 03:06 PM	what is 'Points of Light'?
EvilVegan 10-01-07, 03:14 PM	what is 'Points of Light'? I think it has to do with getting starting quests outside of Stormwind castle. No! ... It's a new model of campaign world building, where the cities are "points of light" in otherwise dangerous worlds. Eberron and the Realms don't fit this model because there is relatively safe travel between different cities. But a generic realm would be "dark with points of light" representing safe areas between long stretches of unsafe areas. The result is that most cities don't interact to closely with each other. There are exceptions and varying degrees of light (large cities would have a larger radius of safety around them), but its just a model. Personally I think it does help design a campaign world (for noobs), but I don't use it. In my campaign there is a very tightly ran empire where it's completely safe to travel hundreds of miles (aside from the skimmed over check points along roads). There is also a wild plain over-run by feral beings and savage tribes. So you've always got the "protect the caravan" line of quests available and "nobody's heard from X for a while" and "Timmy fell down the well." Not really all that important, but they seem to like tooting their horns about it. Time will tell what it does to game play. New ad campaign idea: "4e - D&D for noobs."
Weenie 10-01-07, 03:51 PM	Regardless of what we do in our campaigns, the changes will take place in every future product, in every campaign setting. That matters. It makes future products less useful to those who don't change along with them. *shrug* You worry too much. I find current products only marginally useful for a planar campaign anyway. See under Demonweb Pits, Expedition to the. Personally I think it does help design a campaign world (for noobs), but I don't use it. New ad campaign idea: "4e - D&D for noobs." There should be an RPG equivalent of Godwin's law, only with "noobs" instead of "Hitler".
EvilVegan 10-01-07, 03:57 PM	*shrug* You worry too much. I find current products only marginally useful for a planar campaign anyway. See under Demonweb Pits, Expedition to the. There should be an RPG equivalent of Godwin's law, only with "noobs" instead of "Hitler". I think your post indirectly falls under Godwin's law itself, simply by comparing my comparison with a comparison to comparisons involving Hitler. Interesting. They've fully admitted that the changes to 4e are to streamline the game to attract new players. The old players can adjust, they're smart.
Weenie 10-01-07, 04:10 PM	I think your post indirectly falls under Godwin's law itself, simply by comparing my comparison with a comparison to comparisons involving Hitler. Interesting. You got me there. My point still stands, though. As soon as I read that something is being referred to as "for n00bs", I tend to tune out. They've fully admitted that the changes to 4e are to streamline the game to attract new players. The old players can adjust, they're smart. Yeah, that's been the reasoning behind a number of changes already made in 3e. Remember how they justified renaming an ogre mage by saying that "Sythillisia" sounded kind of like "syphilis"? It's not the premise that's questionable, it's the execution.
EvilVegan 10-01-07, 04:16 PM	You got me there. My point still stands, though. As soon as I read that something is being referred to as "for n00bs", I tend to tune out.The best part of this is, I'm a protaganist in this 4e discussion. I wasn't using the term condescendingly. Some people have good reason to be noobs. Namely, they're new. The insult comes in to it in video games when you're playing against/with someone who should be better and is functioning like a noob. But yes. I should not use words that could be construed in badness.
ripvanwormer 10-01-07, 05:02 PM	Eberron has its own unique cosmology that fits very well with the world. In 3e, it does. In 4e, probably not so much. They've said explicitly they're going to make some changes to it. See this post (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13890192&postcount=162): "One of the driving conceits of the setting has been, "If it exists in D&D, it's in Eberron," and since D&D is changing, Eberron will change . . . to some extent." Oh, some of the planes will stay. But if the Elemental Plane of Fire is unplayably boring, so is Fernia. If the Elemental Plane of Air is useless, so is Syrania. I assume all the planes that resemble elemental planes will be folded into the Elemental Chaos with Kythri.
ripvanwormer 10-01-07, 05:29 PM	I'm aware of the astral dominions theory, or crystal spheres if you're a spelljammer fan. Not the same thing. Astral dominions are what used to be called outer planes. Crystal spheres are the way the Material Plane is divided up. They even tried to tie Darksun into the cosmology (for no reason, but it really stretched the quality of the backstory). Early DS books like Dragon Kings and Black Spine assumed that Athas existed in the same cosmology described in the 1st edition Manual of the Planes and that there was no particular problem with accessing the planes. Later on they introduced setting-specific planes like the Black and the unique para-elemental planes, and turned the Gray into a restrictive boundary, but those didn't exist when the setting first began. Planescape kept the ties with the Great Wheel, but respected the Gray as a serious barrier - this is more than the early DS supplements did. But the concepts for the great wheel from 1st edition, since the 70s, were designed by Gary Gygax for use in his world, Greyhawk. They were designed by Gary Gygax, but your statement is misleading. When Gygax designed the Great Wheel, the only part of Greyhawk that existed was a few dungeons and a city. He didn't design it for Greyhawk - he designed it for D&D. Greyhawk was designed to fit D&D, not the other way around. The Forgotten Realms was also designed to fit D&D. Ed Greenwood selected the deities he did in order that they would fit into the wheel, with no more than one deity per planar layer, and at least one god for each of the 17 planes. Ed Greenwood designed his world to provide a place for quirky, specifically D&D things like paladins, cavaliers, drow, and trolls. He had begun designing his world before he knew what D&D was, but it was still fuzzy and nebulous then. At the same time he was expanding his setting, he spent hundreds of hours designing Great Wheel planes like the Nine Hells and Limbo, and as a result grew quite fond of them. Faerun evolved to fit D&D, and was designed to fit the Great Wheel. All of the major NPCs listed as interacting with any planar beings are Greyhawk NPCs, such as Zagyg Gareth Dragonsbane is a Forgotten Realms character, as are everyone in his party - they fought just about every demon lord in the Abyss, and they went to Mount Celestia and Baator as well. Graz'zt is intimately tied with Waukeen, and it was a group of FR characters who rescued her from Graz'zt's clutches. The protagonists of Finder's Bane and Tymora's Luck - Joel the Rebel Bard, et al - are almost all Forgotten Realms characters (and one kender), and they travel to places like Gehenna, Sigil, and Arborea. Drizzt and his friends have been to Carceri and fought demodands there. Finder Wyvernspur was imprisoned for centuries on a tower in the Quasielemental Plane of Mineral, and wielded a shard from the Paraelemental Plane of Ice as a weapon. The Ar-Magus Ilviroon of Netheril summoned the slaad lord Bazim-Gorag from Limbo and imprisoned him in a tower. The reigning Nentyarch of Narfell summoned the demon prince Eltab, and Eltab was imprisoned by the Witches of Rasheman after being wounded by the warrior Yvengi. Halaster Blackcloak and Elminster have been to Hell. And all the adventures in OP1 Tales of the Outer Planes are tied to the Forgotten Realms through the World Serpent Inn, which is accessed through Arabel. There are lots of other examples. It might seem like Greyhawk NPCs get all the glory in FC1, but that's only because Erik Mona and James Jacobs are huge Greyhawk fans. Forgotten Realms characters have interacted with the planes and planar beings just as much, if not more. That's not to mention all the hundreds of generic and Planescape NPCs that interact with planar beings! Regalid Maethos, Fallendor, Rhys, Shekelor, and all the others! I can't count them all. Well, I probably could, but I won't just this moment. At least one Dark Sun NPC has wandered the Outer Planes as well (as well as the PCs in Black Spine).
Soel Griffin 10-01-07, 07:47 PM	That answer is the same for just about everything in the game. I was referring to a tangent point that Rip was trying to make. What I'm trying to say is, even if its gone "officially" nothing stops you from featuring it in your own game. You (dm) can make it work.
Yadot 10-01-07, 09:30 PM	In 3e, it does. In 4e, probably not so much. They've said explicitly they're going to make some changes to it. See this post: "One of the driving conceits of the setting has been, "If it exists in D&D, it's in Eberron," and since D&D is changing, Eberron will change . . . to some extent." Not so. This is a rather annoyingly common mistake about Eberron. "If it exists in D&D, it has a place in Eberron" would be better. If you want the City of Brass in Eberron, there's room for it, but it's not there automatically.
ArcTan 10-01-07, 10:12 PM	But the "Sacred Cows" as you call them are, at this point, the only thing which distinguishes 3.0 and 3.5 as being "Dungeons and Dragons" and not "Some Random Generic Fantasy Role-Playing Game". Which is important why? If they get rid of the stuff that distinguishes Dungeons and Dragons as Dungeons and Dragons, you might as well just play GURPS instead, and if 4e is going to be anything like it looks like its going to be, that's probably what I'm going to do. To h!ell with 4e You can say "hell" on the forums. And the main reason I play D&D and not GURPS is that D&D is better marketed and has had more penetration so it's easier to find players who own the relevant books. That is and always has been the one non-negotiable advantage D&D has over its competitors. It's like using Windows. Other than that, the main *important* differences between D&D and GURPS involve D&D having a system that makes it easier to create characters with balanced abilities thanks to classes abstracting away some of the control you have with a purely points-based and skills-based character creation system. Also the combat system is in many ways easier to resolve. That's what *matters* for me, not this crap about how D&D has Vecna in it and GURPS doesn't (as though it would be all that difficult to use GURPS fantasy rules to run things in a D&D setting).
sciborg2 10-01-07, 10:18 PM	Wait....ArcTan, if that's all you care about why are you on the Deities and Planes board?
sciborg2 10-01-07, 10:29 PM	They've fully admitted that the changes to 4e are to streamline the game to attract new players. I can understand that. I can understand leaving the cosmology more open ended, and I actually love the Astral Sea. What bothers me is this garbage about demons and devils being badly designed when FCI is barely a year old and FCII isn't even that. $60 about two races now being reworked? That's obnoxious, and beyond that insulting to the years of published and homebrew that did a lot to distinguish the two races. The Plane of Vacuum comment is just a smaller part of this general attempt to make the old seemed unusable/unplayable when in reality these ideas have been used and been a defining part of D&D cosmology for decades. Either don't mention it or show just a little respect.
goldomark 10-02-07, 03:07 AM	I asked the question on another thread but I will ask it here again. ArcTan, if so much stuff is stupid and complicate and crappy, why do you play DnD? Really, I want to know. What do you like of the game and why? Great Wheel or outside of it.
ArcTan 10-02-07, 03:18 AM	*shrug* I like Eberron. I like the vestiges in Tome of Magic. I like the overall concept of the factions from Planescape. I like a lot of things. Mainly what I don't like is the legacy stuff -- the stuff that's been around for decades and serves no real purpose but to limit what new stuff can be come up with. I like the *idea* of deities and I like the *idea* of planes -- but I don't like a dogmatic insistence on making all deities and all planes fit into a certain box. Deities & Demigods was one of my least favorite 3.5 books, along with Planar Handbook.
goldomark 10-02-07, 03:35 AM	Well, there is no need to make any reference to old PS info. Just because some people do, doesn't meen you have to. Its your game, your imagination. No need to shrug, young man. By the Nine Hells, this sounds so paternalist :rolleyes: . God I'm getting old.
ArcTan 10-02-07, 03:42 AM	Well, sure, yes. But I can express my opinion on what gaming products I find useful and enjoy more, and wish they would publish more of, and which ones I find useless and annoying, and won't waste my money on again. Seriously, the fact that a *lot* of supplement books have text in them that's basically dead weight for me is a major factor that makes me much more reluctant to purchase new ones. If the people yelling about how WotC can't expect any of their money if they throw out all the wonderful Great Wheel stuff can have a say, I can have a say about how WotC can expect *more* of my money if they fill less page space with legacy material.
BOZ 10-02-07, 08:02 AM	Mainly what I don't like is the legacy stuff -- the stuff that's been around for decades and serves no real purpose but to limit what new stuff can be come up with. that's pretty bad design, if that's its only purpose. never looked at it that way!
Adrez Nesnsid 10-02-07, 02:14 PM	You can say "hell" on the forums. That was a typo.
VedicDragon 10-02-07, 04:52 PM	*shrugs* It's a bit of a change. Quite a bit, actually. I'm *not* a fan of the whole "succubus is a devil/no more erinyes", but the rest I'll probably ignore or use as simply yet another myth. I actually do like the bit about the gelugons (provided that they are entrapped 'loths and in no way demonic). Actually, I'm trying to be as positive as possible here. My initial reaction is lead a mob screaming for the death of the monster that is 4e, complete with torches and pitchforks. If this is the sort of thing that I can expect from the new edition, I'll stay firmly entrenched in 3.5 until I can no longer find a game, then simply be forced to stop playing the game I used to love. LOL Was wondering when this discussion would come up. First off, yes, I am with you Ornum. Let me know when the petition comes up. Ironically enough the problem inherent lies within the fact that most people really don't mind mechanics changes, as by and large those are improvements and or embellishments on existing expanded rules. "Players Option: Combat & Tactics & Player's Option: Skills and Powers" back in 2nd edition are clearly the evolutionary trilobyte that grew into the d20 ruleset. I never had -that- much of a problem with 3rd edition mechanics, save for the willy-nilly asinine retcons and cease of product support to some of the nearest and dearest delights of mine. I used to lead the mob against retcon and other such garbage when it would become obtrusively contradictory and made little to no sense. Hence, I have to admit to surpressing a rueful chuckle to see the same sentiments echoed in the 3.5 to 4 debates cropping up. Having seen this happen once, not too long ago, with both Elahdrin and Guardinals being retconned to hell, both in powers and background, I found myself nauseated by the whole affair, top to bottom. At the risk of sounding unpopular, allow me to demonstrate the futility of the tirade/debate/argument/protest strategem with the following points of insight. These are admittedly heavily biased, but nevertheless I found have helped me cope greatly with the demise of 2nd Edition. 1.) Change is not necessarily bad or good. However, change without temperance, for no other reason save to make something "new" bears little respect to the product in question, nor the fanbase who purchases. Wizards made quite a few goofs back in the day. Moreso after Hasbro took over. For the last few years, with some noteable exceptions, it seemed the quality kept spiralling downwards and the prices kept raising up.... a pattern ensues. The exceptions are wonderful little pieces to my library. But the fact remains they are qualified by just that word: Exceptions. 2.) Boycotts/Protests/Debates are ultimately futile save for the sheer joy of intellectual discourse. That being said, civility and respect for others' opinions are rare commodities on ANY discussion forum, let alone this one. This is why they have mods. Now, far be it from me to cry wolf, but I have yet to see a debate on this board, ANY debate, ever that did not entail someone being overly snide or snarky. Moreover, Wizards officials may peruse these boards for ideas or feedback on occassion, but the end result is Hasbro is in this thing to make MONEY. The new edition lasted less than a decade. And that's INCLUDING the 3.5 revision. IT is simply inconceivable that there is -that- much that needs dumbing down for the american public, unless catering to the lowest intellectual common denominator. I thought d20 pandered quite a bit. 3. Have fun. Play your version, but recognize there are always going to be others drooling at the chops for whatever Wizards squeezes out between two covers. Boycotts or debates will not change this. Love the game, love your group, and they will help you see this through. This wasn't directed at anyone in particular, but is simply a general overture on the topic. Regards.
sciborg2 10-02-07, 05:38 PM	All excellent points Vedic Dragon. But I think that one can't help but argue, if only to let off some steam about changes or people complaining about changes or people complaining about people complaining...
Weenie 10-02-07, 06:44 PM	The Plane of Vacuum comment is just a smaller part of this general attempt to make the old seemed unusable/unplayable when in reality these ideas have been used and been a defining part of D&D cosmology for decades. Either don't mention it or show just a little respect. Exactly, and that's my only real problem with these new changes. But this kind of derogatory justification is not new, it was first seen in the infamous ("oh come on, modrons are just silly") decision to make formians the new modrons ("now bugs, bugs are cool. kids love playing with bugs.") But I say again, the new planar setup looks sharp so far. It should be fun to play around with. Like bugs.
pratputajao 10-02-07, 07:46 PM	LOL Was wondering when this discussion would come up. First off, yes, I am with you Ornum. Let me know when the petition comes up. Ironically enough the problem inherent lies within the fact that most people really don't mind mechanics changes, as by and large those are improvements and or embellishments on existing expanded rules. "Players Option: Combat & Tactics & Player's Option: Skills and Powers" back in 2nd edition are clearly the evolutionary trilobyte that grew into the d20 ruleset. I never had -that- much of a problem with 3rd edition mechanics, save for the willy-nilly asinine retcons and cease of product support to some of the nearest and dearest delights of mine. I used to lead the mob against retcon and other such garbage when it would become obtrusively contradictory and made little to no sense. Hence, I have to admit to surpressing a rueful chuckle to see the same sentiments echoed in the 3.5 to 4 debates cropping up. Having seen this happen once, not too long ago, with both Elahdrin and Guardinals being retconned to hell, both in powers and background, I found myself nauseated by the whole affair, top to bottom. At the risk of sounding unpopular, allow me to demonstrate the futility of the tirade/debate/argument/protest strategem with the following points of insight. These are admittedly heavily biased, but nevertheless I found have helped me cope greatly with the demise of 2nd Edition. 1.) Change is not necessarily bad or good. However, change without temperance, for no other reason save to make something "new" bears little respect to the product in question, nor the fanbase who purchases. Wizards made quite a few goofs back in the day. Moreso after Hasbro took over. For the last few years, with some noteable exceptions, it seemed the quality kept spiralling downwards and the prices kept raising up.... a pattern ensues. The exceptions are wonderful little pieces to my library. But the fact remains they are qualified by just that word: Exceptions. 2.) Boycotts/Protests/Debates are ultimately futile save for the sheer joy of intellectual discourse. That being said, civility and respect for others' opinions are rare commodities on ANY discussion forum, let alone this one. This is why they have mods. Now, far be it from me to cry wolf, but I have yet to see a debate on this board, ANY debate, ever that did not entail someone being overly snide or snarky. Moreover, Wizards officials may peruse these boards for ideas or feedback on occassion, but the end result is Hasbro is in this thing to make MONEY. The new edition lasted less than a decade. And that's INCLUDING the 3.5 revision. IT is simply inconceivable that there is -that- much that needs dumbing down for the american public, unless catering to the lowest intellectual common denominator. I thought d20 pandered quite a bit. 3. Have fun. Play your version, but recognize there are always going to be others drooling at the chops for whatever Wizards squeezes out between two covers. Boycotts or debates will not change this. Love the game, love your group, and they will help you see this through. This wasn't directed at anyone in particular, but is simply a general overture on the topic. Regards. Ahmen brother. You just crystilized my thoughts reguarding this whole Issue/debate ( thats why I really didnt pursue it much further). This is how it is, its about the marketplace. The powers that be dont care much about our Ideas...unless ofcourse it may make them money. Also your Sig is great. What ADnD has become is quite far from where it started. good stuff
ArcTan 10-02-07, 09:45 PM	Exactly, and that's my only real problem with these new changes. But this kind of derogatory justification is not new, it was first seen in the infamous ("oh come on, modrons are just silly") decision to make formians the new modrons ("now bugs, bugs are cool. kids love playing with bugs.") It's not that Modrons are silly, it's that Modron civilization is set up in a highly restrictive, all-encompassing structure that makes it really hard to adapt them for different purposes (which, I suppose, makes sense if you're going for some abstract devotion to "Lawfulness" rather than making something fun to use in a game). The existence of both Formians and Inevitables was intended to have LN Outsiders who you could actually have cropping up in games for meaningful reasons (expansionism, enforcing laws) rather than having people who never have any reason to leave Regulus except one that -- paradoxically -- is illogical and unpredictable (the Great Modron March).
Weenie 10-03-07, 06:55 AM	It's not that Modrons are silly, it's that Modron civilization is set up in a highly restrictive, all-encompassing structure that makes it really hard to adapt them for different purposes (which, I suppose, makes sense if you're going for some abstract devotion to "Lawfulness" rather than making something fun to use in a game). I'm talking about what has been said, not what may have (sort of but not really) been implied. The straight quote, IIRC, was "we thought that modrons were kind of silly". But feel free to reverse-engineer that all you want. It's similar to the recent "we figured Vacuum's empty, right, so let's ditch the whole lot" school of thought. Change is good. Change for all the wrong reasons is... considerably less so. Just for the record, making creatures "easy to adapt for different purposes" and "fun to use in a game" should not equate to making them stereotypically evil and mindlessly aggressive. But that's beside the point.
sciborg2 10-03-07, 09:15 AM	Yeah, Baker saying that no one went to the elemental planes so it's okay to retcon them into oblivion is just more of the general obnoxious disregard for past planar work we've been seeing, though that's with regard to the Realms which will soon be facing the SpellPlague (aka new terrible idea to justify some wizard death). The new devil/demon concept is far harder to adapt into anything, especially because it's something you could come up with in about ten minutes - devil = tempter and demon = RAWRRRRRR!!! The new place of the Abyss in the Tempest is interesting however, and the Astral sea is how I always so the "Wheel" though I can see how others found the Great Wheel restrictive.
VedicDragon 10-03-07, 10:47 AM	---Quote (Originally by VedicDragon)--- LOL Was wondering when this discussion would come up. First off, yes, I am with you Ornum. Let me know when the petition comes up. Ironically enough the problem inherent lies within the fact that most people really don't mind mechanics changes, as by and large those are improvements and or embellishments on existing expanded rules. "Players Option: Combat & Tactics & Player's Option: Skills and Powers" back in 2nd edition are clearly the evolutionary trilobyte that grew into the d20 ruleset. I never had -that- much of a problem with 3rd edition mechanics, save for the willy-nilly asinine retcons and cease of product support to some of the nearest and dearest delights of mine. I used to lead the mob against retcon and other such garbage when it would become obtrusively contradictory and made little to no sense. Hence, I have to admit to surpressing a rueful chuckle to see the same sentiments echoed in the 3.5 to 4 debates cropping up. Having seen this happen once, not too long ago, with both Elahdrin and Guardinals being retconned to hell, both in powers and background, I found myself nauseated by the whole affair, top to bottom. At the risk of sounding unpopular, allow me to demonstrate the futility of the tirade/debate/argument/protest strategem with the following points of insight. These are admittedly heavily biased, but nevertheless I found have helped me cope greatly with the demise of 2nd Edition. 1.) Change is not necessarily bad or good. However, change without temperance, for no other reason save to make something "new" bears little respect to the product in question, nor the fanbase who purchases. Wizards made quite a few goofs back in the day. Moreso after Hasbro took over. For the last few years, with some noteable exceptions, it seemed the quality kept spiralling downwards and the prices kept raising up.... a pattern ensues. The exceptions are wonderful little pieces to my library. But the fact remains they are qualified by just that word: Exceptions. 2.) Boycotts/Protests/Debates are ultimately futile save for the sheer joy of intellectual discourse. That being said, civility and respect for others' opinions are rare commodities on ANY discussion forum, let alone this one. This is why they have mods. Now, far be it from me to cry wolf, but I have yet to see a debate on this board, ANY debate, ever that did not entail someone being overly snide or snarky. Moreover, Wizards officials may peruse these boards for ideas or feedback on occassion, but the end result is Hasbro is in this thing to make MONEY. The new edition lasted less than a decade. And that's INCLUDING the 3.5 revision. IT is simply inconceivable that there is -that- much that needs dumbing down for the american public, unless catering to the lowest intellectual common denominator. I thought d20 pandered quite a bit. 3. Have fun. Play your version, but recognize there are always going to be others drooling at the chops for whatever Wizards squeezes out between two covers. Boycotts or debates will not change this. Love the game, love your group, and they will help you see this through. This wasn't directed at anyone in particular, but is simply a general overture on the topic. Ahmen brother. You just crystilized my thoughts reguarding this whole Issue/debate ( thats why I really didnt pursue it much further). This is how it is, its about the marketplace. The powers that be dont care much about our Ideas...unless ofcourse it may make them money. Also your Sig is great. What ADnD has become is quite far from where it started. good stuff Thanks for the support. And yes, sciborg, believe you me, well am I versed in the need to vent and rant and tear one's hair out and scream over the latest insanity trickling down the pipeline to drizzle in messy yellow stains down the collective foreheads of we, the long suffering and derangedly loyal consumers of whatever fish-headed tripe Wizards will foist off on us next. :D I was thinking about this more and came up with a few other points of interest that, in light of the other subtopics/agendas on this thread, I'd like to address as well. so I continue with . . . 4.) There are always going to be people that embrace the change, scream for change, approach it like a watery oasis in a parched desert. Try not to be insulted by them, no matter how outlandish their perspective might seem to you, for either they never grasped the nuances and subtleties of what you loved about Setting X, or subrace Y, or they comprehended but never really appreciated it in the first place. Agree to disagree. And when not in agreement, let them have their little jig. It may sound paternal and downright snooty, but honestly few can match the power of imagination exponentially factored by motivation, multiplied by multiple participants. You can always grab some friends and write it yourself, which becomes the be-all end-all exhaustive and time consuming answer that most end up relying on. I used to be far more skeptical of that as a solution, until having actually looked and SEEN what OGL has done for the creative atmosphere of the gaming community when it comes to D&D. Exhaustive and unprofitable ventures which would take years to collate and revise (Great Tome of Kits and Classes, Tome of Blades, Book of Races, Blue Troll’s Netbooks, anyone?) have now become privately owned ventures in bona-fide publication, and volunteer Not for profit ventures are on the rise everywhere as well. Heck, one can look at Rip Van Wormer (sp?), Shemeska’s and various other contributors across the board and see the massive input that fans have had on the settings. Take for example the Kargatane website in 2nd edition and then the massive impact they had, when many of those members were hired on with White Wolf and Sword & Sorcery press to do up Ravenloft d20! Again, just one of many examples how fan-created work can change things grealy. I myself, from other posts I have had over the years, was trying to map out a Mahasharpa-esque but religiously sound Vedic Indian campaign setting based on the historical, mythological and fantasy stories of my own culture, that could dovetail nicely with the Kara Turian setting and Oriental Adventures rules. That being said, it’s been put on hold (so that I can pursue other concerns, like shooting a Star Wars fanfilm) but the point, obnoxious though it may seem, is valid, that original and personalized work is twice as rewarding that anything Wizards will put out. To be a good DM one kinda has to be a good storyteller, director, producer and administrator. All things that groom one for writing their own supplements. Heck, at the time, I was trying to put together a design team of amateur writers for neglected “nooks” of the D&D multiverse . . . Hrmm. More on that in a separate thread. 5.) This is for you “youngsters” and retcon hippies (just kidding, calm down!) :-) . If you want to be heard in forum of peers where people are having the sacred cows of their hobby being turned on their head, it generally helps not to insult or incite the locals, as it were. Now, you may see them/us as fossils holding back progress (I know I felt the same way at a certain LARP when the “status quo” was throwing their weight around and doing a lot of chest-thumping “I’ve been here, playing this game for blah blah blah number of years”). Consider perhaps that there are some that LIKED the old way things were, and for them, change for its own sake is a gross mistake. For instance, don’t get me wrong, I LIKE Inevitables. I think they are the shizzy, and yes I believe Modrons were a little silly for a plane based entirely on clockwork precision of Lawful Neutrality. HOWEVER, I am sure there are a host of people out there who found that a travesty and were horrified that this could not be dealt with internally, with previously as-of-now unforeseen new models in Modron caste-structure. Formians puzzled but amused me. Bugs are very organized (and would squish and crunch so satisfyingly when attacked by Slaadi)! Consider this as an allegory/metaphor: I am a new Sci-fi buff. I LOVE the new versions of Battlestar Galactica, Dr. Who and Flash Gordon. However, many (including my GF’s Dad) are fans of the –old- versions of those series’. Now, I may think that in some cases the originals were hokey, outdated and may be thoroughly enthused to have the new versions along to enjoy, but I generally am respectful to the old-guarders whose hobbies have essentially been shat on to make the new versions. It’s called salting the wound. Don’t do it. And when someone from said old guard has a problem or just wants to complain about some of the new changes, attacking their viewpoint with appellations like “silly” just invites this to become center-stage for a flame war, and then NOBODY communicates, everyone just states their views with rebuttals and japes, if that. 6.) Modern Day Messageboards are HIVES for flamewars and kvetching circles as it is. . . . Ancient Romans had a Vomitorium for a reason. It may behoove some who are getting frustrated with response and counter-response to go, cool off, take in a movie, that sort of thing. Come back to a debate with a cool head and you may find that the results are enlightening. Heck, I took a month before deciding to come back to these boards, as it were, after hearing about 4th Edition. Many of my friends have said they would not pick it up. But then, these are the same who were supposedly in the same camp as I when they spoke of playing 2nd edition forever. Eventually I know they will succumb to this inevitability. 2nd Edition had plenty of books too, and we COULD have conceivably played it forever. Heck, I avoided d20 til 3.5 . . . and I guess that’s really the point. To those frustrated with 4th because it’s not 3.5 d20, relax. There are PLENTY of resources for you to continue with d20 at this point for the next decade or so. Do what I did with 3rd, cannibalize new supplements for plot and story and continue to write your own adventures .Wait and see what happens. Like Windows Vista, I think I’ll look at 4th and then wait for all the patches and upgrades. 7.) More on Writing- If you find you’ve applied #4 and still not satisfied with the impact . . heck. Apply for the job. You know the one I’m talking about. Yeah. Apply for it. There’ll be some stiff competition, but if you’re motivated and talented enough, I am sure you’ll succeed. And then, ahh even in a position of influence, you will still have to bow to the inevitable. 8.) Old timers, Remember! You can ALWAYS say “no”. So wait before exercising that right. Give the new edition a try. Take it out for a spin. Cannibalize it for parts. Heck, I did with 3rd for FIVE YEARS. Feats became expanded proficiency-allocated techniques for Martial Arts styles, as per Complete Ninja’s handbook. Sure enough, my ideas became applied as maneuvers in Tome of Battle. Who’d have thunk it? Youngbloods and newcomers, check out WHAT the old guard is talking about, and REALLY research it before saying “It’s better this way, anyways”. I have single-handedly been responsible for over 40 individuals going back and researching 2nd edition when they tried to preach to me about 3rd. Consequently they have a far more profound understanding of game design, the persistent worlds that we play in, and the nuances of the topics they were discussing. That’s it for now. I think I’ll continue on this thread off and on and eventually these writings can be compiled into “New Editions and Shattered Games: A Guide for Resistant Old-Guard Gamers and Cannibalistic New Enthusiasts Alike” So, anyone want to start a new 5th Edition thread? :cheer:
Adrez Nesnsid 10-03-07, 12:53 PM	Are any of you out there familiar with theShip of Theseus Paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus) (or also the Grandfather's Axe Paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus)). It deals with whether a ship which has, over the decades, had every board, nail, and piece of rigging in structure replaced, remains still the same ship (the grandfather's axe paradox is summed up by the statement "This is my grandfather's axe; it's had three new heads and four new handles but it's still the same old axe.") I think that that sort of dilemma is starting to apply to Dungeons and Dragons. What remains of the original game in the recent and upcoming editions? Setting? No. Game Mechanics? No. Gary Gygax or Dave Arneson writing official material? No. Et cetera...
Weenie 10-03-07, 04:48 PM	That’s it for now. I think I’ll continue on this thread off and on and eventually these writings can be compiled into “New Editions and Shattered Games: A Guide for Resistant Old-Guard Gamers and Cannibalistic New Enthusiasts Alike” Cool. Get thyself to the Regdar's Repository (http://forums.gleemax.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=&f=44) board, then.
ArcTan 10-03-07, 10:17 PM	I'm talking about what has been said, not what may have (sort of but not really) been implied. The straight quote, IIRC, was "we thought that modrons were kind of silly". But feel free to reverse-engineer that all you want. The designers tend to give things out in sound bites rather than long, paragraph-length responses, their time being limited. I think it's doing them a disservice to take something like "We thought Modrons were kind of silly" and assume that the thought started and ended there, especially when the evidence for what specifically they changed about Mechanus is lying out in the open for us to analyze. I mean, okay, Modrons also *are* kind of silly, whether they be the Gygaxian pyramids-with-arms or the post-Gygaxian wind-up pyramids-with-arms. But that's not the only problem with running Modrons, nor the only difference between Modrons and Formians/Inevitables. Just for the record, making creatures "easy to adapt for different purposes" and "fun to use in a game" should not equate to making them stereotypically evil and mindlessly aggressive. But that's beside the point. I don't regard either Formians or Inevitables as "stereotypically evil" or "mindlessly aggressive". Formians aggressively colonize empty land without regard for others' claims on it, because they think resources are there to be efficiently used and they despise waste. But they won't actually *attack* anyone who's not a direct threat to them, and will work really hard to avoid unnecessary conflict if they think they can (much like the way real ant colonies expand). Inevitables aren't "evil", kind of by definition -- they enforce laws that, by and large, one can see the sense behind. And they certainly aren't "mindlessly aggressive". Both Formians and Inevitables, of course, *can* be made into mindless D&D baddies, but they don't *have to be*. That's the way it should be, with D&D flavor -- accommodate the mindless dungeon crawl but don't design things around it. With the Modrons, it was more or less impossible to ever say Modrons had any specific motivation at all for doing any specific thing at all. It was annoying.
