Post/Author/DateTime	Post
18DELTA 01-15-08, 10:48 PM	On page 67 in Wizard's Presents: World's and Monsters it says that Yugoloths are reconcepted in 4E. They are now Demons!:( Mezzoloths and Nycaloths are Mezzodemons and Nycademons. The Mezzodemon is in the 4E MM. They are a strain of Demon. Not going to spoil it all. Some posters may want to check it out. LORD DELTA:mymy:
Flame_Drake 01-15-08, 11:31 PM	You could [sblock] it. I personally would like to know the details, and I have no intention of spending more money on books that are simply previews. Drake
Taeldrin Laesrash 01-16-08, 12:15 AM	Well, what did you expect?
Flame_Drake 01-16-08, 12:18 AM	Well, what did you expect? Personally? That yugoloths wouldn't exist at all, in any form, which is why I'm interested to see that they will exist and how they are being handled. It's still a bastardization of PS lore, but that's already a forgone conclusion, and it may not depart that far from the original lore. It probably still won't change my feelings about 4E though. Drake
18DELTA 01-16-08, 12:53 AM	Personally? That yugoloths wouldn't exist at all, in any form, which is why I'm interested to see that they will exist and how they are being handled. It's still a bastardization of PS lore, but that's already a forgone conclusion, and it may not depart that far from the original lore. It probably still won't change my feelings about 4E though. Drake -They are a strain of Demon, they serve a yet unnamed Demon Lord. Still Merc's, but with no Blood War going on, they work with humans. Demons are "Brutes" monsters. Yugodemons are "Soldiers" monsters. 30 YEARS OF LORE DONT MATTER IN 4E!!!:eek: -The Demon Lords like Orcus, Demogorgon are now called "Primordials" but still Demon Lords The Great Wheel IS Dead!!! No more needless symmetry. pg 17 W/M LORD DELTA:detect:
Fabius Maximus 01-16-08, 09:04 AM	No Blood War? No 'loths? In other words, 4e planescape will be useless for me.
Verderben 01-16-08, 07:08 PM	What 4E Planescape?
Eldritch_Lord 01-16-08, 07:30 PM	On page 67 in Wizard's Presents: World's and Monsters it says that Yugoloths are reconcepted in 4E. They are now Demons!:( Mezzoloths and Nycaloths are Mezzodemons and Nycademons. The Mezzodemon is in the 4E MM. They are a strain of Demon. Not going to spoil it all. Some posters may want to check it out. LORD DELTA:mymy: And this is new...how? May I direct your attention to the 1st Edition Monster Manual? The 'loths originally were listed as Mezzodaemons and Nycadaemons and so forth, and the Monster Summoning I-IX spells were augmented by Call Nycadaemon and so forth. This is returning to D&D's roots, not moving away from them.
Shemeska the Marauder 01-16-08, 07:42 PM	And this is new...how? May I direct your attention to the 1st Edition Monster Manual? The 'loths originally were listed as Mezzodaemons and Nycadaemons and so forth, and the Monster Summoning I-IX spells were augmented by Call Nycadaemon and so forth. This is returning to D&D's roots, not moving away from them. Umm. No. Daemon not demon was the 1e spelling. They weren't demons in 1e, but rather they were a distinct and seperate class of fiend, native to Hades, Gehenna, and Carceri. 4e is turning them into demons. Consider me grossly underwhelmed, especially when I remember Andy Collins asking for information on the 'loths on his forums a year or so ago, and getting a ton of in-depth material on them. After all of that, making them "soldier demons" was the best they could come up with? Wow. Good job. Innovative and inspiring.
Deacon Liadon 01-16-08, 08:18 PM	You know, this by itself pretty much kills all enthusiasm I had for fourth ed.
Eldritch_Lord 01-16-08, 09:10 PM	Umm. No. Daemon not demon was the 1e spelling. They weren't demons in 1e, but rather they were a distinct and seperate class of fiend, native to Hades, Gehenna, and Carceri. 4e is turning them into demons. Consider me grossly underwhelmed, especially when I remember Andy Collins asking for information on the 'loths on his forums a year or so ago, and getting a ton of in-depth material on them. After all of that, making them "soldier demons" was the best they could come up with? Wow. Good job. Innovative and inspiring. Yes, I know, I spelled it daemon. Daemon =/= Demon. I know my 1e fiends. ------------------------- EDIT: Wait...I reread the OP and it just hit me. They're actually turning yugoloths into demons? Not daemons, but Type I-VI, Demogorgon & Juiblex, 666 Layers of the Abyss demons!? :headexplo How dare they!? Well, there goes my 80% approval for 4e, down lower than Carceri.
Deacon Liadon 01-16-08, 09:37 PM	It seem to me, that what they're doing is shoehorning anything that doesn't fit into their new model of the planes into it wherever they can, regardless of what changes need to be made to do it. The 'loths aren't fallen angels and they aren't warped elementals. And since it doesn't really make sense that they could be the former then they have to be shoehorned into the latter. I think I'd rather have the 'loths left out altogether if this is the alternative.
18DELTA 01-17-08, 10:55 AM	-It gets even better!!!:rolleyes: -"The Key Conceits". Point #14 on pg 14 W/M says:"Less Evil fighting Evil""Too much in previous editions deals with evil fighting itself: Demon lords and Archdevils War on each other 'rather than threathening the PCs'. We dont want to waste space on things players cant use.:rolleyes: Make sure conflicts are important and useful to making the game fun. -So where does the blood war fit in what I just posted? Also the devils are now trapped in the nine hells!!! The only way they can leave is through somebody summoning them OUT!!!;) -The demons are at war with all of creation now. The universe has the Elemental Chaos at the bottom, the core world in the middle, and the astral sea on top. So if the blood war was still going, it would be on the core world now. At the beginning the primordials were in the elemental tempest. The gods were in the astral sea. A god(now know as the elder elemental eye) found a shard of pure evil that currupted him, he took it to the elemental tempest. Cast it in to the elemental tempest which currupted a portion of it. Now know as the abyss. Some of the primordials were changed to become ORCUS, GRAZZT, DEMOGORGON,ECT. get the picture. Would have posted last night, had tech problems here in the Feywild(stupid Verizon crew working at 12 midnight) LORD DELTA:detect:
Deacon Liadon 01-17-08, 11:50 AM	-It gets even better!!!:rolleyes: -"The Key Conceits". Point #14 on pg 14 W/M says:"Less Evil fighting Evil""Too much in previous editions deals with evil fighting itself: Demon lords and Archdevils War on each other 'rather than threathening the PCs'. We dont want to waste space on things players cant use.:rolleyes: Make sure conflicts are important and useful to making the game fun. This.... this is just depressing. Why don't they just say outright that they want to get rid of all metaplot.
18DELTA 01-17-08, 12:02 PM	-There is also this Worlds and Monsters (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4spot/20080117a) article on the main site. This month, Wizards of the Coast takes a behind-the-scenes look at the making of 4th Edition, revealing the philosophies, insights and decisions that helped shape the development of the game. We speak with Jennifer Clarke Wilkes, compiler and editor of Wizards Presents: Worlds and Monsters, about what we can expect to learn from this 4th Edition preview! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wizards of the Coast: We asked a similar question regarding Races and Classes—with 4th Edition releasing this summer, what does Worlds and Monsters offer me as a gamer? Why would I want to pick up a copy? Jennifer Clarke Wilkes: This book offers a first look at the revised cosmology of 4th Edition D&D, with details about the concept and design of the various planes, and gorgeous art depicting their natures. It also provides lots of designer insight into re-concepting encounters and monster roles in combat, as well as some preview art for iconic creatures. Wizards of the Coast: D&D Insider currently runs its Design & Development column, which takes an inside look at the new edition—what sorts of secrets and insights does Worlds and Monsters also look to provide? What information about the game was R&D looking to convey? Jennifer Clarke Wilkes: This book is largely devoted to designer thinking about the “key conceits” of 4th Edition as they relate to adventuring and building encounters. Such ideas are part of the Races and Classes book as well: The world is ancient, mysterious and dangerous; gameplay should be fun and challenging; mechanics and assumptions that interfere with play should be replaced or removed in favor of material that encourages creativity and exploration. Wizards of the Coast: One chapter in the book is titled What “World” Meant to the World Team”; can you tell us a little of what the book has to say on this matter? When players start playing their new 4th Edition campaigns, what will their world be like? “Points of light” has been introduced as a concept, but what does this mean for the 4E character just starting out? Jennifer Clarke Wilkes: What “world” does not mean is a default “core” setting, such as Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms or Eberron. Rather, it refers to the environment of play in the D&D game, the set of shared assumptions held by players and DMs. A number of legends (such as the ancient dragonborn empire) and notorious locales (such as the Temple of Elemental Evil) form part of this shared consciousness, but their place in a given campaign is entirely up to that group. The player characters are surrounded by a wide, mysterious world that is itself only one of several unlimited realms, each with a distinctive feel and unique opportunities and threats. The DM decides which, if any, of the legendary details apply to his or her game, and how they relate to one another. Wizards of the Coast: Beyond the known (physical? material?) world of us mere mortals, what tidbits does the book have to say about other realms where adventures will likely take place? What can you tell us about, say, the Feywild? The Shadowfell? Or the Elemental Chaos? Jennifer Clarke Wilkes: Five planar realms are known to exist, with another mysterious region hinted at in dark whispers. The known planes are: the world (what used to be called the Material Plane); two reflections of the world, the grim and dangerous Shadowfell, and the magical but equally dangerous Feywild; the Elemental Chaos (including the Abyss, home of demons) below; and above, the shining Astral Sea, home of the gods’ Dominions. Scholars of the arcane and bizarre hold that a strange, extraplanar space called the Far Realm also exists, home to weird and incomprehensible horrors. Wizards of the Coast: What role will the Far Realm will play in the game? Does mean we’ll still be seeing plenty of aberrations: beholders, mind flayers, aboleths and the like? (And on a related minor note, did you receive a “Snowball” as a holiday treat?) Jennifer Clarke Wilkes: The new setting certainly links aberrations more thematically. An aberration isn’t just something that looks weird and tentacly (although most do), but is born of or linked to the madness beyond, what some mortals call the Far Realm. Some of them have a purpose, beyond the ken of ordinary beings, but many are the result of “leakage” from that strange world into neighboring reality. And yes, Snowball resides with honor on my living room mantel. It’s frosterrific! Wizards of the Coast: As we move a bit more from the worlds to the monsters, what could be a more iconic monster to the game than the dragons—what insights might the book have to offer on these legendary creatures? For instance, I hear that metallics aren’t quite the same dragons anymore? Jennifer Clarke Wilkes: The designers spent a lot of time with dragons, as you might imagine. For decades, dragons have had traditional features, some of which actually interfered with using them as adversaries. The game is called Dungeons & Dragons, yet dragon encounters can be intimidating to a DM. With a dozen age categories, a multitude of special abilities in addition to the iconic dragon breath, as well as the “build-by-numbers” style of the 3rd Edition dragons, an interesting dragon opponent can take many hours to prepare and present an overwhelming number of choices. In addition, as powerful as a dragon might be, it is a single opponent that takes one set of actions against a well-armed party with four or more sets of actions every round. Against such odds, it can’t present a real challenge unless it significantly outclasses the PCs—at which point, the encounter risks becoming a TPK. In 4th Edition D&D, dragons have been redesigned as satisfying solo opponents. They can do things to interfere with PCs’ actions, take extra actions on their own turns, and stand up to the pounding of a group of opponents—essentially behaving as a group of monsters. Each dragon has an iconic suite of powers that is no longer diluted by additional details such as minor spell-like abilities or arcane spellcaster levels. We’ve simplified the age categories, eliminating those at the younger end and consolidating others, so that good dragon challenges exist at each adventuring tier. Metallic dragons have traditionally been good-aligned. While flavorful and important to the “ecology” of dragons, the practical effect was to remove half of the available dragons in the Monster Manual as opponents. How often do PCs go up against good creatures? In 4th Edition dragons are more, well, dragonish. They are all ferocious and greedy creatures, with chromatic and metallic dragons distinguished more by personality than alignment. While chromatics tend to be destructive and cruel, metallics focus more on control and power. These differences are reinforced by the dragon’s special powers. The varieties of metallic dragon have undergone a revision as well, with some less well-defined kinds giving way to new ones with distinctive natures. Wizards of the Coast: Other notable categories of monsters would have to be demons and devils. There are hints of changes taking place with these fellows as well—what does the book have to share about the shakeups to the Abyss and the Nine Hells, and their respective denizens? Jennifer Clarke Wilkes: Previous editions of the game created demons and devils with parallel roles, differing only in alignment and minor abilities. Thus, you had the demon succubus and the devil erinyes, the demon balor and the devil pit fiend. In 3rd Edition, demons and devils had different suites of resistances and immunities, but these didn’t distinguish them enough. The Fiendish Codex series did a lot to further distinguish the two: demons as agents of chaos and destruction, and devils as tempters and plotters. With 4th Edition, the two have been set apart: demons kill, devils subvert. Demons are native to the Abyss, a corrupted region of the Elemental Chaos. They are elemental beings that embody chaos and ruin above all, and they are monstrous in appearance. These are the brutes and skirmishers of combat encounters. Devils, on the other hand, are beings of the Astral Dominions. They control realms and are well-organized, tactical masters, the soldiers and controllers of combat. As a result, a few former demons and devils switched sides to better align with their combat roles. The succubus, for example, uses deceit and temptation to further its ends, and is thus much better suited as a devil than a demon. Wizards of the Coast: Let’s talk about D&D and 4th Edition in general. When did you find out that a new edition would be in the works, and what were your first impressions of the idea? Jennifer Clarke Wilkes: I learned that we were starting design on a new edition in mid-2005, which is when the first design documents started to be written. I believed that the game did need to be overhauled but wasn’t so sure what the timeframe should be. We did an early playtest that summer. That first playtest was memorable for how much it didn’t feel like D&D—in my opinion, of course. It’s changed a lot since then, but that early game was fast and furious, with lots of options in combat. The best of those features have been retained in the final version, while keeping the game recognizably D&D. Wizards of the Coast: And finally, have you encountered any of the 4th Edition creatures firsthand while playtesting the game—and how have you found them in comparison with their predecessors? Jennifer Clarke Wilkes: I’ve been running playtests with my own gaming group as well as lots of testing at the office. I find that having distinct roles in combat makes building encounters much simpler for a novice DM like me, and it’s easier to run creatures that have a few solid powers that complement their theme. I’ve run a dragon encounter and found it to be very challenging to the players but not overwhelming for the DM. I think the monster that impressed me the most as a player in the new edition is the purple worm. That is one scary encounter! LORD DELTA;)
18DELTA 01-17-08, 12:51 PM	-Rich Baker said this about The Blood War (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14854300&postcount=2512) in 4E.:eek: In core D&D, don't expect much about the Blood War. In FR, we wouldn't retcon it away, but if it's strongly deemphasized in 4e core, it won't play much of a role in 4e Realms. So think of the Blood War as something that was going on intensely in the Realms' cosmos before the Spellplague, but now has diminished greatly. Let me ask a question, though: If we said that the Blood War had never happened in FR (and I'm not saying we would), what canon would be violated? There are a couple of plane descriptions in the FRCS and FR Player's Guide that would be inaccurate, but is there something major besides those? (What I'm really asking is, How important was the Blood War to the Realms, really?) LORD DELTA:bored:
Eldritch_Lord 01-17-08, 06:13 PM	-It gets even better!!!:rolleyes: LORD DELTA:detect: :OMG! -There is also this Worlds and Monsters article on the main site. LORD DELTA;) :OMG! :OMG! -Rich Baker said this about The Blood War in 4E. :eek" LORD DELTA:bored: :OMG! :OMG! :OMG! ------------------- WHAT ARE THEY THINKING!?! WHAT ARE THEY SMOKING!?!
Evil DM Mk3 01-18-08, 08:54 AM	At the risk of getting flamed I think this may well be a good thing (although I hope NE is not totally left without Outsiders). For exactly the reasons they pointed out. But then again I have never been happy picking up other peoples Background rather than using my own and I hope that this may well encourage others to develop their own worlds and flex their creative mussels a bit. Case in point: The Hag Countess. Not a popular woman. I can remember the complaints and rants that where around about her. Now she is gone a lot of people are happy. Me? I ignored her from the off when looking for info to base my Hells on (I have 13, In fact I intend to post them soon for opinions) and made my own Archdevils to fill in the gaps. And that was only a note on the bottom of a word document until the party was going to get involved in Hell, because extra unnecessary background info is interesting for some (and remember that they are NOT decannonising, only deemphasing the Blood War for the Realms so all your fluff is still valid, you just won't get it again in a new wrapper) but a confusion and embuggerance for the rest.
Palindrome 01-18-08, 01:16 PM	What 4E Planescape? Pretty much. My response is "What money spent on 4E?"
sciborg3 01-18-08, 05:14 PM	I think the problem is that the word demon no longer means the same thing it once did. Neither does devil apparently. The problem here being that attempt to retain a sense of continuity through little more than name dropping. The new cosmology itself is interesting but it should just stand alone at this point. I also think the supposed problems were never game killers. The end of the Blood War seems pointless, better to simply leave things unsaid so that adventures can, if need be, mention it. My problem with its elimination is the reasoning that evil should be fighting adventurers not each other. It seems to be dumbing down once again, making D&D little more than a CRPG with pen and paper. In fact, the Blood War gave reason for the fiends to want mortal souls. It also masterfully incorporated the larvae trade of the night hags, the machinations of the yugoloths (even if you don't take Hellbound's creation story into your campaign), etc. If they hadn't released the Fiendish Codices over the last 2 years I'd be more impressed with their whining about demons and devils. The products did little to "correct" anything, they merely expanded on the D&D lore of old. Yugodemons Do they believe in the heart of the cards?
Deacon Liadon 01-18-08, 06:08 PM	At the risk of getting flamed I think this may well be a good thing (although I hope NE is not totally left without Outsiders). It's because they're dumping the alignment system, or at least trying to make things less focused on it. I suspect Keith Baker's behind it.
Flame_Drake 01-18-08, 06:23 PM	It's because they're dumping the alignment system, or at least trying to make things less focused on it. I suspect Keith Baker's behind it. Why? People have been messing with alignment way before Eberron came on the scene. Keith's not even even on the team or employed by WotC beyond when he works with them for his setting. He's just a freelancer. Anyhow ending the Blood War is one more thing on the long list of dumb ideas that they come up with. I'm fine with it if they want to admit that they're completely rehauling with a new setting as the base or if they had a good reason, but they won't and don't. It's a shaft to say that each race can only work one way, and trying to shoehorn the 'loths into being brutes because they were Blood War mercs focuses on the least interesting part of them. Drake
ArcTan 01-18-08, 07:00 PM	Umm. No. Daemon not demon was the 1e spelling. They weren't demons in 1e, but rather they were a distinct and seperate class of fiend, native to Hades, Gehenna, and Carceri. *shrug* Potayto, potahto. At that moment in time most of the big-pile-of-justifications about the Fundamental Nature of Neutral Evil vs. the Fundamental Nature of Chaotic Evil hadn't yet been generated. "Daemons" were different from "Demons" only in that they wanted a new label to slap onto the arbitrary delineation of "Neutral Evil fiends" vs. "Chaotic Evil fiends". 4e is turning them into demons. Drop the hot air about the Fundamental Nature of the Alignment, and 'Loths and Demons, from a normal player perspective, were the same damn thing (big scary oogly things that want to mess with you). I never really swallowed the nonsense that said that being CE somehow ensured that Demons *must not* be callous, mercenary Evils and Yugoloths *must not* storm cities with armies of Yugoloths just for the hell (or, I suppose, Hades) of it. In any case, Neutral Evil and Chaotic Evil are the same thing now (the Law/Chaos axis seems to be completely gone), so that justification no longer exists.
ArcTan 01-18-08, 07:03 PM	In fact, the Blood War gave reason for the fiends to want mortal souls. It also masterfully incorporated the larvae trade of the night hags, the machinations of the yugoloths (even if you don't take Hellbound's creation story into your campaign), etc. ...Only if you accepted the basic, towering conceit that the Demons and Devils still care about winning the Blood War after countless billions of years of fighting to prove that it's fundamentally not winnable. If they hadn't released the Fiendish Codices over the last 2 years I'd be more impressed with their whining about demons and devils. The products did little to "correct" anything, they merely expanded on the D&D lore of old. "They" didn't make the FCs. The FCs were freelancer products that they released to keep on feeding the hungry maw of 3e product-buyers while they were figuring out ways to tear down the whole thing and rebuild it for 4e. I was not impressed by the FCs, but I credited that to the fact that only freelancers who really liked the existing Great Wheel material would volunteer to write stuff for it in the first place.
Flame_Drake 01-18-08, 07:18 PM	There's no need for being rude about it. In any case, Neutral Evil and Chaotic Evil are the same thing now (the Law/Chaos axis seems to be completely gone), so that justification no longer exists. And its one of the biggest losses to the system, since it set DnD apart from the Good vs Evil MMORPGs. Drake
ArcTan 01-18-08, 07:39 PM	The one everyone likes to bring up, World of Warcraft, is emphatically *not* a Good vs. Evil MMORPG (the Horde and Alliance both very much have their good side and bad side). WoW would not be improved by some hamfisted attempt to explain how the Alliance is "philosophically Lawful" and the Horde is "philosophically Chaotic".
E'tii'stil Shadowsil 01-18-08, 07:49 PM	*shrug* Potayto, potahto. At that moment in time most of the big-pile-of-justifications about the Fundamental Nature of Neutral Evil vs. the Fundamental Nature of Chaotic Evil hadn't yet been generated. "Daemons" were different from "Demons" only in that they wanted a new label to slap onto the arbitrary delineation of "Neutral Evil fiends" vs. "Chaotic Evil fiends". There's (dialect, local, etc) variations on the pronunciation of potato, but really one way of spelling it and the spelling essentially encompasses the one meaning. Daemon and demon are fundamentally different however, especially to D&D. There is no arbitrary delineation if you understand the trichotomy or dynamic between the three alignments. Neutral Evil is different to Lawful Evil is again different to Chaotic Evil. And I'm not talking about broad brush stroke differences, they are fundamentally different, at the microcosmic scale, as apples to oranges. Drop the hot air about the Fundamental Nature of the Alignment, and 'Loths and Demons, from a normal player perspective, were the same damn thing (big scary oogly things that want to mess with you). Given that alignment is what defines the Planes and that outsiders, ie devils, demons, daemons, are the exemplars or those ideals given substance, then no, it's not hot air. It doesn't surprise me that a clueless or berk (Planescape cant or lexicon) doesn't understand the difference between a 'loth and a demon. I never really swallowed the nonsense that said that being CE somehow ensured that Demons *must not* be callous, mercenary Evils and Yugoloths *must not* storm cities with armies of Yugoloths just for the hell (or, I suppose, Hades) of it. Is it because you didn't understand it? There was nothing that ironclad the demons into not being callous. By being chaotic evil, they can be as callous as they want. By being chaotic evil, they are already very mercenary. However, there's the matter of 'accurate' depiction of alignment. Chaotic evil is violent, unrepentant horrific evil, while neutral evil is soul-leeching apathy. Lawful evil is tyranny and the iron shackles or yokes on slaves or chains on the soul. Chaotic evil seeks to destroy, lawful evil seeks to dominate, neutral evil seeks to cause suicide or some other terrifying thought. They each represent different facets of evil.
Flame_Drake 01-18-08, 07:50 PM	The one everyone likes to bring up, World of Warcraft, is emphatically *not* a Good vs. Evil MMORPG (the Horde and Alliance both very much have their good side and bad side). That's true, although I didn't name WoW because of that. WoW would not be improved by some hamfisted attempt to explain how the Alliance is "philosophically Lawful" and the Horde is "philosophically Chaotic". Of course it would be a bad idea, it wasn't written with that in mind. Law and Chaos weren't limiting factors for races that were intentionally written that way. You wrote earlier that: "I never really swallowed the nonsense that said that being CE somehow ensured that Demons *must not* be callous, mercenary Evils and Yugoloths *must not* storm cities with armies of Yugoloths just for the hell (or, I suppose, Hades) of it." Neither of those were limited by alignment, and I would argue that what you said about Demons never happened in the first place, tanar'ri would be mercs, just not to the baatezu. The 'loths didn't storm cities because it wasn't their style, they'd rather corrupt it and take it over from the inside. Drake
ArcTan 01-18-08, 08:20 PM	There is no arbitrary delineation if you understand the trichotomy or dynamic between the three alignments. I willingly and fully admit I don't understand alignment, despite many years of confidently claiming that I did. I submit that no one else does either, because alignment's fundamentally meaningless. Neutral Evil is different to Lawful Evil is again different to Chaotic Evil. And I'm not talking about broad brush stroke differences, they are fundamentally different, at the microcosmic scale, as apples to oranges. Er, okay. I guess that's why there's planes that are in-between Neutral and Lawful Evil or Neutral and Chaotic Evil and traveling from one to the other is described as a smooth transition. Given that alignment is what defines the Planes and that outsiders, ie devils, demons, daemons, are the exemplars or those ideals given substance, then no, it's not hot air. It doesn't surprise me that a clueless or berk (Planescape cant or lexicon) doesn't understand the difference between a 'loth and a demon. It *is* hot air, because the descriptions given for them are, in practice, contradictory or meaningless. (And yes, the whole Planescape trope of taking things that really do make no sense and making fun of you for not understanding them because you're a "clueless" gets really annoying if overused.) Is it because you didn't understand it? There was nothing that ironclad the demons into not being callous. By being chaotic evil, they can be as callous as they want. By being chaotic evil, they are already very mercenary. However, there's the matter of 'accurate' depiction of alignment. Chaotic evil is violent, unrepentant horrific evil, while neutral evil is soul-leeching apathy. Lawful evil is tyranny and the iron shackles or yokes on slaves or chains on the soul. So CE Demons don't have slaves? NE Yugoloths are never "violent"? They sometimes "repent"? Come on. You're using words that generate vague *impressions* of what the three alignments are supposed to be, yes, I get that, but nothing about them actually constitutes any kind of ironclad definition at all. Chaotic evil seeks to destroy, lawful evil seeks to dominate, neutral evil seeks to cause suicide or some other terrifying thought. They each represent different facets of evil. The Yugoloths' "fomenting evil" seems to go way beyond "causing terrifying thoughts" to me, and, indeed, most of their abilities aren't really geared toward doing that. The whole "We just *are* terrifying, period" thing seems to work better with creatures of the Far Realm.
ArcTan 01-18-08, 08:21 PM	Of course it would be a bad idea, it wasn't written with that in mind. Law and Chaos weren't limiting factors for races that were intentionally written that way. Sure they are. It's impossible to intentionally write something to match one definition of Chaos and not contradict another one. Neither of those were limited by alignment, and I would argue that what you said about Demons never happened in the first place, tanar'ri would be mercs, just not to the baatezu. The 'loths didn't storm cities because it wasn't their style, they'd rather corrupt it and take it over from the inside. Drake In other words, Tanar'ri and Yugoloths basically are the same thing, only with slightly different styles, and this change isn't that much of a change. From that perspective, I totally agree.
sciborg3 01-18-08, 08:23 PM	"They" didn't make the FCs. The FCs were freelancer products that they released to keep on feeding the hungry maw of 3e product-buyers while they were figuring out ways to tear down the whole thing and rebuild it for 4e. Oh, I must have been hallucinating when I saw the WotC logo. Drop the hot air about the Fundamental Nature of the Alignment, and 'Loths and Demons, from a normal player perspective, were the same damn thing (big scary oogly things that want to mess with you). Only in the CRPG version D&D that you seem to decry and cherish all at once. Planescape did a pretty good job of making the creatures feel different. Yes, at the point you are fighting them they might feel the same depending on their powers but that is the same for pretty much all the monsters. Also, name five parallel demon-devil pairs.
ArcTan 01-18-08, 08:32 PM	Oh, I must have been hallucinating when I saw the WotC logo. I think there are some things WotC makes that are better than others, and a lot of that depends on who they hire to actually write the book. Only in the CRPG version D&D that you seem to decry and cherish all at once. Planescape did a pretty good job of making the creatures feel different. Yes, at the point you are fighting them they might feel the same depending on their powers but that is the same for pretty much all the monsters. My point is that the flavor difference between what Yugoloths do and what Demons do was artificial and annoying and based on a premise that I think was itself silly (the Blood War with the 'loths puppetmastering it). Also, name five parallel demon-devil pairs. In core? Easy: Succubus-Erinyes Balor-Pit Fiend Quasit-Imp Larva-Lemure Barbed Devil-Babau Now you're going to predictably tell me all the piddling differences between them and why this means I'm totally off-base.
Flame_Drake 01-18-08, 08:38 PM	Sure they are. It's impossible to intentionally write something to match one definition of Chaos and not contradict another one. You can argue that for everything. You can't define something as being every version of chaos. One aspect is freedom, another is destruction, which the Tanar'ri embody. Another is madness and insanity which is the domain of Obyrith. And before you say it, the far realms are a different realm with completely different physics, which causes creature from this realm to go insane when they encounter it. They do not embody insanity. In other words, Tanar'ri and Yugoloths basically are the same thing, only with slightly different styles, and this change isn't that much of a change. From that perspective, I totally agree. :rolleyes: Go read some of the actual fluff from 2e. Loths are backstabbing, traitorous, anarchists, and destructive like the Tanar'ri. They are also manipulative, they plot for years, they corrupt and they sign contracts with mortals like the Baatezu. Hence neutral evil. Drake
E'tii'stil Shadowsil 01-18-08, 08:40 PM	WoW would not be improved by some hamfisted attempt to explain how the Alliance is "philosophically Lawful" and the Horde is "philosophically Chaotic". Kinda like your hamfisted attempt to explain how demons and devils are the same :p I willingly and fully admit I don't understand alignment, despite many years of confidently claiming that I did. I submit that no one else does either, because alignment's fundamentally meaningless. Oh dear, to claim that alignment is fundamentally meaningless. Alignment is vital to roleplaying, because alignment means what a person should be doing and what a person should not be doing, what an entity should strive to be doing, etc. It essentially underlines and governs each individual, etc. A paladin knows to be LG while a barbarian is invariably chaotic, etc. Alignment is more vital to outsiders because it's what the outsiders exemplify or embody. Alignment is terribly important to the Planes because each Plane represents an alignment by and in itself, ie Baator = Lawful Evil, Celestia = LG, Bytopia = NG, etc. Alignment is not meaningless. To claim that alignment is meaningless in D&D is a meaningless argument and should not be made. Thanks for pigeonholing all of us into the 'not understanding alignment and thus it must be meaningless group' or 'not understanding alignment at all group.' Thanks, it's appreciated. Much appreciated. Er, okay. I guess that's why there's planes that are in-between Neutral and Lawful Evil or Neutral and Chaotic Evil and traveling from one to the other is described as a smooth transition. Where does it state that travelling from one plane to another is a smooth transition, spells aside. It *is* hot air, because the descriptions given for them are, in practice, contradictory or meaningless. (And yes, the whole Planescape trope of taking things that really do make no sense and making fun of you for not understanding them because you're a "clueless" gets really annoying if overused.) Where is it contradictory or meaningless? Clueless is actually relevant here, since you have claimed ignorance and are demonstrating ignorance and cluelessness, and especially in light of your arguments involving the word meaningless to describe alignment and fiends. So CE Demons don't have slaves? NE Yugoloths are never "violent"? They sometimes "repent"? *blinks* What? You don't understand alignment nor do you understand the entity in question if you ask those questions. CE can and do often have slaves. They can because they can. Might makes right. CE and demons is the Darwinian concept taken to the absolute extreme, where its eat or be eaten. While CE can have slaves, and often do, they like to rampage violently and cause havoc, killing indiscriminately. LE and devils have many slaves, they seek to shackle and suffocate existence through tyranny and chains. The hierarchy is absolute. LE and devils love to dominate others and corrupt them into doing LE acts, ie controlled bloodlust, stagnation of the soul and morals, etc. NE can be violent, but prefer to work behind the scenes to scheme and manipulate. Their diseased hands reach far and wide to embroil many in their labyrinthine plots. They seek evil for evil's sake, unbounded by law or unburdened by chaos. But they can be equally lawful or chaotic in their machinations. Yugoloths lie, devils tell half-truths, demons don't lie, they rip your guts out and eat you while you are still alive, but they are known to lie. FYI, unrepentant does not mean unlikelihood or likelihood of repenting. It means unmitigated or, having or exhibiting no remorse. Come on. You're using words that generate vague *impressions* of what the three alignments are supposed to be, yes, I get that, but nothing about them actually constitutes any kind of ironclad definition at all. I never said they were meant to be absolute definitions, they were designed to give you a feel for what the three fiends represent. And no, it wasn't vague. That's exactly what they like to do, in a nutshell. The Yugoloths' "fomenting evil" seems to go way beyond "causing terrifying thoughts" to me, and, indeed, most of their abilities aren't really geared toward doing that. The whole "We just *are* terrifying, period" thing seems to work better with creatures of the Far Realm. Yugoloths foment the apathy of the soul, the lack of willingless to live and continue living, cause suicidal tendencies, impart the horrors of disease, etc. That's more than just causing terrifying thoughts. I suggest you actually go out and get your hands on Planescape products and actually peruse the contents therein.
Fabius Maximus 01-18-08, 08:54 PM	The problem here is not understanding alignment, but understanding what the planes represent. They are created and shaped by peoples beliefs. They're all human (or elven, dwarven, orcen, etc.) tendencies taken to extremes, because people believe that there are such things as pure evil or pure good.
E'tii'stil Shadowsil 01-18-08, 09:03 PM	More than a few outsiders would give askance to your claims or dispute them. ;) The planes were created before mortals ever were, and continue still. The planes each represent an alignment and thus the associated ideals or portfolio, ie Baator the concept of tyranny, Elysium, harmony, Arborea, freedom, Mechanus, law, etc. Mortals no more shape the planes through belief than mortals shape the seas or oceans of prime worlds. Mortals can sometimes influence, but it is Planes that give mortals their emotions or behavior or drive, etc.
turalisj 01-18-08, 11:55 PM	-It gets even better!!!:rolleyes: -"The Key Conceits". Point #14 on pg 14 W/M says:"Less Evil fighting Evil""Too much in previous editions deals with evil fighting itself: Demon lords and Archdevils War on each other 'rather than threathening the PCs'. We dont want to waste space on things players cant use.:rolleyes: Make sure conflicts are important and useful to making the game fun. -So where does the blood war fit in what I just posted? Also the devils are now trapped in the nine hells!!! The only way they can leave is through somebody summoning them OUT!!!;) -The demons are at war with all of creation now. The universe has the Elemental Chaos at the bottom, the core world in the middle, and the astral sea on top. So if the blood war was still going, it would be on the core world now. At the beginning the primordials were in the elemental tempest. The gods were in the astral sea. A god(now know as the elder elemental eye) found a shard of pure evil that currupted him, he took it to the elemental tempest. Cast it in to the elemental tempest which currupted a portion of it. Now know as the abyss. Some of the primordials were changed to become ORCUS, GRAZZT, DEMOGORGON,ECT. get the picture. Would have posted last night, had tech problems here in the Feywild(stupid Verizon crew working at 12 midnight) LORD DELTA:detect: This just made up my mind. NO MORE 4E!!!!
18DELTA 01-19-08, 01:33 AM	-Spoilers ahead Worlds and Monsters page 67 -Yugoloths Reconcepted by James Wyatt -The Demons have welcomed their wayward cousins back into the fold. Once Neutral Evil Mercenaries in the endless Blood War, these Fiends are now TRUE DEMONS. They have dropped the schismatic-loth from their surnames: Mezzoloths and Nycaloths are now Mezzodemons and Nycademons.(The Mezzodemon is in the 4th Edition Monster Manual.) -There is some speculation that these beings form a particular strain of Demonkind, servitors of a yet-to-be-named Demon Prince,and that they have more nuanced goals than most of their kin. One thing thats clear is that they're surprisingly willing to work with mortals-Mezzodemons have been sighted patrolling the streets of the great Drow metropolis Erelhei-Cinlu. they still have a mercenary streak that is uncommon among other denizens of the Abyss, who are usually content with destruction for its own sake. Perhaps as a result, they're more disciplined than most Demons, more able to coordinate their attacks, and more likely to be soldiers than brutes. -THIS IS AN INTENTIONAL STEP BACKWARD TO THE ORIGINS OF THESE CREATURES, FIRST INTRODUCED BACK IN 1978 IN THE VAULT OF THE DROW ADVENTURE. Their names were always pronounced as if they were Demons, and they had close ties to the Drow from the first. In the absence of a NEUTRAL EVIL PLANE IN THE NEW COSMOLOGY,folding Yugoloths in with Demons or Devils seemed the LOGICAL SOLUTION. Their nature is more Demonic than Devilsh, and so they ended up in the Abyss-though they are perhaps the most Devil-like of the Demons. LORD DELTA:doh:
ArcTan 01-19-08, 02:00 AM	I hope he's just being metaphorical with the first point, because if this is actually some kind of "welcome back to the fold!" metaplot event, that's lame.
Shemeska the Marauder 01-19-08, 04:44 AM	-Spoilers ahead Worlds and Monsters page 67 -Yugoloths Reconcepted by James Wyatt - -THIS IS AN INTENTIONAL STEP BACKWARD Well, that's for certain. Going from the BoED -and how well received that was- to the reconception of the 'loths. Smooth. *sigh*
Fabius Maximus 01-19-08, 07:56 AM	More than a few outsiders would give askance to your claims or dispute them. ;) The planes were created before mortals ever were, and continue still. The planes each represent an alignment and thus the associated ideals or portfolio, ie Baator the concept of tyranny, Elysium, harmony, Arborea, freedom, Mechanus, law, etc. Mortals no more shape the planes through belief than mortals shape the seas or oceans of prime worlds. Mortals can sometimes influence, but it is Planes that give mortals their emotions or behavior or drive, etc. Bah! That's only what they want you to believe. Time may flow differently on various planes, and no-one knows if there weren't any mortals around when they were created. If whole cities can slide from the Outlands into one of the outer planes because a majority of their inhabitants follow a certain way of living, then the planes are shaped by believe.
E'tii'stil Shadowsil 01-19-08, 08:24 AM	Bah! That's only what they want you to believe. Time may flow differently on various planes, and no-one knows if there weren't any mortals around when they were created. Of course this wouldn't be mortal propaganda designed to give mortals an inflated sense of self-importance or grandiose projection in the grander or greater scheme of things ;). Of course mortals would want you to believe that they really do influence beyond their own ponds and shape planes via the power of belief. If whole cities can slide from the Outlands into one of the outer planes because a majority of their inhabitants follow a certain way of living, then the planes are shaped by believe. The only gate-town to have slid into an outer plane was Ribcage; Outlands to Baator. And that was initiated and made possible by baatezu influence not the 'mortal' inhabitants of that city; they were planar not mortal per se. An entire layer of Arcadia shifted to Mechanus, but that was due to the actions of the Formians not mortals. I never disputed that the planes are shaped by belief, in fact I advocate that, have always advocated that. However, planes shaped by mortal belief is vastly overrated or overstated or 'unpossible' ;).
sciborg3 01-19-08, 11:44 AM	Succubus-Erinyes Balor-Pit Fiend Quasit-Imp Larva-Lemure Barbed Devil-Babau Actually that's pretty good. Save that it should be Manes-Lemure and Barbed Devil - Bulaezu (sp? the skinny minotaur ones) I don't think devils/demons/daemons/demodands can't have similar behavior at times - your earlier point in another thread about metaphysical goals seems fine to me. My problem is that the more folding in they do the more boring it all becomes. As for what you find is quality work, that has little to do with the fact that FC I & II were released as WoTC products. I actually don't mind the overall 4e cosmology, its the silly bastardization that irritates me. The bashing of the history of the game smacks of desperation.
Taeldrin Laesrash 01-19-08, 11:48 AM	-The Demons have welcomed their wayward cousins back into the fold. Once Neutral Evil Mercenaries in the endless Blood War, these Fiends are now TRUE DEMONS. They have dropped the schismatic-loth from their surnames: Mezzoloths and Nycaloths are now Mezzodemons and Nycademons.(The Mezzodemon is in the 4th Edition Monster Manual.) -There is some speculation that these beings form a particular strain of Demonkind, servitors of a yet-to-be-named Demon Prince,and that they have more nuanced goals than most of their kin. One thing thats clear is that they're surprisingly willing to work with mortals-Mezzodemons have been sighted patrolling the streets of the great Drow metropolis Erelhei-Cinlu. they still have a mercenary streak that is uncommon among other denizens of the Abyss, who are usually content with destruction for its own sake. Perhaps as a result, they're more disciplined than most Demons, more able to coordinate their attacks, and more likely to be soldiers than brutes. So, what happened to all the plotting and scheming from 2e? Weren't these guys pulling the strings behind the devils and demons, and steering the course of the Blood War and every other conspiracy? (While I found some of it ridiculous, it's better than their new treatment) Seem to me they're not much like the new 'GRAZZ'T SMASH!' demons.
Deacon Liadon 01-19-08, 12:12 PM	The only gate-town to have slid into an outer plane was Ribcage; Outlands to Baator. And that was initiated and made possible by baatezu influence not the 'mortal' inhabitants of that city; they were planar not mortal per se. And Plague-mort, and the one before plague-mort, and the one before that, and the one before that, and the one before that, and the one before that, etc. ad nauseum. An entire layer of Arcadia shifted to Mechanus, but that was due to the actions of the Formians not mortals. Yes sir, no Harmonium "re-education" camps here. Honest. I never disputed that the planes are shaped by belief, in fact I advocate that, have always advocated that. However, planes shaped by mortal belief is vastly overrated or overstated or 'unpossible' ;). This is definitely true though.
Rikutatis 01-19-08, 01:30 PM	Thanks for the info 18DELTA! Like sciborg3, I also don't have anything against the new cosmology or the end of the Great Wheel. I think the skeleton of the new cosmology looks pretty sleek, with many good ideas. And I'm not afraid of changes. If the Great Wheel has to go in favor of something fresh and exciting, so be it. However, I agree a good portion of the changes being promoted by the 4th edition seem to favor a really watered down, numbed down sort of game. It seems like anything that can't be _directly_ used as an "exciting encounter to challenge the adventurers" (with a CR and all) is being removed. That includes layers upon layers of background material, planar politics and so on. Ending the Blood War just takes so much away from the planar scene IMO. If they were replacing the Blood War with something else (not necessarily a Demon-Devil war, but anything to add depth to planar politics) that'd be fine. But the plan is another one. And that seems to be written all over for those who care to read it. In one section of Races and Classes they say they're removing monsters that are just cute or non-hostile and replacing them for scary deadly foes. In another part they say that if anyone out there had to do a Profession check that had a significance in his campaign, they were just playing a boring campaign. That's kinda sad and narrow minded IMO. And it says a lot about their approach to the game. As for this comment: Jennifer Clarke Wilkes: Previous editions of the game created demons and devils with parallel roles, differing only in alignment and minor abilities. Thus, you had the demon succubus and the devil erinyes, the demon balor and the devil pit fiend. In 3rd Edition, demons and devils had different suites of resistances and immunities, but these didn’t distinguish them enough. The Fiendish Codex series did a lot to further distinguish the two: demons as agents of chaos and destruction, and devils as tempters and plotters. It wasn't the Fiendish Codex that distinguished the demons and devils in that manner (agents of chaos v.s. plotters). That has been in the game way before that. They should at least get their facts straight.
18DELTA 01-19-08, 01:37 PM	-It gets even better.;) -It looks like The City of Brass is the new Sigil. On page 61 W/M. Written be Chris Sims.:rolleyes: Lord of the Efreet, "Bashamgurda" relies more on guile than sheer elemental power. He has his throne in the City of Brass, a fiery metropolis built on a basalt plate in an immense volcanic field. Magma flows in rivers through and around the city, whose gates are fortiied and the streets policed like those of any major settlement in the world. By "Bashamgurda's" decree, the heat in and around the city is merely uncomfortable rather than deadly to those not inured to fire. At the center of it all stands the "Burning Palace",its towers taller than any other structure in the "City of Brass. Within the stronghold, from hus obsidian seat, "Bashamgurda" treats with invited guests and plots against his enemies, primordial or other wise. THE OLDEST AND LARGEST IN ALL CREATION, THE "CITY OF BRASS" IS A NEXUS FOR PLANAR TRAVELLERS-IF YOU LOOK LONG AND HARD ENOUGH, YOU CAN FIND ANYTHING YOU HAVE EVER IMAGINED SOMEWHERE IN ITS LABYRINTHINE AVENUES. -So I take it that "The City of Brass" killed "Sigil" and took its stuff?:rolleyes: LORD DELTA:detect:
Fabius Maximus 01-19-08, 07:36 PM	-So I take it that "The City of Brass" killed "Sigil" and took its stuff?:rolleyes: :headexplo Blasphemy!
turalisj 01-19-08, 07:52 PM	*sigh* You guys realise that NO ONE is making you conform to the new multiverse.
Taeldrin Laesrash 01-19-08, 08:16 PM	*sigh* You guys realise that NO ONE is making you conform to the new multiverse. Technically. But they've made 4e incompatible with the old cosmology, what with the Elemental Chaos, Feywild, Shadowfell, and 'revised' outsiders. EDIT: Why'd they remove Sigil? Was it because they were sick of having an entity they couldn't stat?
Eldritch_Lord 01-19-08, 09:15 PM	-The Demons have welcomed their wayward cousins back into the fold. Once Neutral Evil Mercenaries in the endless Blood War, these Fiends are now TRUE DEMONS. They have dropped the schismatic-loth from their surnames: Mezzoloths and Nycaloths are now Mezzodemons and Nycademons.(The Mezzodemon is in the 4th Edition Monster Manual.) WAYWARD COUSINS!? If the devs think all the 'loths are is "wayward cousins" of the demons, I'm glad they're rewriting everything instead of trying to adapt. -THIS IS AN INTENTIONAL STEP BACKWARD TO THE ORIGINS OF THESE CREATURES, FIRST INTRODUCED BACK IN 1978 IN THE VAULT OF THE DROW ADVENTURE. Their names were always pronounced as if they were Demons, and they had close ties to the Drow from the first. In the absence of a NEUTRAL EVIL PLANE IN THE NEW COSMOLOGY,folding Yugoloths in with Demons or Devils seemed the LOGICAL SOLUTION. Their nature is more Demonic than Devilsh, and so they ended up in the Abyss-though they are perhaps the most Devil-like of the Demons. *cough* PLANESCAPE *cough* THE OLDEST AND LARGEST IN ALL CREATION, THE "CITY OF BRASS" IS A NEXUS FOR PLANAR TRAVELLERS-IF YOU LOOK LONG AND HARD ENOUGH, YOU CAN FIND ANYTHING YOU HAVE EVER IMAGINED SOMEWHERE IN ITS LABYRINTHINE AVENUES.[/SPOILER] -So I take it that "The City of Brass" killed "Sigil" and took its stuff?:rolleyes: :uh-huh: :twitch: BLASPHEMY!! HEIGHTENED TWINNED ENLARGED WIDENED BLASPHEMY!! ------------------------ Well, I suppose I'd better work on thinking up ways to incorporate 4e changes into my campaigns, since I obviously am not going to be able to use default 4e fluff if I want to keep any connection to previous versions' fluff at all.
ArcTan 01-19-08, 09:29 PM	*cough* PLANESCAPE *cough* Planescape vastly postdates the original Gygaxian introduction of creatures called "Daemons" in 1978. The whole "Yugoloths really run everything; Yugoloths are the puppet masters; the universe was created by Baernoloths" stuff is itself a retcon.
Kain_Darkwind 01-19-08, 09:48 PM	Planescape vastly postdates the original Gygaxian introduction of creatures called "Daemons" in 1978. The whole "Yugoloths really run everything; Yugoloths are the puppet masters; the universe was created by Baernoloths" stuff is itself a retcon. No it isn't. It is a new direction, but it isn't incompatible with the old direction. Daemons (did anyone else pronounce this day-mon?) were rather lacking in any depth back in 1e. Taking things further isn't a retcon....taking them backwards is.
sciborg3 01-19-08, 11:30 PM	You guys realise that NO ONE is making you conform to the new multiverse. WOW. No...really? Thanks man, I was about to tear up everything I'd done with the old multiverse, burn it in a bonfire...thank god you came along, even though NO ONE is making you read our complaints.
Paulon 01-19-08, 11:36 PM	Daemons (did anyone else pronounce this day-mon?) Yes, just to distinguish the terms aloud.