Bob the Efreet 10-04-07, 04:23 AM	With the Modrons, it was more or less impossible to ever say Modrons had any specific motivation at all for doing any specific thing at all. It was annoying. They're paragons of Law. Just because you don't know what Law is interested in doesn't mean modrons don't have a purpose.
BOZ 10-04-07, 08:30 AM	The designers tend to give things out in sound bites rather than long, paragraph-length responses, their time being limited. it probably has more to do with not wanting to give away too much before it's time.
VedicDragon 10-04-07, 09:04 AM	Just for the record, making creatures "easy to adapt for different purposes" and "fun to use in a game" should not equate to making them stereotypically evil and mindlessly aggressive. But that's beside the point.I don't regard either Formians or Inevitables as "stereotypically evil" or "mindlessly aggressive". Formians aggressively colonize empty land without regard for others' claims on it, because they think resources are there to be efficiently used and they despise waste. But they won't actually *attack* anyone who's not a direct threat to them, and will work really hard to avoid unnecessary conflict if they think they can (much like the way real ant colonies expand). Inevitables aren't "evil", kind of by definition -- they enforce laws that, by and large, one can see the sense behind. And they certainly aren't "mindlessly aggressive". Both Formians and Inevitables, of course, *can* be made into mindless D&D baddies, but they don't *have to be*. That's the way it should be, with D&D flavor -- accommodate the mindless dungeon crawl but don't design things around it. With the Modrons, it was more or less impossible to ever say Modrons had any specific motivation at all for doing any specific thing at all. It was annoying. Whoa whoa whoa! I -think- Weenie was talking about the retcon regarding Demons. Hence the " stereotypically evil and mindlessly aggressive" that both Weenie (check me if I'm wrong) and sciborg are talking about, case point: The new devil/demon concept is far harder to adapt into anything, especially because it's something you could come up with in about ten minutes - devil = tempter and demon = RAWRRRRRR!!!
EvilVegan 10-04-07, 10:15 AM	Not the same thing. Astral dominions are what used to be called outer planes. Crystal spheres are the way the Material Plane is divided up. Sorry, yes. I discovered that after reading the link. My initial reading of it led me to think of "astral dominion" as the prime and any outer planes you wish to have, separate from other worlds (an enlarged crystal sphere containing extra-planar material). But that was wrong. He was stating that you could take whatever planes out of the outer (and inner) plane material and include them however you like in conjunction with your world. Even going so far as to say you could have your astral dominion shaped like a wheel lined up along alignment axis. They were designed by Gary Gygax, but your statement is misleading. When Gygax designed the Great Wheel, the only part of Greyhawk that existed was a few dungeons and a city. He didn't design it for Greyhawk - he designed it for D&D. Greyhawk was designed to fit D&D, not the other way around.Really? Is that why there are spells named after his characters from Greyhawk in the 1st edition PHB? The City of Greyhawk existed, Greyhawk dungeons existed, Greyhawk NPCs existed, as did the Planes surrounding the world on which the City of Greyhawk resided. It's a chicken/egg scenario. Gygax was inventing D&D at the same time he was inventing Greyhawk. He invented D&D as a game he was playing with friends set in his world, he didn't just create some rules and then use those rules to make up a new world. He played a game, set in his world of Greyhawk, found what rules worked and compiled them into AD&D 1st edition. Blackmoor, created by Dave Arneson on the other hand, was the major influencing source of the Mystara campaign setting and guess what. . . it isn't originally linked to the Great Wheel/outer planes. I think there have been attempts to retconcile this at times, but the original world was not part of the Greyhawk planar setting. Blackmoor and Greyhawk are settings that both predate the publication date of AD&D rules. They have separate planar structures. Greyhawk's planar structure is the one featured in the rules of AD&D. Other settings, such as Forgotten Realms, were tailor made to comply with AD&D, Greyhawk was not. <snip>Fascinating stuff! I really do like reading about planar material. Doesn't change the fact that the original planar set up was designed by Gygax and everything after that was an attempt to force new material to match up with old material for litte/no reason. Part of my contention against the Great Wheel is that it is too "all-encompassing-y" forcing new designers to consider its impact on their separate campaign world. It's basically like saying "Ok, you've made a world, but you didn't explain how humans exist in both Greyhawk and your world?". Scientifically speaking (pointless in fantasy, I know) there is no reason for "humans" to exist in every separate campaign world. They wouldn't evolve the exact same way, they'd have different abilities and appearance. The only explanations that work are: they came from somewhere else, their deities/creators came from/existed somewhere else, or there is nowhere else to come from and all other campaign worlds / cosmologies are irrelevant to this campaign. The first two are the official default, the third is a "house rule"; so you can have "official homebrews" and "unofficial homebrews". That distinction is silly.
Naderion 10-04-07, 12:06 PM	I think the great wheel was as much Greyhawk as it was Faerûn.
Aubri 10-04-07, 01:28 PM	Personally, I'm in favor of deflating the great wheel. Here are my reasons! First, I like the idea of dramatically separating demon and devil origins and goals. Previously, they're all fighting over incoming souls and planar real estate, and thus are all sort of similar in goal. I really like the idea that devils need souls for something specific, and demons... don't! It helps enhance the feeling that the two groups aren't just football fans cheering for different teams. They're playing totally different games. Second, the Great Wheel is almost too defined for my taste. Every plane, every LEVEL except for the Abyss, has a stated and fixed purpose, outlook, location, and set of traits. If I want to insert a plane, there's about three spots I can put it -- a demiplane, a new ethereal-like plane, or co-opt a corner of another existing plane. The 'planetary' planar model makes it easier to insert a new plane. The Great Wheel works fine for what it is, but for the default setting's cosmology, customizability is prime. I'm a fan of anything that downgrades the importance of alignment, and I think there's been enough debates on the topic that there's plenty of people to agree with me. 'nuff sed. Again, if you like alignment, amp it up; in the default setting, it should have minimal impact. That's more important than you might think. You can't just say "take out alignment if you don't like it"; witness 3.x, where the paladin is locked into certain alignments and detects evil, and the cleric has a laundry list of alignment-based spells. Removing all that is a pain; adding it in would be significantly less so. Finally, I like the idea that the planes aren't infinite worlds in their own right surrounded by impenetrable metaphysical walls. The 4e version sounds like it makes the universe more material-centric (as it should be!) and reduces the reliance on powerful magic to go planehopping. Want to leave Hell? You can just walk out. I don't like how the Wheel is a big pile of infinite spaces when the players can't possibly exploit the infiniteness. It's "too big". But wait, I hear! Didn't you just say there's not enough room to put in what you want? Well, yes. All the empty space is full of other planes. If I wanted a plane full of robots, they're going to have to fight it out with the Formians or Modrons for room in Mechanus. Sure, I could just replace the Formians... and describe Mechanus differently... and adjust any other references to them... see what I mean? Again, it's easier to add things than remove or change them. The default setting should have plenty of room for adding without having to rebuild everything around the change.
EvilVegan 10-04-07, 01:29 PM	I think the great wheel was as much Greyhawk as it was Faerûn.Could be. I was under the impression (working from memory, the books are at home) that the 1st edition Manual of the Planes came out well before Forgotten Realm's first module, which came out before forgotten realms became a fully fledged campaign setting. The great wheel is in the 1st edition DMG/PHB though (maybe before, I don't have any books before 1st edition). Slightly different names, but everything was updated with Planescape, which was an update of the 1st edition Manual of the Planes which was an expansion on the planar material in the 1st edition core books which were an adaptation of the previous D&D rules and features of the Greyhawk/Blackmoor source material that Gygax saw fit to include. There were only 9 planes, one for each alignment. Since Planescape came out after Forgotten realms, I could see it having several references to Faerun. But the Wheel itself is in 1st edition, and even if it isn't called a "Wheel", it predates Forgotten realms by about 12 years. Planescape comes later and reworks everything about 7 years after FR comes out. And Forgotten Realms was created near the end of 1st edition's life cycle (like Eberron for 1st edition) so it was fully capable of incorporating elements of Core, which includes the great wheel.
sciborg2 10-04-07, 02:02 PM	The 4e version sounds like it makes the universe more material-centric (as it should be!) and reduces the reliance on powerful magic to go planehopping. Want to leave Hell? You can just walk out. What gives you that idea? If anything, it should be harder to avoid detection by the devils in the new, finite, Hell. I don't like how the Wheel is a big pile of infinite spaces when the players can't possibly exploit the infiniteness. It's "too big". Personally I liked the idea of unending adventure across the infinite horizons. I don't think the Multiverse should be material centric after you wander off enough into the planes. Isn't it easier to just leave the sizes be vast and unknown, so DM's can define what is and is not infinite? Sure, I could just replace the Formians... and describe Mechanus differently... and adjust any other references to them... see what I mean? Again, it's easier to add things than remove or change them. I agree, the Astral Sea is a boon to gamers and a positive for 4e. The default setting should have plenty of room for adding without having to rebuild everything around the change. I think finite spaces makes it harder to add things after a point. But then I felt the planes were more physical representations of concepts rather than mere "places". Besides the Astral Sea and possibly some good stuff from Feywyld and Shadowfell, 4e just seems too bland and generic with its devils and demons no longer fighting over the concept of Evil, the concept that defines their existences. Now, to me, they seem more like weird alien races in an SF campaign.
EvilVegan 10-04-07, 03:00 PM	Besides the Astral Sea and possibly some good stuff from Feywyld and Shadowfell, 4e just seems too bland and generic with its devils and demons no longer fighting over the concept of Evil, the concept that defines their existences. Now, to me, they seem more like weird alien races in an SF campaign.They are still fighting over the concept. Devils are the ultimate sign of corruption and fall from grace, demons are the force of destruction and chaos incarnate. Devils want to bring everyone down to their level so that they can have power over them, demons want to bring everything down. But bland is better than overpoweringly flavored when you're talking about a base material for construction.
supernerd222 10-04-07, 03:27 PM	The removal of the Great Wheel is one of the many reasons I will not be playing 4.0. Ever. It is my opinion that the Great Wheel is as much a part of D&D as twenty sided dice and adventures that start in taverns.
Aubri 10-04-07, 03:47 PM	What gives you that idea? If anything, it should be harder to avoid detection by the devils in the new, finite, Hell. First, Hell is finite like Jupiter is finite. It's still HUGE. Just... not infinite. I don't like infinities. Second, I mean that once you're in the Astral Sea you won't need a bunch of spells (particularly Plane Shift) to get in and out of the planes. You just GO there. Maybe Hell is a bad example since the doors are going to be guarded; let's say Arvandor instead (or wherever Corellon hangs out these days). Or the Elemental Plane. Personally I liked the idea of unending adventure across the infinite horizons. I don't think the Multiverse should be material centric after you wander off enough into the planes. Isn't it easier to just leave the sizes be vast and unknown, so DM's can define what is and is not infinite? The material plane is at the middle for a reason, you know? The rest of creation exists solely to support it. Sigil always annoyed me because everyone acts like they're somehow better than people who live in the REAL world. As you say, it's still vast... but measurable. The idea of a hell that runs off forever in every direction offends my poor little human brain. 4e just seems too bland and generic with its devils and demons no longer fighting over the concept of Evil, the concept that defines their existences. Now, to me, they seem more like weird alien races in an SF campaign. I can see your point, but on the other hand, do you really WANT to declare that sort of thing? A DM can say "Oh, and Hell is at war the the Abyss" if he wants to, but making that an integral part of the default setting is as bad as making alignment integral to the game. I guess you could say it's supposed to be bland and generic; this isn't a campaign setting in its own right, but a basis for building your own campaign setting. Why should they define all the planes when they don't define the nations of the Material Plane?
VedicDragon 10-04-07, 04:24 PM	4e just seems too bland and generic with its devils and demons no longer fighting over the concept of Evil, the concept that defines their existences. Now, to me, they seem more like weird alien races in an SF campaign. I can see your point, but on the other hand, do you really WANT to declare that sort of thing? A DM can say "Oh, and Hell is at war the the Abyss" if he wants to, but making that an integral part of the default setting is as bad as making alignment integral to the game. Sorry, i'm with sciborg again on this one. I am beginning to view these "game designers" as manic plumbers who try to replace an old pipe for sh!ts and giggles, and instead create a massive series of leaks which floods the whole building. I guess I am in the unpopular minority here, where I LIKE that alignment plays such a part. A Characters ethics and choices SHOULD have resonance and consequences. When you declare yourself zealously in one camp or another, be it a philosophy, an ideal, a lifestyle that SHOULD have ramifications. With as many gods and factions and organizations at each others' throats constantly, is this really so surprising or unrealistic? Take a look at real world politics today and really TRULY look at how a partisan line can define and alter a person's existence. Their friends, their social circles, where they live, what kind of lifestyle they have . . . Now one can say it's just a game, but for a truly immersive realistic experience . . . . these concepts can, should and DO matter. And that's a GOOD thing. But then, I loved planescape, where belief was power and Ravenloft where your misdeeds would literally HAUNT you. Go figure. :D With the WEALTH of source material on Baator and the Abyss, do we REALLY need to change them. So there are physical appearance similarities. Big whoop. Change THAT. But to hegemonize and limit the Devils to the very limited niche they are putting them in is ridiculous. And Primordial Icons of Chaos and Evil CAN have depth. Chaos does NOT equal stupid or mindlessly destructive. Neither does evil. So why should the two of those result in that? Forgive me for saying this, but what is the point in stating that Devils are after the bargain and the souls and Tenaarii / Demons just want to wreck crap. THAT'S ALREADY THERE. NO SERIOUSLY, look up the 2nd edition and the Fiend folio and all these resources everyone keeps quoting. It's ALL ALREADY THERE. Now because some idiot forgot to be explicit about this in the monster manuals is a reason to turn everything on it's head?!?!?! ROTFLMAO. Because a surefire way to fix a problem is to repeat events that caused it. Wow, that's just . . . Dumb. But then, is that the standard of behavior we should expect from the company that supports our hobby? Maybe it's time to get another one. :-P
EvilVegan 10-04-07, 04:47 PM	With the WEALTH of source material on Baator and the Abyss, do we REALLY need to change them. So there are physical appearance similarities. Big whoop. Change THAT. But to hegemonize and limit the Devils to the very limited niche they are putting them in is ridiculous. And Primordial Icons of Chaos and Evil CAN have depth.Which is perhaps the reason they're keeping the demon princes exactly where they were? Forgive me for saying this, but what is the point in stating that Devils are after the bargain and the souls and Tenaarii / Demons just want to wreck crap. THAT'S ALREADY THERE. NO SERIOUSLY, look up the 2nd edition and the Fiend folio and all these resources everyone keeps quoting. It's ALL ALREADY THERE.So you're upset that they're changing the flavor to match that which is already there? There is a bit too much extremity (and disguised vulgarity, change that or "they'll" be mad) in these claims. They moved the abyss to be in a different spot and removed the alignment binding the planes. If you liked the old set up you know what happens? Nothing. You have the old setting. You like alignment to dominate your game? Do it. You like the planes to remain the same as they've been since before AD&D spawned out of Gygax's head? Do it. Oh noes, they changed mechanics and flavor! I hope they don't do as terrible a job updating the system as 2nd edition did when it birthed Planescape. The changes were arbitrary back then, too.
EvilVegan 10-04-07, 04:50 PM	The removal of the Great Wheel is one of the many reasons I will not be playing 4.0. Ever. It is my opinion that the Great Wheel is as much a part of D&D as twenty sided dice and adventures that start in taverns. K! See you next year when you're playing 4e! (Or we're both playing 3e). You could, you know, wait til the stuff came out, and then consider it's worth by, you know, its actual content.
ArcTan 10-04-07, 07:50 PM	I guess I am in the unpopular minority here, where I LIKE that alignment plays such a part. A Characters ethics and choices SHOULD have resonance and consequences. When you declare yourself zealously in one camp or another, be it a philosophy, an ideal, a lifestyle that SHOULD have ramifications. Getting only two things you can make choices about, with only two choices in each case (unless you identify staying neutral as a third choice) is not really the best way to express this. With as many gods and factions and organizations at each others' throats constantly, is this really so surprising or unrealistic? If all the gods and factions and organizations have to fit into one of nine boxes, yeah, it is. But then, I loved planescape, where belief was power and Ravenloft where your misdeeds would literally HAUNT you. Go figure. :D Alignment wasn't that big a part of what was *good* about either one. In Planescape the Factions were the most interesting source of philosophical disagreement, and most of them didn't give two craps about your alignment on the Great Wheel. In Ravenloft, at least in *good* Ravenloft, alignment wasn't a big deal either. The question of whether Dark Lords were truly objectively Evil was irrelevant -- what was important was that they had *weaknesses* or *failures* that the Mists could exploit. Note that in White Wolf's run on Ravenloft they confirmed that even Van Richten was a Dark Lord of sorts, whose life and career had been manipulated by the Dark Powers, despite his supposedly "Good" nature.
ArcTan 10-04-07, 07:54 PM	Personally I liked the idea of unending adventure across the infinite horizons. I don't think the Multiverse should be material centric after you wander off enough into the planes. Isn't it easier to just leave the sizes be vast and unknown, so DM's can define what is and is not infinite? If you want the DM to define what is and isn't infinite, a good start is to not say for a fact that something is infinite. "Infinite" is bad. There's always some nerd in the group who can think of nice holes to introduce into the storyline or the world because of "infinite". Forget "infinite". "Arbitrarily large" is better than "infinite", as any good constructivist mathematician knows. Saying that the Abyss is really, really big, and that no one's sure quite how big it is, and that there's no map of it and if you explore enough you can always find more, is *not the same* as saying it really is infinite -- but it's *effectively* the same for an adventuring party. "Too big for your party to ever fully explore" is all you need. "Actually infinite" is not. "Actually infinite" is only necessary if you have one of those stupid campaigns where the party says "Okay, and now that we're all level 150 characters who are gods and live forever, let's go through the WHOLE ABYSS and kill EVERY DEMON until they're ALL DEAD!!!" In which case you've already abandoned common sense, so do whatever the hell you want. ("I just invented an Epic spell that kills an infinite number of Demons at once!")
ArcTan 10-04-07, 07:59 PM	They're paragons of Law. Just because you don't know what Law is interested in doesn't mean modrons don't have a purpose. Okay, see, as fun as it is to pretend all this make-believe stuff is real, if they have an ineffable supernatural super-duper-super-secret purpose that *no sane human mind can grasp* (gasp!)... that's the same as saying they don't have a purpose. In REAL LIFE, in REALITY, if the DM doesn't know what their purpose is, that means that the purpose isn't there. It means they're purposeless. It means the DM can -- and *has to* -- make them arbitrarily show up in random places for no reason at all and then *pretend* there's some super-duper-metaphysical reason they're there. It's this kind of thing -- "Stuff is happening and it's all crazy but it has some metaphysical impact on the Nature of Reality somewhere we swear!" -- that was annoying about Planescape's tone after a while, and why Planescape is not a good setting for an ordinary fun dungeon-crawlin' high fantasy adventure -- because there's so many things in it that seem *designed* to screw with players and frustrate them and confuse them and leave them out of the loop. It's why, speaking in-character, if I were in a Faction in Sigil it'd be the Bleak Cabal -- because, honestly, if you actually look at the Great Wheel the big thing that leaps out at you is that IT'S STUPID AND MAKES NO SENSE. And while it was really awesome, in fact, that Planescape had a Faction that literally believed this in-character and let you roleplay that perspective ("Who gives a crap about the Blood War? It's all BS anyway!" "I don't care what god you worship! There's too many damn gods!" "Screw the Guvnors and screw the Xaositects, Law and Chaos are just the same damn stupid thing!") the fact that it was awesome because it was making fun of something the core, non-Planescape Great Wheel setting took for granted is why it indicates a problem with that setting.
yrogerg 10-04-07, 09:12 PM	And while it was really awesome, in fact, that Planescape had a Faction that literally believed this in-character and let you roleplay that perspective ("Who gives a crap about the Blood War? It's all BS anyway!" "I don't care what god you worship! There's too many damn gods!" "Screw the Guvnors and screw the Xaositects, Law and Chaos are just the same damn stupid thing!") the fact that it was awesome because it was making fun of something the core, non-Planescape Great Wheel setting took for granted is why it indicates a problem with that setting. The Athar were fun for a similar reason: "Well, what, then the gods are all just really powerful people that call themselves gods? That's kinda stupid."
Bob the Efreet 10-05-07, 01:21 AM	You can't just say "take out alignment if you don't like it"; witness 3.x, where the paladin is locked into certain alignments and detects evil, and the cleric has a laundry list of alignment-based spells. Removing all that is a pain; adding it in would be significantly less so. So removing material is problematic and difficult, but inventing new things and stuffing them into the existing mold is a simple task? Want to leave Hell? You can just walk out. I don't think we really have any indication that such is the case in 4e. Any more than it was the case in the Great Wheel. Which it was. Maybe you've heard of portals. Okay, see, as fun as it is to pretend all this make-believe stuff is real, if they have an ineffable supernatural super-duper-super-secret purpose that *no sane human mind can grasp* (gasp!)... that's the same as saying they don't have a purpose. That's not what I said at all. This must be the straw man thing Rip is always complaining about. What I said is that you, the specific person ArcTan, clearly don't know what Law's purpose is. As demonstrated by your claims on the matter. I agree that if nobody at all could understand what it was about, it would be kinda weird and pointless. Planescape is not a good setting for an ordinary fun dungeon-crawlin' high fantasy adventure I'm inclined to agree. Planescape is a different kind of fantasy, and it's not for everyone. The Great Wheel is not inherently Planescape, though. Planescape isn't about the specifics of the cosmology.
ArcTan 10-05-07, 03:33 AM	That's not what I said at all. This must be the straw man thing Rip is always complaining about. What I said is that you, the specific person ArcTan, clearly don't know what Law's purpose is. As demonstrated by your claims on the matter. I agree that if nobody at all could understand what it was about, it would be kinda weird and pointless. Ah, I see. So *you* know what the real overarching fundamental purpose of Law is, and what the hell, exactly, the Modrons do all day in the weird dance they do moving back and forth across Regulus, and what the purpose of the Great Modron March is. Then, pray tell, enlighten me. I'm inclined to agree. Planescape is a different kind of fantasy, and it's not for everyone. The Great Wheel is not inherently Planescape, though. Planescape isn't about the specifics of the cosmology. Yes. One of the things that's cute about Planescape is that it satirizes the stupidities of the Great Wheel by extrapolating various logical consequences thereof. See the whole deal with Athar and Bleakers.
ArcTan 10-05-07, 03:35 AM	So removing material is problematic and difficult, but inventing new things and stuffing them into the existing mold is a simple task? Making alignment integrated with the mechanics in a satisfying, meaningful and consistent way would indeed by a thankless task. That's why no D&D edition has ever successfully done it.
yrogerg 10-05-07, 07:51 AM	So removing material is problematic and difficult, but inventing new things and stuffing them into the existing mold is a simple task? Well, yes. That's what sourcebooks do: they invent new mechanics and flavor, and fit them into the existing world. Pretty much every sourcebook from BoXD to HoH, ToM, and ToB has done this. There aren't any sourcebooks detailing how to remove core material from the game because it *is* problematic, as a publisher, to tell people not to use your material. And frankly, if there *were* an alignment sourcebook that went into the individual alignments in serious detail and actually discussed useful guiding principles and the like, I'd buy it, and I'd probably like alignment a lot more for it. The PHB is pitiably vague on what the alignments mean, and BoXD confused matters more than helped them. Thus far, the best information on alignment comes from HoH, Complete Scoundrel, and the FCs, and even then, it's mostly only by passing reference.
sciborg2 10-05-07, 08:49 AM	I think the difference of opinion on alignment is going to be if it drew you into the game by making you think about the motivation for actions versus whether it was one more thing to tabulate or figure out before you could have fun. For me, it was the former. Additionally, I believe that alignment does have a place in the game but I can understand deemphasizing it to some extent.
Aubri 10-05-07, 01:07 PM	I guess I am in the unpopular minority here, where I LIKE that alignment plays such a part. A Characters ethics and choices SHOULD have resonance and consequences. When you declare yourself zealously in one camp or another, be it a philosophy, an ideal, a lifestyle that SHOULD have ramifications. With as many gods and factions and organizations at each others' throats constantly, is this really so surprising or unrealistic? Take a look at real world politics today and really TRULY look at how a partisan line can define and alter a person's existence. Their friends, their social circles, where they live, what kind of lifestyle they have . . . Good. I'm glad you like it. Does that mean my favorite game should have to bow to YOUR wishes? I don't like alignment. As I noted before, it's easier for YOU to add alignment than ME to remove it. Ergo...
yrogerg 10-05-07, 01:13 PM	I think the difference of opinion on alignment is going to be if it drew you into the game by making you think about the motivation for actions versus whether it was one more thing to tabulate or figure out before you could have fun. For me, it was the former. Additionally, I believe that alignment does have a place in the game but I can understand deemphasizing it to some extent. Sure, and I think that alignment *can* be a useful and fun thing, as well, I just don't thing that it a) needs to be obiligatory, or b) is actually an especially fun or useful thing by default in its current formulation. Addressing b) first, the core information on alignment is extremely vague and general, and fosters little more than endless, go-nowhere debates about alignment on these boards and contradictary comments from multiple designers. Most of the supplemental books make things worse, not because they're vague, but because they're contradictary, frequently contradicting both themselves and the core information. Turning alignment as it currently exists into something fun and interesting involves a very liberal reading of the alignment information available, enough so that it really does start to drift into homebrew in many cases. That said, many of those homebrews are fun and interesting, so it stands to reason that alignment can be, too. regarding a), one has simply to point out that there are a *lot* of fun and useful things presented as optional rules in sourcebooks -Taint rules in HoH, for one example- that don't really stop being fun just because they're optional. One advantage of (hypothetically) presenting them as optional rules with their own sourcebook, in fact, would be that individual players and DMs can decide *for themselves* how interesting and fun it is, or which parts are interesting and fun, and partially adopt them. Making it strictly opt-out, and therefore a fundamental assumption of the game makes it a *lot* of work to exclude it if you don't think it's interesting or fun, or think it would be more interesting or fun *not* to include it -far more work than it would be to include it as an optional feature, like any other optional rule. I mean, either way, individual settings already include optional rules and modify core rules as they see fit; the only difference is how much work it makes for DMs running their own campaigns. And I contend that presenting alignment as an optional rule in a separate sourcebook isn't likely to be any more work, but much more likely to result in a comprehensive treatment of alignment, something that D&D has always sorely lacked, despite several attempts.
Aubri 10-05-07, 01:17 PM	So removing material is problematic and difficult, but inventing new things and stuffing them into the existing mold is a simple task? YES! Witness how many splatbooks and addons there are for every edition of the game. Every one of those is optional, added-on content. And just as you can add Vileness and Exaltedness or add the Corruption stuff from Heroes of Horror, you can make alignment important if you really want to! But for Pete's sake, let ME leave it out of MY game! (Yes, it's possible to remove it from 3rd Ed. I did it. It was a pain.)
EvilVegan 10-05-07, 04:28 PM	Not for nothing, but I removed alignment pretty easily. "Hey, don't bother with alignments, I'm not using them" That being said, while I don't really require alignment to enjoy the game, I wish they had been fuller and more logical in their explanations of things. Book of Exalted Deeds should not have included rules for poisoning evil people, for instance. That's stupid. Here's the books they should have released: Book of Exalted Deeds Book of Vile Darkness Book of the Middle Path (Neutrality, not buddhism. . . or is it!) Book of Axiomatic Structure !anacokbochirfaoachoS! (Book of Anarchic Chaos) They should have been well done with extra flavor, such as the font for each chapter of Chaos being changed (but still legible).
ArcTan 10-05-07, 05:25 PM	I think the difference of opinion on alignment is going to be if it drew you into the game by making you think about the motivation for actions versus whether it was one more thing to tabulate or figure out before you could have fun. Well, how so? Alignment tells you *whether* someone is Good or Evil, Lawful or Chaotic. It doesn't give you any insight into *why* someone might choose to be a Good person rather than an Evil one, or *why* someone might want to support Law as opposed to Chaos. (Hell, it never even really made it totally clear what Law or Chaos *was*.) Indeed, by making alignment into a quasi-static label you slapped onto a character, it encouraged a *de*emphasis of motivations. If someone's Evil, he's Evil -- you just know that in most situations he's going to pick the Evil choice rather than the Good one. It encourages turning people into stereotypes, just like making any other stereotype trait into a stat would (like, say having a stat saying whether someone was "Sociable" vs. "Loner" makes it a lot more likely that every character will either have lots of friends or be a hard-bitten badass lone wolf, with the middle ground in between a lot less explored).
sciborg2 10-06-07, 01:42 PM	I think it's more an examination of whether something is Evil or just against our notions of Order/Chaos. At least, that's how it was for me, but I love Order vs Chaos discussions...
Bob the Efreet 10-07-07, 03:49 AM	So *you* know what the real overarching fundamental purpose of Law is, and what the hell, exactly, the Modrons do all day in the weird dance they do moving back and forth across Regulus, and what the purpose of the Great Modron March is. Well, modrons, on a fundamental level, need to both defend and spread the influence of Law in the cosmos. That's how all exemplar work. Modrons achieve this by doing lawful things, and encouraging lawful behaviour in others. A lot of what they do (especially at the base modron level) is keeping Mechanus working properly - clearly an important task in the betterment of Law. So things like funny dances are probably about maintaining or altering the motion of the gears. I'm pretty sure the Great Modron March is explained to be for the purposes of gathering information on the Wheel. And, of course, some things are left undefined in the sourcebooks not because nobody can ever know what Law is about (although some people might claim so in character), but so that DMs have room to invent things. What is Primus really up to? Maybe somebody has an interesting campaign about that. Well, yes. That's what sourcebooks do: they invent new mechanics and flavor, and fit them into the existing world. Pretty much every sourcebook from BoXD to HoH, ToM, and ToB has done this. There aren't any sourcebooks detailing how to remove core material from the game because it *is* problematic, as a publisher, to tell people not to use your material. So let's say, for example, that I'm dissatisfied with the fighter class. I'd like to give it some kind of extra martial powers (let's call them "manoeuvres") to bring it more in line, power-wise, with spellcasters. Pre-ToB, I'd have a lot of work ahead of me to create the system by which this works and all the martial powers. Sounds much more difficult than saying, for a different example, that I don't like monks and I won't be using them in my game. They should have been well done with extra flavor, such as the font for each chapter of Chaos being changed (but still legible). That alone would be enough to make me want such a book.
Naderion 10-07-07, 06:25 AM	YES! Witness how many splatbooks and addons there are for every edition of the game. Every one of those is optional, added-on content. And just as you can add Vileness and Exaltedness or add the Corruption stuff from Heroes of Horror, you can make alignment important if you really want to! But for Pete's sake, let ME leave it out of MY game! (Yes, it's possible to remove it from 3rd Ed. I did it. It was a pain.) And almost nothing of it fits into my game...
AtomicKitKat 10-07-07, 11:20 AM	Now I wants me a Book of Chaos.:P And they'd put the table of contents in the very middle, and the numbering will be randomised, with no pattern to the order of pages. Hell, the new {Anarchic} tagged Feats are not in alphabetical order, nor even in the same chapter. No, wait, there are no chapters.:D
yrogerg 10-07-07, 11:25 AM	And they'd put the table of contents in the very middle, and the numbering will be randomised, with no pattern to the order of pages. Hell, the new {Anarchic} tagged Feats are not in alphabetical order, nor even in the same chapter. No, wait, there are no chapters.:D So it'd be a White Wolf sourcebook? :P
Taeldrin Laesrash 10-07-07, 11:30 AM	A book of chaos would be great. I'd have them use the Discordian numbering system. Maybe have a few pages full of nothing but scribbles.
EvilVegan 10-07-07, 11:36 AM	That alone would be enough to make me want such a book.I know, right? Really, I don't know what to do at this point. WOTC releases like 50% of a concept and doesn't follow through, despite moderate interest from the small sampling of the internet. I mean, how do you let a company know what products need to be made? If they produce a sub-par initial product with massive potential that doesn't get purchased due to it being sub-par or other forces, such as the release date of BoED being so close to 3.5 release, it stops other products with good potential from being produced. I mean, why only 2 books in a 9-set alignment system? And the 2 books they released covered 3 each and only focused on half of each of the three alignments (the moral part). At the very least they could have released 3 books with 3 alignments each, but I'd rather they released 5, one for each component Lawful, Chaotic, Neutral, Good, and Evil. At least then you could have actual official campaigns based on a struggle to find Balance or Order vs Chaos. Good vs Evil is so cliche after 30 years of this crap. And now good comes with new and improved poison! Bleh. Anyway, Go go corporate America! Please become psychic soon.
sciborg2 10-07-07, 03:26 PM	A book of chaos would be great. I'd have them use the Discordian numbering system. they tried this with Complete Divine I think...