18DELTA 01-20-08, 12:20 AM	EDIT: Why'd they remove Sigil? Was it because they were sick of having an entity they couldn't stat? -I never saw "Sigil" mention in W/M.:rolleyes: -I have come to belive that WotC is cleaning up TSR mess so to speak(In their eyes that is). They are making the Game their Intellectual Property not a TSR cast off. I keep seeing Re-Concepted, or Re-Imagining in W/M. No more bogus parallelism in one part, don't bow to needless symmetry in another. I remember seeing a thread at Paizo where Eric Mona was saying in 1999, before 3E was released WotC was considering "firing their current customer base"(Through changing D&D). Instead they produced a game that brought alot of relapsed gamers back into the hobby. Now with the "digital initative" they can get people to pay for their online material. Look at WOW, 9,000,000 PLAYERS PAYING WHAT $15.00 A MONTH(I could be wrong about the price, I dont play WOW). So if WotC can get say 1,000,000 people playing online how much money would they make. With People paying for the online materials, why produce alot of splat-books? The Core Books every year. A couple of supplements, some cheesy adventures, but the real money comes from the online "jink". Wouldn't Hasbro be happy then? Thoughts, opinions, what do you people think? LORD DELTA:$$:
Flame_Drake 01-20-08, 12:54 AM	That rings true with me. I've always felt that if they thought they could get away with a complete change to the game before the switch to 3.0, they would have. This revision was in the cards all along. Look at the number of people anger with it now. Imagine what it would have been like immediately after TSRs hayday. They would have lost all of their customer base, and the game most likely would have tanked. Drake -I never saw "Sigil" mention in W/M.:rolleyes: -I have come to belive that WotC is cleaning up TSR mess so to speak(In their eyes that is). They are making the Game their Intellectual Property not a TSR cast off. I keep seeing Re-Concepted, or Re-Imagining in W/M. No more bogus parallelism in one part, don't bow to needless symmetry in another. I remember seeing a thread at Paizo where Eric Mona was saying in 1999, before 3E was released WotC was considering "firing their current customer base"(Through changing D&D). Instead they produced a game that brought alot of relapsed gamers back into the hobby. Now with the "digital initative" they can get people to pay for their online material. Look at WOW, 9,000,000 PLAYERS PAYING WHAT $15.00 A MONTH(I could be wrong about the price, I dont play WOW). So if WotC can get say 1,000,000 people playing online how much money would they make. With People paying for the online materials, why produce alot of splat-books? The Core Books every year. A couple of supplements, some cheesy adventures, but the real money comes from the online "jink". Wouldn't Hasbro be happy then? Thoughts, opinions, what do you people think? LORD DELTA:$$:
Kain_Darkwind 01-20-08, 01:24 AM	WOW. No...really? Thanks man, I was about to tear up everything I'd done with the old multiverse, burn it in a bonfire...thank god you came along, even though NO ONE is making you read our complaints. Yeah, well, your relief can be short-lived. I'm going to ensure that everyone conforms to the 4e universe, whether they like it or not. Maybe that way we can be justified in not liking it.
sciborg3 01-20-08, 02:39 AM	the shame is that really there wasn't a need for such massive cosmology changes, or at least not so much bashing. Say you want to try something new for the core, so people aren't buying the same fluff in 4e - that's consumer positive. Say that the cosmology can in many ways fit the old - like the Astral Sea and Elemental Chaos both can incorporate and can be incorporated into the Great Wheel. Let writers use the Great Wheel or hell bring it into one of your new annual settings (this will almost definitely happen when the new gleam of 4e fades) Leave out all this garbage about yu-gi-oh demons replacing 'loths, or whining about things you didn't like in 4e. Just say you want to find a place in it for the new without sacrificing aspects of the old.
E'tii'stil Shadowsil 01-20-08, 08:13 AM	And Plague-mort, and the one before plague-mort, and the one before that, and the one before that, and the one before that, and the one before that, etc. ad nauseum. The pertinent question is, did Plague-mort actually fully slide into the Abyss? I've read accounts that the transition from planar site to planar site never occurred. Ribcage actually did fall into Baator, had its name changed and a new gate-town was subsequently re-established at/on its original location. Yes sir, no Harmonium "re-education" camps here. Honest. The Harmonium didn't play a large role, whatever they would have you believe. It was all the doing of the Formians not the Harmonium. The role of the Harmonium itself is self-limiting being a Prime world spanning organisation. *sigh* You guys realise that NO ONE is making you conform to the new multiverse. But in a way this is very much the case. Oh, if you decide to game within your own clique you could free feel to introduce your own take on things, your own cosmology, and I believe this is something that is already seeing alot of gametime. However, once you decide to game with the wider community or even game in the tournaments held by WotC at GenCon for example, you are forced to play within the strictures of the new cosmology. You have to conform because the setting involves the new multiverse. What irks people is the widespread disregard and wholesale revamping of past mythology, flavor and cosmology...mostly without rhyme and reason. If they had sufficient reason for a workable change and did a sufficient job at it everyone would be happy, but they are doing things that are not needed, ie getting rid of Sigil, folding the three fiends into one, etc.
Deacon Liadon 01-20-08, 09:02 AM	The pertinent question is, did Plague-mort actually fully slide into the Abyss? I've read accounts that the transition from planar site to planar site never occurred. Ribcage actually did fall into Baator, had its name changed and a new gate-town was subsequently re-established at/on its original location. Plague-Morts regularly slide into the Abyss. The gatetown citizens claim that the only leader that didn't make it slide was Her Serenity.
E'tii'stil Shadowsil 01-20-08, 09:15 AM	Plague-Morts regularly slide into the Abyss. The gatetown citizens claim that the only leader that didn't make it slide was Her Serenity. I'd take that with a grain of salt. Her Serenity has reputedly never left Sigil. It's Her Cage.
Eldritch_Lord 01-20-08, 10:24 AM	Planescape vastly postdates the original Gygaxian introduction of creatures called "Daemons" in 1978. The whole "Yugoloths really run everything; Yugoloths are the puppet masters; the universe was created by Baernoloths" stuff is itself a retcon. Um... No it isn't. It is a new direction, but it isn't incompatible with the old direction. Daemons (did anyone else pronounce this day-mon?) were rather lacking in any depth back in 1e. Taking things further isn't a retcon....taking them backwards is. This. Just like the demons and devils were the stereotypical horned outsider bad guys in original D&D but 1e fleshed them out with the Nine Hells, Asmodeus, the Abyss, Demon Princes, and so on. the shame is that really there wasn't a need for such massive cosmology changes, or at least not so much bashing. Say you want to try something new for the core, so people aren't buying the same fluff in 4e - that's consumer positive. Say that the cosmology can in many ways fit the old - like the Astral Sea and Elemental Chaos both can incorporate and can be incorporated into the Great Wheel. Let writers use the Great Wheel or hell bring it into one of your new annual settings (this will almost definitely happen when the new gleam of 4e fades) Leave out all this garbage about yu-gi-oh demons replacing 'loths, or whining about things you didn't like in 4e. Just say you want to find a place in it for the new without sacrificing aspects of the old. :clap: Right on. But in a way this is very much the case. Oh, if you decide to game within your own clique you could free feel to introduce your own take on things, your own cosmology, and I believe this is something that is already seeing alot of gametime. However, once you decide to game with the wider community or even game in the tournaments held by WotC at GenCon for example, you are forced to play within the strictures of the new cosmology. You have to conform because the setting involves the new multiverse. What irks people is the widespread disregard and wholesale revamping of past mythology, flavor and cosmology...mostly without rhyme and reason. If they had sufficient reason for a workable change and did a sufficient job at it everyone would be happy, but they are doing things that are not needed, ie getting rid of Sigil, folding the three fiends into one, etc. Exactly. If you move away and join a new group with different ideas, or have new players who only have heard of "by the book" fluff, or heck, if you play in the RPGA, the default 4e fluff is what will be used, not 1e-3e fluff. It's not the problem with myself as DM running my game that the fluff is an issue, but rather when I take a break and play in another group with a new DM who thinks the old fluff (which I like) is "too outdated" because he/she has only played 4e that it becomes an issue.
18DELTA 01-20-08, 12:51 PM	Exactly. If you move away and join a new group with different ideas, or have new players who only have heard of "by the book" fluff, or heck, if you play in the RPGA, the default 4e fluff is what will be used, not 1e-3e fluff. It's not the problem with myself as DM running my game that the fluff is an issue, but rather when I take a break and play in another group with a new DM who thinks the old fluff (which I like) is "too outdated" because he/she has only played 4e that it becomes an issue. -So basically the changes in 4E, could possibly split the D&D community. "The Old School" vs. "The New School". Some of the changes I really like, some well not really. LORD DELTA:shifty:
Sarella Starshine 01-20-08, 03:13 PM	Delta: Seesh, the community HAS been split along those lines already. All it will do is redefine 'old-school' to mean pre-4e instead of pre3e (which would probably tick off a lot of the 0ld-old-school people, you know, the ones that loathe 3e and anything remotely connected to it). Though, I am taking a look at this new cosomolgy stuff, and liking it. This new cosmology acctually fits how I immagined how my home setting's cosmology is like. I do not have to force the Great Wheel to conform, or try and do an entirely new cosmology from scratch. I also like the idea of having as little default metaplot as possible. I want the characters of my players to acctually do meaningful things. It means less work for me as I won't be spending most of my time ret-conning something because the metaplot got advanced.
Amon_V 01-20-08, 05:35 PM	This just means that WoTC has no clue what they are doing. I'd suggest taking a good look at Hasbro's stock price, something bad is going down with this company. All this means is that WoTC has decided to subcontract the planar environment to Gerber Foods, who can reduce the planar picture to a very simplistic model for easy comprehension. Seriously though, this just goes to show that WoTC is moving from an adult's company to a kids company. I'm not particularly sure that "Ugoloffs" made a lot of sense to a 6 year old anyway. And that seems to be the critical factor--if you sent this model to a 6 year old, he would understand the difference between bad men and bad animals and bad insects, but not the difference between Neutral Evil and Chaotic Evil. Face it guys, 4th edition is going to be nice and easy to understand. Too bad it will be designed to compete with Spongebob Squarepants and Connect 4. If that bothers you, well, Morrowind is excellent.
Deacon Liadon 01-20-08, 06:04 PM	I'd take that with a grain of salt. Her Serenity has reputedly never left Sigil. It's Her Cage. They claim it was before she became "Her Serenity"
E'tii'stil Shadowsil 01-20-08, 07:44 PM	-So basically the changes in 4E, could possibly split the D&D community. "The Old School" vs. "The New School". Some of the changes I really like, some well not really. LORD DELTA:shifty: It's not about old school vs new school. It's about why the changes were made in the first place. It involves the adage "if it ain't broke there's really no reason to go tampering with it." Admittedly we don't really know the whole picture so we can't go and shouldn't be jumping to conclusions...just yet. Maybe the changes make sense within the wider scope of things, if they are able to coherently (within the framework of the metasetting, etc) explain in the new sourcebooks. I do hope so... They claim it was before she became "Her Serenity" And that's maybe what it really is, just a claim, conjecture, exaggeration, etc. Her Serenity has always been Her Serenity. This is the opinion of the Planescape designers and many forum-goers on these boards and others. Okay, I misremembered and conflated Ribcage with Plague-mort; goes to show how a casual perusal doesn't really stand the test of time...and no books on hand to check up on it to boot. The point remains though, it wasn't exactly the actions of mortal thought that resulted in the slides but rather the influence of planar beings (the inhabitants are no longer mortal prime entities) and demons/tanar'ri. Don't go knocking Spongebob now, he's hilariously great and greatly hilarious.
ArcTan 01-22-08, 04:47 AM	This just means that WoTC has no clue what they are doing. I'd suggest taking a good look at Hasbro's stock price, something bad is going down with this company. You'd only look to Hasbro's stock price to figure out anything at all to do with WotC (a lesser subsidiary of Hasbro) and D&D (a lesser property of that subsidiary) if you knew nothing at all about how a giant corporation works. All this means is that WoTC has decided to subcontract the planar environment to Gerber Foods, who can reduce the planar picture to a very simplistic model for easy comprehension. Seriously though, this just goes to show that WoTC is moving from an adult's company to a kids company. I'm not particularly sure that "Ugoloffs" made a lot of sense to a 6 year old anyway. And that seems to be the critical factor--if you sent this model to a 6 year old, he would understand the difference between bad men and bad animals and bad insects, but not the difference between Neutral Evil and Chaotic Evil. I'm a lot older than 6, I understand quite a few things (if I do say so myself), and I say that NE vs. CE simply doesn't make sense -- or, at least, it doesn't make any *more* sense than simply drawing a distinction ("these are the ones with shifting loyalties but who want to fight for a cause, these are the ones who can't be disciplined or restrained at all") that isn't based on the alignment grid.
sciborg3 01-22-08, 09:12 AM	It may make sense but its a tremendous waste. Now the yugoloths are just pointless given the other exceptions like Grazz't they want to keep in the Abyss - this is even more nonscensical in the new humanoid vs animal distinction. So no, you're wrong ArcTan, this makes less sense for sure. In the end, if I could see a definite sense of reasoning that led to the change it would be better. Or if they simply said they wanted to do something new for the core setting, but would bring back the Great Wheel or at least we'd be seeing aspects of the old in the new. Instead, the change just seems an attempt to make 4e seem new and shiny and amazing and 3e old and illogical - as if Shadowfell and Feywild being the dark and light parts of creation tossed aside makes sense. Now it's fine for people to think the Wheel is stupid, but designers should not be suggesting that those of us who spent so much time on Great Wheel settings were fools for doing so. It's a problem with D&D designers being canon warriors. People come along and instead of making the core more optional they try to throw out things they don't like, push in metaplots best left to rumor, etc. Now we end up with an interesting cosmology that a lot of people are hostile toward with, imo, good reason. Its only natural to attack something when you feel you're being attacked - as many, rightly or wrongly, felt about Planescape. Though note the "attacks" toward other settings was in character and not made by designers.
Skeptical Clown 01-22-08, 10:44 AM	I like pretty much everything I've been hearing about the changes to the planes and the outsiders. Less thrilled about some of the more glaring problems (lack of gnomes, bards, druids, etc. in the core book), but this aspect of 4e sounds peachy to me. I could care less about yugoloths, archons, and blood wars, although not much less. I don't think there's much intentional "bashing" going on. The designers are simply offering justification for their changes. They don't have to justify anything to anyone, but they are trying to offer justification so that they don't come off as arrogantly dismissing everyone's concerns. Damned if they do, damned if they don't though.
Alpha_Moose 01-22-08, 12:06 PM	I don't think there's much intentional "bashing" going on. The designers are simply offering justification for their changes. They don't have to justify anything to anyone, but they are trying to offer justification so that they don't come off as arrogantly dismissing everyone's concerns. I'd have to agree with Skeptical Clown on this. I've yet to see any real bashing of the old edition (at least nothing more than what they did when they were still producing the old edition). They mostly seem to be saying, "Here's what was bad in 3e, here's how it's fixed in 4e." I actually don't mind the overall 4e cosmology, its the silly bastardization that irritates me. The bashing of the history of the game smacks of desperation. You know what irritated me when I first read the whole Great Wheel cosmos? It was the silly bastardization of real world mythologies that did it. It was the silly attempt to cram every single monster they could find together. It was them trying to force every god and pantheon into one cosmos. It was the silly differences in many creatures that came down to Lawful=robot and Chaotic='random crazy frog thing', and them then trying to shoehorn every character, monster, and god into these distinctions. In the end though, it has some cool ideas. I'd never use the whole thing as is (I wouldn't with any setting) but I use some of it.
Gray Richardson 01-22-08, 05:59 PM	Now the yugoloths are just pointless given the other exceptions like Grazz't they want to keep in the Abyss - this is even more nonscensical in the new humanoid vs animal distinction.I don't think that Yugoloths will necessarily be pointless in the new cosmology. They give a pretty good explanation in Worlds & Monsters about why they made the changes. If you read it, it will give you some background on their thought process. In the new cosmology, Gehenna, Hades, & Carceri do not exist (as such). So the Yugoloths were left without a homeland. Rather than discard them altogether, they were reconcepted as demons and placed in the Abyss with the rest of the demons. The interesting thing about them, though, is that unlike the other demons who are raging engines of destruction, the yugoloths are a branch of demonkind that opperates more subtly, scheming, manipulating and thinking. Of all the demons they are the most like the devils. This role for yugoloths n 4e positions them to be developed in a lot of interesting ways. They can perhaps be kingmakers, playing the demon princes off against each other. They can still be involved in planar politics, can sell their services as mercenaries to gods, can be involved in planar wars, and so on. While I appreciate that many people will feel that something valuable has been lost in "demonizing" the yugoloths, it does not mean they cannot still be interesting creatures, with new stories to tell. And I think that with time, the story writers may give them some new lore and story arcs that will make them as compelling as they once were in the 2e Great Wheel. Doubtless the writers have some secrets about the yugoloths up their sleeves. :devil:
Kain_Darkwind 01-22-08, 06:13 PM	In the beginning of pre-4e, we were told that demons = monstrous SMASH! and devils = humanoid tempter. This was the logic under which we were to accept the erinyes being renamed a succubus and the succubus being dropped from the game. Now, we are told that the yugoloths/daemons are now being folded into demons, despite being no more monstrous in appearance than devils. And that despite the fact that their scheming, plotting and corruptive nature puts them decidedly closer to devils than demons, even by the new standards of grouping (which some people tout as finally making sense), they were put over in with the demons. Now, the real reason they were put with demons instead of devils is simple. Mezzodemon works. Especially if you pronounced it that way in 1e. Mezzodevil sounds....less workable. What I want to know is if an entire grouping of demons can be humanoid plotters and schemers like the yugoloths, why did we have to ditch the succubus?
Shemeska the Marauder 01-22-08, 08:18 PM	I don't think that Yugoloths will necessarily be pointless in the new cosmology. They give a pretty good explanation in Worlds & Monsters about why they made the changes. If you read it, it will give you some background on their thought process. It's not a convincing reason to me. It's a bit of a mischaracterization of the way the 'loths were used in an early module (that itself had little to do with how they were presented in 1e in subsequent sources). It's about equivalent to turning Juiblex into a bratty little girl because the Caste Grayhawk joke module back in 1e presented the demon lord as such. At the very least it's a bizarre stretch. And it also relies on a mispronunciation of the 1e daemon portion of their name. It smells like after the fact rationalization to me. And I think that with time, the story writers may give them some new lore and story arcs that will make them as compelling as they once were in the 2e Great Wheel. Doubtless the writers have some secrets about the yugoloths up their sleeves. :devil: I'm not holding out hope unless they bring in other authors, considering that the reconceptualization was done by the same same designer who renamed the guardinal lords in the BoED because he didn't like their names and because they didn't have enough girls.
Shemeska the Marauder 01-22-08, 08:41 PM	You know what irritated me when I first read the whole Great Wheel cosmos? It was the silly bastardization of real world mythologies that did it. Don't worry. 4e is now bastardizing fictional mythologies what with a gleeful mixing of Greyhawk, FR, and random generic 4e gods into the 4e PoL default, with the two former types entirely removed from their original roots.
sciborg3 01-22-08, 11:16 PM	What I want to know is if an entire grouping of demons can be humanoid plotters and schemers like the yugoloths, why did we have to ditch the succubus? I think the dumbest thing was claiming the name "assimar" was dumb because it reminded someone of the word ass....hello? As-modeus? As for fixing something, there was nothing broken with the cosmology save perhaps for its constricting nature. The Astral Sea was a good idea, everything else is interesting but not at the expense of 3e. It's the claiming that something was wrong is what irritates me. I liked the old cosmology, and I like the new one. I just don't like them suggesting they are improving and making things more logical, then pulling what Kain points out is woefully against their own supposed "clarification".
ArcTan 01-23-08, 12:15 AM	And it also relies on a mispronunciation of the 1e daemon portion of their name. "Daemon" as "day-mon" is the mispronunciation. In real life, "daemon" and "demon" are the same word. Pretending that there's a big, intrinsic difference between a "daemon" and a "demon" because TSR wants there to be is one of my pet peeves, right up there with pronouncing "bulette" "bou-lay".
Shemeska the Marauder 01-23-08, 02:27 AM	"Daemon" as "day-mon" is the mispronunciation. In real life, "daemon" and "demon" are the same word. Pretending that there's a big, intrinsic difference between a "daemon" and a "demon" because TSR wants there to be is one of my pet peeves, right up there with pronouncing "bulette" "bou-lay". The real world use of daemon is pronounced as demon yes, but they pronounced the TSR daemon as day-mon. Turning around and claiming that going from 'loth to demon is a return to the creature's roots based on an altogether different pronunciation is then troubling, because it suggests either playing loose with the facts or not being aware of the very origins you're claiming a return to (and when you're paid to write this stuff...).
E'tii'stil Shadowsil 01-23-08, 03:04 AM	I'm a lot older than 6, I understand quite a few things (if I do say so myself), and I say that NE vs. CE simply doesn't make sense -- or, at least, it doesn't make any *more* sense than simply drawing a distinction ("these are the ones with shifting loyalties but who want to fight for a cause, these are the ones who can't be disciplined or restrained at all") that isn't based on the alignment grid. There are rather large scale differences between the evil alignments, as I mentioned earlier in this very thread, and especially between the alignment exemplars, enough to span a bridge across and build several forts marking each junction in turn. While CE is undeniably influenced by chaos, NE is equal parts lawful and chaotic to the point where it has melded enough to form its own distinct alignment. -"These are the ones with shifting loyalties but who want to fight for a cause" = NE, especially as evidenced in the Blood War. The yugoloths project the image that they are mercenaries, available for hire to the highest bidder, but who will also turncoat. -"These are the ones who can't be disciplined or restrained at all" = you forgot the explicit prone to sudden and unexpected destructive acts; CE. "Demons, devils, daemons...you're all alike..." -Last words of a clueless Prime. What I want to know is if an entire grouping of demons can be humanoid plotters and schemers like the yugoloths, why did we have to ditch the succubus? I'm thinking it has a lot to do with internal inconsistency. Kinda like how the archfiends are described as on par with deities or as sovereigns lording it over their own demesnes or domains and wielding considerable power in their respective planes, but their statistics in no way reflect that, aspects and avatars included. At this rate no one is going to take Demogorgon, Prince of Demons, or any others, seriously. With the folding, what becomes of the yugoloth lords? Will this mean there won't be any more baernoloths or Anthraxus or the General of Gehenna?... "Daemon" as "day-mon" is the mispronunciation. In real life, "daemon" and "demon" are the same word. Pretending that there's a big, intrinsic difference between a "daemon" and a "demon" because TSR wants there to be is one of my pet peeves, right up there with pronouncing "bulette" "bou-lay". This is incorrect. Daemon is the Latinised spelling of the (ancient) Greek daimon. So daemon should be pronounced day-mon or dai-mon. Demon is a bastardised version of daemon (but 'edited' enough so that it's still recognisably comparable to its original form), conflating the ae into a i sound, rendering the product di-mon (demon). Demons as in tanar'ri and daemon as in yugoloths involves rather large scale differences, massive differences. FYI, the name Henry is pronounced on-ri or on-ree in France and hen-ri or hen-ree in English speaking countries. Who is mispronouncing?
GlimmTheGnome 01-23-08, 09:40 AM	I like the Planescape cosmology as a setting, but I think it makes a horrible default cosmology for other settings. Despite that, I think Wizards might have been better off not including Yugoloths at all in 4E then shoving them into the Abyss as demons. It all depends on how easily they can be house ruled back into an entirely separate race from demons. Why I Think Planescape is a Bad Default Planar Exemplars Are The True Powers Planescape puts most of the influence in the hands of the planar exemplars rather than the gods. The deities control small realms on the planes while the lords of the exemplars control entire infinite planes and layers. (This is addressed by moving to a dominion-based Astral Sea in 4E) Infinite Primes Using the fluff about the Great Wheel, a single material plane doesn't matter: there are countless other worlds, the Blood War is more important for the fiends, "primes are just clueless", etc. This is the prime material world that a DM is spending time to create and fill with details - Planescape says that doesn't matter because everything that's really important is happening on the outer planes. Built on Alignment The arrangement of the planes and divisions between races of outsiders in Planescape are intimitely tied to the idea that alignment is a real force in the cosmos. Not all DMs like alignment, so having rationalizations about the cosmology evaporate when they remove it is undesirable. This is especially the case since it seems like 4E is moving to a one-axis alignment system (anyone seen mention of Lawful or Chaotic as alignments in 4E?)
Taeldrin Laesrash 01-23-08, 09:54 AM	Planar Exemplars Are The True Powers Planescape puts most of the influence in the hands of the planar exemplars rather than the gods. The deities control small realms on the planes while the lords of the exemplars control entire infinite planes and layers. (This is addressed by moving to a dominion-based Astral Sea in 4E) This isn't a bad thing in itself (And 3e followed your point of view), it's just a big switch from the Prime worlds, where you always hear about the gods. Built on Alignment The arrangement of the planes and divisions between races of outsiders in Planescape are intimitely tied to the idea that alignment is a real force in the cosmos. Not all DMs like alignment, so having rationalizations about the cosmology evaporate when they remove it is undesirable. This is especially the case since it seems like 4E is moving to a one-axis alignment system (anyone seen mention of Lawful or Chaotic as alignments in 4E?) I'll agree, somethings could be very difficult to place in the morality-based Wheel. I'm fine with the reduced importance of alignment in 4e. If WotC had said they wanted to make the multiverse less alignment-centric, I'd be more accepting. Instead, we get insults.
Alpha_Moose 01-23-08, 12:38 PM	Don't worry. 4e is now bastardizing fictional mythologies what with a gleeful mixing of Greyhawk, FR, and random generic 4e gods into the 4e PoL default, with the two former types entirely removed from their original roots. Yeah. So I can understand why people are irritated. What I don't get is that they are more irritated with the disregard to only 30+ years of fake mythology than they are to the disregard of 3000+ years of real world mythology.
Jarred_Garrison 01-23-08, 02:05 PM	I like the Planescape cosmology as a setting, but I think it makes a horrible default cosmology for other settings. Despite that, I think Wizards might have been better off not including Yugoloths at all in 4E then shoving them into the Abyss as demons. It all depends on how easily they can be house ruled back into an entirely separate race from demons. Why I Think Planescape is a Bad Default Planar Exemplars Are The True Powers Planescape puts most of the influence in the hands of the planar exemplars rather than the gods. The deities control small realms on the planes while the lords of the exemplars control entire infinite planes and layers. (This is addressed by moving to a dominion-based Astral Sea in 4E) Infinite Primes Using the fluff about the Great Wheel, a single material plane doesn't matter: there are countless other worlds, the Blood War is more important for the fiends, "primes are just clueless", etc. This is the prime material world that a DM is spending time to create and fill with details - Planescape says that doesn't matter because everything that's really important is happening on the outer planes. Built on Alignment The arrangement of the planes and divisions between races of outsiders in Planescape are intimitely tied to the idea that alignment is a real force in the cosmos. Not all DMs like alignment, so having rationalizations about the cosmology evaporate when they remove it is undesirable. This is especially the case since it seems like 4E is moving to a one-axis alignment system (anyone seen mention of Lawful or Chaotic as alignments in 4E?) It can be made to work with little changes, though. The way I run things, I use a single set of deities and a single prime material plane becomes the "default" material plane. Others may exist, but are rare, and almost unheard of. The gods of other material planes are the same gods of the default material plane, called by other names (to give an example, Kord, Tempus and perhaps Thor would be the same god, only with slight differences depending on what world you´re in, since the god is seen on a different light depending on what material plane we´re in). This makes the gods stronger (since they can have worshippers on infinite prime material planes, thus counterbalancing the infinite realms on the lower and upper planes), as well as puts the focus on a particular prime material plane, thus making it all not about the blood war (which keeps a lot of importance anyway). That said, it makes sense that they´re getting rid of the alignment based model for 4th edition given that alignments are heavily downplayed, but since I must be one of the few people who never had a problem with alignment, and instead used it to make my games more interesting, I have to say it makes me sad to see it go.
sciborg3 01-23-08, 02:16 PM	Yeah. So I can understand why people are irritated. What I don't get is that they are more irritated with the disregard to only 30+ years of fake mythology than they are to the disregard of 3000+ years of real world mythology. Name a fantasy game that doesn't bastardize RL mythology. I mean, at least its not Kult or WoD. As someone who was a universalist (all gods are real) for most of my childhood I liked seeing the gods all on the same playground. It also set it apart from notions of RL belief (its another multiverse), or just allowed you to use the gods you wanted for your games. Not that this was perfect mind you, I just think it succeeded more than failed. YMMV. In fact, during 1e Dragon ran many articles on incorporating gods of different faiths into D&D so you could have a tribal African campaign, a Sumerian one, etc. Finally, don't forget the desire for 4e to include Thor randomly...
Gray Richardson 01-23-08, 02:19 PM	Turning around and claiming that going from 'loth to demon is a return to the creature's roots based on an altogether different pronunciation is then troubling, because it suggests either playing loose with the facts or not being aware of the very origins you're claiming a return to (and when you're paid to write this stuff...).I didn't get that they were claiming a return to the origins for the daemons, or even that they were claiming that they had made the yugoloths better. From what I gather from Worlds & Monsters the absence of a neutral evil plane to put them in presented a quandry. Rather than abandon the 'loths altogether, they tried to reconceive them in such a way that they could fit with the new planar setup. The solution they came up with draws upon some of the 1e lore. I don't know if this is an optimal solution, but it is the one they came up with. And it seems like a valid, and considered choice. No doubt, many will be sad at what the yugoloths have lost in the transition to 4e. But I think there is potential yet to do some nifty things with them. I am willing to let them run with it and see where they take it. What I am encouraged by is that the 'loths appear to be a different strain of demon from all the others. They serve an (as yet) unnamed demon prince. They scheme, are organized and use tactics like devils. They seem smarter than the other demons and so occupy an interesting niche in the Abyss. And I think that is something to work with. Hopefully the design team will utilize this and write some interesting stuff for the 'loths. Just curious, how would you have solved the problem? How would you have fit the 'loths into the new cosmology? And given the choice that they have made, how would you develop the 'loths so that they are interesting and memorable in their new role?
18DELTA 01-23-08, 02:42 PM	-Hey folks Sigil is in (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=14892689#post14892689)! !!:D Sigil is in, mostly because I whined at James Wyatt until he gave me a paragraph about it for the DMG. Ah, editor power...! __________________ Michele Carter RPG Editing Team Lead DELTA:D
Kain_Darkwind 01-23-08, 03:10 PM	Just curious, how would you have solved the problem? How would you have fit the 'loths into the new cosmology? And given the choice that they have made, how would you develop the 'loths so that they are interesting and memorable in their new role? I can't speak for Shemmy, but if I was in charge of loths and asked to fit them into the new cosmology, they would have definitely been made devils, not demons. They act too much like 4e devils and look too much like 4e devils to call them demons. Demon SMASH! So, to the devil side they go. Now, keeping in mind the new cosmology, I would have made the loths the original inhabitants of Hell. And thus a conquered race once the fallen angel devils (oh I so hate that idea) took over the joint. Rather than exterminate, they chose to enslave the loths, who are kept around as dangerous advisers and go betweens. This keeps them between demons and devils without making them identical to either. It keeps the stupid system of demons=brute violence that dismissed the succubus intact. For the most part, loths are humanoid, if monstrously so. Canoloths can frolic with hellhounds. Arcanaloths can tap hellfire for Mephistopheles. Et fricken cetera. And yet, the loths are given a reason to not be totally loyal to the true devils. A reason to perhaps support demons and such over the devils. A reason to backstab and form partisan elements. That's what I would have done, operating under their design constraints.
Shemeska the Marauder 01-23-08, 03:47 PM	Just curious, how would you have solved the problem? How would you have fit the 'loths into the new cosmology? And given the choice that they have made, how would you develop the 'loths so that they are interesting and memorable in their new role? I wouldn't have made them either demons or devils, but a third type of fiend unconnected with either, but present in the Abyss, present all over the Astral Sea offering their services, and certainly present in the 9 Hells serving the devils as well paid proxies since they wouldn't be entrapped by the nature of the Hells, not being devils. Their precise role and nature would be undefined, but hinted at being entirely selfish, probably connected with the "fragment of pure evil" that Tharizdun used to corrupt the elemental chaos. Random ideas of what I might have done with them: The 'loths could be strangers in the purest sense, beings of malignant mystery with their own unknown goals whose origins are an open question and their mercenary activities being much the same as now (and easily eating the ecological niche of the mercane as well). Maybe they themselves don't know their origin, or even what they are. They might be from another reality altogether; stranded, bitter, and ultimately willing to drag all beings down into a hell of their own creation. And here's something I originally posted up on Enworld on my potential take on 4e 'loth origins: Chorazin the Thrice Damned drifted high above the metaphysical landscape, the halo of flame atop his head shedding a surreal light upon his surroundings and his sole companion. Below them the tides and currents of the elemental chaos rose and fell like a great ocean of raw physical creation. Tidal waves of flame crashed upon islands of eternal ice while living gemstones flowered and dusted the air with drifting clouds of stinging minerals. Everything was unsullied in its own way, though the model was left perfect from the standpoint of symmetry. "What is it that you would have us do here Father/Mother?" The question was direct and pragmatic, spoken as the baernaloth had come to expect from his handmaiden in that new cosmos. Larsdana Ap Neut stood next to him, the ruff of fur on her cheeks windblown and raw, touched with a layer of whisper-thin salt and dust from the unruly elemental maelstrom below. The exposure to the elements, the raw and actual elements, rather than just the metaphysical -idea- of those elements as expressed by a form and variety of evil was something she was unaccostumed to. Her eyes watered and her flesh was raw, though the blood that seeped from the corners of her eyes and sullied the velvet of her robes was due the agony she embraced by standing so close to her maker. "We've done this before Larsdana." Chorazin Ibn Shartalan explained, his voice causing the arcanaloth's form to momentarily blur and twist. "As different as this conception of reality might appear, you should recognize the taste." "Yes, Great One, I do." Her tongue flicked out like a serpent, touching the air and licking the caked minerals from her muzzle. "Are we to be your intruments this time, like the last? Or is the one below us dancing and laughing like a mad fool to play some part in this?" The Gloom Father's dead white eyes twitched and he smiled, revealing ragged teeth stained with black, greasy blood. "Good. You see the differences." A sly, jackal's grin crossed her face as she began to see her role and that of the idiot godling below. Unknowing, still innocent in his own way, Tharizdun laughed and played, combining and merging the elements to make new and wonderous things to amuse his child-like mind. "Hmm? Now what would this be?" The godling paused and looked down at the curious purple gemstone that he'd come across. He'd never seen anything like it before, and as he stared in amazement and wonder, its cold illumination played over his face, striking thin, fine lines of age into his features. "Hello" The gemstone spoke to him, polite and promising, hinting at so many amazing things that it could show him, all with a single word. "Beautiful precious thing." Tharizdun said. "Who or what might you be? I've played across the shores of the elements and the depths of the astral seas, but never have I seen something like you." "I am the Heart of Darkness" The gemstone replied, smiling into his mind and brushing delicate claws across the god's face, drawing bruises and age-spots across the flesh. "But my newfound friend, you may call me Larsdana, and I have so many things to show you.". Smiling, Tharizdun reached forward and touched the gemstone.
Eldritch_Lord 01-23-08, 05:48 PM	I agree that if yugoloths had to be fit in with either the devils or the demons, devils would have worked better, though I would have preferred as separate race of fiends. And yes, daemons = day-mons =/= demons = dee-mons. Finally, Shemeska, like many others on these boards, you should have been in the 4e design team. The 'loth backstory is amazing. :thumbsup:
ArcTan 01-23-08, 10:48 PM	This is incorrect. Daemon is the Latinised spelling of the (ancient) Greek daimon. So daemon should be pronounced day-mon or dai-mon. Demon is a bastardised version of daemon (but 'edited' enough so that it's still recognisably comparable to its original form), conflating the ae into a i sound, rendering the product di-mon (demon). They're the same word spelled different ways. It's just as annoying as the distinction between "dragons" and "dragonnes". Demons as in tanar'ri and daemon as in yugoloths involves rather large scale differences, massive differences. Well, yes, made-up differences. It's taking two spellings of a real-life term and making them mean different things, which is always annoying (and part of the reason the term "Daemon" was dropped in the first place). FYI, the name Henry is pronounced on-ri or on-ree in France and hen-ri or hen-ree in English speaking countries. Who is mispronouncing? In the case of a proper name it depends on what the person calls himself.
ArcTan 01-23-08, 10:50 PM	I can't speak for Shemmy, but if I was in charge of loths and asked to fit them into the new cosmology, they would have definitely been made devils, not demons. They act too much like 4e devils and look too much like 4e devils to call them demons. Demon SMASH! I would argue that, aside from the fact that "Mezzodaemon" is one letter away from "Mezzodemon" originally, the idea of the "We'll betray ANYBODY" Yugoloths makes more sense over in the lawless Abyss than as part of Asmodeus' unified and blindly devoted army.
E'tii'stil Shadowsil 01-23-08, 11:09 PM	I like the Planescape cosmology as a setting, but I think it makes a horrible default cosmology for other settings. The Planescape cosmology is the backbone of the default cosmology. All settings are aligned to it and all settings touch upon it, Athas, Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, et al. It was only the later efforts did designers not opt for integration into the Great Wheel cosmology or ignored it completely. The rehash to Faerunian cosmology was completely arbitrarily and unnecessary. Despite that, I think Wizards might have been better off not including Yugoloths at all in 4E then shoving them into the Abyss as demons. It all depends on how easily they can be house ruled back into an entirely separate race from demons. No, they should include yugoloths but should do a proper job in doing so, none of this demon or devil lite stuff, none of this ignoring yugoloths in favor of demons or devils, but as tangible entities with manifest well written flavor. Why I Think Planescape is a Bad Default Planar Exemplars Are The True Powers Planescape puts most of the influence in the hands of the planar exemplars rather than the gods. The deities control small realms on the planes while the lords of the exemplars control entire infinite planes and layers. (This is addressed by moving to a dominion-based Astral Sea in 4E) Planar exemplars were/are based off real world mythology. For example, Demogorgon is a corruption of Demiurge. Gnostic thought presents the Demiurge as antagonistic to the (will of the) Supreme Being. Gnostic myth depicts the Demiurge as monstrous. According to apocryphal texts, the Demiurge comes into being to rule over chaos and the underworld. Orcus was the god of the underworld, punisher of broken oaths and was later identified and perhaps conflated with the Greek Dis Pater, from whence we get Dispater. Further exploration of real world mythology was conducted in literary texts as Milton's Paradise Lost and Dante's Divine Comedy. The various entities in D&D were all based on the above, and were given alignments and 'portfolios' as applicable. To a petitioner or visitor to a deities' realm, it is all but infinite since they lack the metaphysical sense to fully grasp or comprehend infinity. A reason why extraplanar cosmic entities may have bigger realms is while deities embody or represent a narrowly defined focus in portfolio, the cosmic entities embody the larger picture within and of that portfolio. Asmodeus is tyranny for example while Bane only is the Forgotten Realms exemplar of it, Hextor is the Greyhawk god of tyranny, the Great Mother is the beholder's deity of tyranny. Get my point? Additionally, each setting usually has evidence of a cosmic entity, hence there's Orcus in the Forgotten Realms, Demogorgon in Greyhawk and vice versa. On the other hand, there's only one Mystra in the Realms and is confined to the Realms and only one Boccob in Greyhawk and confined to that locale. Infinite Primes Using the fluff about the Great Wheel, a single material plane doesn't matter: there are countless other worlds, the Blood War is more important for the fiends, "primes are just clueless", etc. This is the prime material world that a DM is spending time to create and fill with details - Planescape says that doesn't matter because everything that's really important is happening on the outer planes. You are confusing prime material plane with a single, all encompassing material plane. This isn't true. Material planes are known as prime material planes, material planes or prime worlds. A single material plane doesn't matter in grand scheme of things since issues or problems are provincial only. To say a single prime world is the most important undermines established settings and settings that other DMs have come up with. Countless worlds means that the CSs of DMs is more than possible, it makes sense. While the Blood War is important, it is only so for those interested or has stakes in said feud. It is not the single most defining feature for any of the three fiend races. Primes are clueless, but that is mostly tongue in cheek and has a lot to do with the fact that primes are only and usually subjected to the vistas of their own planet or world while the planes get to experience all sights within the Great Wheel. Built on Alignment The arrangement of the planes and divisions between races of outsiders in Planescape are intimitely tied to the idea that alignment is a real force in the cosmos. Not all DMs like alignment, so having rationalizations about the cosmology evaporate when they remove it is undesirable. This is especially the case since it seems like 4E is moving to a one-axis alignment system (anyone seen mention of Lawful or Chaotic as alignments in 4E?) Since D&D as a game is also about cause and effect and the consequences of actions, actions used in pursuit in end means etc, alignment is important, both by itself and as an associated thematic. Alignment has been integral to the game since its conception in 1e. Not liking something and removing it just because is a completely arbitrary action and unnecessary. Which is precisely what the new alignment system, unwanted and unwarranted.
E'tii'stil Shadowsil 01-23-08, 11:21 PM	They're the same word spelled different ways. It's just as annoying as the distinction between "dragons" and "dragonnes". Which would mean that your statement in proponent of (mis)pronouncing daemon as demon is incorrect and wrong. They are different. I suggest you also look at the etymology of the words and spellings. Also, the distinction between dragons and dragonnes is irrelevant. A) they are completely different things, B) the two words, and it is two words, are spelt differently, C) it is irrelevant to the discussion. Well, yes, made-up differences. It's taking two spellings of a real-life term and making them mean different things, which is always annoying (and part of the reason the term "Daemon" was dropped in the first place). I suggest you peruse the relevant books before you jump to uninformed conclusions. You can't use real-life as a prop because while D&D is based on real world mythology it is not exactly compatible with real-world mythology, take the pegasus for example. With all this focus on daemons and demons, I suggest you research the real-world distinction(s) between devils and demons, or lack thereof. In real-world mythology there is nothing different between devils and demons; they are the same beings, except they are called differently. In D&D there is a world of difference. In the case of a proper name it depends on what the person calls himself. But who can say who is mispronouncing? Also, you mischaracterise yugoloths, they have reasons for betrayal.
GlimmTheGnome 01-24-08, 12:26 AM	The Planescape cosmology is the backbone of the default cosmology. All settings are aligned to it and all settings touch upon it, Athas, Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, et al. It was only the later efforts did designers not opt for integration into the Great Wheel cosmology or ignored it completely. The rehash to Faerunian cosmology was completely arbitrarily and unnecessary. Yep, I know that was true before 3rd edition (I played the game back then too...). Being stuck with the Great Wheel seemed counterproductive and out of place in some settings though: Dark Sun modified the inner planes and was isolated from the Wheel, Dragonlance's deities were different-but-the-same as other settings (Tiamat/Takhisis and Bahamut/Paladine), Faerun had Weave-reliant magic but there isn't a Weave in the Great Wheel, etc... A reason why extraplanar cosmic entities may have bigger realms is while deities embody or represent a narrowly defined focus in portfolio, the cosmic entities embody the larger picture within and of that portfolio. That is a rationalization, but why should a DM making a new campaign have to significantly modify the cosmology's fluff in order to have their setting's gods not be minor compared to a set of established beings from Planescape? Anyways, let's look at a god like Corellon. He created elves which exist in almost every prime, but wait... he doesn't exist in every setting (ex: Dragonlance), who copied from who? Same with Moradin, Gruumsh, etc. Why should a setting with different gods be crammed into the Great Wheel by default. A more open cosmology focused on the setting's material world makes more sense. A single material plane doesn't matter in grand scheme of things since issues or problems are provincial only. To say a single prime world is the most important undermines established settings and settings that other DMs have come up with. Countless worlds means that the CSs of DMs is more than possible, it makes sense. I see this a lot different than you do. I don't need a rationalization for multiple worlds, I only want the world I'm designing to matter for a campaign (in most settings I've designed, some deal with multiple primes interacting or prime-less cosmologies...). It also doesn't undermine established settings at all, when a campaign is using that setting, it is the most important. When a campaign isn't in that setting, it doesn't exist at all in-game. Since D&D as a game is also about cause and effect and the consequences of actions, actions used in pursuit in end means etc, alignment is important, both by itself and as an associated thematic. Alignment has been integral to the game since its conception in 1e. Not liking something and removing it just because is a completely arbitrary action and unnecessary. Which is precisely what the new alignment system, unwanted and unwarranted. I don't know if I'd call the alignment system integral in some of the older D&D rules I have (it only has law & chaos). Also, you don't feel the alignment changes are warranted or wanted, but others do (to me it doesn't matter much at all). I'd hope the 4E design team paid attention to feedback from players when making that decision.
Taeldrin Laesrash 01-24-08, 12:44 AM	I don't know if I'd call the alignment system integral in some of the older D&D rules I have (it only has law & chaos). Also, you don't feel the alignment changes are warranted or wanted, but others do (to me it doesn't matter much at all). I'd hope the 4E design team paid attention to feedback from players when making that decision. Funny. First we had Law and Chaos, now we just have Good and Evil, and it's still the same alignment system.
Kain_Darkwind 01-24-08, 10:17 AM	I would argue that, aside from the fact that "Mezzodaemon" is one letter away from "Mezzodemon" originally, the idea of the "We'll betray ANYBODY" Yugoloths makes more sense over in the lawless Abyss than as part of Asmodeus' unified and blindly devoted army. Because devils are known NEVER to betray anyone. :rolleyes: Mindless violence is for demons. Cunning evil and temptation is for devils. You can't possibly reconcile the placement of yugoloths as demons with those two 4e conventions. And if you can, you can put the succubus back where she belongs. You have the right of it with the first portion of your statement. It is one letter away, and easier on the ears than mezzodevil. Which is of course, a stupid design philosophy. It makes sense for naming, not for creature placement.
Skeptical Clown 01-24-08, 10:25 AM	The best solution would have been to just leave Yugoloths out. Putting them in as demons doesn't do anything but tease the yugoloth fans by keeping them in somewhere, and they don't fit the new planar setup.
sciborg3 01-26-08, 01:50 AM	Or made them the potential creators of the seed of evil that corrupted Tharizdun. It would be a good fit for them even if they are lying through their teeth about such a thing, as no one would really know where they came from. edit: looks like shemmy beat me to it. shemmy, stop wasting time on the new cosmology and get back to writing your story hour!
Shemeska the Marauder 01-26-08, 01:59 AM	Or made them the potential creators of the seed of evil that corrupted Tharizdun. It would be a good fit for them even if they are lying through their teeth about such a thing, as no one would really know where they came from. That's my favored origin for them in 4e, though from what Wyatt wrote about them, it doesn't look like they're going in that direction in favor of just making them demons*. *And the justification offered for that doesn't hold water with me. They don't act like demons, they weren't pronounced mezzodemon etc at any point in the game (that's a mispronunciation of only official pronunciation), and most of their castes don't resemble the crazy-monster-etc look of 4e demons.
Shemeska the Marauder 01-26-08, 02:00 AM	edit: looks like shemmy beat me to it. shemmy, stop wasting time on the new cosmology and get back to writing your story hour! I just posted an update yesterday! Hmm. I wonder if folks missed it, because I didn't do a new post, I just edited the last one of mine where I'd promised an update and replaced that text with the actual story update.
sciborg3 01-26-08, 02:09 AM	Here's the ultimate proof of how the fiends of 4e make no sense with regard to "humanoid" vs. "monster": Take the picture of the pit fiend and go ask people who are into D&D but didn't read the article what it's a picture of. Bet you get Orcus 9 out of 10 times. off to read shemmy's update.
Eldritch_Lord 01-26-08, 09:56 AM	Here's the ultimate proof of how the fiends of 4e make no sense with regard to "humanoid" vs. "monster": Take the picture of the pit fiend and go ask people who are into D&D but didn't read the article what it's a picture of. Bet you get Orcus 9 out of 10 times. As a matter of fact, when I read this, I copied the picture, photoshopped out the "Illo #048 Pit Fiend" at the bottom, and emailed it to my regular group and 2 other friends for comments. Results? Orcus: 6 Any devil: 0 Way to go, sciborg.
ripvanwormer 01-26-08, 06:27 PM	My biggest problem is that James Wyatt misrepresented the game's history in a situation where "we did it this way because we felt like it" was the true and only honest answer. Vault of the Drow did not connect daemons any closer to demons than they did to devils, as Wyatt implied they did (it mentions that they are as likely to be found in the Hells as the Abyss, and specifically says they're natives of Tartarus, Hades, and Gehenna), and the fact that they can be found in the Vault of the Drow is a meaningless non sequitur. The official pronunciation of "daemon" was in fact "DAY-mun." See "Ay pronunseeAYshun gyd" in Dragon #93 (TSR, 1985). That bothers me. Wyatt should issue a correction and an apology.