ArcTan 10-08-07, 12:53 AM	Well, modrons, on a fundamental level, need to both defend and spread the influence of Law in the cosmos. That's how all exemplar work. Modrons achieve this by doing lawful things, and encouraging lawful behaviour in others. A lot of what they do (especially at the base modron level) is keeping Mechanus working properly - clearly an important task in the betterment of Law. So things like funny dances are probably about maintaining or altering the motion of the gears. I'm pretty sure the Great Modron March is explained to be for the purposes of gathering information on the Wheel. Well, yes. These are all things that "defend Law" in a very abstract, metaphysical way that has nothing at all to do with what actual Lawful characters in the Prime Material (and in your adventuring party) care about. They're the exact inverse of Slaadi hanging out in Limbo messing around being creepy and Chaotic, and once in a while going to lay eggs in things -- i.e., from a mortal perspective, equally purposeless. Which is great, if you want them there as a background concept. Kind of makes them low-priority as something to actually make a *stat block* for, though, since by definition a PC is never going to run into them unless they have some pressing reason to go to Regulus and try to mess with their crap (and why bother? It doesn't mean anything to anyone except them) or else they happen to be around during the Great Modron March, which is supposed to happen very rarely and kill anything that gets in its way because all the Modrons are marching at once. Kind of *designed* to be background characters rather than characters in a campaign, in other words. The Formians and Inevitables are designed to be the opposite of this by actually making the world more Lawful in a way *meaningful to humans* -- scouting out big colonies, so that you can run into scouts or an invasion force if the DM wants you to, or actually kicking ass and *enforcing laws* (and being a force that can usefully be turned for or against the PCs in a very active way as situations change). And, of course, some things are left undefined in the sourcebooks not because nobody can ever know what Law is about (although some people might claim so in character), but so that DMs have room to invent things. What is Primus really up to? Maybe somebody has an interesting campaign about that. The Ultimate Definition of Law is one of those things that's set up so you *can't* invent an answer, though. It's this huge cosmic thing that involves giant mechanisms of gears and people standing around going "OM" and whatnot. No DM can actually make up an "answer" for what Law is that feels satisfying, rather than cheap. ("No, see, what Primus really wants... is... er... this crystal! THIS CRYSTAL is the ULTIMATE CRYSTAL OF LAW and that's why the Modrons are invading your kingdom!")
ArcTan 10-08-07, 12:53 AM	A book of chaos would be great. I'd have them use the Discordian numbering system. Maybe have a few pages full of nothing but scribbles. That might be kind of funny if they didn't actually charge me money for it.
EvilVegan 10-08-07, 09:05 AM	That might be kind of funny if they didn't actually charge me money for it. Hopefully, they'd punch you in the face and give you a lolly as a proactive sales technique. Of course it would be free, but then they'd burn down your house. Chaos is the shizzzz. Makes for really interesting/easy to develop characters.
Aubri 10-08-07, 09:19 AM	Well, yes. These are all things that "defend Law" in a very abstract, metaphysical way that has nothing at all to do with what actual Lawful characters in the Prime Material (and in your adventuring party) care about. They're the exact inverse of Slaadi hanging out in Limbo messing around being creepy and Chaotic, and once in a while going to lay eggs in things -- i.e., from a mortal perspective, equally purposeless. ... The Formians and Inevitables are designed to be the opposite of this by actually making the world more Lawful in a way *meaningful to humans*. :clap: :clap: :clap: QFT.
Keenath 10-08-07, 09:29 AM	Modrons achieve this by doing lawful things, and encouraging lawful behaviour in others.They encourage lawful behavior? In what way? They pretty much stay holed up in Regulus unless they're on the March, which seems like a huge chaos-inducing stomp-a-round to me. I've never seen a modron reward a mortal for being lawful or punish a chaotic sort. In point of fact, I've never seen a modron deal with a mortal in any way unless said mortal has wandered his way into Mechanus itself. And they do lawful things? Do they actually do lawful things in the world, or just in Regulus? The modrons are incredibly insular and closed -- I don't see how they forward the concepts of law and order to the rest of the cosmos. A lot of what they do (especially at the base modron level) is keeping Mechanus working properly - clearly an important task in the betterment of Law.I've always thought that was a bizarre thing, actually. The plane of pure Order needs to be fixed? Needs adjustments and repairs? Doesn't that suggest that the plane itself is constantly fighting inflowing chaos? How does THAT make any sense? Does Celestia constnatly have to deal with evil acts occuring inside its boundaries? Does the Abyss occasionally have good souls wandering around and screwing up the balance? (Other than PCs, obviously) If the Great Machine is really so great, shouldn't it be self-correcting and automatic? And if the modrons are actually just part of the machine, well, then they aren't really much of an exemplar, are they?
sciborg2 10-08-07, 10:23 AM	Exemplar always seemed to be a concept made by the community. I'm honestly curious how much it shows up anywhere...I'm sure it does but references just escape me. And if the modrons are actually just part of the machine, well, then they aren't really much of an exemplar, are they? Being tied to the plane, to me, screams exemplar. Modrons worked perfectly well for me, they had goals that I think were extremes of most political goals - Control and preservation of control. They were perfectly good protagonists when PCs decided to help them against interlopers attacking Regulus. The rogue modrons were likely the best and most interesting for PCs beyond Mechanus, but I like having inevitables, vaati, modrons as different expressions of Order and its purpose. Formians I kept in Arcadia. Modrons as a represenation of all Order I agree are found wanting but I believe they still have their place.
Aubri 10-08-07, 11:14 AM	Modrons as a representation of all Order I agree are found wanting but I believe they still have their place. They're completely, utterly boring. Why bother having them there if you can hardly use them?
Thanael 10-08-07, 01:58 PM	It's still HUGE. Just... not infinite. I don't like infinities. It surely boggles the mind sometimes. But isn't that what the Outer Planes should be about? Do ideals have to be finite? Are you bothered by the infinite number of natural numbers, or the reaches of actual real-world space? Why? Sigil always annoyed me because everyone acts like they're somehow better than people who live in the REAL world. In the real world?!? What? If you mean the Material Planes, than this is a feeling that i have heard expressed before. But i still don't understand it. As you say, it's still vast... but measurable. The idea of a hell that runs off forever in every direction offends my poor little human brain. Why does it being measurable comfort you? If you want the DM to define what is and isn't infinite, a good start is to not say for a fact that something is infinite. "Infinite" is bad. There's always some nerd in the group who can think of nice holes to introduce into the storyline or the world because of "infinite". Forget "infinite". "Arbitrarily large" is better than "infinite", as any good constructivist mathematician knows. Saying that the Abyss is really, really big, and that no one's sure quite how big it is, and that there's no map of it and if you explore enough you can always find more, is *not the same* as saying it really is infinite -- but it's *effectively* the same for an adventuring party. "Too big for your party to ever fully explore" is all you need. "Actually infinite" is not. "Actually infinite" is only necessary if you have one of those stupid campaigns where the party says "Okay, and now that we're all level 150 characters who are gods and live forever, let's go through the WHOLE ABYSS and kill EVERY DEMON until they're ALL DEAD!!!" In which case you've already abandoned common sense, so do whatever the hell you want. ("I just invented an Epic spell that kills an infinite number of Demons at once!") I do not get your point. Where is the effective difference for your game between saying it is "actually infinite" and "effectively infinite"? Do you say infinite is bad because you can never kill all the bad guys and win the game? Because you can't do that either if the DM says there's always another one.
Thanael 10-08-07, 02:07 PM	If all the gods and factions and organizations have to fit into one of nine boxes, yeah, it is. Oh watch out before you're advocating infinite alignment nuances. Infinite is bad.
Thanael 10-08-07, 02:08 PM	Making alignment integrated with the mechanics in a satisfying, meaningful and consistent way would indeed by a thankless task. That's why no D&D edition has ever successfully done it. I think that is for the same reasons that no D&D edition has ever succesfully integrated roleplaying into the mechanics.
Thanael 10-08-07, 02:22 PM	I think the difference of opinion on alignment is going to be if it drew you into the game by making you think about the motivation for actions versus whether it was one more thing to tabulate or figure out before you could have fun. Well, how so? Alignment tells you *whether* someone is Good or Evil, Lawful or Chaotic. It doesn't give you any insight into *why* someone might choose to be a Good person rather than an Evil one, or *why* someone might want to support Law as opposed to Chaos. (Hell, it never even really made it totally clear what Law or Chaos *was*.) Indeed, by making alignment into a quasi-static label you slapped onto a character, it encouraged a *de*emphasis of motivations. If someone's Evil, he's Evil -- you just know that in most situations he's going to pick the Evil choice rather than the Good one. It encourages turning people into stereotypes, just like making any other stereotype trait into a stat would (like, say having a stat saying whether someone was "Sociable" vs. "Loner" makes it a lot more likely that every character will either have lots of friends or be a hard-bitten badass lone wolf, with the middle ground in between a lot less explored). Did you even read what sciborg wrote? It isn't supposed to tell you those motivations but make you think of them. Also D&D alignment is not static. But yes i can see the merit of trait systems like say in Pendragon RPG, they're fun. But imho alignment has always been one of the staples and defining quirks of D&D. Sure you can deemphasize it if you want. But i think it removing it is almost akin to removing the class-level system. It's another game then.
Aubri 10-08-07, 02:38 PM	It surely boggles the mind sometimes. But isn't that what the Outer Planes should be about? Do ideals have to be finite? Are you bothered by the infinite number of natural numbers, or the reaches of actual real-world space? Why? I'm actually an astrogeek, so no. I think ArcTan said it best -- infinite is boring. It's the edges of things that are interesting. The middle of an infinite desert of fire is boring... but what happens where it meets the Elemental Ocean? It's hard to populate an infinite expanse that has the same description throughout; you'll very rapidly fall into, "OK, you travel for three weeks across the burning wastes and arrive at the City of Brass. What do you do now?" In the real world?!? What? If you mean the Material Planes, than this is a feeling that i have heard expressed before. But i still don't understand it. Yes, I mean the material plane. It would be a little like someone who lives in the arctic saying, "Yeah, I'm totally a higher form of life than those softies who live down south, because they can't take bitter, deadly cold!" I do not get your point. Where is the effective difference for your game between saying it is "actually infinite" and "effectively infinite"? Because effective infinities have edges where interesting things happen. Because you can travel across them without resorting to magic or DM fiat (also known as Portals). It makes it a 'place'. I mean, can you imagine the Great Wheel without picturing the layers extending "above" and "below" each other layer? They're not physically related like that, but that's how we picture them, because it's easier. So why not make the picture the reality? Why ARE infinite planes better than effective infinities?
sciborg2 10-08-07, 02:59 PM	They're completely, utterly boring. Why bother having them there if you can hardly use them? You're confusing yourself with all potential players. I never had a problem with modrons. I did not find them boring, thus their "boring-ness" isn't objective. Further, there's a difference between designers saying "We didn't see a need for them so we didn't include them" vs. "We decided to make snide remarks about their destruction." I like infinity. If a plane is limited it becomes less majestic to me because concepts like Good and Evil should be limitless. Same with the inner planes, they are the foundations of the infinite Primes - and thus they should be infinite. And infinite things can have edges. The designers can easily just say "size unknown" and make everyone happy. Unless Wizards plans to map out its new finite Hell and Abyss completely makes it pointless to state the size.
ArcTan 10-08-07, 04:00 PM	It surely boggles the mind sometimes. But isn't that what the Outer Planes should be about? Do ideals have to be finite? Are you bothered by the infinite number of natural numbers, or the reaches of actual real-world space? Why? No. I am bothered by having a literally infinite number of, say, Chain Devils, because that brings up certain knotty and unpleasant questions (like, say, why this infinite number of Chain Devils hasn't sent, say, 100 trillion trillion Chain Devils into the world of Abeir-Toril to conquer it, since they could easily spare that many). I do not get your point. Where is the effective difference for your game between saying it is "actually infinite" and "effectively infinite"? That, well, I don't say it's "actually infinite". 300 million Devils in Baator is too many for the PCs to kill, but it still means Baator has actual limits on its actions at the cosmic level. If the number of Devils is truly infinite, then there *are no limits* to anything they can do. Certain riddles therefore become unanswerable (like how the Devils could *ever* possibly win the Blood War against an infinite number of Demons, or how two Archdevils, each with 1/9 of the Devils -- i.e. an infinite number of Devils -- under their command could ever fight and have one defeat the other). Do you say infinite is bad because you can never kill all the bad guys and win the game? Because you can't do that either if the DM says there's always another one. Yes, but if it's *actually infinite*, then there is zero cost to sending 10,000 of them to do any task -- or 10 billion of them, or, hell, an infinite number of them. (Aleph-null minus aleph-null equals aleph-null. It's one of the Hilbert's Hotel paradoxes.)
ArcTan 10-08-07, 04:03 PM	Oh watch out before you're advocating infinite alignment nuances. Infinite is bad. I don't advocate an infinite number. 200 is enough. (Seriously, I don't care if there isn't a *defined* finite number of Demons. That's not the same as saying the number of Demons is infinite. The limit is just very high, and set at whatever the DM wants it to be. Not the same as no limit.)
ArcTan 10-08-07, 04:05 PM	Did you even read what sciborg wrote? It isn't supposed to tell you those motivations but make you think of them. ...And how does it accomplish that, pray tell? "This man is breaking into his ex-lover's house to steal her diary." I can think of a lot of possible internal motivations for that action. "This man is breaking into his ex-lover's house to steal her diary. Also, he is Chaotic Neutral." Does that actually make it easier to think of possible motivations? Make his character deeper? Make it easier to figure out how he ticks? Of course not. Also D&D alignment is not static. But yes i can see the merit of trait systems like say in Pendragon RPG, they're fun. But imho alignment has always been one of the staples and defining quirks of D&D. Sure you can deemphasize it if you want. But i think it removing it is almost akin to removing the class-level system. It's another game then. A *better* game.
ArcTan 10-08-07, 04:10 PM	You're confusing yourself with all potential players. I never had a problem with modrons. I did not find them boring, thus their "boring-ness" isn't objective. Further, there's a difference between designers saying "We didn't see a need for them so we didn't include them" vs. "We decided to make snide remarks about their destruction." Who's making snide remarks, now? The stuff about Guardinals or Demons/Devils wasn't particularly snide. The stuff I read was civil, reasonable and intelligent. The one snide remark was about the Quasielemental Plane of Vacuum, which hasn't officially existed since 2e anyway. I like infinity. If a plane is limited it becomes less majestic to me because concepts like Good and Evil should be limitless. Same with the inner planes, they are the foundations of the infinite Primes - and thus they should be infinite. And infinite things can have edges. Sure, if you don't actually *think* about what the word "infinite" means and just think of "infinite" as "so big it's AWESOMER than anything finite, ha ha!" All kinds of paradoxes come up if things are truly infinite. Like this one: If Regulus is one of those damn infinite regions of an infinite plane, and it is uniformly filled with Modrons, the Great Modron March should instantly destroy everything and anything in any Prime world it moves through by completely filling it with Modrons. If there are an infinite number of Devils in Hell, the "alliances" made between Archdevils are pointless and meaningless. Even if eight Archdevils banded together against one other one, all of them would have an infinite number of Devils under their command and never be able to deplete the last Archdevil's army. And so on. Tons of things in the Great Wheel don't actually make any sense if the planes are infinite. Most of them *do* make sense if the planes are finite -- indeed, they seem to *assume* the planes are finite. (That the number of Demons in the Abyss has a limit on it and could theoretically be depleted, hence the Devils bothering to wage war on them and invent new weapons and so on. Etc.) The designers can easily just say "size unknown" and make everyone happy. Unless Wizards plans to map out its new finite Hell and Abyss completely makes it pointless to state the size. It throws a bone to those of us who have been waving banners saying "You keep using the word 'infinite'. I do not think it means what you say it means".
Alpha_Moose 10-08-07, 06:32 PM	Sure, if you don't actually *think* about what the word "infinite" means and just think of "infinite" as "so big it's AWESOMER than anything finite, ha ha!" All kinds of paradoxes come up if things are truly infinite. Another example: If it is infinite, then that means that everything that can happen has happened an infinite amount of times. Which means that, in Hell, there are an infinite amount of devils that have reformed and become good. So there should be a 'heaven' inside of Hell. Oh, and it's also infinitely huge too. Also, the complete works of Shakespeare have been written an infinite amount of times over by bananas randomly falling on typewriters. I don't even want to go into the amounts of spoons that, when placed into drawers, have become kittens. So basically... It throws a bone to those of us who have been waving banners saying "You keep using the word 'infinite'. I do not think it means what you say it means". Quite frankly, there are many things that I like about the Great Wheel setting. In fact I'm using a lot of it for my current campaign. I'm just not using all of it. I do like the new cosmology though.
HamHam 10-08-07, 09:26 PM	All kinds of paradoxes come up if things are truly infinite. But that's what makes it fun.
ArcTan 10-08-07, 11:06 PM	It would be if the game materials actually took these paradoxes into account and explained them, or at least *mentioned* them. But they don't. Quite the opposite. The game materials constantly and consistently act as though Hell was merely very large and never actually make reference to it being "infinite" besides using the *word* "infinite" for it over and over. That's what's annoying about it.
HamHam 10-08-07, 11:13 PM	It would be if the game materials actually took these paradoxes into account and explained them, or at least *mentioned* them. But they don't. Quite the opposite. The game materials constantly and consistently act as though Hell was merely very large and never actually make reference to it being "infinite" besides using the *word* "infinite" for it over and over. That's what's annoying about it. You just don't get it.
Yadot 10-09-07, 12:13 AM	You just don't get it. What's there to get? Where are mentions of the logical conclusions of infinite planes, or even of story elements thereof, other then when the books say the planes are infinite?
HamHam 10-09-07, 12:30 AM	What's there to get? Where are mentions of the logical conclusions of infinite planes, or even of story elements thereof, other then when the books say the planes are infinite? The fact that there's no center to the multiverse, for one. (Since the planes are infinite, any place is infinitely far away from any other place. Thus, no place is the center. Or maybe they're all the center.)
ArcTan 10-09-07, 02:02 AM	The fact that there's no center to the multiverse, for one. (Since the planes are infinite, any place is infinitely far away from any other place. Thus, no place is the center. Or maybe they're all the center.) The surface of a sphere has no center, but is finite in area. Not that even *that* matters, if the planes aren't all joined up in one contiguous space (which they never were before, and, as far as I can tell, still aren't). And, of course, the Great Wheel *did* have a center, the Spire, and a shape, a wheel, despite the supposedly "infinite" and "boundless" planes making this a nonsensical concept.
Thanael 10-09-07, 04:15 AM	It would be if the game materials actually took these paradoxes into account and explained them, or at least *mentioned* them. But they don't. Quite the opposite. The game materials constantly and consistently act as though Hell was merely very large and never actually make reference to it being "infinite" besides using the *word* "infinite" for it over and over. That's what's annoying about it. Well it did mention them, as stated by HamHam above. Some say The Spire is the Center some say anywhere is the Center of the Multiverse. But i agree, that it may have been handled badly in the past. And you know what i'd like them to do? Handle it better, not scrap it because they say to themselves hey it's easier that way and we sucked at it.
Thanael 10-09-07, 04:25 AM	I'm actually an astrogeek, so no. I think ArcTan said it best -- infinite is boring. It's the edges of things that are interesting. The middle of an infinite desert of fire is boring... but what happens where it meets the Elemental Ocean? Infinite is strange, weird, awe inspiring. Paradoxes are interesting and a way to enlightenment. Remember we're talking about the Planes of Belief of a fantasy universe here. Who says Aleph-this or that has any meaning there, similar to the problem with real-world physics. If you put too much of them in the game is not fantasy anymore or a fun game. Most Planescape material was written in character and did contain lots of contradictions, which i quite liked. See for example Mapping Infinity (http://www.mimir.net/mapinfinity/) for different ways to picture the Planes, which were all inspired by Planescape material: How Many Ways Can You Draw Everything? Well, quite a few, actually. While no planewalker who knows his onions will ever say "Yeah, that's the right way to map the planes", it's a cert that each one will have a favourite, preferred way of doing it. Why bother trying to map something that's fundamentally unmappable? Well, cutter, it's a question of philosophy, that. The best way to understand something is to see it with your own eyes. Each of the visualisations you'll find below are merely ways of looking at the problem of mapping infinity. Sure, none of them are The Truth, but when you consider each for it's own merits, you'll begin to understand The Way Things Are. And that, as any rounder'll tell you, is the most important lesson of all. So Planescape never really said this is the way things are, we are right and you clueless berks don't understand. Planescape NPCs did. And they contradicted each other...
Thanael 10-09-07, 04:34 AM	Another example: If it is infinite, then that means that everything that can happen has happened an infinite amount of times. Quoted for Falsehood. See The Infinite Monkey Theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem): The theorem illustrates the perils of reasoning about infinity by imagining a vast but finite number, and vice versa. The probability of a monkey typing a given string of text as long as, say, Hamlet is so tiny that, were the experiment conducted, the chance of it actually occurring during a span of time of the order of the age of the universe is minuscule but not zero. ...and: "The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event…", and the statement that the monkeys must eventually succeed "gives a misleading conclusion about very, very large numbers." So it is not zero. That's okay for a fantasy world. But is not 100% either. I think maybe you too don't understand infinities quite so well as you like to think.
Thanael 10-09-07, 04:38 AM	Sure, if you don't actually *think* about what the word "infinite" means and just think of "infinite" as "so big it's AWESOMER than anything finite, ha ha!" All kinds of paradoxes come up if things are truly infinite. I don't think the game designer's actually though that there is a difference between effectively infinite and actually infinite. I doubt they put much thought into it. And what would be the problem if they said The Outer Planes are awesomer than anything finite. That exactly what the Outer Planes should be imho.
Thanael 10-09-07, 04:52 AM	I'm actually an astrogeek, so no. I think ArcTan said it best -- infinite is boring. It's the edges of things that are interesting. The middle of an infinite desert of fire is boring... but what happens where it meets the Elemental Ocean? It's hard to populate an infinite expanse that has the same description throughout; you'll very rapidly fall into, "OK, you travel for three weeks across the burning wastes and arrive at the City of Brass. What do you do now?" Who says you have to populate an infinite expanse? Why is a 100,000 mile radius desert of fire any less boring? Yes, I mean the material plane. It would be a little like someone who lives in the arctic saying, "Yeah, I'm totally a higher form of life than those softies who live down south, because they can't take bitter, deadly cold!" And the problem with that is? Do you have a problem with elves thinking themselves better than non-elves? Because effective infinities have edges where interesting things happen. Because you can travel across them without resorting to magic or DM fiat (also known as Portals). It makes it a 'place'. I mean, can you imagine the Great Wheel without picturing the layers extending "above" and "below" each other layer? They're not physically related like that, but that's how we picture them, because it's easier. So why not make the picture the reality? Why ARE infinite planes better than effective infinities? Because they need to be limitless. You can not get them owned and win the game. Yes travelling the planes involved magic or portals. The outer planes are not a place in the same sense than the Material Plane. And they did make the picutre the reality. Only another picture than the one you like better. See my post with the link to Mapping the Infinite.
Naderion 10-09-07, 07:51 AM	The surface of a sphere has no center, but is finite in area. Not that even *that* matters, if the planes aren't all joined up in one contiguous space (which they never were before, and, as far as I can tell, still aren't). And, of course, the Great Wheel *did* have a center, the Spire, and a shape, a wheel, despite the supposedly "infinite" and "boundless" planes making this a nonsensical concept. And I think it was a planescape book, that at the end of a paragraph had an added sentence, that it actually doesn't make any sense to call one point in an infinite space full of infinite spaces it's center. :D That's planescape: It's supposed to be a huge collection of unconfirmed claims about the nature of the multiverse but without ever explaining it because it's something to vast for mortal minds to grasp. ;)
sciborg2 10-09-07, 09:23 AM	Who's making snide remarks, now? What's snide about saying that your statements aren't objective? As for throwing you a bone, I think that's just more canon wars messing around with things. It gets tiring to see designers make changes to the game so that their view can become canon. Instead they should make things as inclusive for people as possible. Just as the Astral Sea is a great idea, simply saying things are unknown size is the best way to be inclusive. Finite planes like Hell being as large as a prime world just create a new problem with shoehorning. Anyone who doesn't like infinities can just reduce things to finitude, and people like me can just enjoy the paradoxes, answer them, or ignore them as we see fit. And paradoxes will creep up, such as are there an infinite number of finite afterlives or does Hell just get filled up with souls till it bursts? That's planescape: It's supposed to be a huge collection of unconfirmed claims about the nature of the multiverse but without ever explaining it because it's something to vast for mortal minds to grasp. That's the best thing about PS, leaving it to the DM to provide final answers. It wasn't perfect (see baernoloth myth) but it allowed for a lot of flexibility.
Naderion 10-09-07, 09:33 AM	I don't think the DM should decide what's the final answer. Usually, not knowing is more fun. The FR have become very boring to me, because apparently everyone allready knows anything. Either you have to create your own stuff, or chances are good players immediately recognize the kraken society or the twisted rune, although inside the game world, almost no one knows these organisations even exist.
Aubri 10-09-07, 10:31 AM	Infinite is strange, weird, awe inspiring. Paradoxes are interesting and a way to enlightenment. How very pithy. Paradoxes are not interesting in a gaming context. They're nonsensical. "I attack the orc." "Your sword turns into a banana." Wasn't that enlightening? Because in a single infinite plane that's happened an infinite number of times. Please show me an example of how a paradox is interesting or enlightening in a game context. (Since I'm not a Zen Buddhist monk, I don't care to sit around imagining deep truths about an imaginary world, thanks. I'm here to play.) Remember we're talking about the Planes of Belief of a fantasy universe here. Who says Aleph-this or that has any meaning there, similar to the problem with real-world physics. If you put too much of them in the game is not fantasy anymore or a fun game. It's the definition of the word "infinite", man. Most Planescape material was written in character and did contain lots of contradictions, which i quite liked. See for example Mapping Infinity (http://www.mimir.net/mapinfinity/) for different ways to picture the Planes, which were all inspired by Planescape material: Why bother trying to map something that's fundamentally unmappable? Well, cutter, it's a question of philosophy, that. The best way to understand something is to see it with your own eyes. Each of the visualisations you'll find below are merely ways of looking at the problem of mapping infinity. Sure, none of them are The Truth, but when you consider each for it's own merits, you'll begin to understand The Way Things Are. And that, as any rounder'll tell you, is the most important lesson of all. So Planescape never really said this is the way things are, we are right and you clueless berks don't understand. Planescape NPCs did. And they contradicted each other... And... so what? Yes, the Great Wheel is a conceptual 3d representation of an innately abstract universe. So bloody what?! That doesn't negate any of the points we've made. It's an adquate visualization of the universe, and it's accurate enough that it might as well be the reality.
Aubri 10-09-07, 10:38 AM	Who says you have to populate an infinite expanse? Why is a 100,000 mile radius desert of fire any less boring? It's not, if you're standing in the middle. But there ARE edges. There's somewhere to go other than the nearest dungeon or portal to X other plane. It's a big help for the DM, too; which is more interesting? A fortress of obsidian in the middle of an infinite undifferentiated desert, or a fortress of obsidian perched on the shores of flame that constantly boil the adjacent sea? Because they need to be limitless. You can not get them owned and win the game. Yes travelling the planes involved magic or portals. The outer planes are not a place in the same sense than the Material Plane. Two contradictory but related points: 1) Why not? What if I want to conquer Hell? Who are you to tell me how to play my game? 2) When was the last time one of your characters conquered the entirity of the Material Plane? Or even all of Faerun or The Flanaess or whatever you play in? It's a piece of land the size of Europe. Not conquering the world is a matter for the DM and the players to determine. The inability to conquer any given large area has nothing to do with whether it's infinite or not.
sciborg2 10-09-07, 11:55 AM	Who are you to tell me how to play my game? I should be asking you the same question - why can't I have infinity in my games? In MY games, infinity doesn't mean a sword turns into a banana (where did you get this idea btw?). In MY games, I either explain paradoxes best I can or ignore them. Because I'm in it for the infinite adventure, and I like the idea of playing the infintie cosmic game with infinite beings. Hell, I just like saying the word "Infinity" along with "Eternal" and "Timeless". The fact that the designers on 4e insist on size limits makes me not want to buy into the new edition since all I do is planar stuff (and some Eberron). Though if there is a lot of good planar options I will of course not resist out of spite.
Aubri 10-09-07, 01:01 PM	I should be asking you the same question - why can't I have infinity in my games? Please do. But since we're talking about the default setting, isn't it better to use the easier, more logical setting rather than the one that's full of paradoxes? In MY games, infinity doesn't mean a sword turns into a banana (where did you get this idea btw?). Of course it does. Well, ok, the banana was an absurd example. Do you actually understand what the word "infinity" MEANS? It means that any occurrance, no matter how unlikely, MUST take place somewhere -- and in fact, takes place an infinite number of times. Sure, if it happened to YOU you'd think it was ridiculously unlikely. But you're one example out of infinity trials. How unlikely is that? You're de facto reducing "infinity" to "very large". You just don't like to say that you are. In MY games, I either explain paradoxes best I can or ignore them. Because I'm in it for the infinite adventure, and I like the idea of playing the infintie cosmic game with infinite beings. That's nice. Wouldn't it be nice if the default setting didn't include those paradoxes in the first place? Hell, I just like saying the word "Infinity" along with "Eternal" and "Timeless". The fact that the designers on 4e insist on size limits makes me not want to buy into the new edition since all I do is planar stuff (and some Eberron). Though if there is a lot of good planar options I will of course not resist out of spite. Without actually understanding the ramifications of those words, clearly. The 4e designers are not "insisting" on anything. They're writing a default setting. If you want to go and use Planescape, be my guest; all they're doing is providing a simpler alternative for all us other DMs to base our unique cosmologies on.
pratputajao 10-09-07, 02:17 PM	I agree that an Infinite plane brings up some mind blowing paradoxes. I would go with the original DnD take on it- there can be planes that are tiny (nanometers in size) to unimaginably large- trillion+ light years accross. I dont go for the Idea that a layer of the abyss is about the size of a planet or something. It should be bigger than what one being could explore in a life time, some amount of light years. Unbelievably big without being infinite. I wouldnt mind the elimination of infinite planes as long as they are replaced with something that would damn near appear infinite to all beings. Planet size doesnt do it for me. This is one area I can agree with changing ....infinite planes are just too much to accept, especially hundreds of them ( wouldnt an infinite plane hold all other infinite planes? I mean they are INFINITE.....to much)
sciborg2 10-09-07, 02:49 PM	Please do. But since we're talking about the default setting, isn't it better to use the easier, more logical setting rather than the one that's full of paradoxes? Or just say "size unknown" aka "incredibly vast" or even "possibly limitless" for things like the Elemental Tempest. That means you get your finite and I get my infinite, and subsequent adventures and books can just say which assumption they're based on if that would even be necessary. Do you actually understand what the word "infinity" MEANS? It means that any occurrance, no matter how unlikely, MUST take place somewhere -- and in fact, takes place an infinite number of times. Sure, if it happened to YOU you'd think it was ridiculously unlikely. I've never seen anyone make that claim about the meaning of "infinity", but your condescending attitude is really convincing. Perhaps in quantum mechanics that applies but I don't really need to worry about that in my D&D game...unless it makes for a cool adventure. That's nice. Wouldn't it be nice if the default setting didn't include those paradoxes in the first place? Or maybe, again, they could just say "size unknown" and leave it at that. That way future articles/adventures/books aren't limited if someone has a cool idea that requires some notion of infinity. Without actually understanding the ramifications of those words, clearly. There's a difference between caring and understanding, supposing (and it's a big fat supposition) that you do understand. I really don't see what sources you're using to make your claims about every possibility must happen. So far you seem to be tossing an interpretation I've never seen in theology nor mathematics. The 4e designers are not "insisting" on anything. They're writing a default setting. If you want to go and use Planescape, be my guest This has little - if anything - to do with planescape - the planes were infinite long before it ever came along. all they're doing is providing a simpler alternative for all us other DMs to base our unique cosmologies on. "Size unknown" is simple and respects every possibility. As Rip would say, it creates options rather than negates them.
Keenath 10-09-07, 03:42 PM	I think the difference of opinion on alignment is going to be if it drew you into the game by making you think about the motivation for actions versus whether it was one more thing to tabulate or figure out before you could have fun.I dunno that it's necessarily an issue of "bah, gotta add up my alignment..." or whatever. I mean, I like alignment as a tool to talk about who my character is and what motivates him. But I don't like it when my alignment is held over my head and used to bludgeon me. I'm playing Han Solo, right? From the first movie, okay? Han is clearly chaotic, and somewhere between neutral and good. I intensely dislike that some smarmy hidebound cleric walks up to my rogue and strikes him deaf -- not because he's cast a Deafness spell on me, but because I don't follow the rules enough! I'm not a cleric of Olidammara, here; I'm not made out of the 'stuff' of chaos, and I have no deep connection to chaotic energy or whatnot. I just happen to like to live my life by my own rules. And that makes me vulnerable to Dictum! This is why I want alignment reduced. Not because I dislike having that "CN" on my character sheet, but because that "CN" has some very specific in-game effects that are out of all proportion with what that actually means to my character's life and behavior.