Gray Richardson 01-26-08, 07:59 PM	I think you might be missing the gist of what Mr. Wyatt said. The problem presented was that there is no neutral evil plane in the new cosmology. So where to put the yugoloths? The designers decided to fold them into an existing fiend group. While I am sure there were a variety of other options, they had to pick one solution. After they decided to take that path, it only left the selection of which group to merge them into: demons or devils. The solution they chose was informed by the original lore, but not predicated on it. I don't think that Mr. Wyatt was saying he was "putting things back" to the way they originally were. Changing the names to mezzodemon and nycademon brought the names back to close to what they were in 1e. And the daemons did have close ties to the drow, as evinced by their first appearance in the Vault of the Drow module, which suggested a closer association to chaotic evil and to the Abyss rather than to the devils. These were only 2 examples of lore (among others which they may not have mentioned) that tipped their decision in favor of demons, over devils, with which to merge the 'loths. While I do agree with you in part, Rip, that they do seem to be changing a lot of things just because they want to change them, I do think they are making their best efforts to fashion a cosmology that will support better game play, fit with the mechanics of the game and provide interesting ecological niches for monsters. Many players feel that the old cosmology worked just fine and did not need an update. But the designers have expressed many valid concerns about the old cosmology and why it did not necessarily facilitate adventuring given the mechanics they are implementing in 4e. Concerns such as: the alignment system will work differently in 4e; they don't want to have unnecessary symmetry that requires reduplication of similar outsiders for every alignment; the planes need to work with the magic system they are creating; the hostile environments of the previous cosmology required expensive magic items or high level spells to even allow players to travel certain places. In the end, I think the new cosmology and mechanics might make planar adventuring more integral to the game, more fun for players and easier for DM's to facilitate at all levels of play. This in turn may cause more adventures and sourcebooks to be published supporting planar adventuring. If they pull it off, it could actually broaden the appeal of the planes to a greater number of players. Every player may someday aspire to become a planeswalker. And I think ultimately that will be good for us as fans and players all. :)
E'tii'stil Shadowsil 01-27-08, 01:20 AM	Yep, I know that was true before 3rd edition (I played the game back then too...). Being stuck with the Great Wheel seemed counterproductive and out of place in some settings though: Dark Sun modified the inner planes and was isolated from the Wheel, Dragonlance's deities were different-but-the-same as other settings (Tiamat/Takhisis and Bahamut/Paladine), Faerun had Weave-reliant magic but there isn't a Weave in the Great Wheel, etc... You misunderstand. The cosmology of Planescape is and continues to be the (backbone of the) cosmology of the Great Wheel; this remains true right up until this point. 4e seems to hold a grudge against this cosmology and is trying its hardest to establish a new cosmology and abolish established creatures just for the sake of it. I disagree that it is counterproductive or out of place for established settings to remain aligned or attached to the Great Wheel. What is counterproductive and unnecessarily arbitrary is a wholesale editing of established lore for no apparent reason other than "because I can". I'm not all that familiar with Dark Sun, but I know of some FR chars who made the move to Athas. We don't know for certain whether Takhisis and Paladine are in fact Tiamat and Bahamut respectively. It could be a red herring that so many coincidences exist. What this does touch on is that many refute established canon that Tiamat or Bahamut are lesser or intermediate deities, instead seeing them as greater deities or cosmic entities. Of course there wouldn't be Weave-reliant magic in the greater metasetting since it's a premise unique to Faerun, just as Ravenloft is a dark gothic setting and Dark Sun is apocalyptic. What we have seen and is recorded in print is individuals unique to their own homeworlds venturing out into the greater metasetting. We have Khelben the Elder who takes the place of Khelben the Younger who decides to trek the Planes and venture into Greyhawk. This becomes impossible under their new cosmology, since Faerun isn't connected to the Great Wheel anymore. The end result is a nonsensical mess. We have Loren Soth abducted by the mists and taken into Ravenloft, consequent events and then a subsequent return to Krynn. This becomes all but impossible if both are not connected to the Great Wheel. We have Vecna 'escaping' out of Greyhawk and into Sigil. Again, this is impossible unless Oerth was connected to the Great Wheel. Et al. That is a rationalization, but why should a DM making a new campaign have to significantly modify the cosmology's fluff in order to have their setting's gods not be minor compared to a set of established beings from Planescape? This isn't a rationalisation. This is entirely true. Consider logic, if deities did maintain a large portfolio base broad in scope then there wouldn't be various deities exemplifying that portfolio but a single deity for each. We wouldn't have a Bane or Takhisis or Hextor but a single deity of tyranny, yet we don't. Why is this so? What we do have is a single Asmodeus, a single Demogorgon, a single Anthraxus for all CSs. It wouldn't be a significant effort to modify or edit the fluff of the cosmology for deities to become 'greater' in comparison. In fact, BoVD, BoED, the FC I and II already did this. They made cosmic entities entirely too weak in comparison to analogous gods. Yet prior canon has cosmic entities on par with deities. I also suggest you peruse Planescape, since no where does it mention in any tome that deities are minor except for the minor deities. It's just that there's a lot more of them, since each is a niche not the greater holistic picture as is a cosmic entity. The question is why should a similar DM have to modify significant amounts of the new cosmology to bring back what shouldn't have been changed or modified in the first place? Especially when it is arbitrary and unnecessary. Anyways, let's look at a god like Corellon. He created elves which exist in almost every prime, but wait... he doesn't exist in every setting (ex: Dragonlance), who copied from who? Same with Moradin, Gruumsh, etc. Why should a setting with different gods be crammed into the Great Wheel by default. A more open cosmology focused on the setting's material world makes more sense. No one was copying from anyone else; we have the eldar and elves of Middle-earth, we have the scro, who copied from whom? It's because that Corellon and his elves are not represented in many primes is precisely the reason he is a deity instead of a cosmic entity. If he was a cosmic entity then the elves of Krynn would have been his creations also, but this is simply not true. We do see Demogorgon in Krynn, in FR, in Greyhawk. The same Demogorgon. It is not 'cramming,' especially since the Great Wheel is infinite. And it makes sense, as I put it earlier, for interconnectedness to be present. Otherwise all you have is nonsensicalness or a mish-mash. I see this a lot different than you do. I don't need a rationalization for multiple worlds, I only want the world I'm designing to matter for a campaign (in most settings I've designed, some deal with multiple primes interacting or prime-less cosmologies...). It also doesn't undermine established settings at all, when a campaign is using that setting, it is the most important. When a campaign isn't in that setting, it doesn't exist at all in-game. You misunderstand, that wasn't a rationalisation. It was, however, an explanation. I guess you don't want a cosmology that makes sense when considered from the perspective of a single prime and when taken in view within the greater metasetting then. Because it does sound like that. There is nothing stopping you from proclaiming that that world is the single most important prime, the citizens would even shout that out from the crenelations, what I feel is important is a cosmology that actually makes sense and one that doesn't feel like it was clobbered together from disparate parts. When you arbitrarily limit the number of prime worlds or arbitrarily get rid of interconnected cosmology, you also arbitrarily limit the number of adventures and you're in dire danger of abolishing the logic behind the cosmology. Take Khelben the Younger, it makes absolutely no sense for him to have travelled the planes or for any other planewalker from Faerun, since in the new cosmology this is impossible. By association it makes absolutely no sense fo KtY to have wanted to become a planewalker. By consequence, it makes absolutely no sense for KtE to take the place of KtY. As a result, we wouldn't have KtE as a Chosen of Mystra and Lord of Waterdeep. A whole network of related and interrelated canon and in-canon reasons comes crashing down because of that arbitrary change in cosmology. I don't know if I'd call the alignment system integral in some of the older D&D rules I have (it only has law & chaos). Also, you don't feel the alignment changes are warranted or wanted, but others do (to me it doesn't matter much at all). I'd hope the 4E design team paid attention to feedback from players when making that decision. Funny that we now only have good and evil. Alignment in all its forms is integral and important. And the changes to alignments were/was completely unnecessary. Both devils and demons are now evil. Devils were embodiments of tyranny and demons embodiments of unbridled destruction. None of this makes sense now. Is it too much to ask for a coherent cosmology?
E'tii'stil Shadowsil 01-27-08, 01:24 AM	The best solution would have been to just leave Yugoloths out. Putting them in as demons doesn't do anything but tease the yugoloth fans by keeping them in somewhere, and they don't fit the new planar setup. No. The best solution would be to present the yugoloths as another force to be reckoned with (with)in the Planes. As a 'race' of greater fiends, as the cousins of the other two alignment exemplars, and as an alignment exemplar by and in itself. Not as hacks and definitely none of this folded into demons business.
Eldritch_Lord 01-27-08, 05:25 PM	No. The best solution would be to present the yugoloths as another force to be reckoned with (with)in the Planes. As a 'race' of greater fiends, as the cousins of the other two alignment exemplars, and as an alignment exemplar by and in itself. Not as hacks and definitely none of this folded into demons business. Exactly. Is there so little room in this new cosmology that there can't be three races of fiends? It wouldn't be a significant effort to modify or edit the fluff of the cosmology for deities to become 'greater' in comparison. In fact, BoVD, BoED, the FC I and II already did this. They made cosmic entities entirely too weak in comparison to analogous gods. Yet prior canon has cosmic entities on par with deities. I also suggest you peruse Planescape, since no where does it mention in any tome that deities are minor except for the minor deities. It's just that there's a lot more of them, since each is a niche not the greater holistic picture as is a cosmic entity. Also, if it bothers you so much that cosmic entities >> deities, just instate some principle that makes deities much more powerful than normal in their "home cosmos" and the problem is solved. Each deity controls X in their home cosmos because they are more powerful (if only slightly) than the cosmic entity that has influence over X, but if you look at the aggregate total of all the cosmologies, the cosmic entities have a much wider and broader influence overall.
ripvanwormer 01-27-08, 07:09 PM	Changing the names to mezzodemon and nycademon brought the names back to close to what they were in 1e. And the daemons did have close ties to the drow, as evinced by their first appearance in the Vault of the Drow module, which suggested a closer association to chaotic evil and to the Abyss rather than to the devils. If you look at the original module, you'll see that Mr. Gygax was very careful not to suggest that daemons were more closely associated to the Abyss than they were to the Nine Hells. In the context of their monster descriptions, he mentions both poles of the Lower Planes equally. While daemons could be found in the Vault of the Drow, other non-chaotic races such as duergar and illithids were found there as well - surely no one's claiming that they were really secretly chaotic in their tendencies. The intent was simply that the Vault was a hive of many sorts of evil. While the drow worship chaotic evil Lolth, they also worship the neutral evil Elder Elemental God, and the conflict between the two forms the crux of the plot. Misrepresenting the contents of the original module and Gary Gygax's intent is... well, it's wrong. It's putting words in someone else's mouth that they did not intend to put there. It's like claiming that a writer is endorsing a political cause that they explicitly do not endorse - like claiming Nixon wanted Jimmy Carter to be President. It's unethical and, in this case, downright Orwellian. "We've always been at war with Eurasia." I don't want to vilify James Wyatt or defame his character. I'm just upset that he's implying something that's not true. It would have been easy enough for him to add the qualifier, "This wasn't in any way Gygax's intention..." but he didn't, and in this omission he was clearly trying to imply that it was. There were many possible ways to say, "Their names now sound kinda like their original names" without implying "they were always meant to be more demonic than diabolic," and Wyatt is a good enough writer that he could have written it that way if he had desired. He deliberately structured his essay in a way that implied something that wasn't found in the book he cited, knowing that most of his audience wouldn't have the context that you and I have. There's simply no reason to mention Vault of the Drow at all, except in the context of, "Gary Gygax, in Vault of the Drow, intended one thing but we're changing it." The sneering contempt the designers have been showing for the work of the fellow designers whose shoulders they stand on, the sophistry and outright distortions they're using to justify their personal preferences... these are not people you should be defending, Gray. I know it seems like the civil thing to do, but it's not the right thing to do. You're behaving lawfully, but you're not being good. As for them, I'm sure they have the best of intentions, but I think it's perfectly fair to protest against the unethical (and unnecessary!) means they're taking toward their preferred ends.
Skeptical Clown 01-27-08, 10:49 PM	No. The best solution would be to present the yugoloths as another force to be reckoned with (with)in the Planes. As a 'race' of greater fiends, as the cousins of the other two alignment exemplars, and as an alignment exemplar by and in itself. Not as hacks and definitely none of this folded into demons business. This is based on the idea that there ARE alignment exemplars however, which does not seem to be the case. You don't need D&D alignment to have Demons or Devils, both creatures that exist in concept outside the strict alignment system. However, the entire concept of the Yugoloths is tied to the alignment system of 3e, which appears to have been abandoned. Yugoloths have no real basis in historical lore outside the previously existing cosmology, so fitting them into a new cosmology means redefining what they are--starting over almost from scratch. If they were going to do that, they must have (and probably did) ask, "Is it worth doing this?" The only reason I can see to keep them is to try to please people who were invested in the old cosmology, and I don't think could have done that no matter what they had done, so why bother? I suppose to at least provide stats for the creatures for those who want to continue using them would be the only real reason. I think it's pretty silly to accuse the designers of bad faith, btw, and invoking Orwell is a bit beyond the pale. It's perfectly valid not to like the changes they've made, but they don't have to justify them to anyone--it's just a freaking game.
Shemeska the Marauder 01-27-08, 11:16 PM	Yugoloths have no real basis in historical lore outside the previously existing cosmology, And to be honest, the demons and devils of D&D have little to do with historical lore either, outside of having their names as groups of fiends in common with the most typically used names of fiends in real life mythologies. You won't find tanar'ri in real life mythology, nor baatezu, but when game design happenstance called them demons and devils, suddenly they have massive parallels with mythology? They cherrypicked names from a book of mythology or two, snagged an archetype from Christian influenced legends, and snagged some place names from Dante. But let's be honest, the application of demon and devil to them as groups is arbitrary. The 'loths could just as easily have been originally called devils, and then people would be defending them versus whatever other group had a name that wasn't based on some literary pickpocketing, more or less.
sciborg3 01-27-08, 11:18 PM	It's perfectly valid not to like the changes they've made, but they don't have to justify them to anyone--it's just a freaking game. Then why are you getting upset? Orwellian is the perfect adjective, since its exactly what Wyatt is doing.
ripvanwormer 01-27-08, 11:31 PM	It's perfectly valid not to like the changes they've made, but they don't have to justify them to anyone--it's just a freaking game. Well, exactly; that's my whole point. When "We did it this way because we preferred it" is the honest answer, why are they trying so hard to convince us they have more objective reasons, to the point where they felt the need to deploy such fatuous arguments to do so? They don't need to justify themselves, yet they're trying awfully hard, which suggests to me that they're uncomfortable with their decisions. The "it's just a freaking game" line, while true as far as it goes, is overused, annoying, intellectually vapid, and hypocritical. I'm well aware that it is a freaking game, and I'm also well aware that these are freaking game forums. If the conversation is so inconsequential (and it is), you have no reason to get annoyed by it, or indeed to poke your nose into it at all. If this isn't a conversation you're enjoying, you should feel free to stay out of it. I appreciate that you're very concerned that invoking Orwell was rather histrionic. Your concern is touching, really, and the forums are better for it, I'm sure. Not that I don't appreciate your wisdom and candor, but this did occur to me at the time. Orwell, however, furnished me with a metaphor that expresses my thoughts in a way that no one else can match. Wyatt was revising history. I'm sure that he is not a man of bad faith, however, and that he will issue a correction as soon as the error catches his notice.
Gray Richardson 01-28-08, 12:52 AM	If you look at the original module, you'll see that Mr. Gygax was very careful not to suggest that daemons were more closely associated to the Abyss than they were to the Nine Hells. In the context of their monster descriptions, he mentions both poles of the Lower Planes equally.No argument there. I 100% agree with that point.Misrepresenting the contents of the original modulehe doesn't mention the contents of the module, except in that he says "they had close ties to the drow from the first" and Gary Gygax's intentHe never mentions Gary Gygax nor anything about anyone's intent is... well, it's wrong. It's putting words in someone else's mouth that they did not intend to put there. It's like claiming that a writer is endorsing a political cause that they explicitly do not endorse - like claiming Nixon wanted Jimmy Carter to be President. It's unethical and, in this case, downright Orwellian. "We've always been at war with Eurasia."I agree with you that such a misrepresentation would be wrong, and I would join you in your condemnation if I thought it was what they were doing, but I don't see it. Mr. Wyatt has not made any misrepresentation as far as I can see. And I would caution that putting words in Mr. Wyatt's mouth might be equally as bad as someone attributing words to Mr. Gygax.I don't want to vilify James Wyatt or defame his character. I'm just upset that he's implying something that's not true. It would have been easy enough for him to add the qualifier, "This wasn't in any way Gygax's intention..." but he didn't, and in this omission he was clearly trying to imply that it was.I don't think an omission necessarily implies intent. I don't think he had any obligation to speculate as to what Mr. Gygax intended.There's simply no reason to mention Vault of the Drow at all, except in the context of, "Gary Gygax, in Vault of the Drow, intended one thing but we're changing it."I think there was a creditable reason to mention it, which was that going back to their introduction they had close ties to the drow. To say they had close ties to the drow is accurate. I don't think that implies that the daemons did not have close ties to other races or alignments, merely that the designers wish to preserve their ties to the drow in 4e, perhaps even emphasize those ties. Which is a rationale for aligning them with the chaos of the Abyss over the lawfulness of the devils. The way I see it, Mr. Wyatt was merely trying to explain a couple of the reasons that swayed them to put the 'loths in the Abyss vs. the Nine Hells. Their original "daemon" name and their original ties to the drow. What you see as disrespect, I see as an example of them honoring prior lore, looking back to it, to guide them in their decision making. Even if they are changing and deviating from established continuity, at least they are not doing it in a vacuum. At least they are demonstrating an awareness of prior lore and a willingness to reexamine that lore and give it due consideration, even though they may not be deferring to the decisions that prior designers have made.The sneering contempt the designers have been showing for the work of the fellow designers whose shoulders they stand on, the sophistry and outright distortions they're using to justify their personal preferences... these are not people you should be defending, Gray.If I thought they were sneering or comporting themselves so poorly as you suggest, I would not be defending them. I simply don't see how they are doing any of that. I do think they have good intentions. At worst, I think one could make a case that they are being a little cavalier about the breadth and scope of the changes they are making. Perhaps it is true that they are going beyond the changes that they need to make into the territory of things that they would like to change. And I can see how some might view it as disrespect to the designers that came before. Although I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they have a rational basis for the changes they are making. In Worlds & Monsters they have attempted to outline and explain their reasons for making those changes. They have tried to show that their decisions were not arbitrary. Whether they have been successful or not is something the fans will judge in time. I know it seems like the civil thing to do, but it's not the right thing to do. You're behaving lawfully, but you're not being good.I never claimed to be good! ;) I think it's perfectly fair to protest against the unethical (and unnecessary!) means they're taking toward their preferred ends.I agree with you that it is fair to protest. I think also it is fair to try and present an accurate account of what the designers have said so that we can discuss the merits of the changes and the designers' rationale for them based on the evidence, rather than what their detractors have imputed to them. A lot of people have jumped to some pretty harsh conclusions without considering all the facts.
Skeptical Clown 01-28-08, 12:53 AM	Then why are you getting upset? Orwellian is the perfect adjective, since its exactly what Wyatt is doing. Who said I'm upset? "Orwellian" has a pretty specific meaning; it's not synonymous with "dishonest," or even misrepresenting history. Using it in this context is tantamount to calling James Wyatt "Hitler." That was the hyperbole I responded to. If you're upset about the changes of course you've every right to be. Shemeska: The individual demons and devils in D&D have little to do with historical counterparts, but I don't think the designers are really wrong in how people assess the terms these days--demons are usually thought of as more generally destructive and malevolent, while the Devil is seen specifically as a tempter and/or punisher. The words themselves have connotations, whereas no one who hasn't played D&D would know what a Yugoloth or "daymon" was.
Kain_Darkwind 01-28-08, 01:20 AM	I'm sure that he is not a man of bad faith, however, and that he will issue a correction as soon as the error catches his notice. "For Brutus says he was ambitious, and Brutus is an honorable man." demons are usually thought of as more generally destructive and malevolent, while the Devil is seen specifically as a tempter and/or punisher. The words themselves have connotations, whereas no one who hasn't played D&D would know what a Yugoloth or "daymon" was. Only in Dungeons and Dragons. In most other forms where the terms are not entirely identical, devil refers to a specific unique being, whom demons serve. These tempter/destroyer connotations you speak of only exist in DnD, thus yugoloths are just as pertinent. Demons in RL myths that name them such are shadowy, sneaky and manipulative. Often considered fallen angels. And so on.
Flame_Drake 01-28-08, 01:22 AM	Shemeska: The individual demons and devils in D&D have little to do with historical counterparts, but I don't think the designers are really wrong in how people assess the terms these days--demons are usually thought of as more generally destructive and malevolent, while the Devil is seen specifically as a tempter and/or punisher. The words themselves have connotations... Based off of what besides your opinion? Not being personal, but is there anything that backs up this statement? Because most people I know respond to the word devil as The Devil and demon as his minions who tempt people. In the lack of any other evidence (that I've seen), one could make a strong argument that both of the connotations you just listed are specific to D&D. Edit: Partially ninjaed... Drake
E'tii'stil Shadowsil 01-28-08, 03:49 AM	This is based on the idea that there ARE alignment exemplars however, which does not seem to be the case. You don't need D&D alignment to have Demons or Devils, both creatures that exist in concept outside the strict alignment system. However, the entire concept of the Yugoloths is tied to the alignment system of 3e, which appears to have been abandoned. The point is they shouldn't have arbitrarily gotten rid of the alignment exemplars. Another connected point is that they should not have arbitrarily abolished alignments. Since they made off with law and chaos, nothing separates the pit fiend from regular monsters; there is no distinguishing feature, no special quality. The pit fiend has lost its uniqueness and has become just another regular monster. Demons and devils are iconic to D&D and were the iconic alignment exemplars. Their entire concept was tied to the alignment system of 3e. Now, there's nothing that is distinctive. Why didn't they get rid of demons and devils? It would have been easier. The yugoloths have that nice descriptor of being neutral evil and hence easier to manipulate into the new alignment system, while the demons and devils have that annoying law and chaos tag. Yugoloths have no real basis in historical lore outside the previously existing cosmology, so fitting them into a new cosmology means redefining what they are--starting over almost from scratch. If they were going to do that, they must have (and probably did) ask, "Is it worth doing this?" I don't see a point here. You said that D&D is just a freaking game. As a freaking game, it has no freaking obligation to adhere to (any) historical or occult lore or mythology. In fact, the yugoloths are easiest to fit into the new cosmology since not a lot is known about them and because they are pure evil already; easier to manipulate into the new alignment system, especially after the removal of both law and chaos. Devils and demons are harder to integrate as they represent, well, represented, two of the nine alignments. As for starting from scratch, before you claim that yugoloths have no real basis outside the previously established cosmology, you should take some time to research about demons and devils or the other 'iconic' D&D monsters. Mythology confuses demons and devils and conflates them. There is nothing dissimilar about devils and demons in real world mythology, in D&D there is a world of difference. They have no basis in historical or esoteric lore, except for their names; there certainly isn't anything like the pit fiend or hamatula in real world mythology. Graz'zt has no real world counterpart, yet in D&D he exists. What about tanar'ri or baatezu? How much is that based on historical lore? Pegasus, in real world myth, is the son of Poseidon and Medusa, yet this isn't true in D&D. Nor did the D&D pegasus spring from the neck of Medusa. There is no such thing as beholders in real world mythology, they have no basis in historical or occult lore. Yet they exist in D&D. Need I go on? The only reason I can see to keep them is to try to please people who were invested in the old cosmology, and I don't think could have done that no matter what they had done, so why bother? I suppose to at least provide stats for the creatures for those who want to continue using them would be the only real reason. They should at least give better reasons why they are getting rid of these iconic monsters wholesale, instead of just arbitrarily doing so. There is no reason for folding them into demons. There is no reason for abolishing law and chaos as alignments. There is no reason to arbitrarily remove things from here and items from there.
Skeptical Clown 01-28-08, 08:13 AM	Based off of what besides your opinion? Not being personal, but is there anything that backs up this statement? Because most people I know respond to the word devil as The Devil and demon as his minions who tempt people. In the lack of any other evidence (that I've seen), one could make a strong argument that both of the connotations you just listed are specific to D&D. Edit: Partially ninjaed... Drake Based on the and informed by the common definitions of terms like "diabolical" and "demonic." "Diabolical" has connotations of cunning evil that the term "demonic" does not. "Demonic" refers to possessing spirits that caused things like insanity and disease, in a way that they are not attributed specifically to the Devil. I'm aware that Devils and Demons in D&D do not closely match historical counterparts. All I'm saying is that the concept of Devils as corrupters and Demons as destroyers is not created from whole cloth; there's a resonance with how the terms are used in everyday speech, and there are aspects of it that were present in the existing demons and devils, even if it was not uniform before. Demons in previous editions WERE generally more destructive, and even those demons that were tempters, used temptation for more wantonly destructive purposes rather than for individual corruption, if I recall FC1 correctly. As for yugoloths, again, they are tied to the very specific setup of the Great Wheel, and their identities were crafted specifically to fit that cosmology. Without a blood war, their role has to be reinvented from scratch. So I think it's a valid question to ask if they should really be reinvented, or be left to what they were in previous editions and pass on them. And as far as choosing them over Devils and Demons is concerned, well, Devils and Demons have been "core" to the original Monster Manual for a long time. Players are a lot more familiar with them, and there is something to be said for that. I appreciate that people like the old cosmology, but I do see some pretty compelling reasons to abolish alignment. "Lawful" and "Chaotic" are confusing terms. I've heard people argue fairly convincingly that Batman (for example) is Lawful Good, Chaotic Good, or Lawful Evil; if the concept of alignment is that fluid, it doesn't seem very useful or intuitive.
sciborg3 01-28-08, 08:43 AM	In this I believe Skeptical is right. Demons are associated with Chaos - they are the creations who existed prior to Yaweh's creation or pre-man creations swept away into the darkness as undesirable. I've also believe I've heard the term refer to Lilith's monstrous brood. Devils are fallen angels, with their hierarchy and penchant for orderly rule largely based on Milton I suspect. Skeptical, I see what you're saying about the term Orwellian. I read it as (and I believe Rip intended it as) meaning an alteration of the past - willful or otherwise. I didn't think of the tyrannical, which I suppose is what the word is often used as adjective for. As for changing the cosmology, I don't mind trying something new. But new is not improved, nor necessarily worse. By trying to claim their fixing the cosmology (which largely reduces to opinion) they are automatically setting themselves up for comparison with the old and in terms of meta-setting they won't measure up. Especially not with an earth-elemental wearing a helmet. I mean damn Gina, they lost the right to complain about any prior edition with that one, not to mention with the return of cosmology classic in 5e (4.5e?) we'll be seeing that brought up...
E'tii'stil Shadowsil 01-28-08, 08:53 AM	Based on the and informed by the common definitions of terms like "diabolical" and "demonic." "Diabolical" has connotations of cunning evil that the term "demonic" does not. "Demonic" refers to possessing spirits that caused things like insanity and disease, in a way that they are not attributed specifically to the Devil. Pray tell where you are getting these misinformed definitions and ideas from? From thefreedictonary.com: Demonic. Extremely evil or cruel; expressive of cruelty or befitting hell 1. Befitting a demon; fiendish. 2. Motivated by a spiritual force or genius; inspired. The synonym of diabolical is...funnily enough, demonic. The two are interchangeable. There is no distinction between the two. Again, the only instance whereby demonic is inferred or referred to as brutal destructive evil is in D&D. Anywhere else you will get a different picture and definition(s). I'm aware that Devils and Demons in D&D do not closely match historical counterparts. All I'm saying is that the concept of Devils as corrupters and Demons as destroyers is not created from whole cloth; there's a resonance with how the terms are used in everyday speech, and there are aspects of it that were present in the existing demons and devils, even if it was not uniform before. Demons in previous editions WERE generally more destructive, and even those demons that were tempters, used temptation for more wantonly destructive purposes rather than for individual corruption, if I recall FC1 correctly. Yes, the two were created whole cloth. To claim that there is resonance with how the terms are used in everyday speech is false. As I demonstrated with the dictionary definitions above, demonic and diabolical and by association demon and devils is (mutually) interchangeable. Nothing separates them but how they are spelt. In D&D however, their distinctions come to the fore and they are vastly different beings. You seem to conflate and confuse the terms used in everyday speech with the niche appellation used in D&D games. The two are mutually exclusive. Hence you can't turn around and claim that since demons were generally more destructive in previous editions that the related term to describe such behaviour is/as demonic. Also, FC 1 is not a previous edition, Planescape is a previous edition. As for yugoloths, again, they are tied to the very specific setup of the Great Wheel, and their identities were crafted specifically to fit that cosmology. Without a blood war, their role has to be reinvented from scratch. So I think it's a valid question to ask if they should really be reinvented, or be left to what they were in previous editions and pass on them. And as far as choosing them over Devils and Demons is concerned, well, Devils and Demons have been "core" to the original Monster Manual for a long time. Players are a lot more familiar with them, and there is something to be said for that. You can argue the same for demons and devils. Demons and devils, being alignment exemplars, fit perfectly within the context of the Great Wheel cosmology. With the removal of law and chaos, they become another monster to be assaulted and robbed in pursuit of that (elusive) XP gain. Also, you seem to have forgotten that the Blood War is also integral (in a way) to demons and devils; it's how they define evil in the multiverse. By removing law and chaos and removing the Blood War, you are already essentially reinventing the monsters from scratch. I wouldn't call demons and devils more core (there was a big furore at their first inception and hence the subsequent change to tanar'ri and baatezu), but they are recognisable. I appreciate that people like the old cosmology, but I do see some pretty compelling reasons to abolish alignment. "Lawful" and "Chaotic" are confusing terms. I've heard people argue fairly convincingly that Batman (for example) is Lawful Good, Chaotic Good, or Lawful Evil; if the concept of alignment is that fluid, it doesn't seem very useful or intuitive. You can't be serious that lawful and chaotic are confusing terms. How much would somebody have bungled the definitions up to confuse or conflate the two? It just isn't possible. Why has there been no case made for Batman to be neutral good? Because it's the closest alignment. And Batman as lawful evil?...someone is failing their knowledge (batman) and knowledge (comics) check... Alignment is exactly objective in D&D for precisely the reasons that it is A) easier/easy to grasp, B) not prone to subjective analysis or dissection of minutiae.
E'tii'stil Shadowsil 01-28-08, 09:09 AM	Demons are associated with Chaos - they are the creations who existed prior to Yaweh's creation or pre-man creations swept away into the darkness as undesirable. I've also believe I've heard the term refer to Lilith's monstrous brood. Demons are devils and vice versa. The terminology is interchangeable. In contemporary Christianity, demons are generally considered to be angels who fell from grace by rebelling against God. Daemon, from whence demon originated, originally didn't even have evil connotations. In ancient Greek, daimon meant spirit or higher self. Demons described in the Tanarkh bear similarities and are analogous to the jinn. There was no alignment descriptor, which I feel is very much the influence of D&D. Devils are fallen angels, with their hierarchy and penchant for orderly rule largely based on Milton I suspect. This wasn't so much as based on real world mythology as moving away from it. Both Milton and Dante inserted their own views on how the Underworld would have looked like, what sins the layers personified and whom populated it. Devil in real world mythology is described as a demonic personification. Iblis bears the appellation of both demon and devil.
sciborg3 01-28-08, 09:17 AM	I agree the words are interchangable for the majority, but I'm saying that beyond D&D there is precedent for the demon/devil distinction.
Skeptical Clown 01-28-08, 09:54 AM	For the dictionary definitions, I have to disagree--I do not hear people use the terms "diabolical" and "demonic" interchangably. Just because a thesaurus lists them as synonymous does not mean that they have the same connotations--most synonymous words started out with distinct meanings. adjective 1. showing the cunning or ingenuity or wickedness typical of a devil; "devilish schemes"; "the cold calculation and diabolic art of some statesmen"; "the diabolical expression on his face"; "a mephistophelian glint in his eye" [syn: devilish] This is not a meaning that I have heard people use the term "demonic" for very frequently. A "diabolical plot" is a common figure of speech; a "demonic plot" is not. And if you think that "Lawful" and "Chaotic" are crystal clear, obvious divides, I guess you haven't noticed any of the debates over what "Lawful" and "Chaotic" mean, and what "Lawful" and "Chaotic" behavior is over the years, even on this message board.
Gray Richardson 01-28-08, 11:35 AM	I agree with Sciborg & Skeptical Clown, and so would most lexicographers: Demonic & Diabolic have different connotations and are not fungible. If you check WordNet, Diabolic has 2 senses, for which demonic is a synonym of only 1 of those senses: The adj diabolic has 2 senses (no senses from tagged texts) 1. <adj.all> devilish, diabolic2, diabolical2, mephistophelian, mephistophelean -- (showing the cunning or ingenuity or wickedness typical of a devil; "devilish schemes"; "the cold calculation and diabolic art of some statesmen"; "the diabolical expression on his face"; "a mephistophelian glint in his eye") 2. <adj.all> demonic, diabolic, diabolical, fiendish, hellish, infernal, satanic, unholy -- (extremely evil or cruel; expressive of cruelty or befitting hell; "something demonic in him--something that could be cruel"; "fires lit up a diabolic scene"; "diabolical sorcerers under the influence of devils"; "a fiendish despot"; "hellish torture"; "infernal instruments of war"; "satanic cruelty"; "unholy grimaces")
GlimmTheGnome 01-28-08, 11:48 AM	You misunderstand. The cosmology of Planescape is and continues to be the (backbone of the) cosmology of the Great Wheel; this remains true right up until this point. Nowhere did I say that Planescape wasn't the backbone of the Great Wheel. I said that all settings used the Great Wheel up until 3rd edition. Only Greyhawk, the default setting, uses the Great Wheel in 3e. Faerun uses its tree cosmology and Eberron uses its own cosmology. I disagree that it is counterproductive or out of place for established settings to remain aligned or attached to the Great Wheel. What is counterproductive and unnecessarily arbitrary is a wholesale editing of established lore for no apparent reason other than "because I can". This already changed in 3e with Faerun detaching from the Wheel. Also, I gave reasons why I think it's a good move, so there are reasons other than "because I can". You just happen to not like the change or the reasons. Of course there wouldn't be Weave-reliant magic in the greater metasetting since it's a premise unique to Faerun, just as Ravenloft is a dark gothic setting and Dark Sun is apocalyptic. My argument is that the coherent cross-setting cosmology that you enjoy can detract from the settings that are forced to use it. In order to be a good apocalyptic setting, Dark Sun had to be separated from the Great Wheel as much as possible given the mandate at the time that every setting use the same cosmology. Why not just encourage it to have its own cosmology that plays by the same rules as the setting? What we have seen and is recorded in print is individuals unique to their own homeworlds venturing out into the greater metasetting. We have Khelben the Elder who takes the place of Khelben the Younger who decides to trek the Planes and venture into Greyhawk. (snip, just more samples of cross-setting travelers) How much do these settings really suffer if instead of naming a particular world for the source or destination, they simply say 'another world'? I'd argue that it doesn't matter to Faerun that Khelben the Younger went to Greyhawk rather than any other prime. This isn't a rationalisation. This is entirely true. Consider logic, if deities did maintain a large portfolio base broad in scope then there wouldn't be various deities exemplifying that portfolio but a single deity for each. We wouldn't have a Bane or Takhisis or Hextor but a single deity of tyranny, yet we don't. Why is this so? What we do have is a single Asmodeus, a single Demogorgon, a single Anthraxus for all CSs. You're using fluff from the Great Wheel to prove that the Great Wheel is the only acceptable cosmology for the game... I guess you don't want a cosmology that makes sense when considered from the perspective of a single prime and when taken in view within the greater metasetting then. Because it does sound like that. Yes, that's true. I don't need or want a meta-setting that connects every setting. I'm happy with them each existing individually. (snip) I feel is important is a cosmology that actually makes sense and one that doesn't feel like it was clobbered together from disparate parts. I happen to think that a cosmology custom tailored for a setting makes more sense than each setting being forced into a single cosmology. Note that by 'forced' or 'crammed' I don't mean that there is an issue with physical space in the cosmos, but rather a limitation on the creative space for a setting's designer. When you arbitrarily limit the number of prime worlds or arbitrarily get rid of interconnected cosmology, you also arbitrarily limit the number of adventures and you're in dire danger of abolishing the logic behind the cosmology. I can see this. It does make it hard to have a cross-setting campaign if the cosmologies are different. Third edition used the Shadow Plane (per Manual of the Planes I think...) as a link between different primes and cosmologies, so the Great Wheel isn't the only way to do this. And the changes to alignments were/was completely unnecessary. Both devils and demons are now evil. Devils were embodiments of tyranny and demons embodiments of unbridled destruction. None of this makes sense now. Demons and devils have both been evil for some time. Devils have also been tyrannical and demons destructive. The only part that's gone is a Lawful subtype and the status of exemplars of their alignment.
Gray Richardson 01-28-08, 12:39 PM	I suggest you peruse the relevant books before you jump to uninformed conclusions.I would likewise suggest that everyone actually read Worlds & Monsters before jumping to conclusions about what the designers are doing. They have gone to great lengths to explain their reasoning behind the changes. You have every right to disagree with the changes they are making, but that doesn't make their choices bad or unwise. It merely means they are making different choices than you would have made. You keep using the word "arbitrary" to describe the changes that you dislike. I do not agree that the designers are making arbitrary changes in the sense of "capricious, random, or purposeless". Although, if you mean arbitrary in the sense of "applying rational discretion", or "exercising editorial authority", well, they are certainly making editorial choices, but isn't that what editors, authors and designers are supposed to do? When designing a new edition of a game, editorial choices have to be made. You need skilled, talented people with vision to do that. It would be impossible to run every decision past the fans using internet polls. Even if they did, I doubt that such a democratically edited game could rise above mediocrity. I frankly don't think that most of the fans on these boards have the skillset, the talent or the vision to be entrusted with designing 4e (with certain obvious exceptions like Rip VanWormer, the designers would do well to consider his wise counsel). While it is easy to play armchair quarterback and second-guess every choice the designers make, somebody has got to be in charge and make some decisions. I much prefer to have the professionals making those decisions. WotC has hired some extremely talented folks, with experience and proven track-records under their belts, to steward our game and sculpt the next iteration. I think WotC has picked an exceptionally worthy team. Only time will tell if they have done a good job.
Gray Richardson 01-28-08, 01:13 PM	When you arbitrarily limit the number of prime worlds or arbitrarily get rid of interconnected cosmology, you also arbitrarily limit the number of adventures and you're in dire danger of abolishing the logic behind the cosmology. Take Khelben the Younger, it makes absolutely no sense for him to have travelled the planes or for any other planewalker from Faerun, since in the new cosmology this is impossible.I think you are misinformed here. Worlds & Monsters p.80 indicates that there will be multiple worlds connected by the new cosmology. It mentions how the illithids "once held a substantial empire that reached even to other planes and distant places visible in the worlds only as twinkling stars." It goes on to say that "Entire humanoid populations were exterminated to feed illithid appetites, the energy of suns was rechanneled to fuel ambitions of interplanar conquest." While they don't detail any specifics of how worlds and campaign settings will be connected, I think it safe to say that the "world" the designers contemplate is not a single planet but a material plane that encompases multiple suns and planets, and which may be connected to other campaign settings that exist either on planets in the same material plane or in alternate material planes that are accessible somehow by as yet undisclosed methods. I can speculate that since they have confirmed in another thread on the boards that Sigil still exists, we can figure that Sigil will definitely be one link that can connect setting worlds. The Shadowfell may still connect alternate material planes as did the Shadow Plane in 3e. And it sounds like they are leaving the possibility of Spelljamming open as an option.
Kain_Darkwind 01-28-08, 02:28 PM	I would likewise suggest that everyone actually read Worlds & Monsters before jumping to conclusions about what the designers are doing. They have gone to great lengths to explain their reasoning behind the changes. I've read the book twice (at the store, I won't buy it...not enough meat for 20 bucks), so I haven't been jumping to any conclusions myself. It is not the changes themselves (with certain exceptions like succubus devils) as much as it is the explanations offered for them. I frankly don't think that most of the fans on these boards have the skillset, the talent or the vision to be entrusted with designing 4e (with certain obvious exceptions like Rip VanWormer, the designers would do well to consider his wise counsel). I completely agree on both points here. WotC has hired some extremely talented folks, with experience and proven track-records under their belts, to steward our game and sculpt the next iteration. I think WotC has picked an exceptionally worthy team. Only time will tell if they have done a good job. A good team does not ensure good decisions. To me, the irritation is now less the fact they are changing the cosmology drastically than the fact that they are attempting to justify it by derisively speaking of the old way things were done, or suggesting that this is how it was always intended to be.
Flame_Drake 01-28-08, 02:39 PM	A good team does not ensure good decisions. To me, the irritation is now less the fact they are changing the cosmology drastically than the fact that they are attempting to justify it by derisively speaking of the old way things were done, or suggesting that this is how it was always intended to be. Or how said changes are "better" or "make more sense" then the way things were done. I've never doubted James as a designer and this cosmology could be fine. That is if they stopped coming up with hamfisted justifications for it. Drake
Gray Richardson 01-28-08, 03:04 PM	A good team does not ensure good decisions. True, I agree with you on that. And I don't know for sure if they will be successful, but I am willing to withhold judgment until I see the completed product. And I am cautiously optimistic that they will create some wonderful stuff. :) To me, the irritation is now less the fact they are changing the cosmology drastically than the fact that they are attempting to justify it by derisively speaking of the old way things were done, or suggesting that this is how it was always intended to be.I am not aware of them being derisive. I have seen some people accuse them of being derisive, but I don't know of any instances where they have actually been derisive, or less than respectful. My impression is that the designers have strived hard to keep the fans informed of the changes, and explain what they were doing, and have been very polite to fans and former designers along the way, despite enduring some excoriating comments from the fans on the boards. The designers strike me as exhibiting a high degree of grace under fire. I have a lot of respect for how they have handled themselves. Nor do I know of any instances where the designers have suggested that things were always intended to be a certain way. If you can give any quotes I would be glad to discuss them, or even join you in chastising the designers, it's just that I really don't think they have said anything like that. :)
ripvanwormer 01-28-08, 03:42 PM	"He never mentions Gary Gygax nor anything about anyone's intent Gray, the lede he opened with was "The demons have welcomed their wayward cousins back into the fold" and he went on to claim "This is an intentional step backward to the origins of these creatures, first introduced back in 1978 in the Vault of the Drow adventure." The implication he artfully wove was that yugoloths were really always meant to be connected more closely to demons, but they became "wayward," temporarily becoming treated in a different way before the 4e designers brought them "back into the fold." That is a reference to Gary Gygax and his intentions, and the fact that he managed to do so without showing the courtesy and respect of mentioning the author if the book he cited does not change the dishonesty of the statement. I had to open up Vault of the Drow to make sure it really wasn't as open to interpretation as Wyatt was making it sound.
ripvanwormer 01-28-08, 03:49 PM	"Orwellian" has a pretty specific meaning; it's not synonymous with "dishonest," or even misrepresenting history. Using it in this context is tantamount to calling James Wyatt "Hitler." I noted the specific comparison I was making at the time. "We've always been at war with Oceania." I did mean, specifically, the "Yugoloths have always been more demonic than devilish" revision of history. This narrow comparison is not tantamount to calling anyone Hitler, and I'm appalled at the hyperbole and hypocrisy of your accusation. 1984 was much more a response to Stalin, for one thing, but its criticisms are universal and timeless, as valid when discussing a customer service representative as a political leader. Hurling around baseless accusations of Godwin's Law violations and condescendingly lecturing other posters on what is or isn't "silly" shows a perhaps unwarranted concern on your part, considering that this is only a freaking game. I'm not particularly upset at the changes so much as I'm upset that James Wyatt is using deceptive tactics in an attempt to rationalize the D&D team's subjective preferences. He owes us all an apology. You owe me one, too.
ArcTan 01-28-08, 05:49 PM	Alignment is exactly objective in D&D for precisely the reasons that it is A) easier/easy to grasp, B) not prone to subjective analysis or dissection of minutiae. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahaha... *pause for breath* HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Seriously, I can't think of any possible reply to this, other than to ask if you've ever once seen an "alignment thread" on the D&D forums.
Kain_Darkwind 01-28-08, 07:35 PM	If you can give any quotes I would be glad to discuss them, or even join you in chastising the designers, it's just that I really don't think they have said anything like that. :) Gray, I totally would go looking for these quotes, but it honestly isn't worth the time just to hammer home a point 100%. Truthfully, I look at 4e similar to you, reserving final judgment until we have a finished product in our hands. But I still stand with Rip in disagreeing with the doubletalk that seems to be creeping in to justify these drastic changes. However, if you'd like to perform your own investigation into the matters, I know of a few general topics that sparked my ire in the past on the subject. Elemental Plane of Vacuum sucks. "Who actually uses the plane of vacuum" or words to that effect. Demons and Devils (pre-4e) were not distinguishable, 4e (aka dumbing down) method makes them such. What use is a bear headed angel anyway? Old elementals were stupid, our archons are better.
Shemeska the Marauder 01-28-08, 08:26 PM	Gray, I totally would go looking for these quotes, but it honestly isn't worth the time just to hammer home a point 100%. Truthfully, I look at 4e similar to you, reserving final judgment until we have a finished product in our hands. But I still stand with Rip in disagreeing with the doubletalk that seems to be creeping in to justify these drastic changes. However, if you'd like to perform your own investigation into the matters, I know of a few general topics that sparked my ire in the past on the subject. Elemental Plane of Vacuum sucks. "Who actually uses the plane of vacuum" or words to that effect. Demons and Devils (pre-4e) were not distinguishable, 4e (aka dumbing down) method makes them such. What use is a bear headed angel anyway? Old elementals were stupid, our archons are better. Then there's that podcast where it was claimed that Bytopia was the primary plane of NG (the same podcast where they didn't know what guardinals really were, and where they "put a bullet in the head" of that race). Say you didn't like something, and say you're changing it because of that reason. But there's no reason to denigrate it and come off smarmy (or appear ignorant about the history of the game).
Gray Richardson 01-28-08, 09:02 PM	The implication he artfully wove was that yugoloths were really always meant to be connected more closely to demons, but they became "wayward," temporarily becoming treated in a different way before the 4e designers brought them "back into the fold." That is a reference to Gary Gygax and his intentions, and the fact that he managed to do so without showing the courtesy and respect of mentioning the author if the book he cited does not change the dishonesty of the statement.Rip, respectfully, I think that is more your inference than Mr. Wyatt's implication. I think you are reading more into his words than was meant or conceived of by the author of those remarks. It takes a pretty big leap of logic to draw the conclusion that he was slighting Mr. Gygax. And I think you are being a little hypersensitive, taking offense where none was offered. I think it more probable that Mr. Wyatt unartfully wove a sentence that did not adequately convey the thought he was trying to express. He probably could have worded it better, but then, I don't think he expected the Spanish Inquisition. But then again... Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition (amongst whose chief weaponry includes such diverse elements as: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, and a fanatical devotion to the Pope...) Seriously, if we subject every word the designers print to a semiotic deep reading worthy of a Jacques Derrida scholar, there is no limit to the amount of offense we can infer. But I am not sure that is productive or the best approach for us as fans. I think we can have a tremendously greater effect if we remain in dialog with the designers. For example, recently GreenKnight made a heartfelt and well reasoned post suggesting that Torm should be elevated to replace Tyr (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14458644&postcount=1246). Rich Baker read his post and pitched the idea to the design team and the idea will be incorporated into the new FR campaign guide. That's the kind of of dialog I think that is most beneficial to the community. When we fans use the boards as a medium for enlightened conversation with the designers, then we are much more likely to be treated as participants in the creative process and have our suggestions given the due consideration they merit.
Skeptical Clown 01-29-08, 12:37 AM	This narrow comparison is not tantamount to calling anyone Hitler, and I'm appalled at the hyperbole and hypocrisy of your accusation. 1984 was much more a response to Stalin, for one thing, but its criticisms are universal and timeless, as valid when discussing a customer service representative as a political leader. Orwell detested the corruption of specifically political language for use in common everyday purposes--the meaning of the word "fascist" for example loses its potency when used to describe a hall monitor. I think he'd object to using his political arguments in reference to a game. I also don't think it's fair to assume that the game designers are lying; I prefer to assume that people are mistaken rather than dishonest. He owes us all an apology. You owe me one, too. Respectfully, I wouldn't hold my breath for either if I were you.
ripvanwormer 01-29-08, 01:54 AM	Rip, respectfully, I think that is more your inference than Mr. Wyatt's implication. There are two possible interpretations of his statement that yugoloths were "returning to the fold." First, this might be a reference to some in-game event. However, such an event is never mentioned. Second, he might have meant that they were once considered to be linked more closely to the demons than devils. Since that is the thesis that Wyatt argues in the article, I think this is the correct one. This was, however, clearly not Gygax's intent when he wrote Vault of the Drow, as Wyatt implies it is. Gray, you're a very good human being who sees the best in everyone. I'm not pretending to know James Wyatt's motivations or inner thoughts. All I can do is point out that Wyatt's thesis is incorrect and that he phrased his article in such a way to imply something that wasn't true. As I said, I'm sure that when this comes to his attention he'll try to make amends. I'm not saying he was deliberately slighting Gary Gygax, only that he was slighting Gygax, who is past caring about the ways people revise his work but who still deserves not to have his intentions misstated. I think it more probable that Mr. Wyatt unartfully wove a sentence that did not adequately convey the thought he was trying to express. With respect, this is not a possibility. Wyatt is clearly a fine writer throughout his piece (a lot better than Christopher Perkins, whose words on the subject of 4e's changes consistently drip with a sense of preemptive disdain that he probably doesn't intend to let seep through). Wyatt knows exactly what he's doing. I know an unartful writer when I read one, and James Wyatt is perfectly capable of expressing his thoughts. He wrote the lede he did in order to guide the reader toward the conclusion he desired, and he was capable enough that even I did a double take and looked through the module to make sure he wasn't completely right. You're absolutely right that if I came across as less hostile I might stand a better chance of being listened to, but I have no desire to convince the WotC design team of anything or to water down my words. I ask only one thing, and that's a modicum of honesty.
ripvanwormer 01-29-08, 02:10 AM	Orwell detested the corruption of specifically political language for use in common everyday purposes--the meaning of the word "fascist" for example Skeptical, accusing me of calling someone who doesn't merit it a Nazi is every bit as offensive as calling someone a Nazi yourself would be. I do not and will not use either "Nazi" or "Fascist" lightly. Using the phrase "Orwellian" is not the same thing, regardless of whether or not Orwell would have liked it. It is, like it or not, a common part of speech, and it means exactly what I intended it to mean, in the narrow sense in which I qualified it. "Orwellian" is the only word that means exactly what I wanted to say, and I approached it with reluctance. And I'm not talking about the game. I'm long past caring about their freaking design choices, or I would have spent time in this thread debating them. As you may have noticed, I have not. In fact, I've been defending them in the "Ancient Brethren" thread. James Wyatt is a fellow human being, not a fictional character, who is behaving badly. He ought to make amends. As should you.