Keenath 10-09-07, 03:50 PM	The removal of the Great Wheel is one of the many reasons I will not be playing 4.0. Ever. It is my opinion that the Great Wheel is as much a part of D&D as twenty sided dice and adventures that start in taverns. I... huh. I can't actually tell if this is meant as sarcasm or not. I mean... starting in a tavern ISN'T the only place adventures start, and it's a bit of a joke to say "you all meet in a tavern" -- intentional self-parody. And more to the point, doesn't that mean Eberron (which doesn't use anything LIKE a great wheel) isn't D&D? Nor is Dark*sun, nor any other setting that doesn't cleave to your Great Wheel? Wow, man. Just... wow.
HamHam 10-09-07, 03:56 PM	Of course it does. Well, ok, the banana was an absurd example. Do you actually understand what the word "infinity" MEANS? It means that any occurrance, no matter how unlikely, MUST take place somewhere -- and in fact, takes place an infinite number of times. Sure, if it happened to YOU you'd think it was ridiculously unlikely. But you're one example out of infinity trials. How unlikely is that? You're de facto reducing "infinity" to "very large". You just don't like to say that you are. That's not exactly a precise or even correct definition of infinity that you're using there. Especially since the Planes are infinite in space, but not necessarily in Time or Density. For that matter, the planes could actually be infinite, but since no mortal, and even most immortals, can not understand infinity, they appear simply "very very big" to most planar residents and primes.
Aubri 10-09-07, 03:57 PM	I've never seen anyone make that claim about the meaning of "infinity", but your condescending attitude is really convincing. Well, there's not a whole lot more to say on the subject after ArcTan's posts. I didn't mean this would for certain happen to your character in particular. There's an infinitesimal chance of it. But if the planes are truly infinite, then that particular pattern of atomic decay or wild magic is happening in some place at any given time. And in fact, because of the definition of infinite, it's happening an infinite number of times. Math kind of breaks down when you start talking about infinity -- you have to start talking about degrees of infinity, like how half of a line is half as big as a whole line despite both being infinite in length. Perhaps in quantum mechanics that applies but I don't really need to worry about that in my D&D game...unless it makes for a cool adventure. Sure. Nor do you need to worry about the structure of the Great Wheel at all! If we're going to take that route, this whole thread is pointless, so let's not go there.
Naderion 10-09-07, 04:31 PM	But this discussion has been pointless for pages... The only thing that matters is "more fun or not".
sciborg2 10-09-07, 04:50 PM	I didn't mean this would for certain happen to your character in particular. There's an infinitesimal chance of it. But if the planes are truly infinite, then that particular pattern of atomic decay or wild magic is happening in some place at any given time. Or that particular pattern (sword -> bannana) isn't happening at all. Because the DM says so. But, again, why does this pattern have to happen to anyone? Sure. Nor do you need to worry about the structure of the Great Wheel at all! If we're going to take that route, this whole thread is pointless, so let's not go there. I don't worry about the Great Wheel - I already stated the Astral Sea is a better option. In fact, that's how I saw the Great Wheel - just a set of planes, but not exhaustive.
Keenath 10-09-07, 05:21 PM	Or that particular pattern (sword -> bannana) isn't happening at all. Because the DM says so. But, again, why does this pattern have to happen to anyone?If you insist on infinities, then any event with any chance of occuring, must occur. It's one of the Grand Hotel paradoxes mentioned upthread. Any subset of infinity is infinity. If you imagine the Grand Hotel, which has an infinite number of rooms, there are an infinite number (mathematically, "Aleph null", the count of natural numbers that there are -- which is infinity) of rooms with even numbers, and an infinite number of rooms with odd numbers. Likewise, by extension, let's say smoking is not allowed in the Grand Hotel. There is a small but non-zero chance that a given customer will smuggle in one or more cigars to smoke. Say one in 1,000 customers will bring in a cigar. Because you have aleph-null rooms, not only is it a certainty that you have cigars in the hotel, it is definitionally true that you have an infinite number of cigars in the hotel! Any subset of aleph-null has aleph-null members, thus of your infinite rooms, you have an infinite number of cigars in your hotel. What's really mindblowing? You still also have, by definition, more rooms than cigars. Thus, the earlier comment about there being necessarily an infinite number of good-aligned demons, because even with a vanishingly small chance of converting to good, given infinite demons, you necessarily have an infinite number of converts.
HamHam 10-09-07, 06:14 PM	If you insist on infinities, then any event with any chance of occuring, must occur. You can't make this statement this general. It will occur, someplace at some time, but this has no effect on it's chance of occuring here and now. Thus, the earlier comment about there being necessarily an infinite number of good-aligned demons, because even with a vanishingly small chance of converting to good, given infinite demons, you necessarily have an infinite number of converts. However, your chances of meeting one are still vanishingly small. ----------------------- Frankly the reletionship between infinite and finite things is rather interesting. One particularly interesting is the Library of Babel: It consists of books, each one 500 pages long, with 100 characters on each page, and the characters possible are all the letter in the English alphabet, plus numbers, plus punctuation (including a space). That's 60 characters including capitals. That means there are 3,000,000 books in the library, and each is unique. (I think this math is right, though it might not be.) The Library of Babel contains every book ever written using the English alphabet (though some may be spread out over more than one volume). It also contains translations of every book ever written in any other language (and multiple equally good but distinct versions there of). It also contains a book detailing the exact events of your life. It also contains every variation there of. It contains several thousand copies of Hamlet, each of which is only off by one character. It contains a book that is entirely blank. It, in essence, contains an infinite number of contextual objects, while being itself finite.
Alpha_Moose 10-09-07, 07:13 PM	Quoted for Falsehood. See The Infinite Monkey Theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem): The theorem illustrates the perils of reasoning about infinity by imagining a vast but finite number, and vice versa. The probability of a monkey typing a given string of text as long as, say, Hamlet is so tiny that, were the experiment conducted, the chance of it actually occurring during a span of time of the order of the age of the universe is minuscule but not zero. ...and: "The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event…", and the statement that the monkeys must eventually succeed "gives a misleading conclusion about very, very large numbers." So it is not zero. That's okay for a fantasy world. But is not 100% either. I think maybe you too don't understand infinities quite so well as you like to think. I'm not sure you do. That article only says that the probability is so small that it is negligible in our universe, because infinites do not exist in our universe. That for finite numbers, no matter how big, it is negligible. If it has any percent chance of happening, and the 'chance' of it happening happens an infinite amount of times, then it will indeed happen an infinite amount of times. Basically... It's the definition of the word "infinite", man. ------------------------------------------- I should be asking you the same question - why can't I have infinity in my games? In MY games, infinity doesn't mean a sword turns into a banana (where did you get this idea btw?). Then in your games infinity doesn't mean infinity. It's a basic misuse of the word. It's fine if you and anyone you play with agree on what it means, but it's not what the word actually means. Hell, I just like saying the word "Infinity" along with "Eternal" and "Timeless". The fact that the designers on 4e insist on size limits makes me not want to buy into the new edition since all I do is planar stuff (and some Eberron). Though if there is a lot of good planar options I will of course not resist out of spite. Will it really change you game if they reduce the size from "pointlessly infinite" to "so huge that your characters won't explore it all even if they had a million years". The thing is that infinite doesn't actually do anything good. All it does is make stupid problems with how things work on the big scale and not effect your PCs any more than "quite big" does. Of course the big reason to get the new books for me at least is the new mechanics. The flavor will only be mildly useful even if I find it interesting. I agree that an Infinite plane brings up some mind blowing paradoxes. I would go with the original DnD take on it- there can be planes that are tiny (nanometers in size) to unimaginably large- trillion+ light years accross. I dont go for the Idea that a layer of the abyss is about the size of a planet or something. It should be bigger than what one being could explore in a life time, some amount of light years. Unbelievably big without being infinite. I wouldnt mind the elimination of infinite planes as long as they are replaced with something that would damn near appear infinite to all beings. Planet size doesnt do it for me. This is one area I can agree with changing ....infinite planes are just too much to accept, especially hundreds of them ( wouldnt an infinite plane hold all other infinite planes? I mean they are INFINITE.....to much) A planet is actually quite big. There is no way that you could explore the entire planet of Jupiter in 10 Dragon's lifetime. It is unbelievably big.
HamHam 10-09-07, 07:28 PM	I'm not sure you do. That article only says that the probability is so small that it is negligible in our universe, because infinites do not exist in our universe. That for finite numbers, no matter how big, it is negligible. If it has any percent chance of happening, and the 'chance' of it happening happens an infinite amount of times, then it will indeed happen an infinite amount of times. But since it's occuring in an infinite space over near-infinite time, it's still Vanishngly unlikely. Then in your games infinity doesn't mean infinity. It's a basic misuse of the word. It's fine if you and anyone you play with agree on what it means, but it's not what the word actually means. The definition of "infinity" is dependant on the context it is being used. On the Prime, a sword will never turn into a banana, ever, because the rules do not allow it. In Limbo, it will potentially have occured an infinite number of times, however the chances of encountering this are still infinitely small. ------------------------ A more effective way to look at this is that the planes are physically infinite but cognitively closed. Thus, while the physical space may be infinite, the actual conception of that space is finite, meaning that one part of Mechanus looks more or less like any other part, and the only points of interest are a finite, though large, collection of landmarks that stand out. ------------------ Another way to say this is that the planes are infinte but not infinitely diverse.
Alpha_Moose 10-09-07, 07:59 PM	But since it's occuring in an infinite space over near-infinite time, it's still Vanishngly unlikely. Well something can't be "near-infinite" really. The thing is that that "vanishingly unlikely" thing will still happen if it can happen enough times. Rolling a d20 only has a 1 in 20 chance of being 20. But if you role it two hundred times it almost certainly will happen. The definition of "infinity" is dependant on the context it is being used. On the Prime, a sword will never turn into a banana, ever, because the rules do not allow it. In Limbo, it will potentially have occured an infinite number of times, however the chances of encountering this are still infinitely small. Admittedly the rules won't, but that's because they can't deal with all of the little things that the world does (and that in D&D your world is a bit predetermined because of the DM). I mean, the rules say that a 1st level party can't get a Major magic item (randomly), but that's not because it would be impossible, rather because that's bad for balance sake. A more effective way to look at this is that the planes are physically infinite but cognitively closed. Thus, while the physical space may be infinite, the actual conception of that space is finite, meaning that one part of Mechanus looks more or less like any other part, and the only points of interest are a finite, though large, collection of landmarks that stand out. ------------------ Another way to say this is that the planes are infinte but not infinitely diverse. So infinite, but of the same thing over and over again? Then that means that random things can't happen on the planes (quite silly when you go to Limbo) or they are actually things like Neverland/Matrix where you can basically ignore all semblance of any type of logic and just assume that this is a good plot. Which is, quite frankly, silly. Then again, we do play a game that's basically Magical Tea Party crossed with Yahtzee. Do you want some more tea Mr. Demogorgon?
HamHam 10-09-07, 08:13 PM	Well something can't be "near-infinite" really. The thing is that that "vanishingly unlikely" thing will still happen if it can happen enough times. Rolling a d20 only has a 1 in 20 chance of being 20. But if you role it two hundred times it almost certainly will happen. But it might not. Only at true infinity does the probability of not rolling a 20 hit actual zero. But since you are only ever in a finite subset of the infinite Planes, your probability (or improbable things occuring) will always remain fairly high. Admittedly the rules won't, but that's because they can't deal with all of the little things that the world does (and that in D&D your world is a bit predetermined because of the DM). I mean, the rules say that a 1st level party can't get a Major magic item (randomly), but that's not because it would be impossible, rather because that's bad for balance sake. They do not say that. It does against the Wealth by Level guidelines, but those are guidelines not rules. The point is that the Prime is not subject to Quantum Uncertainty. It's strictly Newtonian in terms of interactions, which is why swords do not turn into bananas. So infinite, but of the same thing over and over again? Then that means that random things can't happen on the planes (quite silly when you go to Limbo) Limbo is the Exception. It's the plane of elemental chaos after all. Mechanus, for example, is infinite in the sense that a fractal is infinite. It starts at one point (probably the Modron's thing-a-majig) and spreads infinitely. But each part is itself identical to the larger pattern. they are actually things like Neverland/Matrix where you can basically ignore all semblance of any type of logic and just assume that this is a good plot. Which is, quite frankly, silly. It's not silly, it's the whole point. They are Hitchhiker improbable.
Keenath 10-09-07, 09:02 PM	You can't make this statement this general. It will occur, someplace at some time, but this has no effect on it's chance of occuring here and now.You haven't understood the concept of infinity. If there is true infinity at work, then it must be happening, RIGHT NOW. "here" is arguable, but that depends on how densely packed your infinite space is. Frankly the reletionship between infinite and finite things is rather interesting. One particularly interesting is the Library of Babel: It consists of books, each one 500 pages long, with 100 characters on each page, and the characters possible are all the letter in the English alphabet, plus numbers, plus punctuation (including a space). That's 60 characters including capitals. That means there are 3,000,000 books in the library, and each is unique. (I think this math is right, though it might not be.)As I recall, it's an infinite expanse of hexagonal rooms, each of which contains three walls full of books. You would need many more than three million books to find every possible page. I believe you would need around 1.6x10^160 pages, which comes out to around 3.2x10^157 books with 500 pages each. Just for reference, it has been occasionally estimated that there are around 10^100 atoms in the universe. (That number is called a 'googol', by the way -- a one followed by one hundred zeroes.) So you're talking about nearly sixty percent more books than there are atoms in the universe. Finite, but utterly dwarfing your three million value. It, in essence, contains an infinite number of contextual objects, while being itself finite.Annnnd now you've gone wrong. It cannot possibly contain an infinite number of contextual objects without having an infinite number of contexts. The library must contain every computer program ever written (though not all on contiguous pages), in binary, octal, hexadecimal, and written code in every possible computer language. It also must contain a true index of all the information in all the other books (though again, not necessarily on pages that are anywhere near each other), and also every possible false index. But again, the nature of infinity is tricky. There can only be a finite number of contexts -- a finite number of possible languages (that use the given character set); a finite number of codes, a finite number of ways to interpret data. It's a large number, but the sum of all those values is still ONLY A FINITE NUMBER. The library contains a very large but still finite number of objects, and those objects can be interpreted in a large but finite number of ways -- which means it has a very large, but still finite, number of contextual objects. Sorry. It's a trap. You can't get to infinity from any finite value, unless you add an infinity in (such as an infinite number of contexts, above). And likewise, if you have an infinity, you can't get back to normal, finite numbers, because any fraction of infinity still has an infinite number of distinct members.
HamHam 10-09-07, 09:22 PM	You haven't understood the concept of infinity. If there is true infinity at work, then it must be happening, RIGHT NOW. "here" is arguable, but that depends on how densely packed your infinite space is. But not here. It's happening somewhere at any given time, and it will happen sometime at any given place, but at a given time and place it won't be happening (probably). As I recall, it's an infinite expanse of hexagonal rooms, each of which contains three walls full of books. You would need many more than three million books to find every possible page. I believe you would need around 1.6x10^160 pages, which comes out to around 3.2x10^157 books with 500 pages each. Right, I forgot how to do probabilities apparently... its should be 60^50,000 books as I've set it up. The library contains a very large but still finite number of objects, and those objects can be interpreted in a large but finite number of ways -- which means it has a very large, but still finite, number of contextual objects. Actually the point is that you can combine books into larger books with no limit. Thus creating infinite books that can be constructed, though not all of the same length. And likewise, if you have an infinity, you can't get back to normal, finite numbers, because any fraction of infinity still has an infinite number of distinct members. {1,2,3} is a finite subset of several infinte sets (the Naturals, the Integers, and the Reals to just name a few).
ArcTan 10-09-07, 09:23 PM	Well it did mention them, as stated by HamHam above. Some say The Spire is the Center some say anywhere is the Center of the Multiverse. But i agree, that it may have been handled badly in the past. And you know what i'd like them to do? Handle it better, not scrap it because they say to themselves hey it's easier that way and we sucked at it. What, the "infinity" thing? By far the easiest way to "handle it better" is to just say "It's really really big" rather than saying "infinite", since nothing about the planes in past editions has actually suggested that they *are* infinite other than them incorrectly using that word. "Correctly" using the idea of infinite planes would necessitate a huge shift in the way the planes are handled. Many concepts like the Blood War would have to be totally discarded, as with the nonsensical idea of fiends "competing" for mortal souls (as though even twenty quintillion mortal souls matter *at all* when the number of fiends is already infinite), and any finite number of anything becomes paradoxical and problematic -- if there is a nonzero chance that any Lemure will eventually rise to become an Archdevil, then given an infinite number of Lemures, there are an infinite number of Archdevils coming into existence at every instant of every day. You see? People don't *think* about what "infinite" means when they use it. They *don't actually mean it* when they say "infinite". It's easier for everyone's sanity all around to just drop the word "infinite", so that people like me don't get our brains twisted in knots thinking of ways that that doesn't make sense. Just say "really really big". Humongous. Gargantuan. Mega-enormo-huge. Ten thousand light-years. I don't care -- any one of those words is better than "infinite".
ArcTan 10-09-07, 09:28 PM	Infinite is strange, weird, awe inspiring. Paradoxes are interesting and a way to enlightenment. Remember we're talking about the Planes of Belief of a fantasy universe here. Who says Aleph-this or that has any meaning there, similar to the problem with real-world physics. If you put too much of them in the game is not fantasy anymore or a fun game. The "paradoxes" I'm talking about have nothing at all to do with real physics. Real physics is incompatible (in my view) with the notion of actual infinities existing in real life. The things I'm talking about are a simple result of logically thinking about what "infinity" means. They're a direct result of thinking about the word "infinite" and thinking what it really means to have no limit to the amount of space you have or number of things you have. If that's not true, then of course those things follow. But then you don't need to use the word "infinite". A "paradox" whose resolution is simply to toss out the definition of a word isn't a very good paradox. There are an infinite number of fiends in Baator, but their armies only number in "the millions". Why? Because "infinite" actually means "millions". Oooooh, cool paradox. Most Planescape material was written in character and did contain lots of contradictions, which i quite liked. In-character, it's easy to explain the "infinite" layers of the Abyss by simply stating that the people in Sigil who call it that are, like you and like most people who casually throw around the term, using the word incorrectly.
ArcTan 10-09-07, 09:31 PM	So it is not zero. That's okay for a fantasy world. But is not 100% either. I think maybe you too don't understand infinities quite so well as you like to think. Do you actually understand what you quoted? The Wikipedia article says the Infinite Monkeys Theorem, broadly speaking, is TRUE. The "peril" Wikipedia talks about is precisely the thing you're doing -- assuming that things that apply to very large finite numbers apply to infinite numbers, and therefore assuming that it's okay to use "infinity" as a way to mean "very very big". When, in fact, that's not true. The reason the monkeys typing Hamlet is impossible is that *our real universe* is not big enough to accommodate an infinite number of events. If it were, then there would no longer be any such thing as a "small probability" or "large probability". All probabilities would be either 0 or 1. The only way the infinite monkeys *can't* type Hamlet is if typing Hamlet is in some way absolutely impossible (say, Hamlet has the letter E in it and none of the typewriters has the letter E in it) -- otherwise, anything and everything that can be typed is typed. The infinite monkeys are used to demonstrate *why* one should not throw around the word "infinity" when one means "very big".
HamHam 10-09-07, 09:32 PM	if there is a nonzero chance that any Lemure will eventually rise to become an Archdevil, then given an infinite number of Lemures, there are an infinite number of Archdevils coming into existence at every instant of every day. But there isn't. There can only be 9 Archdevils, one for each layer, and as such the probability of becoming an Archdevil is zero as long as there are 9 already.
ArcTan 10-09-07, 09:40 PM	Hell, I just like saying the word "Infinity" along with "Eternal" and "Timeless". The fact that the designers on 4e insist on size limits makes me not want to buy into the new edition since all I do is planar stuff (and some Eberron). Though if there is a lot of good planar options I will of course not resist out of spite. Well, good. Say it if you want. You'll be using the word wrong. If that doesn't bother you, fine, but I don't think it's too much to ask to ask the designers not to use words wrong. That's what's really getting me about this. People keep talking about the "infinity" being "taken out" of the planes, but there never actually has been any. There have sometimes been 666 Layers of the Abyss. There have sometimes been less than that, sometimes substantially more. Most recently we've learned that the number of layers of the Abyss is indefinite and new ones are always being created and destroyed. But we have *never* had *infinite* layers of the Abyss, despite the name, because not *one* D&D supplement has ever actually addressed any of the paradoxes that that would create, and *all* of the plots involving the Abyss assume that it *isn't* infinite. That's why there's a countable, small number of Demon Princes who know who each other are and can vie for power, and why someone can actually make the bold claim that Demogorgon is the "most powerful of all Demon Princes". That's why the Devils can someday hope to "conquer" the Abyss by "depleting the endless ranks of Demons with ever-more-powerful weapons and cunning strategies" despite not being stupid or insane. You're complaining about something being "taken out of the game" that was never *in* the game. They're just not using the wrong term for it anymore.
ArcTan 10-09-07, 09:50 PM	That's not exactly a precise or even correct definition of infinity that you're using there. Especially since the Planes are infinite in space, but not necessarily in Time or Density. Doesn't matter. Infinite space that is uniformly filled with whatever it is you're talking about is enough. You don't need "infinite density", and you especially don't need infinite time. If you have an infinite number of monkeys all typing, one of them will *immediately* produce a complete copy of Hamlet, on the very first try. Indeed, an *infinite* number of them will immediately produce a copy of Hamlet, on the very first try. On the other hand, if you had just *one* (immortal) monkey typing on *one* (indestructible) typewriter (with infinite paper) for an infinite amount of time, then yes, somewhere in that infinite amount of time Hamlet appears. But the point of having infinite *space* is that it makes things possible -- and, indeed, *certain* -- in finite time that would require infinite time to be possible in finite space. For that matter, the planes could actually be infinite, but since no mortal, and even most immortals, can not understand infinity, they appear simply "very very big" to most planar residents and primes. Well, if the "actual" plane is infinite, but the part that has all the Devil armies and damned souls and things in it is finite, then it's kind of twisting words to say that "Hell is infinite". The thing we call Hell is merely a finite region of some infinite thing. Which is fine. I like that. It's like how our planet, which is, from our perspective, a very very big place, is itself merely a tiny finite region within something really really big that may or may not be infinite who knows. (And so is our solar system, and so is our galaxy, and so is our local supercluster of thousands and thousands of galaxies.)
ArcTan 10-09-07, 10:03 PM	You can't make this statement this general. It will occur, someplace at some time, but this has no effect on it's chance of occuring here and now. That's arguable. The math and the philosophy here both get very abstruse, but if you think about it, if I randomly pick a number from *all the natural numbers* (which is, in real life, impossible) then it's impossible to say that that number has any "lower" chance of being, say, divisible by 113,732,321,809,215 than *not* being divisible by that number. Saying that something has a "1 in 113,732,321,809,215" chance of happening *only makes sense* of the total number of possibilities is finite. Why? Because the number of numbers divisible by 113,732,321,809,215 among the natural numbers *is infinite* -- it has cardinality aleph-null. It is *exactly the same size* as the number of numbers *not* divisible by 113,732,321,809,215. Dividing infinity by infinity and getting a probability is an impossible mathematical operation. You can't perform those functions on the infinite cardinalities, just like you can't say what happens when you "subtract infinity from infinity". Essentially, there is *no reason* that, when randomly summoning a Devil from Hell, getting a reformed Chain Devil Paladin should be less likely than getting a regular Chain Devil. Even if only 1 in 113,732,321,809,215 Chain Devils ever reforms, out of infinite Chain Devils, that's an *infinite number of Devils* and *just as high* as the regular Chain Devils. It becomes a paradox. Even *being able to pick* is a paradox -- mathematically, mathematicians just handwave having the power to randomly pick one element out of an infinite set as an axiom, the "axiom of choice", because when you really think about it it may not actually be possible. However, your chances of meeting one are still vanishingly small. Frankly the reletionship between infinite and finite things is rather interesting. One particularly interesting is the Library of Babel: It consists of books, each one 500 pages long, with 100 characters on each page, and the characters possible are all the letter in the English alphabet, plus numbers, plus punctuation (including a space). That's 60 characters including capitals. That means there are 3,000,000 books in the library, and each is unique. (I think this math is right, though it might not be.) The Library of Babel contains every book ever written using the English alphabet (though some may be spread out over more than one volume). It also contains translations of every book ever written in any other language (and multiple equally good but distinct versions there of). It also contains a book detailing the exact events of your life. It also contains every variation there of. It contains several thousand copies of Hamlet, each of which is only off by one character. It contains a book that is entirely blank. It, in essence, contains an infinite number of contextual objects, while being itself finite. No, it doesn't. The total number of books in it is finite. The total number of books that can be constructed by linking *different* books together is finite -- indeed, we know how big the largest possible book is, because the largest possible book you can make with the Library of Babel is the Library of Babel itself. Of course, you can make an "infinite" number of books with it by giving yourself the right to *repeat* books an indefinite number of times. But so what? Just one book with just one letter in it is enough to create an "infinite" number of books (even though all of those books will just be strings of that one letter of different lengths: "A", "AAAA", "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA", etc.) The Borges story of the Library of Babel is a very cool story about very large *finite* numbers. It says nothing at all about infinity. The Library is very very big -- larger than the known universe -- but it is *not* infinite. The story is only possible because it is not infinite, in fact.
HamHam 10-09-07, 11:24 PM	Doesn't matter. Infinite space that is uniformly filled with whatever it is you're talking about is enough. But it's not uniformly filled. There is one City of Brass on the entire Elemental Plane of Fire. There is one Asmodeous/Demogorgon in Baator and the Abyss. Etc. This is equivalent to the distribution of the prime numbers. There is an infinte number of prime numbers. However, the distribution of those primes across the real line is non-uniform. There is only one even prime. Etc. Dividing infinity by infinity and getting a probability is an impossible mathematical operation. You can't perform those functions on the infinite cardinalities, just like you can't say what happens when you "subtract infinity from infinity". To our inferior Prime math maybe. But that's why we're Clueless. :P Though a more serious point might be that x/e^x has a limit point of 0 at infinity. So if x is the number of good demons, and e^x is the number of evil demons (where x might be some measure of area or volume) then at infinite dimension the good demons vanish, overwhelmed by the evil demons.
ArcTan 10-10-07, 12:11 AM	But it's not uniformly filled. There is one City of Brass on the entire Elemental Plane of Fire. There is one Asmodeous/Demogorgon in Baator and the Abyss. Etc. And the chance of randomly stumbling across it while wandering through the plane would therefore be zero. And the question of why, therefore, such a city is "important" would arise. For one thing, we have to ask *why* there's only one City of Brass. If there's a nonzero probability that any random group of Efreet could make another one, then there *is* another one -- in fact, there is an infinite number of them. The idea that the City of Brass is the only City of Brass because it's somehow "very difficult" to build and it required a "great many" powerful Efreet lords to make it is based on the idea that the total number of Efreet and the man-hours they have available to them is somehow limited. Though a more serious point might be that x/e^x has a limit point of 0 at infinity. So if x is the number of good demons, and e^x is the number of evil demons (where x might be some measure of area or volume) then at infinite dimension the good demons vanish, overwhelmed by the evil demons. The thing about "limits of infinity" in calculus is that they don't actually involve infinities, and can't -- any attempt to plug in the actual "number" infinity into them makes the equation fail. That's why calculus now officially bases itself on "delta-epsilon" proofs that describe unbounded limits without using words like "infinity" or "infinitesimal". Cantor's work with infinite cardinalities and infinite ordinals made it pretty clear that they can't be treated as actual numbers. You can say that *as the number of demons increases* the number of Evil demons increases *so much faster* than the number of Good demons that the Good demons become "totally overwhelmed". It cannot be the case, though, that you can have an *actual*, *completed* infinity of Evil demons with an actual completed infinity of Good demons as a subset of them and have the Evil demons "outnumber" the Good demons. Proving this was one of the big shocking things that Cantor did.
ArcTan 10-10-07, 12:13 AM	But there isn't. There can only be 9 Archdevils, one for each layer, and as such the probability of becoming an Archdevil is zero as long as there are 9 already. No, it isn't, because Archdevils can be and are replaced. If there is a nonzero probability that some Devil, at any time, might become powerful enough to unseat one of the Archdevils, then a Devil *will* unseat an Archdevil -- and immediately thereafter be unseated. Archdevils would be in a constant, continuous state of being replaced.
Thanael 10-10-07, 04:41 AM	That's planescape: It's supposed to be a huge collection of unconfirmed claims about the nature of the multiverse but without ever explaining it because it's something to vast for mortal minds to grasp. ;)That's the best thing about PS, leaving it to the DM to provide final answers. It wasn't perfect (see baernoloth myth) but it allowed for a lot of flexibility. Very well said.
Keenath 10-10-07, 10:37 AM	Actually the point is that you can combine books into larger books with no limit. Thus creating infinite books that can be constructed, though not all of the same length.Still not infinite. Given N books, you can produce a limited number of possible combinations of books (or do it with pages if you like). If you have two books, you have four possible orderings: each book alone, 1 followed by 2, and 2 followed by 1. If you have three books, you have fifteen possible unique orderings. If you have four books, you have... ahhh... I think it's 64 possible orderings. In any case, it should be clear that given N books, there is some function of N that will determine the finite number of possible subset orderings. (To be precise, it's the sum for k = 1 to n of n!/(n-k)!, where n is the number of books and k is the number of books you're allowed to put together.) Without some infinite factor, you just can't GET to infinity. It's very, very big, but it's not infinity. {1,2,3} is a finite subset of several infinte sets (the Naturals, the Integers, and the Reals to just name a few).My appologies; I'm being sloppy with my language because I can't actually remember the term for what I'm thinking of. Any subset whose cardinality can be expressed as a function of the original set's cardinality, is infinite if the original set was infinite. "All numbers except '12'", "all odd numbers", or "all prime numbers" are infinite subsets of the set of natural numbers (but all have lower cardinality than the set of natural numbers). I should probably stop talking about infinity now, because it's WAAAAAAY off topic.
Keenath 10-10-07, 11:00 AM	Getting back on topic and not talking about infinities at all: I'm down with dumping the great wheel. I like the idea of the Feywild and the Shadowfell, which appear to be replacing a number of other planes -- from what information we have, there's no such thing as a Positive or Negative plane, or even regions of that in the elemental tempest. It seems to me that the 'concept' of negative has merged with Shadow in the shadowfell, and the 'concept' of positive has merged with the feywild (and the beastlands, I guess)... the shadowfell (like Shadow and Negative) is home to undead and corruption, while the feywild shows positive influence in that it's nature run riot, where growth and life are the order of the day. It sounds like they've yanked the Ethereal plane completely, which I find no great hardship; Etherealize and E. Jaunt were always gamebreakingly hard to deal with (along with Greater Teleport), since you can't effectively keep the caster PC out of any location without the credibility-straining recourse of specifically defending the location from planar intrusion. Presumably, if ethereal based spells still exist, they'll be in the way of "turn incorporeal", with all the powers and limitations thereof, rather than "shift to the ethereal plane". I used to enjoy reading Planescape suppliments, but I got sick of it, and this is why: Well enough can't be left alone. It's not good enough to explain what Ethereal is in relation to ghosts and the material plane; pretty soon there's Deep Ethereal that doesn't correspond to Prime. And there's Sarcs (where positive and negative energy slide into the Ethereal and touch, causing a massive explosion that might occasionally birth a new demiplane), and Vortexes (it's just a black hole in the Ether, which "goes through" into some other unknown space outside the multiverse -- whatever THAT means!), and a lung disease you get from 'breathing' ethereal protomatter for too long, and if you go far enough into Deep Ether you can come out in another universe entirely... It's not good enough to explain Ether as the misty ghost-world; it has to be full of random ways to die and faux-astronomical events. That, and planescape goes out of its way to impinge on the DM perogative by baldly stating that you can reach ANY universe (read: D&D setting) by travelling through the Ethereal or Shadow plane for far enough. Howsabout I decide whether or not my universe connects to Krynn or Toril or Oerth? There's a difference between saying "You can hook other universes in here if you like" and saying "No, they're OUT there somewhere -- your players just can't find them unless you say so." The first one makes it my choice how I want my multiverse to operate, or if I even WANT to; the second says I'm only allowed to decide where the PCs go but my universe IS connected to all the others, like it or not.
sciborg2 10-10-07, 11:33 AM	while I've found it fun (honestly) to jog my memory of courses taken in undergrad many moons ago, I still don't see how this poses a problem for me. In fantasy the planes don't necessarily hold to our laws of probability. Especially seeing as the planes seem to have their own personalities and limit what does and does not happen on them to at least a minimal extent. And simply stating something has an unknown size (or is "incredibly vast"), like I've said for the last few posts, gives everyone some wiggle room. The designers stating actual sizes of Hell and the Abyss limits options for no good reason imo.