Skeptical Clown 01-29-08, 08:14 AM	I do not think that word means what you think it means.
sciborg3 01-29-08, 10:49 AM	One of the main definitions of "Orwellian" is the revision of the past. While I don't think anyone is upset about these changes to the point of comparing them to RL crimes against humanity, one meaning of the adjective does agree with Rip's usage. Wyatt is being Orwellian is almost a compliment, since many of the 4e designers are just being ignorant and obnoxious. It implies he knows what he's doing. ;)
Skeptical Clown 01-29-08, 01:38 PM	The implications of the dishonesty in the term "Orwellian" specifically apply to the manipulation of people by government. So it's either a massive slur to Mr. Wyatt, or a debasement of a meaningful term. I suppose if you think that being a fool is worse than being a knave, then he's coming off better for the comparison. I don't think we have to interpret James Wyatt as either though. What he means seems clear to me: Yugoloths were once called Daemons. D&D lore may distinguish between the two, but "Daemon" is the same word as "Demon"--not synonymous, but the same. Saying that they have "returned to the fold" doesn't look to me like anything but poetic license. The reasoning behind making Yugoloths really has two provided reasons then: because their old titles used to be a modified version of the same word used for Demons, and that they had ties to the drow who are traditionally linked to Demons rather than Devils. It's perfectly fair to disagree with this decision (it's far from the most compelling explanation I've ever heard), but there is no need to assume mendacity here.
sciborg3 01-29-08, 05:47 PM	I think there is some mendacity going on. Or maybe it's just raw ignorance as to the source material. I wonder if the "unnamed demon lord" will end up being Grazz't?
ripvanwormer 01-29-08, 07:04 PM	So it's either a massive slur to Mr. Wyatt, or a debasement of a meaningful term. It's a literary allusion, and a very precise and germane one. Wyatt is abusing his position of authority (and his microphone) to revise history in a manner that parallels that of the Airstrip One government in the novel. Because the analogy is so close, the word "Orwellian" is not only appropriate, but essential. There is no other word that accurately conveys my thoughts. Because the word describes exactly what I meant, there is no debasement in my using it in this manner. Your habit of throwing around words like "Nazi," in contrast, shows great sloppiness in your habits of writing. It is, in fact, a debasement of a word with a very specific meaning. The word Nazi (and Fascist) has all sorts of connotations that have nothing to do with what I said. What he means seems clear to me The argument that you made is not the argument that he made. James Wyatt explained exactly what he meant - that the 4e team was returning the "yugoloths" closer to their origin within the game. Your argument, that he meant they were returning the "daemons" to their linguistic origin in real life, is not supported by the text. I make a habit of dismissing arguments that contradict the actual evidence.
ArcTan 01-29-08, 07:13 PM	It's a literary allusion, and a very precise and germane one. Wyatt is abusing his position of authority (and his microphone) to revise history in a manner that parallels that of the Airstrip One government in the novel. Because the analogy is so close, the word "Orwellian" is not only appropriate, but essential. There is no other word that accurately conveys my thoughts. Because the word describes exactly what I meant, there is no debasement in my using it in this manner. Yes, there is. For the same reason that Godwin's Law exists: Even if the comparison of someone to a Nazi is perfectly appropriate qualitatively (if the person is, in fact, a very very very bad person) it is still REALLY FREAKING WRONG to invoke the Nazis if the *scale* of the problem is something less than systematic genocide. Similarly, it is completely inappropriate to refer to advertising for a *gaming product*, however deceptive it may be, in terms that compare the person writing it to a functionary of a totalitarian police state that exists to enforce a state of endless suffering on its people. If you want people to respect your position and not write you off, don't go around invoking apocalyptic language over minor things. It makes you sound like the Unabomber.
ArcTan 01-29-08, 07:16 PM	I'm not pretending to know James Wyatt's motivations or inner thoughts. All I can do is point out that Wyatt's thesis is incorrect and that he phrased his article in such a way to imply something that wasn't true. As I said, I'm sure that when this comes to his attention he'll try to make amends. Yes. Revising *gasp* GAMING HISTORY is a crime, a slur against the truth, against the many noble battles fought by our GAMING FOREFATHERS. How can our society of gamers survive if we abandon our principles as gamers? IT'S. A. DAMN. GAME. It was a throwaway sentence in a piece of marketing about a DAMN GAME. Calling for an "apology" over this, as though he said a racial slur or committed plagiarism or something, is one of the most out-of-place things I've ever heard.
ripvanwormer 01-29-08, 07:17 PM	Yes, there is. For the same reason that Godwin's Law exists: Even if the comparison of someone to a Nazi is perfectly appropriate qualitatively (if the person is, in fact, a very very very bad person) it is still REALLY FREAKING WRONG to invoke the Nazis if the *scale* of the problem is something less than systematic genocide. Exactly. Which is why Skeptical owes me an apology. As do you. Accusing me of breaking Godwin's Law is really nasty and uncalled for. Your argument does not extend to the word "Orwellian," however, which refers to a work of literature, not an actual totalitarian government. Get a grip, it's just a book.
ArcTan 01-29-08, 07:20 PM	Comparing someone to the government of 1984 is less of a big deal than comparing them to a real-life totalitarian government. It's somewhat more of a big deal than comparing them to, I dunno, the Empire in Star Wars, because 1984 is a more serious work than Star Wars. It's still wrong, though. If you'd said "This is a form of manipulation not unlike that exhibited by Chancellor Palpatine in the Star Wars prequels", I'd still be calling you an ass. Even thinking of "revising gaming history" and revising *actual* history as being on the same level or worthy of comparison is something that really ticks me off. (OMG! OMG! They're lying about the content of an old AD&D module! History has been rewritten! The voices of the dead have been silenced!)
ripvanwormer 01-29-08, 07:24 PM	It's still wrong, though. It's not wrong to identify a liar for what he is. If accusing someone of lying about a game is uncalled for, how much more ridiculous is it for you to be shouting and getting all excited over something said about something said about a game? We're several generations removed from "seriousness" at this point. It is wrong to accuse me of calling effectively someone a Nazi, now, which both you and Skeptical have now done. Your talent for hypocrisy, if nothing else about you, is impressive.
ArcTan 01-29-08, 07:28 PM	You called him "Orwellian". Whether you like it or not, that means you compared him with someone acting in a totalitarian government. No, "Orwellian" does *not* simply connote "lying about the past". If I say to my girlfriend "No, it's your turn to do the dishes, I did them last week" and I'm lying, that's not "Orwellian". It's only "Orwellian" if I'm a powerful totalitarian government that controls the media. You damn well know that's what that means, and your ridiculous inflated sense of importance over this issue is why you thought it was ever an appropriate choice of language. (And it's not even *lying*! Whether making the Mezzoloth into a Mezzodemon is the demons "welcoming them back into the fold" is PURELY A MATTER OF SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION, and claiming that people whose -- sure, poorly remembered -- recollection of an old AD&D module differs from yours are horrible liars who adhere to the Orwellian principle of making the Party's reality the only reality for the sake of grinding the boot into people's face... I really have no words.)
ripvanwormer 01-29-08, 07:34 PM	the Orwellian principle of making the Party's reality the only reality for the sake of grinding the boot into people's face Yes. That is exactly the analogy I was making. I'm glad we're finally on the same page. What's with all the capital letters, by the way? You are far, far too concerned with things people type on message boards on the internet about things people say about games. You're boxing at the shadows of shadows. The question of whether or not daemons were once a branch of demonkind, or even closer to them than the devils, is not subjective. It's a matter of fact, which can be lied about.
GlimmTheGnome 01-29-08, 08:13 PM	I wonder if the "unnamed demon lord" will end up being Grazz't? That's what I've been wondering too. With demons becoming more bestial and losing the succubus/incubus, he'll need some reworking. Giving him the more civilized former-loth demons would help with that.
Taeldrin Laesrash 01-29-08, 09:01 PM	That's what I've been wondering too. With demons becoming more bestial and losing the succubus/incubus, he'll need some reworking. Giving him the more civilized former-loth demons would help with that. That could work. It could be a stretch, but maybe Malcanthet will have some connection to Grazz't or the loths.
Kain_Darkwind 01-29-08, 09:06 PM	That could work. It could be a stretch, but maybe Malcanthet will have some connection to Grazz't or the loths. From her palace in Hell?
GlimmTheGnome 01-29-08, 10:37 PM	From her palace in Hell? Why not? If the Blood War is gone and the devils are imprisoned in hell, couldn't she use an ally like Graz'zt and the former 'loths? Given the degree that the cosmology is changing, that wouldn't be too much of a stretch. My guess is that Glasya will be given Malcanthet's place as the queen of the succubi.
ArcTan 01-29-08, 11:35 PM	I've always favored the idea of Graz'zt as a Devil who changed sides.
Taeldrin Laesrash 01-30-08, 12:14 AM	From her palace in Hell? Actually, I was trying to say that instead of turning to the side of devils with the succubi, she'd be a 'loth of sorts and rule with Grazz't. Again, unlikely, but you never know...
Gray Richardson 01-30-08, 03:58 AM	You called him "Orwellian". Whether you like it or not, that means you compared him with someone acting in a totalitarian government. No, "Orwellian" does *not* simply connote "lying about the past". If I say to my girlfriend "No, it's your turn to do the dishes, I did them last week" and I'm lying, that's not "Orwellian". It's only "Orwellian" if I'm a powerful totalitarian government that controls the media.Nah, Rip is right on this one. He used the word "Orwellian" very aptly to make his point. "Orwellian", in the sense that he used it, connotes a specific kind of propaganda that portrays history inaccurately in order to sway opinion with sinister purpose. Especially given the context he gave for his use of the word. I believe that most people who are familiar with Orwell would find Rip's usage appropriate. While I strongly disagree with the point Rip was making--I don't think Mr. Wyatt's statements were Orwellian at all--in my mind there is no question that Rip's use of the word "Orwellian" was correct and encapsulated exactly the meaning that he was trying to get across. What I think is ironic is that all theses numerous posts concerning a single word used by Rip goes to show that words that have plain meanings or specific connotations to some people may have slightly different meanings or connotations to others. And that a sentence, no matter how plainly worded or eloquently crafted, can sometimes allow for a reader to infer a very different meaning than what was intended by the author. :detect:
Skeptical Clown 01-30-08, 09:27 AM	If all that had been said was "We have always been at war with Oceania" I would have had little to remark on; that IS an allusion, although not an apt one. "Orwellian" is a word that has moved beyond reference to any single work. It basically means "Evocative of totalitarianism." Rip is not ignorant of this fact, because that was expressly his point--he was invoking totalitarian-style propaganda to compare what he perceives as James Wyatt lying about a relatively obscure bit of game lore. There was no reason to make that particular comparison otherwise, and he has not disagreed that that was his intent. Even if we assume James Wyatt was lying (which has no basis that I can see, and is unfair on its own merits), it would still be off-target by a long shot. So he might as well wish for a pony while he's wishing for an apology. I haven't accused him of anything unfairly.
sciborg3 01-30-08, 09:44 AM	It's still wrong, though. If you'd said "This is a form of manipulation not unlike that exhibited by Chancellor Palpatine in the Star Wars prequels", I'd still be calling you an ass. Name calling isn't exactly the high point of argument - especially when its too belabor a false point. Rip might be wrong in his intention of the word, but I'm not going to believe for one second that he is being an ass at all. He hasn't called you or anyone else an ass, for example. I think its ridiculous that people will nitpick on semantics in a desperate attempt to defend the designers. No one can disprove, on the other hand, that Wyatt is dead wrong in his reference to the yugoloths first appearance. Assuming Wyatt has read the module he's referencing, then yes it must be pretty clear from the text that he's lying about what he read. The excuse that the module is obscure becomes irrelevant if he actually read it. To say he read it a long time ago or misread it then implies some error on his part, not on Rip's. One can only assume he had accurate knowledge since it's HIS JOB. (see I can find the caps lock on my keyboard too. Does this qualify me for the ArcTan school of debate prestige class?) If we can't prove Wyatt is intentionally lying, we sure as Hell (now with succubi!) can't say that Rip meant to imply Wyatt is a Nazi. This is why you owe him an apology Skeptical - that's far different than a term coming from a work of fiction, it's a historical reference to one of greatest crimes against humanity. You can accuse him of misusing the word Orwellian, but that's a different accusation.
Skeptical Clown 01-30-08, 10:28 AM	Nope, don't buy it. The intent of Rip's words is on his head, not mine--if he didn't intend to compare the designers to totalitarian dictators, all he had to do was say so. Instead he heaped scorn on me. All I did was point out what he said. The only thing that I can see that Wyatt may have been explicitly wrong about was the pronunciation of "Daemon"--which I think is excusable, because the mispronunciation was on the part of the original game designers, not him. For the record, I agree that folding Yugoloths in with demons is not a particularly good move.
sciborg3 01-30-08, 11:31 AM	Okay. I disagree but I don't think it does any good for me to get into a fight between two people I respect. I am really curious as to who this demon lord is - for some reason I think its Baphomet. I dislike the folding in of varied factions into duality, but I do hope there is some mystery left in the cosmology. Everything just feels cut and dry at the moment. I actually find this more constraining than the Great Wheel, though the Astral Sea and how it gets presented when 4e comes out will determine that.
Skeptical Clown 01-30-08, 12:34 PM	Baphomet, really? I'd assumed that it would either some existing known yugoloth, or a completely new figure. I'm interested in hearing why you think that it's Baphomet.
sciborg3 01-30-08, 12:52 PM	I suppose it could be the general of Gehenna, but Baphomet bridges the gap between the bestial and the cunning. He was possibly just an animal soul before coming to the Abyss, yet he also has designed new demons in his Tower of Science. I know I'm over thinking it, but he would be a good fit for mercenaries as well given his warlike nature. I suppose I just figure it would be good, but without really expecting it to be him.
Kain_Darkwind 01-30-08, 12:53 PM	My bet is on the Oinoloth or General myself. Perhaps Anthraxus returns to glory?
Shemeska the Marauder 01-30-08, 01:53 PM	My bet is on the Oinoloth or General myself. Perhaps Anthraxus returns to glory? "Obviously it should be me. Obviously." *preen* "But I suppose that Anthraxus would fit as well."
Kain_Darkwind 01-30-08, 02:05 PM	"Obviously it should be me. Obviously." *preen* No, you are just another demon lurking around Sigil these days. Heck, I bet you get confused with Tanar'ri on a daily basis. Cause I mean, what's the difference anymore? :devil:
Flame_Drake 01-30-08, 07:41 PM	No, you are just another demon lurking around Sigil these days. Heck, I bet you get confused with Tanar'ri on a daily basis. Cause I mean, what's the difference anymore? :devil: I see that Shemmy's legendary temper tantrums corrections of misconceptions are going to become even more dramatic. Drake
ripvanwormer 01-31-08, 12:43 PM	If all that had been said was "We have always been at war with Oceania" I would have had little to remark on; that IS an allusion, although not an apt one. "Orwellian" is a word that has moved beyond reference to any single work. It basically means "Evocative of totalitarianism." The word is more nuanced than that. It is not the blunt instrument that you take it for. Using it to mean merely "evocative of totalitarianism" is clumsy and redundant. Used in all its richness, the word can evoke a surveillance state, a torture regime, or a situation where truth and lies become liquid things subject to the whims of power as part of the instruments of control. It need not mean all of these things at once; a writer can specify, as I did, exactly which sense they mean. I meant the last sense, the liquidity of truth. I was careful to make sure you knew what sense I meant it in. Your objection is not that I was unclear, but that you have an absolutist position that the word is never to be used in any but the most fully literal of circumstances. Because the sense in which I used the word was not ambiguous, your position is not based on pragmatic grounds, but on a dubious system of ethics that I do not share. That is to say, your grounds for objection are emotional rather than rational, and based on a misunderstanding of the nuances of the word, its place in the public discourse, and the work on which it is based. The word "Orwellian" is not as harsh or uncivil as the words you used, which refer to real atrocities and real suffering as opposed to a metaphorical work. The taboos surrounding them have a far more rational basis. I don't expect an apology from you or ArcTan, unfortunately, though I would like to think you had enough self-awareness to see when you are guilty of using fuzzy and grossly inappropriate language of the sort you were accusing me of. Your choice of words was not just unfair; it trivialized actual war crimes by conflating them with literary ones.
ripvanwormer 01-31-08, 01:07 PM	I've always favored the idea of Graz'zt as a Devil who changed sides. That seems to be based on the premise that chaos isn't capable of producing beings of intelligence, subtlety, or the desire to be at the "top of the heap." I don't think that premise is valid. The Abyss is far more interesting if its chaos can produce Graz'zts as well as Demogorgons and Kostchtchies. I vehemently disagree with the idea that demons and devils have to be completely different in tactics and goals for them both to be worthwhile inclusions in the game. I think 30+ years of D&D history backs me up on this; they've been used effectively many times before, and in 10+ years of internet messageboarding I've never heard anyone complain that they'd rather see just one or the other. It's an invented "problem" with no real basis, another of the design team's hallucinations.
Skeptical Clown 01-31-08, 01:36 PM	See, here I just thought Rip was guilty of a bit of hyperbole, but now I realize that I am a trivializer of war crimes. What an incorrigible rascal I am.
Joni-san 01-31-08, 01:46 PM	The Great Wheel Is Dead! Long Live The Great Wheel! IMO, I've felt that a few D&D settings have been constrained by the Great Wheel. Some just didn't fit in IMO, especially Dark Sun and Dragonlance.
GlimmTheGnome 01-31-08, 01:54 PM	That seems to be based on the premise that chaos isn't capable of producing beings of intelligence, subtlety, or the desire to be at the "top of the heap." I don't think that premise is valid. The Abyss is far more interesting if its chaos can produce Graz'zts as well as Demogorgons and Kostchtchies. I totally agree with you here. I hope Graz'zt is a true demon rather than a former devil. I do think the new cosmology provides him an interesting niche of sometimes working with the devils. The devils are imprisoned within the Nine Hells, so when someone crosses them, they are stuck relying on help to get revenge. Graz'zt and the former loths could be willing to be that help... for a price.
ripvanwormer 01-31-08, 03:26 PM	See, here I just thought Rip was guilty of a bit of hyperbole, but now I realize that I am a trivializer of war crimes. Sarcasm noted, but yes. You are. Whereas I'm guilty, at most, of trivializing a novel. I take words like "Nazi" and "Fascist" very seriously. To me, if you say I'm effectively calling someone a Nazi who is not one, you're saying I'm trivializing war crimes. It's not just "a bit of hyperbole," but a very serious charge. If you don't actually think I'm guilty of this charge, it means you're the one throwing around those words in trivial ways. If you don't see anything wrong with that, you shouldn't see anything wrong with my literary allusions either. For what it's worth, I don't necessarily think making "yugoloths" into a demon subrace was necessarily the wrong call, given the assumptions the 4e design team insisted on making. There are many other things they could have done, of course. They could have put the 'loths in the Shadowfell, in the Astral Dominions, or invented a new plane similar to the Blood Rift in the FR cosmology connecting the Abyss to the Astral Sea. That they don't seem to have considered making them natives of the Astral Dominions suggests that they don't believe that part of the multiverse has any natives other than gods, angels, and creatures descended from angels, which is quite a radical departure from previous editions. I do agree that the names "daemon" and "demon" were always far too similar, which is why I've always supported the 2e (1991+) name "yugoloth" instead. They haven't shied from using other made-up nonsense words like "eladrin" or "shadar-kai," after all (I would have prefered "sidhe" and "shade" in those two instances). Changing the mezzodaemons to mezzodemons is another valid solution to this age-old problem, not one I would have used, but I can't criticize it on its merits. I only object to James Wyatt referring to Vault of the Drow to support the decision, when the author of that book's own feelings on the matter couldn't be more clear. Gary Gygax created an actual graph, after all, to measure the idealogical proximity of the various planar races. It doesn't leave room for much ambiguity.
sciborg3 01-31-08, 07:34 PM	IMO, I've felt that a few D&D settings have been constrained by the Great Wheel. Some just didn't fit in IMO, especially Dark Sun and Dragonlance. True, but that doesn't make the new cosmology any better for FR or for (hopefully not!) Eberron. In fact, I'd argue that only Dragonlance really suffered from Great Wheel association, since the ability of anyone to leave Athas was incredibly small unless you were an undead sorcerer king. And only then in Astral form. I really don't believe the changes have made a more intriguing cosmology, but I also don't think it will affect sales in any significant way for core D&D. FR on the other hand is cause for concern imo because if FR is now so like the core then why bother buying any FR products?
Alpha_Moose 01-31-08, 08:53 PM	Gary Gygax created an actual graph, after all, to measure the idealogical proximity of the various planar races. It doesn't leave room for much ambiguity. You've peaked my curiosity. I need to see this graph. Also I'm really curious about what any changes will do to Eberron. Possibly nothing, but if worst comes to worst and they change it into The Matrix or something I can just end up using 3e Eberron fluff.
E'tii'stil Shadowsil 02-01-08, 08:13 PM	I agree the words are interchangable for the majority, but I'm saying that beyond D&D there is precedent for the demon/devil distinction. I showed that there is no distinction between demons and devils in real world mythology. I disagree that literary texts utilising different schematics and thematics to portray an underworld and its inhabitants is enough to define precedence. For the dictionary definitions, I have to disagree--I do not hear people use the terms "diabolical" and "demonic" interchangably. Just because a thesaurus lists them as synonymous does not mean that they have the same connotations--most synonymous words started out with distinct meanings. There is a difference between understanding and comprehension, it may be subtle but it's there. This filters into everyday speech and associated connotations. Just as maths is usually perfect, so too are dictionary or thesaurus definitions. Imperfection is only a result of our own limited understanding or comprehension. You can't say that since people can't tell the difference or use them wrongly in speech that there automatically is no connection between the two or that the definitions are false. Are you comprehensively positive that your (small) sample size is enough to constitute that the terms are indeed not interchangeable? I beg to differ, I have heard people over here use the definitions interchangeably, I have read forum posts that use demon in one sentence while switching to devil in another. This is not a meaning that I have heard people use the term "demonic" for very frequently. A "diabolical plot" is a common figure of speech; a "demonic plot" is not. Given there is really no difference between the two, however you wish to assume and presume there is, a diabolical plot is just as much common a figure of speech as a demonic plot. A neutral expression with no confusing connotations is 'fiendish plot', an arguably more common expression than diabolical plot. Fiendish itself refers to both demonic and diabolical, diabolic. And if you think that "Lawful" and "Chaotic" are crystal clear, obvious divides, I guess you haven't noticed any of the debates over what "Lawful" and "Chaotic" mean, and what "Lawful" and "Chaotic" behavior is over the years, even on this message board. The words themselves already seek to define what they involve. There are no loaded definitions, there are no confusing paradigms. Lawful and Chaotic are as diametrically opposed as fire is to water. There doesn't say that the D&D objective alignment is the be all and end all, it's just that subjective alignment or complex alignment can't be fitted into the alignment scheme. If you don't mind, could you link me to the debates?
E'tii'stil Shadowsil 02-01-08, 08:21 PM	I agree with Sciborg & Skeptical Clown, and so would most lexicographers: Demonic & Diabolic have different connotations and are not fungible. If it really is as you say, those lexicographers really should attempt a revisit to an institution of learning. If you check WordNet, Diabolic has 2 senses, for which demonic is a synonym of only 1 of those senses: This does not mean that one should focus on the one descriptor to the exclusion of other definitions, a perfect example is open. The first "sense" includes the words, devilish and diabolic. The two words involving Mephistopheles are specific isolated cases. Diabolic again is related to and is synonymous with demonic. Devilish while ostensibly catering to a specific definition has other meanings that do not entail 'devil' at all.