Aubri 10-10-07, 12:25 PM	And simply stating something has an unknown size (or is "incredibly vast"), like I've said for the last few posts, gives everyone some wiggle room. The designers stating actual sizes of Hell and the Abyss limits options for no good reason imo. Again, Oberoni's Fallacy -- just because it can be fixed with a house rule does not mean there's not a problem. How the hell does a Hell the size of Jupiter limit options?!
Aubri 10-10-07, 12:35 PM	I'm down with dumping the great wheel. I like the idea of the Feywild and the Shadowfell, which appear to be replacing a number of other planes -- from what information we have, there's no such thing as a Positive or Negative plane, or even regions of that in the elemental tempest. I agree that the new planes seem more... compelling than the Great Wheel's. I'll be interested to see what they do about the upper planes. The lack of an ethereal plane suggests that ghosts are going to be either shadow-based or just plain old incorporeal. I rather hope it's the latter, with manifestation replaced by a simple invisibility effect like the Will o' the Wisp's ability to douse its own light.
HamHam 10-10-07, 01:01 PM	Still not infinite. Given N books, you can produce a limited number of possible combinations of books (or do it with pages if you like). If you have two books, you have four possible orderings: each book alone, 1 followed by 2, and 2 followed by 1. If you have three books, you have fifteen possible unique orderings. If you have four books, you have... ahhh... I think it's 64 possible orderings. You're allowed to repeat books. For example, for any book in the Library, there is another book that takes the plot of the first book and continues it in a logically consistant manner. Assuming you could find this exact book (or one of them if there are multiple possibilities), you could start reading and continue reading the story for ever. My appologies; I'm being sloppy with my language because I can't actually remember the term for what I'm thinking of. Any subset whose cardinality can be expressed as a function of the original set's cardinality, is infinite if the original set was infinite. "All numbers except '12'", "all odd numbers", or "all prime numbers" are infinite subsets of the set of natural numbers (but all have lower cardinality than the set of natural numbers). All even primes.
Aubri 10-10-07, 01:13 PM	You're allowed to repeat books. For example, for any book in the Library, there is another book that takes the plot of the first book and continues it in a logically consistant manner. Assuming you could find this exact book (or one of them if there are multiple possibilities), you could start reading and continue reading the story for ever. Well, heck, in that case you can do it with a pile of books which each contain a single different letter. That's not a library, it's an alphabet.
Aubri 10-10-07, 01:34 PM	All even primes. The definition, as Keenath said, is "Any subset whose cardinality can be expressed as a function of the original set's cardinality, is infinite if the original set was infinite." The cardinality of an infinite set (such as real numbers) is Aleph-something. The trick with aleph-numbers is that you can't get rid of the aleph. A0 + anything = A0. A0 - anything = A0. Same goes for any mathematical operation you want to try. The cardinality of "all even primes" is 1. Therefore, this is not an applicable subset. It's trivially easy to extract a finite subset from an infinite series, obviously. That's not the point. You can't obtain infinite results by combining a finite number of values without repetition. If you can repeat, it's trivial. {AAAAAAAAAAAAA...}
pratputajao 10-10-07, 01:50 PM	A planet is actually quite big. There is no way that you could explore the entire planet of Jupiter in 10 Dragon's lifetime. It is unbelievably big. Never said a planet wasnt big, sure they are. However the differance between jupiter and infinity is ...well...just that infinite. To change something that was previously infinite to something that is mearly very large doesnt cut it. I didnt mean that you would explore every area of the planet (we havent physically done that on earth yet. thousands of miles of deep ocean floor no person has ever been too) I meant circumvent the planet. Sorry I wasnt clear. In a world of great magic a being could circumvent a jupiter sized planet within one humans lifetime..... even only on horseback I am thinking it could be done. The equatorial radius is about 11 earths. I dont know how long it would take someone on horseback to go around the earth but I dont think it would take 6 or 7 years? eitherway it is much shorter than a Dragons lifetime (much less a Demon) For me to go from infinite to finite, that now finite area should be so large that it could be easily mistaken for infinite (our universe) or else the transition is just lame AFAIC. that is why I believe a plane should be something on the line of a universe in size. How long ago did man figure out that the earth wasnt infinite? at least the egyption empire age I would say.... Anyway even though planetsized is huge it just doesnt cut it if the plane was Infinite a year ago. I am not really sure why one would oppose this? A universe is still infinitely smaller than infinity but is still mind boggleingly huge!
HamHam 10-10-07, 02:04 PM	Well, heck, in that case you can do it with a pile of books which each contain a single different letter. That's not a library, it's an alphabet. True. An alphabet is a finite collection of letters that can be used to describe an infinte number of concepts. The planes are an infinite collection of things (letters) that describne a finite number of concepts. ----------------------------- On another point, how do you know cardinality and so forth even applies to the multiverse? Thus making all the aleph-this aleph-that everything has to turn into a banana stuff utterly unimportant.
sciborg2 10-10-07, 02:05 PM	Again, Oberoni's Fallacy -- just because it can be fixed with a house rule does not mean there's not a problem. What does that have to do with simply stating planes have an unknown size thus letting size be determined by the DM? Having a plane as big as Jupiter (like the 4e Abyss) prevents you from having an Abyssal lord draw several planets into the Abyss - Something Grazz't wanted to do in 2e and I believe Lolth did in 3e.
Alpha_Moose 10-10-07, 03:04 PM	Anyway even though planetsized is huge it just doesnt cut it if the plane was Infinite a year ago. I am not really sure why one would oppose this? A universe is still infinitely smaller than infinity but is still mind boggleingly huge! Even having it that big is pointless. Jupiter is quite frankly mind-boggling huge in the first place. Everything that did fit in the old planes can still fit on probably the Moon, let alone Jupiter. And these are new planes. This is a new cosmology. That's the thing I don't think people get. They are doing something new. Yes, they are taking some of the old ideas with them. But they aren't changing the old planes. What I feel likes happening is that: 1) They announced that they are making a new default setting. 2) They show some of the general things in this new setting. 3) People complain that the things they do change the old setting. Now if you were playing Forgotten Realms, considering that they are changing things, I think you have a reason to complain. But even that's pushing it. The biggest complaint you could have is that they might not produce new products that you will buy.
Snow Princess 10-10-07, 04:15 PM	I don't think that's it. The problem is that it's simply a watered down version of the original - though that might change with time. Part of me wishes they had just tried a completely new cosmology without any of the old D&D stuff.
Alpha_Moose 10-10-07, 04:21 PM	I don't think that's it. The problem is that it's simply a watered down version of the original - though that might change with time. Part of me wishes they had just tried a completely new cosmology without any of the old D&D stuff. Well it seems watered down because we don't have enough information on it now. It's also simpler and more intuitive honestly (at least the very general look of it compared to the Great Wheel).
Aubri 10-10-07, 04:27 PM	True. An alphabet is a finite collection of letters that can be used to describe an infinte number of concepts. The planes are an infinite collection of things (letters) that describne a finite number of concepts. That... doesn't even mean anything. :rolleyes: On another point, how do you know cardinality and so forth even applies to the multiverse? Thus making all the aleph-this aleph-that everything has to turn into a banana stuff utterly unimportant. Oh, of course. And how do we know that lightning is electricity and not Pelor's loogies? Oh right, because in the absence of evidence to the contrary we assume that physical and mathematical laws works the same as they do in the real world. Once again, this isn't just some mathematical oddity, it's a logical consequence of the existance of an infinite number of living creatures.
HamHam 10-10-07, 04:36 PM	That... doesn't even mean anything. :rolleyes: Sure it does. You just don't know what. Oh, of course. And how do we know that lightning is electricity and not Pelor's loogies? Oh right, because in the absence of evidence to the contrary we assume that physical and mathematical laws works the same as they do in the real world. Except, we don't know that. It would, essentially, be up to the DM to decide is lightning worked like RL electricity, should a PC try to catch it in a liden jar or something. Once again, this isn't just some mathematical oddity, it's a logical consequence of the existance of an infinite number of living creatures. Can you prove that? Cause lacking actual experimentation on actual infinite collections of something, it seems rather silly to claim that just because it works that way in the number system we're used to, or even that it would apply to any universe with the same mathematical substructure as ours, it has to work that way in a universe that is, by definition, created and maintained by freakin Magic. The planes aren't supposed to be logical.
Keenath 10-10-07, 04:53 PM	You're allowed to repeat books. For example, for any book in the Library, there is another book that takes the plot of the first book and continues it in a logically consistant manner. Assuming you could find this exact book (or one of them if there are multiple possibilities), you could start reading and continue reading the story for ever.I don't see how you could be allowed to repeat books, unless you're allowed to write a circular story -- in which case you need only find two pages that could be read to reference each other. I can do it in one line: "That man had a son, and his son grew into a man." Read that line as many times as you like. I'll wait. There is necessarily a "story" (such as it is) which contains every possible page in the library, and therefore cannot have one more page without repeating a previously used page and thus creating a cyclical story. If cyclical stories are allowed, then all discussion of the library's objects are pointless because I just created an infinite number of contextual objects by writing the above line, and I didn't need a googol and a half of books to do it. On another point, how do you know cardinality and so forth even applies to the multiverse? Thus making all the aleph-this aleph-that everything has to turn into a banana stuff utterly unimportant.Obviously you missed the point where we stopped talking about the planes of D&D and just started discussing the nature of infinity. The point is, in the end, that infinities are not necessary or even particularly desirable for a setting, and there's not really any reason to include them in the planes -- infinity is just being used as a word that means "really really big" instead of actually infinite. This was all originally to address the complaint that WOTC is going to ruin the planes by making them finite. You can say, "But I like my infinities" if you like, but as shown, using the term is dangerous because infinities don't really fit a meaningful universe. (And make no mistake, D&D must be a meaningful universe -- it's created by narrative, not by mathematical law.)
HamHam 10-10-07, 05:01 PM	The point is, in the end, that infinities are not necessary or even particularly desirable for a setting, and there's not really any reason to include them in the planes -- infinity is just being used as a word that means "really really big" instead of actually infinite. They are necessary, because they get that beyond your comprehension feel across.
Keenath 10-10-07, 05:23 PM	They are necessary, because they get that beyond your comprehension feel across. Well, I just disagree with that. It doesn't take much meditation on the side of our own planet -- much less Jupiter or some other truly massive body -- to start realizing how far beyond comphrehension our own world is -- much less some plane of fire or home of angels. I don't have to see the word "infinity" to go, "ooh, that's awesome". You are, of course, allowed to have that opinion.
Alpha_Moose 10-10-07, 05:26 PM	They are necessary, because they get that beyond your comprehension feel across. But first off a) it's not really and b) all it does is cause problems. Do you really comprehend the size of Jupiter? I mean really? Considering the fact that Jupiter has 6.21796×10^10 km² of surface area (62,179,600,000 km², or 62 Billion km²), and considering that the Earth only has 510,065,600 km² (0.5 Billion km²) of surface area, and considering that only 29.2% of it is land mass, do you really think that it isn't that big? The entire country of China, with over 1 Billion people in it, has only about 9,584,492 km² of surface area. The entire country of China is only 0.0001% the size of Jupiter. I am perfectly content to have each individual plane be 'only' that big. I'm quite certain that my PCs will never be able to comprehend all that. Unless they use magic, considering that Greater Teleport doesn't care how big the distance is (what with no range limit). Then they could traverse an infinitely sized plane instantaneously.
ArcTan 10-10-07, 09:08 PM	My appologies; I'm being sloppy with my language because I can't actually remember the term for what I'm thinking of. Any subset whose cardinality can be expressed as a function of the original set's cardinality, is infinite if the original set was infinite. "All numbers except '12'", "all odd numbers", or "all prime numbers" are infinite subsets of the set of natural numbers (but all have lower cardinality than the set of natural numbers). No, they don't. They have the *same* cardinality as the set of natural numbers, aleph-null. Any set made of discrete units that can be counted has the same cardinality and is the same size as the set of natural numbers. That's kind of the point. That's the paradox about infinity -- for instance, the total number of Balors in the Abyss is equal to the number of *all* the Demons in the Abyss combined, including Balors. The number of reformed Paladin Balors is equal to the number of all Balors, which is equal to the number of all Demons, which is equal to the number of all Outsiders in all the planes. I should probably stop talking about infinity now, because it's WAAAAAAY off topic. It's on topic insofar as our topic now is "Why using the word 'infinite' for the planes is wrong."
ArcTan 10-10-07, 09:12 PM	True. An alphabet is a finite collection of letters that can be used to describe an infinte number of concepts. The planes are an infinite collection of things (letters) that describne a finite number of concepts. Er... what? You're just stringing words together. That doesn't even make sense. On another point, how do you know cardinality and so forth even applies to the multiverse? Thus making all the aleph-this aleph-that everything has to turn into a banana stuff utterly unimportant. "Cardinality" stuff isn't physics or science. It's just math. And what I'm talking about isn't even really math (you seen me do Cantor's diagonalization proof yet?), it's just using words from math to explain a basic concept. If "cardinality and so forth" don't apply to the "infinite" planes, then the planes aren't really infinite.
ArcTan 10-10-07, 09:13 PM	Again, Oberoni's Fallacy -- just because it can be fixed with a house rule does not mean there's not a problem. What does that have to do with simply stating planes have an unknown size thus letting size be determined by the DM? Having a plane as big as Jupiter (like the 4e Abyss) prevents you from having an Abyssal lord draw several planets into the Abyss - Something Grazz't wanted to do in 2e and I believe Lolth did in 3e. About 1,300 Earthlike planets could fit inside an open space the size of the planet Jupiter.
ArcTan 10-10-07, 09:15 PM	Sure it does. You just don't know what. Okay, see, paradoxes are only cool if they're things that seem like they might make sense but have something interesting inside them that makes them confusing. Things that just simply don't make any sense whatsoever period are not cool. Asmodeus has the power to rule an infinite number of Devils absolutely because fish bicycle tarp times fourteen kajillion gigamumble. Awesome. Can you prove that? Cause lacking actual experimentation on actual infinite collections of something, it seems rather silly to claim that just because it works that way in the number system we're used to, or even that it would apply to any universe with the same mathematical substructure as ours, it has to work that way in a universe that is, by definition, created and maintained by freakin Magic. The planes aren't supposed to be logical. So, in other words, they aren't actually "infinite" by any actual real-life use of the term. They are "infinite" according to some totally unknown and therefore totally meaningless definition of "infinite" that could simply mean "the size of the planet Jupiter, and you wrap around back to where you started if you travel too far".
ArcTan 10-10-07, 09:20 PM	while I've found it fun (honestly) to jog my memory of courses taken in undergrad many moons ago, I still don't see how this poses a problem for me. In fantasy the planes don't necessarily hold to our laws of probability. Especially seeing as the planes seem to have their own personalities and limit what does and does not happen on them to at least a minimal extent. And simply stating something has an unknown size (or is "incredibly vast"), like I've said for the last few posts, gives everyone some wiggle room. The designers stating actual sizes of Hell and the Abyss limits options for no good reason imo. A size that I can actually imagine in my head is actually better than "unimaginably vast" because when someone says "unimaginably vast" I end up actually imagining something anyway, and what I imagine is usually just "unimaginably vast" by my puny human standards (say, "the size of China"). Actually giving me a number forces me to confront a size, through the magic of mathematics, that I have never ever before experienced and therefore gets "really big" into my head in a way that just using handwavy words (which, frankly, is all "infinite" ever really was in D&D) does not. That's my experience, anyway. The fact that the City of New Jerusalem where all the saints dwell at the end of the Book of Revelation is only somewhat smaller than the Moon rather than being "infinite in size" actually makes it *cooler* to me (Can you *imagine* an empty space that size? And people living in it? Even if all the people who had ever lived on Earth went there to live, each person could have a personal living space several times the size of New York City) than if it just said the city was "infinitely large", which doesn't mean anything.
HamHam 10-10-07, 09:51 PM	"Cardinality" stuff isn't physics or science. It's just math. And what I'm talking about isn't even really math (you seen me do Cantor's diagonalization proof yet?), it's just using words from math to explain a basic concept. If "cardinality and so forth" don't apply to the "infinite" planes, then the planes aren't really infinite. Okay, let me make this really simple. 1) Presumably, any proof or definition, like for example "Any set made of discrete units that can be counted has the same cardinality and is the same size as the set of natural numbers." depends or is derived from some set of axioms. 2) There is no reason to presume that these axioms are true in regards to the Planes. 3) Therefore, it may be true that "Any set made of discrete units that can be counted has the same cardinality and is the same size as the set of natural numbers." when dealing with infinities as they come about in our understanding of things. However, this does not mean that "Any set made of discrete units that can be counted has the same cardinality and is the same size as the set of natural numbers." is a true statement in the Great Wheel.
ArcTan 10-10-07, 10:16 PM	Okay, let me make this really simple. 1) Presumably, any proof or definition, like for example "Any set made of discrete units that can be counted has the same cardinality and is the same size as the set of natural numbers." depends or is derived from some set of axioms. 2) There is no reason to presume that these axioms are true in regards to the Planes. 3) Therefore, it may be true that "Any set made of discrete units that can be counted has the same cardinality and is the same size as the set of natural numbers." when dealing with infinities as they come about in our understanding of things. However, this does not mean that "Any set made of discrete units that can be counted has the same cardinality and is the same size as the set of natural numbers." is a true statement in the Great Wheel. These sorts of statements are natural results of the intuitive meaning of "infinite". If an "infinite" set can get smaller by taking finite numbers of things away from it, it's not really "infinite". Or, at least, the meaning of "infinite" we're now using is now something whose construction is different enough from the intuitive meaning of "infinite" that we can't say anything about it. (I mean, think about it. Part of what it *means* to be "infinite" is that it can't get any smaller. The *point* of being infinite is that you can take away as much as you want from it without running out -- there's no "finitude", no limit.) Generally the meaning that people seem to *want* "infinite" to have -- the way you're using it, for instance, when you say things like "Sure, but the planes are *really big* and there's no reason those Good-aligned Fiends should be *here*" -- is basically "finite but really really big". In which case we should just say that, rather than trying to confuse people with the word "infinite" using it in a way that doesn't actually mean "infinite". Saying that "infinite" doesn't actually have any of the properties something infinite would, by definition, logically have because "things are different in the Great Wheel" is really just a way to say that the Great Wheel misuses the word "infinite". It's like saying that all Slaadi are orange, but then when we point out a picture of a Slaad that's colored blue in the illustration and is called a "Blue Slaad", you say "Well, that's because in the universe of the Great Wheel, orange is the *same color* as blue and *looks* blue, and that's one of the cool paradoxes that makes the Great Wheel so AWESUM."
HamHam 10-10-07, 11:15 PM	These sorts of statements are natural results of the intuitive meaning of "infinite". Not really. Since only you and a couple other people seem to have trouble with this, it's obvious that the intuitive meaning of "infinite" is in fact compatible. It's really not that hard. Frankly, we can assume that most of the stuff even in the DMG and the Codexes and so forth is more or less in character. In other words, the planes are believed to be infinite because no one has ever found an end to them. Or for that matter, various things can be resolved in other ways: Yes, there are an inifinte number of demons. However, the number that occupy the upper couple hundred layers of the Abyss is more or less finite. Which is why Abyssal politics matter, and the Devils could in theory invade and kill them all. If an "infinite" set can get smaller by taking finite numbers of things away from it, it's not really "infinite". Or, at least, the meaning of "infinite" we're now using is now something whose construction is different enough from the intuitive meaning of "infinite" that we can't say anything about it. (I mean, think about it. Part of what it *means* to be "infinite" is that it can't get any smaller. The *point* of being infinite is that you can take away as much as you want from it without running out -- there's no "finitude", no limit. This is true. But I don't see what it has to do with your other points.
ArcTan 10-11-07, 12:17 AM	Not really. Since only you and a couple other people seem to have trouble with this, it's obvious that the intuitive meaning of "infinite" is in fact compatible. That's because the common "intuitive" meaning of "infinite" is just "really, really big". (I.e. most people who use the word "infinite" colloquially use it the way second-graders use it -- "infinity infinity infinity times a billion!") In other words, most people use it *thoughtlessly* and *incorrectly*. And they lose nothing by just saying "really unimaginably vast" rather than "infinite". Whereas people who actually think about the word "infinite" and are bothered by it would appreciate it if people stopped throwing it around without thinking. It's really not that hard. Frankly, we can assume that most of the stuff even in the DMG and the Codexes and so forth is more or less in character. In other words, the planes are believed to be infinite because no one has ever found an end to them. Which means they're not actually infinite. The planes *we know about* are a finite, mapped region. The stuff beyond it may or may not be the same, may or may not contain anything at all, etc. -- we don't know because we've never gone there. It's the same situation that we're in with our own universe. The correct way to describe that is not "infinite". Or for that matter, various things can be resolved in other ways: Yes, there are an inifinte number of demons. However, the number that occupy the upper couple hundred layers of the Abyss is more or less finite. Which is why Abyssal politics matter, and the Devils could in theory invade and kill them all. I.e. for *practical* purposes the thing we *actually call* the Abyss is finite. It rests inside a larger region of space that may or may not be finite (and, from a philosophical perspective, *probably is* finite, just like our own universe probably is finite). This is true. But I don't see what it has to do with your other points. That's because, like most people who don't agree about "infinity" causing huge problems, you haven't actually thought about it. Every single paradox I've brought up is logically implied by the statement "When you subtract a finite number from an infinite number, the infinite number doesn't get any smaller". That's the single "axiom" from which you get Cantorian infinities (that and a few other things that are mostly simple logic).
RadicalTaoist 10-11-07, 01:10 AM	Ironically, their adding two little letters - turning 'infinitely large' into 'indefinitely large' - kills the entire argument. You don't even need a rewrite, just a find-and-replace on the old flavor texts would do. Well, you'd need a better-sounding name than The Indefinite Layers of the Abyss. But asides from that it'd fix everything.
ArcTan 10-11-07, 01:25 AM	For the sake of what most people can actually meaningfully imagine in a campaign, "the size of Jupiter" is basically the same as "indefinitely large". Hell, the size of Jupiter is *bigger* than "indefinitely large", because of the assumptions people make about "indefinitely large". Example: If the Abyss is really that big, and it's uniformly filled with Demons with the population density of, oh, let's say China, then (back-of-the-envelope guesstimate) even if every single human being who ever lived on Earth went to the Abyss when they died, and every single human being alive now went the the Abyss when they died, and every single human being for the next 500 years (assuming exponential population growth) went to the Abyss when they died, the increase in the Abyss's population would be too small to measure. It actually means that the Archfiends we see in planar lore play for *ridiculously* small potatoes. Taking Neverwinter Nights as an example (sure, not TSR/WotC canon) Mephistopholes' attempting to conquer Abeir-Toril is an incredible waste of time, as is the whole concept of making Abeir-Toril the "Tenth Layer of Hell" -- since Toril or any other Earthlike world is a pinprick on the map of Hell. I think we forget these things when we think about cosmic scales and toss around words like "millions" and "billions". Notice that, for instance, if the Death Star is a 3-D structure, say, a quarter the size of our moon, it's still got more space in it than all the cities on the Eastern seaboard of the United States combined. The best base for the Rebel Alliance is somewhere inside the Death Star, in fact, since with the listed personnel figures for the Death Star (what, 10,000 people or so? Pfah) it would be literally impossible for them to occupy or search the whole volume of it.
pratputajao 10-11-07, 04:08 AM	Even having it that big is pointless. Jupiter is quite frankly mind-boggling huge in the first place. Everything that did fit in the old planes can still fit on probably the Moon, let alone Jupiter. And these are new planes. This is a new cosmology. That's the thing I don't think people get. They are doing something new. Yes, they are taking some of the old ideas with them. But they aren't changing the old planes. What I feel likes happening is that: 1) They announced that they are making a new default setting. 2) They show some of the general things in this new setting. 3) People complain that the things they do change the old setting. Now if you were playing Forgotten Realms, considering that they are changing things, I think you have a reason to complain. But even that's pushing it. The biggest complaint you could have is that they might not produce new products that you will buy. Um in this discussion I dont remember really complaining about anything? I was talking about the size of the planes. So the abyss is new? What is supposed to have happened to the old one? or are they leving the Abyss as it was? (you wrote- "But they aren't changing the old planes"). The layers of the Abyss were Infinite, NOW (from what I understand) they are the size approaching Jupiter. I am just saying that the transition would be alot easier for many if the layers could easily be mistaken for Infinite. Jupiter size doesnt do it when speaking of Demon lords and Gods... A universe sized plane ( or even galaxy MAYBE even a solar system) could deffinately be mistaken for Infinity without all the problems infinity brings with it.( we dont even know for sure if Our Univers is not Infinite but I believe the 40 billion Light year size theory) Why argue against this other than "thats not what the writters said!"? I know it probably doesnt matter becouse they are just going to do what they want but I think what I have put up is a better alturnitive. And for Planescape people it makes a BIG differance ( I am not one, dont even really like it) Wow some people really dont like to question the writters about this, a few in fact are argueing very hard for the writters....hope someone is getting paid! :D
Bob the Efreet 10-11-07, 06:40 AM	Considering that distance on the Outer Planes isn't a real thing, and in fact is mutable, I'm not sure that their size can actually be determined.
Snow Princess 10-11-07, 09:06 AM	Bob I think you have the right of it. Traveling through the planes is about traveling through concepts and theories and beliefs - and yes in real life that means next to nothing but the point of fantasy is to give us the chance to explore impossible settings. I just don't need D&D to follow the real world ideas about physics or infinity, I just need it to be interesting and fun.
UraniumKatana 10-11-07, 09:34 AM	Bob I think you have the right of it. Traveling through the planes is about traveling through concepts and theories and beliefs - and yes in real life that means next to nothing but the point of fantasy is to give us the chance to explore impossible settings. I just don't need D&D to follow the real world ideas about physics or infinity, I just need it to be interesting and fun. It can be interesting and fun regardless of mechanical attachments. The basic problems we are encountering are a disconnect of flavor and mechanics. It is flavorful to have an infinite number of infinite planes, but when you try to use these as a mechanical feature of a game certain problems arise (as presented by ArcTan and others). The best median is either to leave the planes out of a default setting, or give example settings and say "nobody knows for sure" (leaving it up to the DM). Neither the new authors, nor the old, took the middle path, which is possibly a good thing. They decided that they were going to create a static setting and use it for the default. Previously, one had to house rule to make finite planes with finite numbers of outsiders, now one has to house rule to make the opposite true. In my opinion, the best possible option would be to leave out the majority of the planar setting material and make separate books with wholly separate cosmologies, one of which would be the Planescape default. Each separate Campaign setting would also have their own cosmology book.
Keenath 10-11-07, 12:10 PM	No, they don't. They have the *same* cardinality as the set of natural numbers, aleph-null. Any set made of discrete units that can be counted has the same cardinality and is the same size as the set of natural numbers.Maybe cardinality is the wrong word. I thought it's what I meant. There IS a concept that talks about the fact that, paradoxically, some infinities are bigger (or perhaps 'denser') than others. The infinite set of "all prime numbers" is nowhere near as big (or dense?) as the infinite set of "all natural numbers". I know the cardinality of natural numbers is aleph-null, but isn't that some sort of lower limit thing? You can have aleph-one, I know, and it's "bigger" than aleph-null. Or something like that. This is the part where I run out of math brain. :weep:
Keenath 10-11-07, 12:38 PM	So the abyss is new? What is supposed to have happened to the old one? or are they leving the Abyss as it was? (you wrote- "But they aren't changing the old planes").Your question makes no sense. There is no "old one". This isn't a thing of the 3rd edition universe transforming into the 4th edition one. The third ed universe is over here, and fourth ed universe is over there, and they're as different as if you'd picked up Vampire: The GothParade instead of D&D 4th Edition. So to the point -- no, the Abyss is different, but it didnt' change. If you're playing in the default 4th edition universe, the abyss is as the bottom of the Elemental Tempest, and it always has been that way.
Aubri 10-11-07, 01:10 PM	Actually giving me a number forces me to confront a size, through the magic of mathematics, that I have never ever before experienced and therefore gets "really big" into my head in a way that just using handwavy words (which, frankly, is all "infinite" ever really was in D&D) does not. That's my experience, anyway. Me too, for the record. I was just reading about a couple types of supernova today and trying to fit into my head the unimaginable scale of things like a star that can boil off the entire mass of our sun and lose less than 1% of its matter in the process. Which reminds me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tfs1t-2rrOM
Snow Princess 10-11-07, 01:58 PM	Cool link Aubri. For me to say the Abyss is finite is to say that the aspects of Evil it represents are finite - but to me this is not possible as one cannot ever measure such concepts. Does this make sense in any real world scenario - of course not as the very idea of "Evil" is largely nonsensical given it suggests some kind of outside influence/judgement over actions that can be explained without any supernatural recourse. If D&D planes become nothing more than places where aliens live, the game become more of a medieval sci-fi rpg than fantasy. A woman (i wish i could recall her name!) said the importance of fantasy is that it describes the human Self which cannot be adequately mapped without mythology. This is why fantasy that is nothing more than switching dragons for jets and spells for guns isn't fun to me. This is why Planescape WAS fun, it made me feel like I was rpg-ing in the depths of my own mind.
Alpha_Moose 10-11-07, 02:06 PM	So the abyss is new? What is supposed to have happened to the old one? or are they leving the Abyss as it was? (you wrote- "But they aren't changing the old planes"). I mean that they use the same name and a similar concept but they did not change the old one. D&D making up its whole Hell doesn't change the Dante design of Hell. Me too, for the record. I was just reading about a couple types of supernova today and trying to fit into my head the unimaginable scale of things like a star that can boil off the entire mass of our sun and lose less than 1% of its matter in the process. When I did that whole calculation of the size of Jupiter it really jumped out to me, even though I had an idea of the size beforehand. It actually seems bigger than if they just wrote "unimaginably huge", which is the size of Asia for people with Middle Age's technology. Which reminds me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tfs1t-2rrOM I've been looking for that. Isn't it in a gif form?
UraniumKatana 10-11-07, 02:47 PM	This is why fantasy that is nothing more than switching dragons for jets and spells for guns isn't fun to me. This is why Planescape WAS fun, it made me feel like I was rpg-ing in the depths of my own mind. Really? It always made me feel like I was in a sci-fi world full of aliens. Nothing about it ever made me consider the deeper aspects of life, afterlife, or the mind . . . Just "hey look, that outsider (alien) is really cool and we're in a city (ring-shaped space station) with him" or "hey lets planeshift over to hell (harsh alien planet) to recover [something]". Planescape is the most sci-fi of all the "fantasy" Settings (well, other than Spelljammer which was just silly), despite it's attempt to be horribly vague. It didn't help that most of the outsiders look like humans in bad sci-fi suits. Some are truly alien, but still. Maybe we just had different DMs, but I never got that feeling from the books either.
Alpha_Moose 10-11-07, 03:46 PM	For me to say the Abyss is finite is to say that the aspects of Evil it represents are finite - but to me this is not possible as one cannot ever measure such concepts. But isn't Evil in D&D, especially Planescape, just another element that exists? Doesn't it take away some of that deep thought on other's motives when you can just say "Oh, he's reading 500 kilonazis on the Detect Evil meter", which is what default alignment feels like in D&D? This is what ArcTan has been saying. The planes have not been infinite in the older editions, they were merely called that. The biggest thing that they are doing in 4e is organizing things instead of having it be a random hodgepodge of 100 different author's ideas mashed together with no real central idea. This is why fantasy that is nothing more than switching dragons for jets and spells for guns isn't fun to me. This is why Planescape WAS fun, it made me feel like I was rpg-ing in the depths of my own mind. I'd have to agree with UraniumKatana on this. Planescape seems very sci-fi to me, only a bit less than Spelljammer. There's not that big a divide between science fiction and fantasy anyways. The biggest difference is whether they explain things though magic or technology. Both can be as thought provoking or as action-y as the other.
UraniumKatana 10-11-07, 03:53 PM	I would love to have a kilonazimeter.
HamHam 10-11-07, 04:05 PM	In other words, most people use it *thoughtlessly* and *incorrectly*. It can't be incorrect if people are using it an a majority of other people understand what they're saying. It's the same situation that we're in with our own universe. The correct way to describe that is not "infinite". Any greater deity could explore the entirety of our universe within a fairly short amount of time. Since even they haven't found an end to the planes, they are far closer to infinite then our universe. That's because, like most people who don't agree about "infinity" causing huge problems, you haven't actually thought about it. Every single paradox I've brought up is logically implied by the statement "When you subtract a finite number from an infinite number, the infinite number doesn't get any smaller". That's the single "axiom" from which you get Cantorian infinities (that and a few other things that are mostly simple logic). Not at all. You keep bringing up the Abyss and Abyssal politics. If there are an infinite number of demons, then the results of things the Demon lords do are operation on infinity. Thus, you would be subtracting infinites from other infinites, which is not all the same thing as subtracting finite numbers from infinity. PS: The 9 Hells are not really all that infinite, considering the FC I has freakin maps of each one.
ArcTan 10-11-07, 05:28 PM	It can't be incorrect if people are using it an a majority of other people understand what they're saying. Sure it can, if the people who are using it aren't actually thinking about it when they use it. People say things they can't actually mean *all the time*, mainly because people don't think about the logical consequences of things. Any greater deity could explore the entirety of our universe within a fairly short amount of time. Since even they haven't found an end to the planes, they are far closer to infinite then our universe. ...And how do you know this? What source is this taken from? Note that finite numbers can't be "closer" to infinite numbers. Infinite is always infinitely larger than any number, no matter how big. Why is it that a greater deity could explore our entire universe in a "fairly short" time? (Keep in mind that by saying this you're saying that you know for a fact that our universe, however you define it, is something that is finite in size, which is not something we can actually prove.) Is it because the deity travels at some kind of amazingly fast speed? Or is it because the deity can use D&D-ish means of getting around like greater teleport? The thing about greater teleport is that it still has an effective range limitation -- you can only go to places that you *know about*. The reason even a greater deity or, hell, a level 17 Wizard can't cast greater teleport and go to an unnamed planet 17,000,000 light-years away is that *they've never seen it*. Not at all. You keep bringing up the Abyss and Abyssal politics. If there are an infinite number of demons, then the results of things the Demon lords do are operation on infinity. Thus, you would be subtracting infinites from other infinites, which is not all the same thing as subtracting finite numbers from infinity. Okay, look, let me put it this way. No matter how many Good-aligned Fiends there are for every Evil-aligned fiend, you can *never* have the Good Fiends "overwhelmed" by the Evil-aligned Fiends, because the *Good Fiends never run out*. Because infinite numbers never run out, if one billion Evil Fiends gang up on one Good Fiend, it *doesn't matter*. The Evil Fiends can keep on killing Good Fiends all day and the Good Fiends will *never run out*. Indeed, even if you supposedly have some kind of formula that shows that there is one Good Fiend for every 10 billion Evil Fiends, it doesn't matter. The Good Fiend can *still* call on his friends and get 10 billion Good Fiends to oppose every Evil Fiend and *still not run out*. "Ratios" are impossible with countable, infinite numbers, because *nothing runs out*. "Infinity doesn't run out" is something most people will agree when you ask them "What does infinity mean?" But that, by itself, is the sole cause of all these paradoxes. For things like being able to "rout" and "destroy" Outsider armies to work, for the number of Demons and Devils together to be able to "overwhelm" the Celestials, *the numbers have to run out*. A number that doesn't run out can't be overwhelmed. A number that doesn't run out can't be ten thousand times as high as some other number that doesn't run out. (To be 10,000 times less than something, you have to run out in 1/10,000th of the time it takes the other thing to run out.) PS: The 9 Hells are not really all that infinite, considering the FC I has freakin maps of each one. Yeah. Which I thought was a good move on their part, and made the Nine Hells far more of a *real* place than they were back in the day when everything was infinite. Of course, if the Nine Hells are finite, the Abyss must be finite, or else the Abyss would've won the Blood War long ago. (Saying that the Demons are being soaked up by their own internal conflicts and they can't "unite" to defeat the Nine Hells is something that, again, is only meaningful if the Demons are finite in number. "Infinite" Demons would've killed off every Devil in the Nine Hells an infinite amount of time ago. Even 0.0000000000000000000000001% of infinity is still infinity.) Look, any planar "politics" involving people fighting each other can't work unless it's possible to deplete one group of people, which requires that that group of people, at least, be finite. Any situation where someone "rules" an area of territory by being the most powerful person within it requires that that territory be finite so you can say where it ends and who's in it and who's not. All of these things implicitly assume finitude, and people, again, are just using the word "infinite" without thinking about what it means. (Which I guess is a common feature of Planescape, what with its three-dimensional "planes" and its "Blood War" that has nothing to do with blood and so on.)
Keenath 10-11-07, 05:34 PM	This is not the post you're looking for. Move along.
Keenath 10-11-07, 05:35 PM	Really? It always made me feel like I was in a sci-fi world full of aliens. Nothing about it ever made me consider the deeper aspects of life, afterlife, or the mind . . . Just "hey look, that outsider (alien) is really cool and we're in a city (ring-shaped space station) with him"... I'm with you, honestly. Reading a planescape book is a lot like reading some low-budget scifi game, and they seem to go out of the way to make it like that. You're off in space (er, sorry, the Ethereal Plane) and there's supernovas (um, sorry, "starcs") and black holes (oops, "vortexes"), and if you aren't careful you're gonna get into a planetoid full of xenomorphs (right, Ethereal Marauders is what I meant to say)... It's fun, but it's just not fantasy so much as disguised science fiction. I mention the Ethereal Plane in particular because that's the last Planescape book I read. It even had a ripoff (or is than an homage?) to the crappy old Disney move, "The Black Hole". It was a huge metal base hovering over a vortex, held up by some mysterious magical force, etc etc.
ArcTan 10-11-07, 05:38 PM	Maybe cardinality is the wrong word. I thought it's what I meant. There IS a concept that talks about the fact that, paradoxically, some infinities are bigger (or perhaps 'denser') than others. The infinite set of "all prime numbers" is nowhere near as big (or dense?) as the infinite set of "all natural numbers". Yeah, you're right about that. Cardinality means "size", basically. The thing you're wrong about is subsets of the natural numbers having smaller cardinalities than the natural numbers themselves. It's not true. The set of all even numbers is *exactly the same size* as the set of all natural numbers. The set of all prime numbers is *exactly the same size* as the set of all natural numbers. The set of all the powers of 341,300,976 is *exactly the same size* as the set of all natural numbers. This is because all of those sets can be counted, which means you can line them up one-to-one with the natural numbers, which means they're the same size as the natural numbers (using the only definition of "size" that makes any sense with infinite sets). I know the cardinality of natural numbers is aleph-null, but isn't that some sort of lower limit thing? You can have aleph-one, I know, and it's "bigger" than aleph-null. Or something like that. This is the part where I run out of math brain. :weep: Aleph-null is the smallest possible size any infinite set can be. That's why it's called "aleph-null" -- "aleph" means it's a cardinal infinity, "null" or "zero" means it's the lowest one. Aleph-one is the cardinality of the set of all real numbers, i.e. the continuum. (Okay, whether or not aleph-one and the continuum are the same is an unprovable hypothesis, but I'm on Cantor's side in terms of thinking that that's the nicest way to imagine things.) Real numbers are "bigger" than natural numbers because they can't be counted -- because there's an infinite number of real numbers between the natural numbers 1 and 2, and an infinite number between the natural numbers 1 and 1.5, and an infinite number between 1 and 1.00000000000000000000001. The mathematical proof that the real numbers must be "bigger" than the natural numbers is actually pretty neat, and one of the coolest things I've ever read from a math book, as a non-mathematician layman.
Keenath 10-11-07, 05:43 PM	It can't be incorrect if people are using it and a majority of other people understand what they're saying.No, the use of the term is still incorrect. The fact that everyone uses it incorrectly is not relevant. Anyway, most people only use 'infinite' in a hyperbolic sense that really means "really big" -- "The infinite depths of the ocean", "Crisis on Infinite Earths"... Any greater deity could explore the entirety of our universe within a fairly short amount of time. Since even they haven't found an end to the planes, they are far closer to infinite then our universe.You clearly have much more faith in the abilities of so-called greater deities than I do. These boneheads don't seem to be able to solve their own personal problems, much less travel the extent of the universe. Anyway, "closer to infinite" is a meaningless phrase. Infinity is not a thing you can be close to; it's either infinite or it's not, just like you can't be "more unique", it's either unique or it's not. "One" is just as close to infinity as "Twenty billion". That's what infinity means. Edit: Bah, Arctan got there first. Whatever, if I'm repeating him then it's just because we're agreeing.
ArcTan 10-11-07, 05:46 PM	The layers of the Abyss were Infinite, NOW (from what I understand) they are the size approaching Jupiter. I am just saying that the transition would be alot easier for many if the layers could easily be mistaken for Infinite. Jupiter size doesnt do it when speaking of Demon lords and Gods... This is nonsense. If I put you inside a gigantic empty cavern the size of Jupiter, you damn straight would "mistake" it for infinite. You'd be even *more* likely to mistake it for infinite if you were from some kind of medieval-esque culture where almost everyone gets around by riding on a horse. A universe sized plane ( or even galaxy MAYBE even a solar system) could deffinately be mistaken for Infinity without all the problems infinity brings with it. It's hilarious that our worldly, jaded colleagues on the D&D boards are willing to accept "universe-sized" or "galaxy-sized" or MAYBE "even a solar system", but a gas giant planet just doesn't cut it for them. The fact that you're even using these as gradations shows you don't really know what you're talking about, you're just throwing words around for "big" the way a second-grader would. Wow some people really dont like to question the writters about this, a few in fact are argueing very hard for the writters....hope someone is getting paid! :D The writers recognize something I've been waiting for them to recognize for years. Damn straight I'm going to defend it. The casual misuse of terms like "infinite" and the schoolyard use of ridiculous terms of size without even thinking about what they mean ("Naw, man, the body of a god is, like, the size of a THOUSAND universes!") is one of the things I hate most about D&D-ish fantasy. It makes the whole thing seem really adolescent.
ArcTan 10-11-07, 05:56 PM	Cool link Aubri. For me to say the Abyss is finite is to say that the aspects of Evil it represents are finite - but to me this is not possible as one cannot ever measure such concepts. "Cannot be measured" =/= "infinite". At least, the word "infinity", which is one of the most abused and distorted words in the English language, is not a *good* way to say "unmeasurable", because it implies things that "unmeasurable" doesn't. Notice that Muslim scholars who wrote about the philosophy of number in the Middle Ages specifically said that the European concept of "actual infinity" was, in their view, impossible and meaningless. God could *not* be "infinite" in that sense. They specifically said that the meaning of the word "infinite" as applied to God was a misunderstanding of the original Hebrew, Greek and Arabic texts talking about God in the Qu'ran -- God's power is boundless and unmeasurable, but that doesn't mean you can define his power as "aleph-null kiloawesomes". God is simply defined as the one thing that is bigger and more powerful than everything else. He is the upper bound. That means there may, in fact, *be* a number (or something) that defines God's power -- it's just so high that none of us can ever know it. (This ties into the Qabbalistic belief that there is in fact a series of "names of God", which are also, in Qabbalah, numbers, and that these do accurately describe God at different levels of his existence, with the highest name being the one we can't know.) The European scholar Anselm in his famous ontological proof of God's existence defined God merely as the *greatest* conceivable being who could exist, and was careful, just like people like Thomas Aquinas, to use the word "infinite" very carefully when talking about God -- God is "omnipotent" in that there is nothing that can be done, in the set of all things that can be done, that God cannot do, but that doesn't mean the number of things God can do is itself "infinite". This is a very long aside for something in a wacky fantasy game, but suffice it to say that I don't think it's actually necessary that "Evil" be in some sense "infinite", or that, say, the total number of possible Evil acts and thoughts in all existence is "infinite". I think it's a ridiculously high number, but even for fantasy purposes -- indeed, *especially* for fantasy purposes -- I don't as a philosophical matter believe it's infinite. The Higher Torah on which God records all things that will ever be thought and done is a great crystal sheet with letters on it of fire, and the numbers proposed for how big it must be are truly impressive -- Library-of-Babel-style numbers, raising the number 22 (the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet) to the ten-thousandth power or something like that to account for all possible words that could be written -- but it's not "infinite". It's just a very big number, which is impressive, and kind of scary. There is a definite point in time when the writing finger of God will stop, when all things that can ever be done will finally *be* done, and the universe as a whole will come to a close. I think that's kind of awesome. The concept of Finitiude ultimately being the truth of the universe, not Infinity, is a very strong philosophical statement, but one that I agree with. *Everything* has limits. *Everything* comes to an end. *Everything* must, in the end, run out. Everything dies.
ArcTan 10-11-07, 06:13 PM	No, the use of the term is still incorrect. The fact that everyone uses it incorrectly is not relevant. Anyway, most people only use 'infinite' in a hyperbolic sense that really means "really big" -- "The infinite depths of the ocean", "Crisis on Infinite Earths"... The thing was that if most people ACTUALLY UNDERSTOOD that this use of the word "infinite" doesn't actually really mean "limitless and unbounded" but just "really large", I'd be fine with it. In other words, this meaning of "infinite" is perfectly consistent with "the size of Jupiter". The Abyss is "infinite" in the sense that it is the size of Jupiter, which is very very large. Just like the depths of the ocean are "infinite" in the sense that they go down for miles, which is a long long way. The thing is that when you're talking about perfectly imaginary ideas, this is unclear, and there will always be people who get confused and think you actually mean "infinite", both people who misguidedly *like* this idea and start posting screaming fanboy rants that it's a "contradiction" that you put out a map of the Nine Hells or numbered the layers of the Abyss and said there were only 666 of them -- and people like me, who are buzzkills and get huffy about using the word in an annoying way that isn't necessary and that motivates people to post the above screaming fanboy rants. I didn't like the Crisis on Infinite Earths either, for obvious reasons -- if the Earths were really "infinite", *they couldn't have been destroyed*. The Anti-Monitor could've been frying Earths from now until doomsday without even actually *reducing* the number of Earths that existed. The heroes who were gathered in the Monitor's very large but clearly finite-in-size fortress couldn't have represented the "greater portion" of the Earths' strength -- no matter how many heroes they had, any finite number of heroes who could fit in a double-page spread would be a drop in a drop in a drop in the ocean. Etc. There is a reason why in the *new* DC Multiverse, they've actually become very clear about how many parallel Earths there are (there are 52).
RadicalTaoist 10-11-07, 09:45 PM	You know what? If people have a problem with 'finite' because it's potentially 'measurable', and they don't want Evil/Good/whatever in its physical incarnation to be 'measurable' - JUST SAY SO. It's not so hard to tweak the rules and say 'the Nature of Chaotic Evil as it is embodied by the Abyss is not measurable'. Rather than using a loaded term as infinite, explicitly state the metaphysical rules governing these cosmos are different in a way that makes this immeasurable. Use theoretical, impossible numbers instead of infinite ones. It's a chance to change the fundamental laws of physics on these planes to make that happen, and I think they might be going that way with the Astral Sea and the Elemental Tempest. Maybe there's something about the intent to destroy a demon that, in a temporally paradoxical way, effects events that spawn another demon. Maybe this means that any potentially successful attempt to eradicate all demons would only ensure that more demons would be spawned - the laws of the universe guaranteeing that destructive evil can only beget more destructive evil. Maybe something about the nature of the Abyss makes it fluidic on a macro scale, with the organization and orientation of the plane changing in response to how the multiverse thinks about the metaphysical concepts of Chaos and Evil. Hell, logistically this could protect the Devils from any hugely vaster number of Demons all by itself. Can you imagine the logistics of recruiting and transporting troops in a home terrain that changes depending on how people, including your enemies, think about it? Or maybe just say it's immeasurable because to contemplate Chaotic Evil in any attempt to measure it makes it grow. The computer upon which the universe operates cannot measure this because the very cosmic forces which shape it are affected by the act of observation. Kinda like a macro-cosmic equivalent of the frustrating inability to be impartial observers in the most current lines of subatomic physics research. Any of those options would make the planes seem more sophisticated and more fantasy - as well as more consistent, oddly enough - than just tossing around 'infinite' like it was going out of style.
HamHam 10-11-07, 10:41 PM	Sure it can, if the people who are using it aren't actually thinking about it when they use it. People say things they can't actually mean *all the time*, mainly because people don't think about the logical consequences of things. Language is by definition an agreed apon set of symbols with meanings. If the majority of people get together and say that "infinity" means something in regards to the planes such that it makes sense with all the other stuff, then that's what the word "infinity" means in that regard. You can't claim some a priori and objective position from which to say they're using the word wrong or that they aren't really thinking about it. Note that finite numbers can't be "closer" to infinite numbers. Infinite is always infinitely larger than any number, no matter how big. But a universe can be closer to infinity. This is not so much a statement of physical dimensions as it is etherial properties. Why is it that a greater deity could explore our entire universe in a "fairly short" time? (Keep in mind that by saying this you're saying that you know for a fact that our universe, however you define it, is something that is finite in size, which is not something we can actually prove.) Actually we can prove it. Is it because the deity travels at some kind of amazingly fast speed? Or is it because the deity can use D&D-ish means of getting around like greater teleport? The thing about greater teleport is that it still has an effective range limitation -- you can only go to places that you *know about*. The reason even a greater deity or, hell, a level 17 Wizard can't cast greater teleport and go to an unnamed planet 17,000,000 light-years away is that *they've never seen it*. You can teleport to places you can see from your current position. The vast majority of deities can, if they want, get Spot checks that would let them see thousand, millions, or even billions of light years away. And that's not even counting SDAs. Okay, look, let me put it this way. No matter how many Good-aligned Fiends there are for every Evil-aligned fiend, you can *never* have the Good Fiends "overwhelmed" by the Evil-aligned Fiends, because the *Good Fiends never run out*. You're on a street in some city in the Abyss. There are not an infinte number of demons on that street with you. There might be an infinte number of demons acroos the entire infinite plane that you happen to be on. However, you are only looking at a finite number right there in front of you. Of those, it is unlikely that any are good. Somewhere, far far away there may be many many good fiends. But were you are, there are not. (Sidenote: Why are we assuming there are infinite demons, btw? If demons do result from evil souls that go to the abyss, then there should only be a number of demons equal to the evil people who have ended up there since the Abyss was created.)
ArcTan 10-11-07, 11:05 PM	Language is by definition an agreed apon set of symbols with meanings. If the majority of people get together and say that "infinity" means something in regards to the planes such that it makes sense with all the other stuff, then that's what the word "infinity" means in that regard. You can't claim some a priori and objective position from which to say they're using the word wrong or that they aren't really thinking about it. Sure I can. Most people would agree with the fact that "infinite" means "never runs out". Then you point out some logical consequences of that and they balk and go "Oh no, it's not supposed to work like that". That means they aren't really thinking. That's annoying. On the other hand, a *consistent* definition for "infinite" as it's used in D&D would be "about the size of Jupiter". If you want to define "infinite" that way, all our problems vanish. But a universe can be closer to infinity. This is not so much a statement of physical dimensions as it is etherial properties. Again. You're just putting words together that don't mean anything. Actually we can prove it. You can teleport to places you can see from your current position. The vast majority of deities can, if they want, get Spot checks that would let them see thousand, millions, or even billions of light years away. Er... prove it. I'm not a fan of statting up deities at all, to be honest. The way most unstatted deities are described, they just know about things related to their portfolio, which is restricted to a certain Prime world or set of Prime worlds. A deity could be truly omniscient, of course, which would mean, by definition, he'd know about everything, including everything in an "infinite" plane. That brings up certain paradoxes, but we don't need to get into that. I've never seen any definition of a D&D deity that says they can see for 50 billion light years but no further. In any case, that would be no proof that the planes were "infinite", just bigger than 50 billion light years. FWIW, if you're talking about *statted* deities, like in Deities & Demigods, their abilities are far more modest. The highest Divine Rank deity in D&DG is Taiia (a DvR 20 Greater Deity), whose Spot modifier is +70. Since Taiia always gets a 20 on any check she makes, her Spot check is always 90. Frankly, I can't be arsed to figure out exactly how much this extends her visual range beyond that of an ordinary Wis 12 Commoner with max ranks in Spot, but it's not by "light-years". The average person's maximum Spot check is somewhere in the mid-20s -- therefore Taiia's Spot check gives her the ability to reliably see four or five times as far as the average person, maybe more. Not "light-years". Note that her mundane sight is a less important ability for her than her divine senses, which allow her to sense anything within *twenty miles* of her own location or that of any of her worshippers or sacred places. *Not* light-years. Twenty miles. FWIW, I actually think this is weak sauce, and that D&DG deities are kind of a lame way to stat up deities. But it is, I suppose, "RAW". And that's not even counting SDAs. SDAs measure distance of perception in miles as though miles are a really big thing. The term "light-year" or any unit of measurement even *close* to a light-year never comes up. You're on a street in some city in the Abyss. There are not an infinte number of demons on that street with you. There might be an infinte number of demons acroos the entire infinite plane that you happen to be on. However, you are only looking at a finite number right there in front of you. Of those, it is unlikely that any are good. Somewhere, far far away there may be many many good fiends. But were you are, there are not. Look up the "axiom of choice" and think about it. The reason infinity doesn't even make sense is that with an infinite number of Good fiends on the whole plane, the "chance" that any street will have a Good fiend on it is 100%. So is the chance that it won't. Contradiction. HEAD A-SPLODE. The concept of "infinity" in the naive sense actually really doesn't make sense if you try to picture it for real objects. That's why most serious philosophers who talk about the subject reject the idea that the real universe can be infinite in size (and a lot of scientific research implies it probably isn't). (Sidenote: Why are we assuming there are infinite demons, btw? If demons do result from evil souls that go to the abyss, then there should only be a number of demons equal to the evil people who have ended up there since the Abyss was created.) And if the layers of the Abyss are formed and shaped by Demons -- specifically, Demon Lords -- then all the parts of the Abyss that don't have Demons in it aren't formed and shaped. I.e. they were never created and don't exist. Which means the *actual* Abyss, consisting of the layers that *actually exist* and actually have Demon Lords ruling and shaping and populating them, is a finite space (the size of, I dunno, Jupiter) that merely happens to be embedded in an "infinitely" (or indefinitely) large space.
Bob the Efreet 10-12-07, 12:18 AM	Look, any planar "politics" involving people fighting each other can't work unless it's possible to deplete one group of people, which requires that that group of people, at least, be finite. Although I mostly agree on the infinity issues, it occurs to me that this is the reason the Prime is so important. Wars on the Wheel aren't fought with soldiers and weapons (although it often looks like it), they're fought with belief. LE and CE can't just beat the crotch out of each other on a battlefield, they have to influence the beliefs about LE and CE throughout the multiverse (but especially on the Material plane). The vast majority of deities can, if they want, get Spot checks that would let them see thousand, millions, or even billions of light years away. In addition to ArcTan's debunking of this claim, I'd like to point out that I can see at least millions of light-years with an average mortal Spot check.
ArcTan 10-12-07, 12:34 AM	In addition to ArcTan's debunking of this claim, I'd like to point out that I can see at least millions of light-years with an average mortal Spot check. Yeah. It's not exactly clear what D&D means by "line of sight" and how far away something is before it's not in your LoS anymore (there's probably rules for this in the DMG that I haven't used in so long I've forgotten them, preferring to just fudge it as I go). But the rules for greater teleport seem pretty clear. To teleport or greater teleport somewhere, you have to be able to imagine what it looks like when you're standing there (or have a "reliable description" thereof). While it is technically true that I can "see" the peak of a mountain from its base, or "see" an airplane from the ground, or "see" the star Vega from the surface of the Earth, I cannot see it well enough to imagine what it would look like if I were actually standing there, which is the important thing. I would guess that someone with a Spot check of 90 could indeed look at the peak of a mountain from its base and see it clearly enough to imagine standing there. That doesn't mean they could do so for the planet Mars, or the star Vega, or the Andromeda Galaxy.
ArcTan 10-12-07, 12:37 AM	Although I mostly agree on the infinity issues, it occurs to me that this is the reason the Prime is so important. Wars on the Wheel aren't fought with soldiers and weapons (although it often looks like it), they're fought with belief. LE and CE can't just beat the crotch out of each other on a battlefield, they have to influence the beliefs about LE and CE throughout the multiverse (but especially on the Material plane). Sure, but the thing about the planes is that if they're all infinite right now, they can't actually get bigger or smaller, no matter what changes about mortal belief. The whole thing about the Devils greedily craving mortal souls to turn into Lemures to keep swelling their ranks only makes sense if the number of Devils is a finite number that can increase. Also, of course, there *is* the actual Blood War, which throws a wrench into the whole "Belief is all that matters" thing.
Naderion 10-12-07, 02:57 AM	And we all know how well the blood war works. It's an eternal stalement, probably older then any material world.
ArcTan 10-12-07, 03:05 AM	Which raises the question of why creatures with Intelligence higher than any mortal bother to keep on doing it.
goldomark 10-12-07, 03:49 AM	Which raises the question of why creatures with Intelligence higher than any mortal bother to keep on doing it. Their very essence, the core of their beings, affects their rationnalization of the multiverse. Eliminating the other is necessary, before they can deal with with the rest. Don't forget the role of the Yugoloths in manipulating boths sides against each other. High ups, like Grazz't, don't really care about the blood war, but its a good way to keep underlings from over throwing their leaders.
ArcTan 10-12-07, 03:54 AM	Their very essence, the core of their beings, affects their rationnalization of the multiverse. Eliminating the other is necessary, before they can deal with with the rest. ...Except that eliminating the other will never happen. Don't forget the role of the Yugoloths in manipulating boths sides against each other. Yes, which makes Demons and Devils into apparently the stupidest creatures imaginable. High ups, like Grazz't, don't really care about the blood war, but its a good way to keep underlings from over throwing their leaders. Every time we learn more about Grazz't he sounds more and more like a misplaced Archdevil. EDIT: And, of course, as I keep saying, making both sides "infinite" only makes it stupider. Both sides need to be finite for the Blood War to make any sense at all (i.e. for it to be anything other than totally delusional for either side to presume the war is eventually winnable).
goldomark 10-12-07, 04:51 AM	Yes elimination is impossible. See it a a neurosis. Take Woody Allen. Smart (perveted) guy, but neurotic. Devils/Demons extremely smart, but obsess with the war. Atleast in the lower ranks. It a good way to gain prestige and a promotion. Or see it has a moth going into a flamme. It can't help it. And you didn't answer the fact that the war keeps underlings busy. Planning the war instead of planning to assassinate their superior. Both sides need to deal with the Yugoloths. The smart thing to do is have them on your side. If not, they will help the other side win the war. Yugoloths need to have this war continu. If one side wins, Yugoloths will be next on the list. I think Yugoloths manipulate the lowers ranks of Devils and Demons, the ones focused on the war. The General of Gehenna does not deal with Asmodeus or Demogorgon, because Asmo or Demo are above is little games and have others matters to deal with. But the General can deal with Pit Fiends/Balors, they actualy need him. Well maye not the General himself, but your smart enouth to get the picture. Well infinite is big. But souls have been feeding both sides for eons and keep coming in. Is their a limite to the number of souls that enter the Abyss/Hell every day?
yrogerg 10-12-07, 07:34 AM	Yes elimination is impossible. See it a a neurosis. Take Woody Allen. Smart (perveted) guy, but neurotic. Err.. what? Both sides need to deal with the Yugoloths. The smart thing to do is have them on your side. If not, they will help the other side win the war. Yugoloths need to have this war continu. If one side wins, Yugoloths will be next on the list. You do understand that Arctan's point is that if both sides are *infinite*, the war cannot possibly be won, and thus the role of the Yugoloths doesn't actually make any sense in this case? No side could ever win the war, and 'loths would not be in any danger even if the war ended, since there are an infinite number of 'loths, as well. Well infinite is big. But souls have been feeding both sides for eons and keep coming in. Is their a limite to the number of souls that enter the Abyss/Hell every day? That's could easily be flow issue, not a size issue, though, depending on the rate at which demons and devils are destroyed. And either way, it's still not an infinity. The idea of souls continually swelling the ranks of outsiders *only* makes sense with finite numbers, not infinities.
UraniumKatana 10-12-07, 08:47 AM	Yeah. It's not exactly clear what D&D means by "line of sight" and how far away something is before it's not in your LoS anymore (there's probably rules for this in the DMG that I haven't used in so long I've forgotten them, preferring to just fudge it as I go).Not to go completely off topic, but Star Wars Saga has 'line of sight' seemingly described as "can you see them?", so viewing their image through a television screen allows you to use your jedi powers to choke them to death (for example), as long as they're within the same galaxy (or solar system if you're a real noob). Using this description a deity could teleport to anything they could see in a picture. Personally I'd just have them teleport to the surface of the picture. Telescopes would work for the closest planets.
pratputajao 10-12-07, 09:47 AM	This is nonsense. If I put you inside a gigantic empty cavern the size of Jupiter, you damn straight would "mistake" it for infinite. You'd be even *more* likely to mistake it for infinite if you were from some kind of medieval-esque culture where almost everyone gets around by riding on a horse. No, I clearely stated that the POV I was using was that of a god or Demon lord.... Now if you believe the same is true of a being with an IQ that is supposed to drwarf Einstien's and the ability to teleport anywhere, then fine. I however cant see how anything on this level could mistaken something as big a Jupiter (Yes evn Big ol' jupiter!) as infinitite. I am sure there is some reson why say Demogorgon (Int 31) has never wondered- just how big is this kingdom of mine anyway? Also remember that Capernicus and Galilao made their discoveries in "medieval-esque culture where almost everyone gets around by riding on a horse" It's hilarious that our worldly, jaded colleagues on the D&D boards are willing to accept "universe-sized" or "galaxy-sized" or MAYBE "even a solar system", but a gas giant planet just doesn't cut it for them. The fact that you're even using these as gradations shows you don't really know what you're talking about, you're just throwing words around for "big" the way a second-grader would. Hey man, whats your problem? Now you start in with ad hominem over a damn game? Your whole post has a condescending " I understand this better than you" attitude that doesnt make for good coversation ( about a game) If this is your attitude why do you come to a board where you know these very things will be discussed by people who enjoy doing that?- "("Naw, man, the body of a god is, like, the size of a THOUSAND universes!") is one of the things I hate most about D&D-ish fantasy."- Relax and enjoy the game. We are not deciding world peace here bro! Its about fun I thought? [/QUOTE]
Snow Princess 10-12-07, 09:50 AM	Well I can't argue with what people felt about a setting, so I'm not going to try and convince you about that. I liked Planescape, and the Great Wheel it was based off of. I understand the mathematics - I remember aleph-null and evens being the same size as all natural numbers - but I still don't see why it should matter. I just figure physical conflicts between the fiends are more of a clash between ideas/philosophies - basically a mythology I can take part in. If the laws of probability make things like a risen fiend a certainty then free-will - and thus playing D&D characters - is pointless. Random Question: One could say the planes are finite but get larger every time someone approaches the edge of one - would that invite paradoxes? It seems to me that saying the size of the planes is unknown is the best solution, but I guess we'll have to wait for 5e at this point.
Keenath 10-12-07, 10:14 AM	FWIW, if you're talking about *statted* deities, like in Deities & Demigods, their abilities are far more modest. The highest Divine Rank deity in D&DG is Taiia (a DvR 20 Greater Deity), whose Spot modifier is +70. Since Taiia always gets a 20 on any check she makes, her Spot check is always 90. Frankly, I can't be arsed to figure out exactly how much this extends her visual range beyond that of an ordinary Wis 12 Commoner with max ranks in Spot, but it's not by "light-years". You take a -1 on spot checks for each ten feet, so a 90 is completely offset by 900 feet of distance. Thus, at 900 feet, Taiia sees as well as a trained commoner does at 160 feet (reliably meeting a DC 0 at that range). Taiia thus has vision 5.625 times better than the human, which we could convert to normal vision values as "20/3" vision -- Taiia can see things from twenty feet away that a normal human can see from three feet away. Put another way, she can stand across the room and read the smallest text you can make out at a normal reading distance. Note that her mundane sight is a less important ability for her than her divine senses, which allow her to sense anything within *twenty miles* of her own location or that of any of her worshippers or sacred places. *Not* light-years. Twenty miles.Right, well, okay. She can see the book no matter where it is, within 20 miles of her. Still. Actually, that's really weird. She can't possibly spot check things more than ten miles away, yet she can sense them easily with her divine senses. So why bother with a massive spot modifier? She's always just "aware" of everything around her, eyes or no eyes.
UraniumKatana 10-12-07, 11:24 AM	I understand the mathematics - I remember aleph-null and evens being the same size as all natural numbers - but I still don't see why it should matter. I just figure physical conflicts between the fiends are more of a clash between ideas/philosophies - basically a mythology I can take part in. If the laws of probability make things like a risen fiend a certainty then free-will - and thus playing D&D characters - is pointless.I like your description of planescape better than planescapes description of planescape.Random Question: One could say the planes are finite but get larger every time someone approaches the edge of one - would that invite paradoxes?Random Answer: Not nearly as many paradoxes. Basically it would be "Finite, but ultimately immeasurable", which would remove the paradox of infinite resources. If the plane actually has a 'default size' but if you "sit and think about it" (ie physically explore the plane/concept) it grows, but only while you think about it. That works for me both as a setting based on mental/spiritual factors. Mechanically the number of creatures there would be finite, but HUGE, and there would be a purpose to the wars. If you like the war can be endless, but for those of us who like mechanics to have a purpose behind them, it is easier to see. Personally, I would limit the ability to expand the planes to Mortal Primes, to stop Grazz't from sitting for a long time and thinking about more demons to make more demons.
EvilVegan 10-12-07, 11:46 AM	SHUT UP URANIUM KATANA, YOU'RE STUPID! (Just kidding, it was me!!) Finally got my screen name back, yay!
EvilVegan 10-12-07, 11:53 AM	I like your description of planescape better than planescapes description of planescape.Random Answer: Not nearly as many paradoxes. Basically it would be "Finite, but ultimately immeasurable", which would remove the paradox of infinite resources. If the plane actually has a 'default size' but if you "sit and think about it" (ie physically explore the plane/concept) it grows, but only while you think about it. That works for me both as a setting based on mental/spiritual factors. Mechanically the number of creatures there would be finite, but HUGE, and there would be a purpose to the wars. If you like the war can be endless, but for those of us who like mechanics to have a purpose behind them, it is easier to see. Personally, I would limit the ability to expand the planes to Mortal Primes, to stop Grazz't from sitting for a long time and thinking about more demons to make more demons. Just wanted to add to my comment here that a mortal contemplating hells making the hells bigger would lead to demons trying to purposefully scare the living crap out of people! It would even work from the other side of the coin, with a fire and brimstone preacher making people fear hell indirectly increasing the power base of hell. Hurray!
Naderion 10-12-07, 12:09 PM	That works good for deities too. Some deities would get almost no followers at all, but they don't need to, if the people just fear them. Of course, the god of fear would benefit the most of them, because he gets stronger whenever people fear, not just him, but everything in the world and even every other god. Same goes for gods of war. They don't need followers, they just need war to affect people. Everyone commanding a war, fighting in a war, and suffering from a war will increase the gods power. Otherwise it would be strange how Shar can be one of the most powerful gods, but at the same time has one of the smallest followership of all.
EvilVegan 10-12-07, 12:54 PM	I still like my worlds with no planes and no statted deities to fight.
goldomark 10-12-07, 03:03 PM	Err.. what? ArcTan was saying Devils/Demons where to smart to fight each other. I argued it was a neurosis, an obsession. And Woody Allen was a exemple of a smart but neurotic person. before ArcTan could say smart people aren't neurotic :D . I would add that The Ds are neurotic by nature. You do understand that Arctan's point is that if both sides are *infinite*, the war cannot possibly be won, and thus the role of the Yugoloths doesn't actually make any sense in this case? No side could ever win the war, and 'loths would not be in any danger even if the war ended, since there are an infinite number of 'loths, as well. Well, Yugoloths emerge from their home plane, they are not made from souls, like Obyriths once were. But Obyriths are almost extinct now. So maybe the loths don't want the same faith.
ArcTan 10-12-07, 08:01 PM	Well infinite is big. But souls have been feeding both sides for eons and keep coming in. Is their a limite to the number of souls that enter the Abyss/Hell every day? If "eons" is a finite number of eons, and if there is a finite number of people in a finite number of Prime worlds, then yes, the total number of souls must also be a finite number. It is a *very big* number, but very big finite numbers do not magically become "infinity" after a certain point, despite what laypeople who haven't really thought about it say.
ArcTan 10-12-07, 08:04 PM	Actually, that's really weird. She can't possibly spot check things more than ten miles away, yet she can sense them easily with her divine senses. So why bother with a massive spot modifier? She's always just "aware" of everything around her, eyes or no eyes. Because D&DG is stupid and thinks of every deity in every pantheon as an adventurer who's gotten special powers to become "godlike", so they have to have ordinary adventurer powers (with vastly inflated numbers) as well as their special god powers.
ArcTan 10-12-07, 08:09 PM	No, I clearely stated that the POV I was using was that of a god or Demon lord.... Now if you believe the same is true of a being with an IQ that is supposed to drwarf Einstien's and the ability to teleport anywhere, then fine. I however cant see how anything on this level could mistaken something as big a Jupiter (Yes evn Big ol' jupiter!) as infinitite. I am sure there is some reson why say Demogorgon (Int 31) has never wondered- just how big is this kingdom of mine anyway? Also remember that Capernicus and Galilao made their discoveries in "medieval-esque culture where almost everyone gets around by riding on a horse" Copernicus and Galileo lived in a time when, when most people thought about the night sky, they just thought "Whoa! Really big!" and had no conception of *how* big. Scientists who worked very hard to try to figure out how big could make progress on the matter, sure, but there were a lot of things they didn't know (Galileo had no concept of how far away Alpha Centauri was and wouldn't understand if you tried to tell him) and as far as the ordinary people of the time were concerned what they were talking about was meaningless. Anyway, people keep throwing around gods and demon lords as though it were well established that demon lords can fly around at Warp 9 and magically see for light-years, when all the stats we have for them actually make them a great deal weaker than that. Taiia can see about five times as far as I can when I have my glasses on -- Demogorgon, less than that. While I don't *like* how weak the statted versions of Demogorgon and Zeus and St. Cuthbert are, I don't see any reason to say that because the statted versions are that weak, the *real* Demogorgon must be able to traverse the Milky Way Galaxy in the blink of an eye. (And notice that even if he could it would still take him years and years to traverse the observable universe.) Hey man, whats your problem? Now you start in with ad hominem over a damn game? It's because it's just a game that I don't feel the need to be super-polite. Your whole post has a condescending " I understand this better than you" attitude that doesnt make for good coversation ( about a game) Frankly, I'm really very certain that I *do* understand this better than you. It took me a long period of reading and thinking and having good geek discussions before I reached that point, but yes, I'm pretty sure I understand the idea of "infinity" and really big astronomical numbers and things better than you do. If this is your attitude why do you come to a board where you know these very things will be discussed by people who enjoy doing that?- "("Naw, man, the body of a god is, like, the size of a THOUSAND universes!") is one of the things I hate most about D&D-ish fantasy."- Because there are a lot of people who *also* enjoy discussing these things from an informed and reasoned perspective, which makes for a more fun and more interesting conversation. Relax and enjoy the game. We are not deciding world peace here bro! Its about fun I thought? So sue me, but telling people why they're wrong is one of the minor ways in which I think these boards are fun.
goldomark 10-12-07, 09:19 PM	I notice you arguments are more based on semantics, then the game itself.
ArcTan 10-12-07, 09:22 PM	I notice you arguments are more based on semantics, then the game itself. Which arguments? The thing about "infinite" is simple. I think "infinite" *is* a matter of semantics -- specifically, that the game uses the word "infinite" a lot, but the things it describes aren't actually infinite, so it's just using the word wrong. I don't really have a problem with that, of course. But that means there's no actual contradiction between the Abyss being "infinite" and being the size of Jupiter, and people who are complaining about that should stop.
goldomark 10-12-07, 09:40 PM	I agree, on the Abyss being the size of Jupiter =/= infinite. But I only agree on that matter.
Snow Princess 10-12-07, 09:41 PM	The thing about "infinite" is simple. I think "infinite" *is* a matter of semantics -- specifically, that the game uses the word "infinite" a lot, but the things it describes aren't actually infinite, so it's just using the word wrong Incorrect from a mathematical perspective isn't the same thing as wrong. I think most people who like the Great Wheel (whether or not they like Planescape) likely think infinite is, quite simply, cool. The planes in D&D have been infinite for basically 30 some odd years and so to change it feels unreasonable to many people. Striding across both sides I can see the math part and the myth part having study mathematics and theology in my undergrad. But in D&D, for me infinite is something beyond measure, like saying God's love is Infinite. It's more of infinite in a mythical sense. If one looks at the paradoxes based on probability, then again I ask how can there be any free will - if the only thing stopping an infinite number of good demons is finitude, then can't every action be judged by probability rather than on circumstance and decisions? Then where is the free will - and thus the point of the game? It's because it's just a game that I don't feel the need to be super-polite. I don't see how that's an excuse to not be civil. I think I understand the paradoxes as well as you do but I just don't see why we should all bend to the math for a game. So sue me, but telling people why they're wrong is one of the minor ways in which I think these boards are fun. How can a person be wrong about how infinity works in their D&D game? Or in D&D in general, since there's no reason to assume laws of probability work the same way at all. And aren't the Elemental Tempest and Astral Sea infinite, especially the latter?
ArcTan 10-12-07, 10:20 PM	Incorrect from a mathematical perspective isn't the same thing as wrong. I think most people who like the Great Wheel (whether or not they like Planescape) likely think infinite is, quite simply, cool. The planes in D&D have been infinite for basically 30 some odd years and so to change it feels unreasonable to many people. The *word* "infinite" is cool, but if it means nothing one can clearly define other than "really big", then "really big" is fine as a way to physically define what that "infinite" means. Striding across both sides I can see the math part and the myth part having study mathematics and theology in my undergrad. But in D&D, for me infinite is something beyond measure, like saying God's love is Infinite. It's more of infinite in a mythical sense. Sure, hence my post about how many scholars thought of "infinite" in the mathematical or literal sense being applied to God as a problem. In the sense of "God's love is infinite", the way people use that just tends to mean "God loves you no matter what the circumstances are", just like "God's power is infinite" just means "Anything God wants to do, happens". Things that have any sort of numerical, physical meaning don't tend to apply to God at all, hence the safety of using "infinite" for those things -- no one tries to seriously justify statements like "God is infinitely large in volume" or "God's mass is infinite". "Infinite" in a "mythical" sense is one of those words that doesn't mean anything. The Abyss can easily be "infinite" in some sort of abstract sense of the word that, literally, makes the Abyss about the size of the planet Jupiter. (For instance, the Abyss can be constantly growing, with no limit on its expansion. Or the Abyss can have a finite amount of stuff in it but be boundless -- you can't come to the edge, you just keep traveling and end up back where you started. Or it could just be that "infinite" is a poetic way to describe something so large mortals can't come to grips with it.) If one looks at the paradoxes based on probability, then again I ask how can there be any free will - if the only thing stopping an infinite number of good demons is finitude, then can't every action be judged by probability rather than on circumstance and decisions? Then where is the free will - and thus the point of the game? From an external perspective, free will is observed as a probability. That's just a fact -- the only way you can tell the difference between free will and blind chance is the conscious experience of you, the decision-maker, having free will, and an outside observer obviously doesn't share that experience. I don't see how that's an excuse to not be civil. I think I understand the paradoxes as well as you do but I just don't see why we should all bend to the math for a game. It's not "math", it's just the logic of what the word means. Like I said, it's my personal bugbear that I don't like people throwing around a word without thought for what it means. And I see *no contradiction* between saying the Abyss is "infinite" in a "mythical" sense and saying that it's 60,000 kilometers in diameter in the literal sense. How can a person be wrong about how infinity works in their D&D game? Or in D&D in general, since there's no reason to assume laws of probability work the same way at all. A person can say things like "In my D&D game, 2+2=5". They have every right to *say* that. What they say won't actually make any sense or have any meaning, and if they actually try to run a game this way it will inevitably turn out to have different rules, because 2+2=5 is just plain not possible to actually imagine or do -- it's one of those concepts where it's easy to *say* the word that defines it, like "infinity", but impossible to actually coherently imagine given what the word actually means. A lot of what people are saying is that 2+2=5, where, for this limited and "mythical" definition of 5, 5 is actually 4. (I've seen DMs who wanted to make Limbo cooler by saying that 2+2=5 in Limbo, for instance, when what this actually came down to was that Slaadi would randomly appear and disappear at fixed intervals during a combat with them, which is not actually the same thing.) And if that's what you need for the planes to feel "incomprehensible", well, whatever. Go ahead. To me it's just playing with words. And aren't the Elemental Tempest and Astral Sea infinite, especially the latter? Boy, I hope not. However, it's easier to justify "infinite" as just meaning "so big no one has observed the end of it yet" with something really huge and undefined as the Astral Sea than with something like Hell, which is supposed to be a unified political entity with uniform characteristics.
ArcTan 10-12-07, 11:28 PM	[COLOR="Navy"]Not to go completely off topic, but Star Wars Saga has 'line of sight' seemingly described as "can you see them?", so viewing their image through a television screen allows you to use your jedi powers to choke them to death (for example), as long as they're within the same galaxy (or solar system if you're a real noob). Using this description a deity could teleport to anything they could see in a picture. What do you mean by "see"? I can see the star Vega just by going outside on a clear night. Does that mean I can teleport to it? Keep in mind that all I actually see is a bright point of light. The description of the spells teleport and greater teleport in D&D does *not* actually involve "line of sight". You must be able to *visually imagine* the place you're going to teleport to, not just have it within LoS.
Snow Princess 10-13-07, 12:26 AM	That's just a fact -- the only way you can tell the difference between free will and blind chance is the conscious experience of you, the decision-maker, having free will, and an outside observer obviously doesn't share that experience. so being good is not a choice, but one event in a probability space that a good demon just happens to be the achievement of? thus the infinite good demons *think* some experience/understanding has caused them to rise but the reality is that they are just "puppets" (can't think of a good word) of probability laws? And I see *no contradiction* between saying the Abyss is "infinite" in a "mythical" sense and saying that it's 60,000 kilometers in diameter in the literal sense. But the Abyss isn't a literal place like the Prime is. It's a plane made of belief, and it's infinity represents the incomprehensible nature of the two forces that make it up - Chaos and Evil. Here's an interesting view - sadly only the abstract is free: Lisa Gorton - The Paradox Topos (http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/journal_of_the_history_of_ideas/v061/61.2gorton.html)- Journal of the History of Ideas 61:2 Journal of the History of Ideas 61.2 (2000) 343-346 The Paradox Topos Lisa Gorton As William Egginton points out, when Dante and Beatrice step outside the cosmos, they step into another set of concentric spheres. These surround our (supposedly) geocentric cosmos, and yet they center upon God. The image affronts our logic of space. If these concentric spheres encompass us, how can they center upon something somewhere else? The notion seems to turn space inside-out. But Dante's spatial paradox is not in truth a paradox of space. Instead, it is a spiritual paradox, set in terms of space.
ArcTan 10-13-07, 12:46 AM	so being good is not a choice, but one event in a probability space that a good demon just happens to be the achievement of? thus the infinite good demons *think* some experience/understanding has caused them to rise but the reality is that they are just "puppets" (can't think of a good word) of probability laws? No. Probability isn't a "law". It's just a description. I can descriptively state that it is a fact that when you count the number of couples whose marriages end in divorce, about 50% of them do, without saying that the "laws of probability" are "forcing" people to get divorced. I don't know why they get divorced. I just know how many of them *do* get divorced. Saying the "laws of probability" force anyone to do anything is backwards. But the Abyss isn't a literal place like the Prime is. Well, yes, it is. It may exist for different *reasons* from the Prime, but you can go there, walk around, sit on things, etc. That's the whole thing. Yeah, sure, a Demon is in some sense "made of belief" and so on, but it's *also* made of flesh. You can touch it. You can weigh it. You can kill it and dissect it. You can make armor out of its hide. Etc. You can say anything you like about the intangible, invisible concepts that cause the Abyss to exist, but the actual physical place we see and experience as the Abyss cannot be infinitely large, nor can the actual physical entities we perceive as Demons be infinite in number. It's a plane made of belief, and it's infinity represents the incomprehensible nature of the two forces that make it up - Chaos and Evil. But what does that even mean? What *is* its infinity? Why do we know it's infinite in the first place? How was it proven? "We can't measure it" or "We can't comprehend it" =/= "It's infinite". FWIW, I'm totally okay with saying that the Abyss is "infinitely Evil" in the sense that God is "infinitely loving". There is no action that requires too much love for God to take. There is no act that is too Evil for someone in the Abyss to do. Neither of these has anything to do with "infinite" in the sense of infinite number. Neither of these requires that either God or the Abyss be infinite in *dimension*. The Abyss can be "infinitely Evil" without being infinite in *size*. I don't see why the two concepts have to be inextricably linked. Here's an interesting view - sadly only the abstract is free: Lisa Gorton - The Paradox Topos (http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/journal_of_the_history_of_ideas/v061/61.2gorton.html)- Journal of the History of Ideas 61:2 Journal of the History of Ideas 61.2 (2000) 343-346 The Paradox Topos Lisa Gorton As William Egginton points out, when Dante and Beatrice step outside the cosmos, they step into another set of concentric spheres. These surround our (supposedly) geocentric cosmos, and yet they center upon God. The image affronts our logic of space. If these concentric spheres encompass us, how can they center upon something somewhere else? The notion seems to turn space inside-out. But Dante's spatial paradox is not in truth a paradox of space. Instead, it is a spiritual paradox, set in terms of space. I don't read it that way, to be honest. Even if I did, all that means is that in poetry that doesn't describe a real place, you can be totally illogical if you want because you're just using words to evoke a feeling. I can say *poetically* that "In Limbo, 2+2=5", sure. However, if I'm playing a game that attempts to simulate a real experience these characters are physically having, and they *actually go to Limbo*, I can't very well say 2+2 *literally* equals 5, because that doesn't make any sense. It's meaningless. Or, to put it another way, if they're in the divine spheres of the Paradisio in Dante's Divine Comedy, and I draw a little map for them, and they say "We're going to go straight toward the center!", I have to *say* what happens when they reach the center. I can't say "You both reach the throne of God and the Earth, because both of them are in the center, because it's a paradox". They have to actually be somewhere, for the sake of imagining the campaign as some kind of physical reality.
Snow Princess 10-13-07, 01:22 AM	I can descriptively state that it is a fact that when you count the number of couples whose marriages end in divorce, about 50% of them do, without saying that the "laws of probability" are "forcing" people to get divorced. I don't know why they get divorced. I just know how many of them *do* get divorced. Saying the "laws of probability" force anyone to do anything is backwards I'm missing something - why then are there an infinite number of good demons? Why do we know it's infinite in the first place? How was it proven? I'm willing to leave the planes at sizes to vast to be known/comprehended by mortals and DMs can make them finite or infinite as they please. Seems like this would be the best course for the designers to take. you're just using words to evoke a feeling. But that's why I want the planes to be infinite - because it makes people like me think about how Evil cannot be measured. It makes me shiver as I think of things that are so horrible in real life I can't comprehend them. As such I'm saying my revulsion at some act that would violate the CoC to describe is, in terms of the planes, as immeasurable as Abyssal boundaries. I never believe or imagine myself so far in the PC role that I have to rationalize whether the Abyss could exist...and if I did I'd probably pee in my pants...
yrogerg 10-13-07, 01:39 AM	I'm missing something - why then are there an infinite number of good demons? Because 1% of infinity is infinity, and because of the way infinity works, the infinity that's 1% of infinity is just as big as the infinity that's 99% of infinity. We're treading over old territory here.
ArcTan 10-13-07, 01:41 AM	I'm missing something - why then are there an infinite number of good demons? Because if there is any percentage of the Evil Demons who are Good, there's an infinite number. If there *is* a probability that any given Demon can turn, no matter how small, then an infinite number have. Just by nature of what infinity *is*. Whatever qualities make someone turn Good, if you have an infinite number of Demons you have an infinite number of chances to find that Demon. I'm willing to leave the planes at sizes to vast to be known/comprehended by mortals and DMs can make them finite or infinite as they please. Seems like this would be the best course for the designers to take. Like I said, I actually think "the size of Jupiter" is a *better* way to say "too vast to be comprehended" than just blandly saying "too vast to be comprehended". You'll notice that infinite sizes don't actually occur anywhere in the Bible -- indeed, the description of the Heavenly City in the Book of Revelation is a great deal less than infinite in size. (If you take the numbers literally, it's about 1/4 the size of the Moon.) It's also one of the coolest things to imagine I can remember from the Bible. Because that's really *incredibly large*. But that's why I want the planes to be infinite - because it makes people like me think about how Evil cannot be measured. It makes me shiver as I think of things that are so horrible in real life I can't comprehend them. As such I'm saying my revulsion at some act that would violate the CoC to describe is, in terms of the planes, as immeasurable as Abyssal boundaries. I never believe or imagine myself so far in the PC role that I have to rationalize whether the Abyss could exist...and if I did I'd probably pee in my pants... You can't really imagine how big Jupiter is either. (No, I'm serious, you can't. I can't either. No one can.) I will never be able to picture the majority of Evil acts that can be committed in the world, but I actually think the total number of possible Evil acts is finite, much as the number of things that can ever happen is finite. See verbose post on the Higher Torah of the Qabbalah and so on.
Alpha_Moose 10-13-07, 01:48 AM	But that's why I want the planes to be infinite - because it makes people like me think about how Evil cannot be measured. But it can. There's a spell that can not only detect Evil, but can also detect how powerful it is. That's the problem there. If they described the planes as infinite in the flavor text alone or when quoting some character it would be fine. But when it gets to mechanics they can't do that, because it doesn't make sense. They also can't say, "Enhancement bonuses stack, so that if you have a +2 longsword and enhance it by 2 you get a +5 longsword."
ArcTan 10-13-07, 02:00 AM	To be fair, I'm pretty certain "infinite" started out as just a flavor-text word that got thrown around, and it was later generations of supplements -- and fans -- who took it too seriously. Other supplements, to their credit, didn't, like when they defined the Abyss as having 666 Layers (which is *cooler* than the Abyss just having lots and lots of layers).
Aubri 10-13-07, 02:03 AM	I'm missing something - why then are there an infinite number of good demons? Because probability describes reality. If there's a 1 in a million chance that a demon turns good, then you can assume, on average, that any given million demons will contain one good one. Therefore, for an unlimited number of demons, every million produces one good one, and thus there is an unlimited number of good ones. If the chances were worse than that of a given demon turning good, we wouldn't describe it as 1:1000000. However, there is a nonzero probability, which is good enough for infinity. Put more simply, for an infinite number of trials, every possible outcome must appear. Because it appears at all, it necessarily appears an infinite number of times.
ArcTan 10-13-07, 02:40 AM	Put it another way, in a bizarre sense, if the number of Good Demons is finite, then the probability that a Good Demon exists is *zero*. Of course, that would mean the *number* of Good Demons is zero, which can't be true, because we just said the number of Demons is a nonzero finite number. This is why you can't do arithmetic on transfinite cardinalities. They aren't "numbers" in the normal sense, and they can't be added or subtracted or divided or multiplied. Trying to treat them as *real things* -- as though you can actually have an "infinite number of eggs" or "infinite number of people" -- just can't be done. It's like 2+2=5.
Naderion 10-13-07, 06:08 AM	because we just said the number of Demons is a nonzero finite number. No, we didn't For 6 pages and 9 days, the discusion about the good and bad sides of the old cosmology has turned inta a discussion about mathematical infinity. If I could, I just would have to rate this thread as really bad.
EvilVegan 10-13-07, 09:42 AM	What do you mean by "see"? I can see the star Vega just by going outside on a clear night. Does that mean I can teleport to it? Keep in mind that all I actually see is a bright point of light. The description of the spells teleport and greater teleport in D&D does *not* actually involve "line of sight". You must be able to *visually imagine* the place you're going to teleport to, not just have it within LoS. It was more for object/creature targetting than teleporting. If you can see them with a remote viewing ability you can target them. But that's pretty standard for non-line-of-effect abilities. A deity could teleport anywhere they can sense, depending on portfolio that could be anywhere. Send a robot into space programmed to say/do something related to the profile. . . but that's silly.
EvilVegan 10-13-07, 10:05 AM	I just read some proto-evangelist literature and it got me thinking of the nature of probability in 'infinite' space. The basic premise of the literature I read was "the chance is so low for life to evolve randomly on this planet that there is no way it could have done so". Something like 10^124 to 1. Effectively shooting an arrow at pluto and hitting within a few yards of your target. Well, this does seem unlikely in a closed sample. If there were only 10 planets and 1 star, it would be statistically impossible to have life on any of the planets. But if you have an infinite number of space, time, planets, and stars, the probability of having at least one planet give rise to life is 100%. For the same reason, if you have an infinite number of anything, the percent chance that anything that is remotely possible becomes 100% probable and the number of examples becomes infinite. The chance for life to randomly evolve in an infinite universe = 100%. Number of examples = infinite. So the good demon who "changed his mind about the whole 'composed of pure evil' thing", from his view could very well be the only good demon around and believe himself unique in a sea of infinite evil. But this also got me thinking. If there is an infinite space with an infinite number of creatures, aside from there being no room for anything (all space is filled with all creatures), if there were somehow "less" demons than space, they would be so far away so as to be completely unaware of each other. So, if there are infinite demons in infinite space, there could be infinite space between finite groups, but there are an infinite number of finite groups. This would allow for conflict on finite scales, but still it would be better to just ignore the infinite and make it immeasurable/indefinite.
sciborg3 10-13-07, 11:53 AM	If there *is* a probability that any given Demon can turn, no matter how small, then an infinite number have. Just by nature of what infinity *is*. Are you taking the expected value? :confused:
ArcTan 10-13-07, 01:03 PM	No, we didn't For 6 pages and 9 days, the discusion about the good and bad sides of the old cosmology has turned inta a discussion about mathematical infinity. If I could, I just would have to rate this thread as really bad. We said the number of Good Demons was a nonzero finite number -- i.e. there is such a thing as a Good Demon. It's not that "mathematical", really. We're using the word "mathematical" as though it means anything special, but any real, physical object obviously has to be the kind of thing that you can describe with mathematics. ("How many miles across is the Abyss?" "Infinite miles!") Again, sure, the Abyss could be *non*-"mathematically" infinite. That would make it infinite in a sense that had nothing to do with miles or kilometers. It would mean it could *both* be infinite and be about 60,000 km across. Which, again, I have no problem with other than that I don't like to use the word "infinite" that way. But you can't say "It's *not* about the size of Jupiter, it's not even three times the size of Jupiter, it's got *no end to it at all*" and not confront what that would actually, literally mean.
ArcTan 10-13-07, 01:07 PM	But that's pretty standard for non-line-of-effect abilities. A deity could teleport anywhere they can sense, depending on portfolio that could be anywhere. Send a robot into space programmed to say/do something related to the profile. . . but that's silly. If the robot travels at a finite velocity -- as any real robot must -- then the deity's range is still limited. The only way for the deity's range to be "infinite" is to define it as something that's not dependent on anything finite. That doesn't apply to any of the deities in D&DG, whose portfolio senses never extend more than DvR miles (10 miles, 15 miles, 20 miles) from something related to their portfolio, which is inevitably some feature of the Prime related to the mortal races (a worshipper, a temple, a sacred place). D&D deities, or at least D&DG deities, aren't very cosmic at all. They only exist in places where they have worshippers and can only affect places where they have worshippers, which is in line with the whole "defined by belief" stuff. Taiia isn't even aware of some random cave on Earth where none of her worshippers have ever been, much less being magically aware of what goes on on Mars, or Alpha Centauri.
ArcTan 10-13-07, 01:08 PM	Are you taking the expected value? :confused: It's not necessary. Expected value involves changes over time. When you have an infinite number already, you don't need any time. If every Demon has a very very small chance of turning, like 0.000000000000000001%, the chance that you'll have at least one Good Demon still goes up as you increase the number of Demons. The chance for any *higher* number of Demons goes up as you increase the number of Demons. If you make the number of Demons infinite, the probability becomes 1. If you have an infinite number of monkeys on typewriters, they will produce a copy of Hamlet (indeed, an infinite number of copies) *immediately*.
EvilVegan 10-13-07, 01:42 PM	But whats to say that there are currently infinite anything? "There are an infinite number of demons" could theoretically mean that if you were to kill every one of the finite amount that exists now, more would appear to replace them an infinite number of times, over a span of time. Infinite in that there is no end to the number that will apear over time, but at any one time the actual amount is a measurable number, albeit very large. In our "infinite" jupiter-sized-realm [sic] you can push the edge of any 'side' of the bubble out as far as you like, without limit, or you can pass through it with magic (it is a semi-permeable membrane with standard one-way travel into the abyss). Within this realm live 666^666 demons (effectively infinite if you're trying to conduct a census in real time). If you kill all these demons they replenish as elements from the surrounding regions get sucked into the abyss and mutated and as evil mortals die. There is no limit to the number of available demons over time. At any one time there are only so many that can be found. The expansive nature of the plane makes organizing the innumerable masses into a collective in order to say, invade the prime material plane with a trillion trillion demons, mathematically impossible, especially since when collected in such a mass they invariably attempt to destroy each other, and the limits of divine sensory powers. This is using the term infinite to mean without limit not bigger than biggest ever.
ArcTan 10-13-07, 01:45 PM	A better word for that would, as has been said a *lot*, be "indefinite". Put it this way -- the number of US dollars in the world will never run out. US dollars, as a conceptual unit, are *created* by the Federal Reserve whenever it authorizes an increase in the "money supply", and technically speaking the money supply only refers to money in forms that can be easily passed back and forth. A bunch of dollars "exist" in the form of debts or investments that aren't part of the "money supply", and the number of US dollars that therefore exist on the balance sheets of all the accountants in the entire world is therefore very large, and theoretically unlimited -- more dollars exist every time someone says "I owe you $X that I'll pay off over the next Y years". But that number is still not an *infinite* number. It's just a finite number that can keep on growing arbitrarily. Saying it's "infinite" makes people assume things that aren't true (like that if I made half the dollars in the world disappear the number wouldn't get smaller -- or, to bring it back to D&D, that the Demons wouldn't be hurt if the Devils made a weapon that killed half of them all at once).
EvilVegan 10-13-07, 02:02 PM	Depends on the context. Infinite has multiple meanings. D&D does confuse them often and, sure, there are much better words to use. That doesn't make the word infinite wrong in the cases I posed, which may be what they meant (but I doubt it). Limitless is a better word. Immeasurable even better than that. But infinite still 'works'. Also, there is a very good chance that the united states will stop existing at some point (100% over a long enough time line), which means that there is an end to the number that will be produced over time. Within a planar context there is a mathematical certainty that the abyss will be around before, during, and after time. If you take a "sample view" of the plane at any one time you would have a finite, but ultimately immeasurable number, but if you view it as a whole, over an infinite timeline then there are an infinite number of demons. I think it would have been better to keep flavor consistent using better words with less mathematical consequences. Perhaps something like "There are so many demons that only an overdeity can know the number."
pratputajao 10-13-07, 02:18 PM	Copernicus and Galileo lived in a time when, when most people thought about the night sky, they just thought "Whoa! Really big!" and had no conception of *how* big. Scientists who worked very hard to try to figure out how big could make progress on the matter, sure, but there were a lot of things they didn't know (Galileo had no concept of how far away Alpha Centauri was and wouldn't understand if you tried to tell him) and as far as the ordinary people of the time were concerned what they were talking about was meaningless.. Hah! Thats an arrogent claim, That an intelligent person speaking in the vernacular of Galilao's day couldnt get him to understand extreem distances... Thats a laugh. Much more likely is Galilao trying to discribe something to you of his thought without you ever being to understand it fully. Anyway, people keep throwing around gods and demon lords as though it were well established that demon lords can fly around at Warp 9. Warp 9?!! What are you like 10 or what? You see it goes both ways smart guy :rolleyes: While I don't *like* how weak the statted versions of Demogorgon and Zeus and St. Cuthbert are, I don't see any reason to say that because the statted versions are that weak, the *real* Demogorgon must be able to traverse the Milky Way Galaxy in the blink of an eye. (And notice that even if he could it would still take him years and years to traverse the observable universe.). Jeesh.... you are making my point! Thus if Demogorgon CANT go whipping through extreem distances he is more likely than not to assume that those extreem distances would continue for infinity. While getting through Jupiter like distances would not be impossible for him and thus no mistaking any plane for infinite ( even if it curves back on itself I think a being with a 31 Int would be able to figure that out) I have no other reason for wanting such large areas for planar/layer size than to have it flow with what was previously thought of the planes. Universe sized ( or yes even a galaxy) could be easily mistaken for Infinite. Now if you dont really care about continuity between the editions thats fine but thats not how I am used to playing the game. It's because it's just a game that I don't feel the need to be super-polite. No, its becouse you are on the internet! If you and I were at local bar, college common room, what have you, and you had just met me I doubt that you would present yourself as such an all knowing ass. Respectible people should try and be polite at all times not only when discussing the appropriate topics. Here You come off as an arrogent jerk who can be so becouse you are behind a computer screen. Frankly, I'm really very certain that I *do* understand this better than you. It took me a long period of reading and thinking and having good geek discussions before I reached that point, but yes, I'm pretty sure I understand the idea of "infinity" and really big astronomical numbers and things better than you do. So sue me, but telling people why they're wrong is one of the minor ways in which I think these boards are fun. Huh? How do you have any Idea what I know about a subject? Just becouse I use Universe, Galaxy and solar system in a way you unapprove of I must have no concept about exteemly large distances and Infinity? I havent even written on the subject of infinity other than to say it poses problems for a plane to be infinite ! You may very well know more about it than me But I havent even really debated much of this to come to that conclusion. You know The funny thing is that I support your arguement against Infinite planes! We just differ on the size the plane should be. I am trying to make for a smooth continuity. It looks to me like You are stuck on the Jupiter size becouse that is what was written by one of the writers about the new size of the planes. Using your logic I would say earth size is fine you will never need all the room of jupiter. Damn, do you have any concept of how big a large gas Giant is??!! IF demons are not Infinite in # now then you will never have enough to fill an earth sized plane given their predisposition for destroying each other. You would need trillions of them to fill a plane of even that size. There is no reason for needing the size of Jupiter thats just overkill..... Playing devils advocate of course Sorry about the ad Hominin attacks but you really do strike me as a super nerd know it all who gets off by telling others how dumb they are. ( the kind of people that, sadly, the DnD community has far to many of)
ArcTan 10-13-07, 02:38 PM	Hah! Thats an arrogent claim, That an intelligent person speaking in the vernacular of Galilao's day couldnt get him to understand extreem distances... Thats a laugh. Much more likely is Galilao trying to discribe something to you of his thought without you ever being to understand it fully. I'm not smarter than Galileo. We just know more than he does today. Do you have *any idea* how long a light-year is? You couldn't even use the word "light-year" with him -- in his time, it would've been a revolutionary idea that light took time to travel at all, and the concept of a distance so vast that *light* could take a year to cross it would've been a new, brain-racking concept. (It still is, for most children who come across it for the first time.) Warp 9?!! What are you like 10 or what? You see it goes both ways smart guy :rolleyes: I was trying to be at least slightly ironic. Jeesh.... you are making my point! Thus if Demogorgon CANT go whipping through extreem distances he is more likely than not to assume that those extreem distances would continue for infinity. Right. And in D&D statted terms, anything more than a few thousand miles is an "extreme distance", for *anybody*. While getting through Jupiter like distances would not be impossible for him and thus no mistaking any plane for infinite ( even if it curves back on itself I think a being with a 31 Int would be able to figure that out) I have no other reason for wanting such large areas for planar/layer size than to have it flow with what was previously thought of the planes. How do you know? Demogorgon can't even see for more than a few hundred feet. He doesn't even have DvR, so he doesn't have Taiia's magic ability to sense everything within 20 miles. He *can't* traverse light-years without difficulty. He can't even get from Paris to Tokyo without difficulty, unless he's actually been to Tokyo or knows about it. If he doesn't know what a place looks like, he has to walk (well, fly) and he doesn't actually fly that fast. A lot slower than, say, a 747 flies. Universe sized ( or yes even a galaxy) could be easily mistaken for Infinite. Now if you dont really care about continuity between the editions thats fine but thats not how I am used to playing the game. If by "mistaken for infinite" you mean "He hasn't explored all of it and he doesn't know how big it is", the size of Jupiter is sufficient. Hell, Saturn. Neptune. No, its becouse you are on the internet! If you and I were at local bar, college common room, what have you, and you had just met me I doubt that you would present yourself as such an all knowing ass. Oh, you clearly don't know me. Besides, it is, after all, a geeky game thing. It's a geek debate. If I were debating you about foreign policy on some kind of stage I might be more circumspect in my words, and wear a tie. But I'm not wearing a tie right now. Respectible people should try and be polite at all times not only when discussing the appropriate topics. Here You come off as an arrogent jerk who can be so becouse you are behind a computer screen. *shrug* I really do know more than you do, though. I mean, I do. It's pretty clear. If I really thought it was really important to convince you of something, I might be nicer about it, but I don't. It *is*, in fact, the Internet. Huh? How do you have any Idea what I know about a subject? Just becouse I use Universe, Galaxy and solar system in a way you unapprove of I must have no concept about exteemly large distances and Infinity? I havent even written on the subject of infinity other than to say it poses problems for a plane to be infinite ! You may very well know more about it than me But I havent even really debated much of this to come to that conclusion. If you really wanted to show me up, you could actually tell me something you know that proves me to be ignorant or wrong, rather than just saying that I don't know anything about you and that you could be a freaking college professor for all I know (although I'd then ask why you wouldn't bother to spellcheck or properly capitalize your paragraphs). You know The funny thing is that I support your arguement against Infinite planes! We just differ on the size the plane should be. I am trying to make for a smooth continuity. It looks to me like You are stuck on the Jupiter size becouse that is what was written by one of the writers about the new size of the planes. Using your logic I would say earth size is fine you will never need all the room of jupiter. Damn, do you have any concept of how big a large gas Giant is??!! IF demons are not Infinite in # now then you will never have enough to fill an earth sized plane given their predisposition for destroying each other. You would need trillions of them to fill a plane of even that size. There is no reason for needing the size of Jupiter thats just overkill..... Playing devils advocate of course Earth-sized would actually be fine. That's how I actually pictured the Abyss when I first started running it -- that each layer is a continent about the size of Asia or so, and that there are hundreds or thousands of them stacked up to make a total space about the size of the Earth. (This would mean the total *inhabitable surface area* of the Abyss would still equal that of thousands and thousands of Earthlike planets.) Jupiter-sized is, frankly, so much bigger than my original conception of the Abyss that if I really sat down and thought about it it might pose a lot of problems for how we've been dealing with the Abyss and its individual layers as being somehow traversable by adventuring parties at all. Saying Jupiter-sized is *too big* I can easily agree with. Saying Jupiter-size, naw, that's just so *small* compared to Solar-System-sized or galaxy-sized, that's... really kind of ridiculous. Sorry about the ad Hominin attacks but you really do strike me as a super nerd know it all who gets off by telling others how dumb they are. ( the kind of people that, sadly, the DnD community has far to many of) I'd be a lot happier if the D&D community had more people like me and fewer people who complained about "ad Hominin" attacks.
Snow Princess 10-13-07, 02:41 PM	Because 1% of infinity is infinity, and because of the way infinity works, the infinity that's 1% of infinity is just as big as the infinity that's 99% of infinity. We're treading over old territory here. No, you're just not paying attention. You're also multiplying a rational by infinity which shows you don't have as good as a grasp on this as you'd like to think. Put more simply, for an infinite number of trials, every possible outcome must appear. Because it appears at all, it necessarily appears an infinite number of times. How is this not the expected value? And I'd need a proof of this - it's been awhile. :embarrass A better word for that would, as has been said a *lot*, be "indefinite". We're treading over old territory here. ;) But Evil Vegan and your descriptions together (like the money analogy) seem to present a workable option that should make both sides happy. Whatever qualities make someone turn Good, if you have an infinite number of Demons you have an infinite number of chances to find that Demon. But this assumes that there are qualities that can be enumerated - or at least that's what I'm (perhaps mistakenly) getting out of your argument. Do X and show Y to demon Z and he turns good. This is different that saying 50% of couples get divorced. That's a statistic describing a current state of affairs (no pun intended) relating to marriages. That's different than taking an event in a probability space as input to a probability function and getting a real number. (P(A) -> llR, A in Omega...or is it "Script F)...anyone know? :embarrass ) By placing a probability on something like "turning good" in that it has to occur, doesn't that remove the notion of free will? It's *KIND OF (yes, I'm a bad mathematician)* like taking the Axiom of Choice (there *have* to be demons turning good even if we don't know who they are) on the number of demons to find the risen demons? Without the possibility that no demons turn good, there is no free will in their choice that I'm seeing - and thus, for me, no reason to play a game that imo is based around the impact of freely made choices by PCs and (via the DM) NPCs...save when they are compelled of course... Hope that makes some sense, enough for someone to see what I'm trying to get at...
EvilVegan 10-13-07, 02:44 PM	Warp 9?!! What are you like 10 or what? You see it goes both ways smart guy :rolleyes: Yes, yes, we can all engage in hilarious hyperbole. The question is can you sort out the point from the example? His point was "show how fast can a deity-level being travel". From everything stated in D&D they travel faster than people, but still have limits on their abilities. They aren't that much better at travelling than a mortal wizard with greater teleport, the only difference being is their portfolio abilities. Does Demogorgon have the ability to traverse a jupiter sized plane quickly enough to 'measure' it, or even control it over these distances? If he has been somewhere on the plane, he can likely greater teleport there, if he can see something well enough to visualize it he can do the same, but beyond that there are definite limits on his abilities. If Demogorgon, limited as he is, cannot travel the expansive distances of Jupiter, and neither can any other being below overdeity status, then setting the size to "jupiter" is effectively the same as setting it to "solar system" or "galaxy" or "infinite". The point in question is, how fast can these guys go?
ArcTan 10-13-07, 02:45 PM	Well, the point is you can't really multiply a rational by infinity. You can't actually have an infinity of real things at all and talk about them as though they were real and that you could count some subset of them and talk about their relationship to the rest of them. When you do, you bring up logical paradoxes. I'm not enough of a mathematician myself to explain this rigorously, so I'm using fuzzy language.
EvilVegan 10-13-07, 02:50 PM	By placing a probability on something like "turning good" in that it has to occur, doesn't that remove the notion of free will? It's *KIND OF (yes, I'm a bad mathematician)* like taking the Axiom of Choice (there *have* to be demons turning good even if we don't know who they are) on the number of demons to find the risen demons? Without the possibility that no demons turn good, there is no free will in their choice that I'm seeing - and thus, for me, no reason to play a game that imo is based around the impact of freely made choices by PCs and (via the DM) NPCs...save when they are compelled of course... Hope that makes some sense, enough for someone to see what I'm trying to get at... I think he's just using the alignment definition from the monster manual. I think it says something like "Always Evil" = slightly less than 100%, which means that slightly greater than 0% of the population would be not evil, which means that (%>0)*(infinity) = infinity.
ArcTan 10-13-07, 03:03 PM	Yes, yes, we can all engage in hilarious hyperbole. The question is can you sort out the point from the example? His point was "show how fast can a deity-level being travel". From everything stated in D&D they travel faster than people, but still have limits on their abilities. They aren't that much better at travelling than a mortal wizard with greater teleport, the only difference being is their portfolio abilities. Does Demogorgon have the ability to traverse a jupiter sized plane quickly enough to 'measure' it, or even control it over these distances? If he has been somewhere on the plane, he can likely greater teleport there, if he can see something well enough to visualize it he can do the same, but beyond that there are definite limits on his abilities. If Demogorgon, limited as he is, cannot travel the expansive distances of Jupiter, and neither can any other being below overdeity status, then setting the size to "jupiter" is effectively the same as setting it to "solar system" or "galaxy" or "infinite". The point in question is, how fast can these guys go? The most recent version of Demogorgon is the Fiendish Codex I Demogorgon, who's actually kind of unimpressive. At CR 20, he has a base land speed of 50 feet per round, or about 15 MPH. He can use the fly spell at will, though, which means he can fly at 60 feet per round, or about 20 MPH. He can also use greater teleport at will, which might let him "hop" from place to place. Exactly how fast a mode of travel this is is unclear, as is how well it works for "hopping" into a completely empty space (depends on how you interpret the rules about Conjuration spells having to end on a surface capable of supporting your weight). But unlike Taiia his Spot modifier is only +38, and he has no divine senses that let him see further. Realistically I don't think you can say that Spot +38 lets you see clearly for more than a few hundred feet, and while a few hundred feet per second (through teleport-hopping) is fast for a human, it's still pretty slow in the astronomical sense.
ArcTan 10-13-07, 03:07 PM	PS: I think the argument is kind of bogus anyway. The Planescape books are written "in-character" from the perspective of a *mortal being* from Sigil. The people who don't know whether the planes are infinite or not are the ordinary mortal berks from the Fraternity of Order. We *don't know* what Demogorgon thinks about the planes, much less what a greater deity like Taiia thinks or knows.
EvilVegan 10-13-07, 03:09 PM	And is this jupiter sized maw a gaping hole or layers and layers of hells? If the first then it wouldn't take as much time, but the surface area of a multi-layered jupiter-sized dimension is frankly mind-boggling. I don't think any single deity could do it and still maintain their duties abilities. Plus the plane is mutable, meaning that once you measure it, the measurement is moot.
ArcTan 10-13-07, 03:14 PM	And is this jupiter sized maw a gaping hole or layers and layers of hells? If the first then it wouldn't take as much time, but the surface area of a multi-layered jupiter-sized dimension is frankly mind-boggling. I don't think any single deity could do it and still maintain their deity abilities. Plus the plane is mutable, meaning that once you measure it, the measurement is moot. I'm pretty sure they meant a great big space filled with Demons and nastiness. Part of the problem is that it's *not* actually one big empty hole -- it can't be, there are Demons and things in it. Which actually makes the time it would take to cross it longer, because you can't go as the crow flies. Taiia, who can see for 20 miles all around her, and can therefore travel at 3.3 miles per second (or 24,000 miles per hour) actually would be able to traverse the *diameter* of Jupiter in about three hours, *if she could see that far*. However, if this Jupiter-sized hole is filled with all kinds of layers of demonic crap, and if our criterion of "explore" isn't "go from one end to the other" but "map the whole thing so you know exactly what size and shape it is", then it's going to be far more difficult for her. FWIW, though, saying Greater Deities can use all their power rip their way straight through the Lower Planes in a very short time has precedent. Mystra blasts her way through Hell pretty quickly and easily to find Elminster, and all.
Snow Princess 10-13-07, 03:17 PM	Wasn't she forced to retreat before Asmodeus shows up? (can't recall what happened in that book...)
EvilVegan 10-13-07, 03:17 PM	That would be pretty easy, since he's a follower and she can sense him and see around him, making teleportation work pretty well. . . I like waffles, infinitely.
ArcTan 10-13-07, 03:20 PM	Wasn't she forced to retreat before Asmodeus shows up? (can't recall what happened in that book...) She starts blowing up Devils left and right and then she realizes that Asmodeus is going to come and doesn't want tangle with him directly. She kills, like, a million Devils before she leaves, though.
ArcTan 10-13-07, 03:21 PM	That would be pretty easy, since he's a follower and she can sense him and see around him, making teleportation work pretty well. . . I like waffles, infinitely. Yeah, except that's not how it happened. She doesn't teleport straight to Elminster's side to save him, or the book would've been much shorter. She just realizes Elminster is in Hell, goes to Hell, and rips her way halfway through to Asmodeus' throne before she realizes she's in over her head. (Kind of impulsive and unbecoming behavior for a Greater Deity, but whatever.)
EvilVegan 10-13-07, 03:23 PM	She always was a firecracker!
ArcTan 10-13-07, 03:40 PM	You'd think the patron deity of all Wizards would have the foresight to realize she didn't actually know where in Hell (literally) Elminster was before barging in there making a mess of things. Maybe she's the patron deity of Wizards who always cast fireball on the first round.
EvilVegan 10-13-07, 04:36 PM	On the surprise round before diplomacy is begun, actually. So. . . how about that great wheel? They seem to be ditching it.
BOZ 10-13-07, 08:25 PM	heh :) you know, as much as i enjoyed most aspects of Planescape, I do have to agree that i never liked the idea of "infinite" planes or "infinite" demons. I would have much preferred "limitless" or "to unknown but seemingly endless limits", as infinte raises too many conundrums. it's not that infinite is incomprehendable to me... it just seems like a bad choice and always has.
Naderion 10-15-07, 06:54 AM	The real world material plane is infinite in a way. Except when you say the universe is an expanding sphere and anything that is not in the sphere is some sort of astral plane. :D I think it's actually more unrealistic to have finite planes. So when you walk long enough, you come to a wall, and then what? Or when you fly up, will you eventually get to a roof? Will there be a point where you can't borrow down anymore? I think it would be a strange idea to not chose to have infinite planes. Sure, it's paradox that celestia is a mountain which is cone-shaped, but it's circumstance is infinite and it's sourrounded by an ocean that is infinite too, but it's not a material plane but a completely different universe with different physical laws.
ArcTan 10-15-07, 08:03 AM	The real world material plane is infinite in a way. Except when you say the universe is an expanding sphere and anything that is not in the sphere is some sort of astral plane. :D You don't need an "astral plane" to be "outside the universe" to have the universe be finite. The universe *is* expanding -- that we know. The universe is expanding, in fact, faster than you can travel, so it's *impossible* to ever reach the "edge" of it. The fastest anything can go is the speed of light, and if the universe is expanding at a constant rate so that the apparent velocity of things moving apart from each other is a big enough fraction of the speed of light, no traveler in a spaceship can ever move fast enough to "catch up" with the expanding universe. Simple math. Even if you could, there's no reason to think that the universe has to have some kind of black wall at its edge. The universe can be a giant "wraparound" space -- indeed, most cosmologists think that's the most likely shape for the universe, the surface of a hypersphere. (I.e. imagine the surface of an expanding balloon, as perceived by a Flatlander who lives on the balloon's surface and thinks and sees in two dimensions.) I think it's actually more unrealistic to have finite planes. So when you walk long enough, you come to a wall, and then what? Or when you fly up, will you eventually get to a roof? Will there be a point where you can't borrow down anymore? If it's some kind of giant cave, like Pandemonium? Sure. Why not? One thing I don't like is that we automatically slap the word "plane" on something when we come up with an idea for it. Why should the thing we call the Abyss or Baator be the whole "plane"? It's not like the planet Earth is the whole of the "plane" of the Prime Material -- and despite that Earth is more than big enough to be a campaign setting. I think it would be a strange idea to not chose to have infinite planes. Sure, it's paradox that celestia is a mountain which is cone-shaped, but it's circumstance is infinite and it's sourrounded by an ocean that is infinite too, but it's not a material plane but a completely different universe with different physical laws. ...That you still have to describe as *looking like something* when the adventurers actually *go there* and *look at it*. I can easily say "Yeah, this thing is both a cube and a sphere, at the SAME TIME, 'cause of, like, different mathematical law" but I still need to come up with a plausible explanation of what you see when you actually go and pick the thing up.
EvilVegan 10-15-07, 08:13 AM	I think it's actually more unrealistic to have finite planes. So when you walk long enough, you come to a wall, and then what? Or when you fly up, will you eventually get to a roof? Will there be a point where you can't borrow down anymore? I think it would be a strange idea to not chose to have infinite planes. I think arbitrary walls of force or even 'mundane' materials are a perfect fit for any non-real plane created by belief and the power of deities. Deities aren't limitless in power, their domains shouldn't be either. Arborea could be surrounded by an old country wall about 4 feet tall. If you go over the wall you're either back in the prime material or in a border plane. BTW, Stardust is a really cute movie. I ran a greek-themed campaign. Olympus was a big freaking mountain with a cloud-city on top of it where the actual Gods lived (not avatars or anything like a proxy). Hades was below the earth (start digging). Everything was limited and accessible. Was it fun when the party attempted to rescue their paladin's soul from hades? It sure was! If the campaign hadn't fallen apart due to scheduling conflicts there would have been a climax during a gigantomachy on the sides of Olympus. None of this would have made sense in an infinite plane or in several separated planes, the limits and tangibility of the places of wonder is a big part of what made them wondrous. The fact that if the cerberus hound was killed the legions of Hades would be allowed to flood back into the world by walking, rather than finding some rare portal and using high-level magics, or that if the hecatoncheires left their posts the titans would escape and attempt to destroy the world, only work to increase drama if these are real and imminent threats.
1CentSage 10-15-07, 11:09 AM	I'm not smarter than Galileo. We just know more than he does today. Do you have *any idea* how long a light-year is? You couldn't even use the word "light-year" with him -- in his time, it would've been a revolutionary idea that light took time to travel at all, and the concept of a distance so vast that *light* could take a year to cross it would've been a new, brain-racking concept. (It still is, for most children who come across it for the first time.) Just a small footnote on the history of science: Galileo had in fact thought about the speed of light being finite. He even tried to measure it. The only thing which he did not really anticipate was that the value of the speed of light would be so large and therefore that the measurement techniques he used would not be good enough.
Keenath 10-15-07, 04:25 PM	Y'know, the whole point of this long and rambling discussion is not the value of infinities. The point is that some people reacted to the announcement "planes won't be infinite anymore" by complaining "large but non-infinite planes aren't big enough!" The rest of the discussion is to say 1) infinite planes are more trouble than they're worth, and 2) large but non-infinite is plenty big.
Bob the Efreet 10-16-07, 02:27 AM	I think it's actually more unrealistic to have finite planes. So when you walk long enough, you come to a wall, and then what? Or when you fly up, will you eventually get to a roof? Will there be a point where you can't borrow down anymore? I think it would be a strange idea to not chose to have infinite planes. Or you keep walking, and never reach an end and never loop back around. Doesn't mean the plane has to be infinite. I think "infinite" and "without observable limit" are, while similar, very separate concepts.
ArcTan 10-16-07, 03:40 AM	For a great illustration of this concept, see Ted Chiang's story "Tower of Babylon".
Naderion 10-16-07, 06:05 AM	Y'know, the whole point of this long and rambling discussion is not the value of infinities. The point is that some people reacted to the announcement "planes won't be infinite anymore" by complaining "large but non-infinite planes aren't big enough!" The rest of the discussion is to say 1) infinite planes are more trouble than they're worth, and 2) large but non-infinite is plenty big. Why are infinite planes troublesome? It's infinity, you never have to deal with numbers or distances. They just are.
ArcTan 10-16-07, 01:14 PM	Why are infinite planes troublesome? It's infinity, you never have to deal with numbers or distances. They just are. That's exactly the problem I have with this attitude -- that "infinity" in the sense of "infinite distance" makes perfect sense as long as you never actually deal with what it means. We've spent the past several pages on this thread talking about the *many* problems "infinite" brings up if you actually *do* try to deal with what it means. A word that vaguely sounds cool but can't actually literally mean what it says without causing problems is a bad word. The easiest way to not have to deal with numbers and distances is to say "Very very big". "Infinitely big" adds more problems than it solves.
Alpha_Moose 10-16-07, 05:35 PM	The easiest way to not have to deal with numbers and distances is to say "Very very big". "Infinitely big" adds more problems than it solves. I prefer to describe the planes as "Crumbleivable".
Keenath 10-16-07, 05:38 PM	I think it's actually more unrealistic to have finite planes. So when you walk long enough, you come to a wall, and then what? Or when you fly up, will you eventually get to a roof? Will there be a point where you can't borrow down anymore? I think it would be a strange idea to not chose to have infinite planes. Well, and there are many ways to have a finite plane. The Manual of the Planes talked about this a bit -- you can have a bounded plane that actually has an indestructable wall or "edge" that drops off into nothing. What happens if you dig into the rock of Pandemonium? You find more Pandemonium, I suppose. Or possibly going far enough gets you into another plane -- that's certainly the apparent concept of the 4th ed finite planes; going far enough in a straight line very well may dump you out in the astral sea, or it might get you into a neighboring plane. Falling off the edge of the world might just throw you into the elemental sea, after a very long fall. But you can also have unbounded finite planes -- the planet Earth is a good example; its surface is unbounded, but distinctly finite in scope. If you dig down, you eventually wind out somewhere else, and flying up finds you in space, or some other plane. Space can easily be finite but huge -- edged by looping or by a wall of force or whatever you want. You can do that with more complex figures too, like a moebius strip that has only one surface despite being a three dimensional figure, and thus passes you through to another surface from any direction of travel. (This could be rather interesting, becuase you could easily create "warp points" where you dig into the earth far enough to "flip" through the center and come out in another location that's far away in a straight line, but only a mile or so through your tunnel.) Similarly you could have a plane that simply loops without actually going "around", in the manner of a hypercube / hypersphere / other hyper-shape, which demands a loop through an extra dimension. This is what I was talking about with regard to Space, above. In other words, it's still euclidean space, such that parallel lines willl never intersect, but eventually each line will hit its starting point. If you're doing the whole "layers" thing, there's really no particular reason why a layer can't be a sphere and at the same time have another layer "below" it even though they don't fit together like onion layers. The transitions between layers are effectively dimensional portals anyway, and the space on either side need not have any correspondence.
Bob the Efreet 10-16-07, 07:12 PM	The easiest way to not have to deal with numbers and distances is to say "Very very big". "Infinitely big" adds more problems than it solves. I prefer "indefinitely big". Mostly because I like the idea of never running out of plane, but the logical issues with actual infinities do seem reasonably insurmountable to me.
ArcTan 10-16-07, 09:13 PM	Well, and there are many ways to have a finite plane. The Manual of the Planes talked about this a bit -- you can have a bounded plane that actually has an indestructable wall or "edge" that drops off into nothing. What happens if you dig into the rock of Pandemonium? You find more Pandemonium, I suppose. Or possibly going far enough gets you into another plane -- that's certainly the apparent concept of the 4th ed finite planes; going far enough in a straight line very well may dump you out in the astral sea, or it might get you into a neighboring plane. Falling off the edge of the world might just throw you into the elemental sea, after a very long fall. Notice that the 3e MotP had the contradiction of both saying that the Outer Planes were infinitely big and yet if you walked too far on any given Outer Plane you'd end up in its bordering plane (and that this fact was the reason for the Great Wheel structure). I think the 3e Planescape fans (planewalker.com) dealt with this by saying that "the Great Road" travels through the Outer Planes like this but the rest of the plane that doesn't touch the Great Road doesn't actually border with anything. Or something.
Aubri 10-17-07, 08:47 AM	You can do that with more complex figures too, like a moebius strip that has only one surface despite being a three dimensional figure, and thus passes you through to another surface from any direction of travel. (This could be rather interesting, becuase you could easily create "warp points" where you dig into the earth far enough to "flip" through the center and come out in another location that's far away in a straight line, but only a mile or so through your tunnel.) A hole from one place to another, as the worm digs; a... "worm-hole", if you will. (pinky to lips) I kinda like the idea of the River Styx flowing across all the lower planes without actually passing through a portal at any given point, but that's skating the edge of one of those 'paradox' thingies. It would probably make more sense to have the Styx flow across all the layers of Hell instead, or something. And mirroring it with the Oceanus is another of those stupid good/evil equivalencies.
sciborg3 10-17-07, 09:36 AM	I figure the Styx is akin to a worm hole, or that it is a portal at particular places in its path. But then I have no problem with logical paradoxes...it's probably my years of exposure to Mage: The Ascension....
Keenath 10-17-07, 09:50 AM	I think the 3e Planescape fans (planewalker.com) dealt with this by saying that "the Great Road" travels through the Outer Planes like this but the rest of the plane that doesn't touch the Great Road doesn't actually border with anything. Or something. That's the idea I always got -- if you walk the right WAY, you can walk right into the next plane over, but if you miss the crossover you can walk past it and keep going, still in the same plane you were on before. Which seems, to me, to be creating paradoxes for no good reason. I have no problem with some portals to Prime operating that way. The whole concept of walking down the right road or the right gate at the right (or wrong) time taking you to faerieland or hell or wherever is a standard folklore concept. But it seems to me that this would be the exception rather than the rule, an effect of the fact that Prime is the center of creation.
Keenath 10-17-07, 09:54 AM	I figure the Styx is akin to a worm hole, or that it is a portal at particular places in its path. But then I have no problem with logical paradoxes...it's probably my years of exposure to Mage: The Ascension.... Well, except Mage directly deals with paradoxes -- it says magic can easily create these things, and there's a written rule for what happens when it does (bad things), and defines some natural laws about how paradox interacts with the natural world. It makes it less of a paradox when there's apparently some greater law of nature that explains how these things are dealt with.
sciborg3 10-17-07, 10:35 AM	That's the paradox of interfering with consensual reality, not how to deal with infinite planes.
sciborg3 10-17-07, 01:42 PM	Which seems, to me, to be creating paradoxes for no good reason. For me this is just two infinite planes (geometric and D&Dish) intersecting at a line, from which you can cross over to the other plane or keep going on the one you're on. And I still want to a see proof that in an infinite number of outcomes all events with probabilities greater than 0 occur an infinite number of times. I went through my old probability texts and this wasn't brought up...mostly because they never realized you could have a 20 page argument about this relating to D&D I suspect. ;)
Aubri 10-17-07, 02:07 PM	And I still want to a see proof that in an infinite number of outcomes all events with probabilities greater than 0 occur an infinite number of times. I went through my old probability texts and this wasn't brought up...mostly because they never realized you could have a 20 page argument about this relating to D&D I suspect. ;) What kind of proof would you possibly accept? Do you not understand the logic behind it? Do we need to go over it again? Let's say that we're talking about dice rolls. Say 1 in 1,000 people is a gamer, and 1 in 1,000 gamers is rolling a d20 right now. Out of every million people, therefore, an average of one of them is rolling a d20 right now. Of those rolls, 1 in 20 of them come up with natural 20s. So for every 20 million people in existance, one of them is rolling a natural 20 right now. With me so far? Now suppose that there are an infinite number of humans. For every 20 million of them, a single one is rolling a 20. How many sets of 20 million humans are there in an infinite number of humans? Infinity! For each of that infinite number of groups, someone is rolling a 20, therefore there are an infinite number of people rolling a 20 right now. Q.E.D.
ArcTan 10-17-07, 03:11 PM	For me this is just two infinite planes (geometric and D&Dish) intersecting at a line, from which you can cross over to the other plane or keep going on the one you're on. Are you saying this *literally*? Because you run into the whole problem, then, of the planes being actually 3D spaces, not "planes". If what you're actually saying is that the 3D spaces are oblique to each other in hyperspace and intersect along a plane, then the adventurers have to have the ability to rotate themselves in the 4th spatial dimension to go from one to another. And I still want to a see proof that in an infinite number of outcomes all events with probabilities greater than 0 occur an infinite number of times. I went through my old probability texts and this wasn't brought up...mostly because they never realized you could have a 20 page argument about this relating to D&D I suspect. ;) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkeys Note that this is an argument about "approaches infinity" rather than actual, Cantorian infinities -- if you try to apply the idea of probability to the actual number aleph-null it becomes incoherent. Which is why actually trying to picture a real set of objects as being aleph-null in size is, itself, incoherent.
VedicDragon 10-17-07, 04:39 PM	Can someone PM me when this thread gets back on track? The usage of Infinite or Finite spaces when applied to the Planes is just one of the NUMEROUS arguements that was raised in this thread. And yet this utterly superfluous debate on the definition of and the application of the concept of infinitum has overpowered all of the other numerous logical reasonings for why ditching the wheel is a bad idea. I will not restate them here, as they are all in about the first 5 pages of this thread. Thank you.
ArcTan 10-17-07, 05:16 PM	You mean the "logical reasoning" that boiled down to "If a bunch of random forum posters say they like it, that means WotC is obligated to write their new supplements around the idea"?
Alpha_Moose 10-17-07, 05:21 PM	Can someone PM me when this thread gets back on track? The usage of Infinite or Finite spaces when applied to the Planes is just one of the NUMEROUS arguements that was raised in this thread. And yet this utterly superfluous debate on the definition of and the application of the concept of infinitum has overpowered all of the other numerous logical reasonings for why ditching the wheel is a bad idea. I will not restate them here, as they are all in about the first 5 pages of this thread. Thank you. The biggest complaint I've seen, besides certain specific ones, is that they are not keeping with cannon. They have stated quite obviously that they are making a new core setting. Yes they are using some of the old ideas and changing them, but the Great Wheel did that with older mythologies anyways. The Tiamat in Eberron is different than the Tiamat in Planescape (though similar), and the Demogorgon in the 4e cosmology will be different but similar to the one in the Great Wheel cosmos which itself is different from the 'original' demogorgon who is probably an adaptation of some older beast anyways. Now you can argue that the Great Wheel is a better cosmology than the new one presented, but so far we don't know enough about the new one. However every hint they have given us is that this new cosmology, which is separate from the Great Wheel, is a very streamlined cosmos that tries to be inclusive. Whether or not they achieve that will be up for speculation when 4e comes out. As for the argument about infinites, it is within the spectrum of the thread topic. Just because you are not interested (which I am assuming based on your comments) does not mean that others who are should stop talking about it.
EvilVegan 10-18-07, 08:37 AM	He didn't technically say to stop, he just wanted to be informed when we did stop. But I'm pretty sure we can keep arguing infinitely. . . oh wait, indefinitely. :D
sciborg3 10-18-07, 09:06 AM	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkeys Note that this is an argument about "approaches infinity" rather than actual, Cantorian infinities -- if you try to apply the idea of probability to the actual number aleph-null it becomes incoherent. Which is why actually trying to picture a real set of objects as being aleph-null in size is, itself, incoherent. yeah, i figured it would be a limit proof. i was kinda hoping for something involving cardinalities of countably infinite sets. thanks. As for the Great Wheel, I think the Astral Sea is a decent compromise. I find the Elemental Tempest less interesting, but perhaps if they work in enough concepts from the old elemental planes it might be okay. I also think the planes are too small - no need to reargue anything about the size of Jupiter it's just how I feel. But I've already said that indefinite size would be fine with me, or the continually growing idea that Snow Princess brought up. So really, what's there to argue at this point? That taking probabilities of things like becoming a risen fiend negates free will?
EvilVegan 10-18-07, 09:12 AM	I also think the planes are too small - no need to reargue anything about the size of Jupiter it's just how I feel. But I've already said that indefinite size would be fine with me, or the continually growing idea that Snow Princess brought up.I liked her Idea too (I think she's a her). I'd like to play a planescape game with her some time, because I obviously missed something when I played with my group. So really, what's there to argue at this point? That taking probabilities of things like becoming a risen fiend negates free will? There is no point to arguing, we argue because we have to. We have to because free will doesn't exist. It doesn't exist because my cat is omniscient. I think basically we've determined that we all need to get jobs at WotC R&D department.