E'tii'stil Shadowsil 02-01-08, 09:20 PM	Nowhere did I say that Planescape wasn't the backbone of the Great Wheel. I said that all settings used the Great Wheel up until 3rd edition. Only Greyhawk, the default setting, uses the Great Wheel in 3e. Faerun uses its tree cosmology and Eberron uses its own cosmology. The detaching of Faerun from the Great Wheel and thusly paving the way for Eberron not to adhere to any aligned cosmology was a mistake. The detachment of Realmspace was a perfect example of 'because I can and so I shall.' Now, the Great Wheel cosmology was continued into 3e, completely arbitrary design choices involving Faerun aside. This already changed in 3e with Faerun detaching from the Wheel. Also, I gave reasons why I think it's a good move, so there are reasons other than "because I can". You just happen to not like the change or the reasons. You merely said it was counterproductive and that the greater metasetting was not reliant on Weave based magic. How does that constitute a good move? Again, it is exactly a case of 'because I can'. I think SKR even admitted as such. I dislike the changes to the Faerunian cosmology since it abolishes a complete backlog of established flavor and history. Not only does previous canon involving deities and characters become redundant it makes absolutely no sense within the greater scheme of things. I also would not buy the counterproductive reasoning or the there is not Weave extending into the greater metasetting, because frankly, they're not good reasons. I think you are perhaps in a minority here as someone who likes the changes, I know a lot of others who dislike or even vehemently hate the unnecessary edits to the setting. Another example of the change being a bad move are the Mulhorandi and Untheric pantheons. With the changes in and to Faerunian cosmology, the introduction of either the Mulhorandi or Untheric deities into Abeir-Toril makes no sense at all since Faerun doesn't touch upon the Great Wheel anymore. My argument is that the coherent cross-setting cosmology that you enjoy can detract from the settings that are forced to use it. In order to be a good apocalyptic setting, Dark Sun had to be separated from the Great Wheel as much as possible given the mandate at the time that every setting use the same cosmology. Why not just encourage it to have its own cosmology that plays by the same rules as the setting? Why does Dark Sun have to be separated from the Great Wheel in order to be a good setting? What reasoning is there, that in order to make Dark Sun 'good,' that separation is not only necessary it is healthy? The two are not mutually exclusive. You also seem to a closeted view on the Great Wheel cosmology, you could have a perfectly reticulated cosmology that allows certain cases to evolve. How much do these settings really suffer if instead of naming a particular world for the source or destination, they simply say 'another world'? I'd argue that it doesn't matter to Faerun that Khelben the Younger went to Greyhawk rather than any other prime. Canon was quite specific as to KtY's destination. However, the point was that KtY wouldn't want to enter the planewalker profession at all since the cosmology is a redundant mess. This seemingly small change within established lore has ramifications that echo up and down the course of canon history. With this small change, you are already abolishing a lot of history and lore. It isn't necessary and completely derides other people's work. You're using fluff from the Great Wheel to prove that the Great Wheel is the only acceptable cosmology for the game... :rolleyes: Are you even reading what you write? Have you no reasonable arguments? I'll wait to respond until you actually have a good argument at hand. Yes, that's true. I don't need or want a meta-setting that connects every setting. I'm happy with them each existing individually. Each is a separate end in and by itself then? Given the connections involving each setting, how does it make sense and why does it make sense? I happen to think that a cosmology custom tailored for a setting makes more sense than each setting being forced into a single cosmology. Note that by 'forced' or 'crammed' I don't mean that there is an issue with physical space in the cosmos, but rather a limitation on the creative space for a setting's designer. Infinity is a limitation for a creative designer? How lacking of ideas of free of creative expression would a designer have to be? And it certainly isn't a forced cramming, the Great Wheel cosmology is designed to be receptive and open to other settings that align on it. There is no limitation on creative space, absolutely none at all, there is however a limitation on how uncreative you wish the cosmology to be. I can see this. It does make it hard to have a cross-setting campaign if the cosmologies are different. Third edition used the Shadow Plane (per Manual of the Planes I think...) as a link between different primes and cosmologies, so the Great Wheel isn't the only way to do this. This isn't the same as planewalking on the respective planes. This isn't the same as a link between different primes or cosmologies. Demons and devils have both been evil for some time. Devils have also been tyrannical and demons destructive. The only part that's gone is a Lawful subtype and the status of exemplars of their alignment. Demons and devils are not only chaotic evil or lawful evil respectively, but they were alignment exemplars. They were ideals given substance. With the changes to the cosmology their status becomes redundant, their distinctions are lessened. With the move that was instituted, their background has been completely ignored. In short, they are just another monster. With the removal of law and chaos, you are also changing the fundamental make-up of the planes themselves. A demon would never have voluntarily or involuntarily ventured into Baator, but now there is no reason for a devil not to be in the Abyss nor a demon in Hell and establish a tenure, remaining there permanently.
E'tii'stil Shadowsil 02-01-08, 09:37 PM	I would likewise suggest that everyone actually read Worlds & Monsters before jumping to conclusions about what the designers are doing. They have gone to great lengths to explain their reasoning behind the changes. You have every right to disagree with the changes they are making, but that doesn't make their choices bad or unwise. It merely means they are making different choices than you would have made. If you read my previous posts (before that one), I actually urged people not to jump to conclusions. But this doesn't mean that I or others can't dislike the new cosmology because of the changes the designers have wrought. I and others have given reasons and made arguments why the design choices are bad or unwise, at both the fundamental and gross level. You keep using the word "arbitrary" to describe the changes that you dislike. I do not agree that the designers are making arbitrary changes in the sense of "capricious, random, or purposeless". Although, if you mean arbitrary in the sense of "applying rational discretion", or "exercising editorial authority", well, they are certainly making editorial choices, but isn't that what editors, authors and designers are supposed to do? Just as diabolical is not limited by one definition, so too does arbitrary not involve a single description. In this, I mean they are making changes determined by whim and impulse and not by necessity, reason or principle. The changes aren't necessary. Sure, they are making supposed reasons connecting the changes but as Rip pointed out, those 'reasons' are at best taken with a grain of salt. By misrepresentation it becomes a case of arbitrary change. When designing a new edition of a game, editorial choices have to be made. You need skilled, talented people with vision to do that. Skilled, talented people with vision doesn't mean that the editorial choices would be good or that they would be making the right changes. Skilled, talented people and good are also mutually exclusive. Skilled, talented people with vision by itself doesn't really imply anything other they are skilled and talented and with vision. It makes no connecting terms to how well they can design, etc. It would be impossible to run every decision past the fans using internet polls. Even if they did, I doubt that such a democratically edited game could rise above mediocrity. I frankly don't think that most of the fans on these boards have the skillset, the talent or the vision to be entrusted with designing 4e (with certain obvious exceptions like Rip VanWormer, the designers would do well to consider his wise counsel). While it is easy to play armchair quarterback and second-guess every choice the designers make, somebody has got to be in charge and make some decisions. I much prefer to have the professionals making those decisions. Actually, in this, I don't think we should let the designers make the design choices...especially when they insinuate their editorial choices are better than the efforts of previous designers. WotC has hired some extremely talented folks, with experience and proven track-records under their belts, to steward our game and sculpt the next iteration. I think WotC has picked an exceptionally worthy team. Only time will tell if they have done a good job. Again, extremely talented and experience does not equate with an exceptionally worthy team. The words all involve mutual exclusivity. I can hope that the design team is able to put out a great edition and have even said, in a previous response, that we should judge not a book by its cover but by its content. With the design choices they are making right now...well, I certainly do hope... I think you are misinformed here. Worlds & Monsters p.80 indicates that there will be multiple worlds connected by the new cosmology. It mentions how the illithids "once held a substantial empire that reached even to other planes and distant places visible in the worlds only as twinkling stars." It goes on to say that "Entire humanoid populations were exterminated to feed illithid appetites, the energy of suns was rechanneled to fuel ambitions of interplanar conquest." That was in response to the contention that the changes can be rationalised away very simplistically. I explained this wasn't the case, that even a change small in scale can have a wide reaching ripple effect. I can tell you for a fact that if Faerun continues as it does cocooned within its own cosmology that it would not be one of the multiple worlds connected by the cosmology. While they don't detail any specifics of how worlds and campaign settings will be connected, I think it safe to say that the "world" the designers contemplate is not a single planet but a material plane that encompases multiple suns and planets, and which may be connected to other campaign settings that exist either on planets in the same material plane or in alternate material planes that are accessible somehow by as yet undisclosed methods. Material plane does and can mean a single planet. You are coming to a conclusion based on insufficient evidence; you are jumping to conclusions about what the designers are doing, which you yourself cautioned against; do as I say, not do as I do then? We will have to wait and see.
GlimmTheGnome 02-02-08, 12:33 AM	Another example of the change being a bad move are the Mulhorandi and Untheric pantheons. With the changes in and to Faerunian cosmology, the introduction of either the Mulhorandi or Untheric deities into Abeir-Toril makes no sense at all since Faerun doesn't touch upon the Great Wheel anymore. Being detached from the Great Wheel does not mean that the FR cosmology is completely isolated. The FR cosmology through Mulhorand, Unther, Saurials, etc. is connected to other material planes even though it doesn't use the Great Wheel. That's the beauty of not sharing a cosmology, one world doesn't intrude on the other settings and each setting's designers can choose what rules the cosmos of that setting function under. If you don't believe settings can intrude on one another due to the shared cosmos, what are your feelings about Die Vecna Die? Canon was quite specific as to KtY's destination. But would it have any significant effect on the FR setting if it hadn't been specific? However, the point was that KtY wouldn't want to enter the planewalker profession at all since the cosmology is a redundant mess. What makes the cosmology a redundant mess? Saying that it is redundant with the Great Wheel from an out-of-game perspective doesn't matter to an in-game character like Khelben. Infinity is a limitation for a creative designer? How lacking of ideas of free of creative expression would a designer have to be? And it certainly isn't a forced cramming, the Great Wheel cosmology is designed to be receptive and open to other settings that align on it. There is no limitation on creative space, absolutely none at all, there is however a limitation on how uncreative you wish the cosmology to be. No, infinity is not a limitation, the Great Wheel is. It is limiting because it operates under certain assumptions (I mentioned some of these back in my previous post). One example of a setting that doesn't fit in the Great Wheel is a cosmos that was created by the gods of a single world. Demons and devils are not only chaotic evil or lawful evil respectively, but they were alignment exemplars. They were ideals given substance. With the changes to the cosmology their status becomes redundant, their distinctions are lessened. I thought the designers were working to increase the differences between demons and devils, making them more distinct from one another in both fluff and crunch.
E'tii'stil Shadowsil 02-02-08, 01:20 AM	Being detached from the Great Wheel does not mean that the FR cosmology is completely isolated. The FR cosmology through Mulhorand, Unther, Saurials, etc. is connected to other material planes even though it doesn't use the Great Wheel. That's the beauty of not sharing a cosmology, one world doesn't intrude on the other settings and each setting's designers can choose what rules the cosmos of that setting function under. If you don't believe settings can intrude on one another due to the shared cosmos, what are your feelings about Die Vecna Die? Is this your own personal subjective take on things? Because canon (FRCS), since we are arguing from a canon perspective, counters your argument that FR is completely isolated. The only planes that bear any similarity to the original configuration are the Nine Hells and the Abyss, and even they aren't exactly as you would find them. You can't travel to other worlds, at all. The cosmology of FR assumes it is the only material plane in existence at any given time. This isn't a problem by itself but when coupled with established lore, that specifically states that it was connected to other settings, what you end up doing is vehemently disregarding prior efforts and even ignoring them all together. What you are also doing is removing coherence from both the greater metasetting and individual cosmologies. You also can't argue that since Mulhorance and Unther exist so is FR connected to other material planes. That is circular reasoning and is wrong. In any case, FR is completely isolated from other settings, which would mean that the histories of Mulhorand and Unther and their integration make absolutely diddily-squat sense. Their wars with the orcs and the introduction of orcs into the setting also makes no sense. The new cosmology of FR also means it was/is impossible for elves to have traveled to FR as they did from Faerie. Notice the huge ripple effect? I don't believe in intrusion into other settings, since A) the word itself is loaded, and B) it assumes that the person has a degree of bias. I do believe in a connected cosmology that makes sense to all inhabitants regardless of where they call home. Ask any Planescape fan or D&D fan and they'll tell you that they dislike DVD. I too dislike the module. You can't use that singular example to make a case for settings that intrude upon one another. But would it have any significant effect on the FR setting if it hadn't been specific? I gave examples didn't I. The short version is, yes. The ripple effect created from that small change will echo not only down history but also up the temporal line as well. What makes the cosmology a redundant mess? Saying that it is redundant with the Great Wheel from an out-of-game perspective doesn't matter to an in-game character like Khelben. FR is one of those settings that was connected to other worlds and was greatly enriched by it. I also cite the spell names in previous editions, ie Bigby, Tenser, Evard. Since these names with specific appellations have thus far been removed from the greater game, this becomes a moot point but is still important. Since FR is no longer connected to other settings or to the greater metasetting, the cosmology of that world and canon becomes subject to drastic changes. Changes that are and were totally and completely unnecessary. A lot of the canon of the setting becomes unusable due to even small changes. Only a major editorial overhaul can one make use of the cosmology again. You can't look at it simplistically, you have to take into account the ripple effect and the impact on the cosmology and setting as a whole; the setting is a holistic being not the sum of disparate parts. I'm pretty sure this wasn't taken into consideration by the proponents for a detached cosmology. No, infinity is not a limitation, the Great Wheel is. It is limiting because it operates under certain assumptions (I mentioned some of these back in my previous post). One example of a setting that doesn't fit in the Great Wheel is a cosmos that was created by the gods of a single world. No. The Great Wheel ensures that infinity is possible. What people don't understand all that well is infinity. The Great Wheel isn't at issue here, it is people's comprehension of infinity and the infinite scale. It is not artificially limiting unless you make it so. The Great Wheel ensures that not only are separate settings possible, they make sense in the greater scheme of things. You can have a local cosmos that was created by gods, but that is also part of the greater metasetting. Great examples of these are Ao, the Highfather. What is problematic are singular provincial cosmologies that not only don't make sense by themselves, but who have canon connections to other settings now abolished. I thought the designers were working to increase the differences between demons and devils, making them more distinct from one another in both fluff and crunch. Can you honestly say that after the removal of law and chaos as alignments?
Gray Richardson 02-02-08, 02:31 AM	Just as diabolical is not limited by one definition, so too does arbitrary not involve a single description.I realize this, which is why I gave two different definitions and asked which one you meant. Now that you have indicated which meaning you meant, I can say clearly that I wholeheartedly disagree with you. In this, I mean they are making changes determined by whim and impulse and not by necessity, reason or principle. The changes aren't necessary.Which is why I urged you to actually read Worlds & Monsters. For most of the changes they made, they explained the problem that was presented, outlined the necessity for making the change, and then explained their thought process in choosing a solution. Since they have made the changes based on necessity, backed by reason, and following the principles of good gaming that they outlined in the book, I would say your statement is false. The changes are not arbitrary based on your own criteria. If you had actually read the book, you would realize this.Skilled, talented people with vision doesn't mean that the editorial choices would be good or that they would be making the right changes.True, skilled and talented people can make mistakes. However, since someone has got to be in charge, I would much rather have WotC's chosen team do the design work than some crackpot fan on the boards that has no track record. WotC has a strong interest in preserving a valuable property. This is powerful incentive to make the best decisions they can. The design team does this for a living, their jobs are on the line, so this is good incentive for them to make the best design decisions they can. And they have demonstrated they have a love of the game and the material. I honestly think the game is in good hands. Skilled, talented people and good are also mutually exclusive.Huh? That makes no sense! I don't think you meant to say that. "Skilled" and "talented" are in no way mutually exclusive with "good". Actually, in this, I don't think we should let the designers make the design choices...Well, fortunately the decision isn't up to you. WotC owns the rights to D&D and can hire whoever they like to be stewards of the game. I personally like the products that the design team have created in the past, and have every reason to think they will do a good job going forward. WotC could have made much worse decisions than they have. But I think they have played it smart, and the game has thrived and grown, and gotten better because of their leadership and editorial vision. This in turn has been a great benefit to all the fans. Once 4e is out on the market and people have had a chance to play with it, I have faith that the response will be overwhelmingly positive.I can tell you for a fact that if Faerun continues as it does cocooned within its own cosmology that it would not be one of the multiple worlds connected by the cosmology.Nah, you can't tell me that for a fact. In 3e, Faerűn was connected to other worlds and campaign settings by several canon references, including through Sigil, Spelljamming, the Plane of Shadow, planar rifts, The World Serpent Inn, etc. There is no reason to believe that those connections will not persist into 4e. We have already been told that Sigil will still exist in 4e, so that right there is one connection between multiple campaign settings. You are simply incorrect on this point.
E'tii'stil Shadowsil 02-02-08, 10:31 AM	I realize this, which is why I gave two different definitions and asked which one you meant. Now that you have indicated which meaning you meant, I can say clearly that I wholeheartedly disagree with you.Which is why I urged you to actually read Worlds & Monsters. You are quite welcome to disagree. For most of the changes they made, they explained the problem that was presented, outlined the necessity for making the change, and then explained their thought process in choosing a solution. Since they have made the changes based on necessity, backed by reason, and following the principles of good gaming that they outlined in the book, I would say your statement is false. The changes are not arbitrary based on your own criteria. If you had actually read the book, you would realize this. I admit I haven't read the book, but I wouldn't exactly call chasing the book up to be a top priority right now. What I can do is peruse the reasoning behind the design choices posted by the designers of 4e on the interwebs. In their propensity for change the designers have derided the work of others, implying and insinuating that the cosmology was in a mess before they got their hands on it. They also claim that to 'safely insulate' a new player into a campaign using the previous cosmology was too much effort. The bottom line is that they are making drastic changes while continuing to belittle prior editions in support of the changes they make, claiming how much the game will benefit from it. This is the same as effectively stating that the work of previous designers were wasted efforts and they didn't know any better. Nothing is perfect and even if the previous editions were sloppily designed, you don't go caustically belittling others. That's bad form. With the changes made, you are effectively arbitrarily, and it is very much a case of arbitrary, abolishing some 30 years of lore/history. I would accept the decisions more readily if they displayed more tact in their reasoning behind the changes. True, skilled and talented people can make mistakes. However, since someone has got to be in charge, I would much rather have WotC's chosen team do the design work than some crackpot fan on the boards that has no track record. WotC has a strong interest in preserving a valuable property. This is powerful incentive to make the best decisions they can. The design team does this for a living, their jobs are on the line, so this is good incentive for them to make the best design decisions they can. And they have demonstrated they have a love of the game and the material. I honestly think the game is in good hands. It looks like you've jumped the gun and made a foregone conclusion. Something that you cautioned others against. Oh, the irony! Pot, meet kettle. You seem to have an interesting personal view on WotC's business practices and principles. Do you work at WotC? Most assuredly you do not. It sounds like a bad case of Devil's advocate. While I won't go so far as to adumbrate that WotC, Hasbro really, cares more about money and profit engineering than design choices or decisions that actually move the game forward rather than take it back, I can say that corporate entities usually preserve 'valuable intellectual properties' because of the revenue they generate. Since revenue is always at the forefront of a conglomerate's list of priorities, "best decision" is motivated by money not by design choices. So, the design team would make choices based on well items sell not by how well designed they are. Also, you suggest that WotC has manifestly shown clear signs that they love the game and the material. Remember, they are/were the ones who had slain the dragon and demolished the dungeon. Is this a demonstration of love or commitment to the game or material? They claim that the designers of the previous editions didn't know any better and that it was their job to fix the situation; from what we know, they did this by folding yugoloths into demons and making pit fiends into another run-of-the-mill generic monster. They made the demon lords and archdevils into beings weaker than deities when canon specifically refers them to be analoguous with deities. Again, is this a demonstration of love to the game or material? Remember also, they gave us a LN Lady of Pain. Huh? That makes no sense! I don't think you meant to say that. "Skilled" and "talented" are in no way mutually exclusive with "good".Well, fortunately the decision isn't up to you. WotC owns the rights to D&D and can hire whoever they like to be stewards of the game. I personally like the products that the design team have created in the past, and have every reason to think they will do a good job going forward. WotC could have made much worse decisions than they have. But I think they have played it smart, and the game has thrived and grown, and gotten better because of their leadership and editorial vision. This in turn has been a great benefit to all the fans. No, skilled and talented and good are mutually exclusive. You can be skilled and be untalented and vice versa. I wasn't talking about the products made by D&D in the past, which I also liked, but what they are doing in the present and especially involving 4e. I also disagree with what you imply were good decisions. The demise of Dungeon and Dragon were not good exhibits of good leadership or vision. This in turn has not been of any benefit to any fan. I don't think the arbitrary changes are either. Feel free to disagree. Once 4e is out on the market and people have had a chance to play with it, I have faith that the response will be overwhelmingly positive. Again, we'll have to wait and see. Given the general dislike by many fans, I don't think the response will be 'overwhelmingly positive' at all. Show me some fans who actually truly like 4e and I'll show you many more who dislike it. Nah, you can't tell me that for a fact. In 3e, Faerűn was connected to other worlds and campaign settings by several canon references, including through Sigil, Spelljamming, the Plane of Shadow, planar rifts, The World Serpent Inn, etc. There is no reason to believe that those connections will not persist into 4e. We have already been told that Sigil will still exist in 4e, so that right there is one connection between multiple campaign settings. You are simply incorrect on this point. And your references being? I already gave mine, the FRCS. Or are you basing all of that on conjecture? WotC discontinued Spelljammer, so it's still second edition rather than third; if connections were found, this would most likely be because of 2e rather than 3e. I never mentioned that the Plane of Shadow was not connected to FR, but this does not mean that FR in turn would be connected to other worlds. I did say that the planes that we know and recognise may not bear any similarities in the FR cosmology. The Planar Handbook makes no mention of any Sigilian reference to FR. And I would take that book with a grain of salt, LN Lady of Pain and all. The only specific reference is that Dragon magazine, but it specifically mentions a prior edition, one that involves Planescape. For all we know, the authors could have had the old cosmology in mind when writing the article. There is also absolutely no reason to believe that those supposed connections will even exist in 4e. We already know that there were no Sigilian references nor Spelljamming references involving FR. Sigil does not automatically mean an automatic connection to multiple settings. Since Sigil is localised within a specific location and cosmology, any connection to Sigil has to involve the Planescape model of the planes, the Great Wheel Cosmology. Since FR adheres to its own tree configuration... Me being simply incorrect when I already disproved most of your conjecture and claims? Right...
Gray Richardson 02-03-08, 12:40 PM	I admit I haven't read the book, but I wouldn't exactly call chasing the book up to be a top priority right now.You should be ashamed of yourself! The designers have put out a whole book explaining some of the changes they are making and their reasoning behind everything, and you profess that you haven't read it and have little interest in reading it. I think that speaks volumes about your critical perspective. That is much like a food critic condemning a restaurant without eating the food, or a film critic writing a negative review without seeing a film, or a jury convicting a man without considering all the evidence. Such behavior is contemptible. For you to come on these forums and say such mean things about the designers and authors without taking the time to inform yourself of the facts represents the worst kind of muckraking. Shame on you! What I can do is peruse the reasoning behind the design choices posted by the designers of 4e on the interwebs. In their propensity for change the designers have derided the work of others, implying and insinuating that the cosmology was in a mess before they got their hands on it. They also claim that to 'safely insulate' a new player into a campaign using the previous cosmology was too much effort.Citations or links please? Without you giving specific quotes or references, you are just repeating hearsay or making stuff up. I don't believe the designers have said any of the things you attribute to them. It's impossible to have a reasonable discussion about what they did actually say, unless we can refer to your sources and verify what was said in context.No, skilled and talented and good are mutually exclusive. You can be skilled and be untalented and vice versa.You keep demonstrating that you do not understand the concept of "mutually exclusive". While I think everyone would agree that it is possible to be skilled, or talented, or good, without being all three at once, it is also possible to be skilled and talented and good simultaneously. The concepts are not mutually exclusive, and often go hand-in-hand.And your references being?Here is a partial listing (but by no means exhaustive) of 3e canon references linking Toril to other worlds and campaign settings: Faiths & Pantheons p.161, the Abbey of the Sword near Essembra contains a portal from Sigil. Players Guide to Faerűn p.140, "The Plane of Shadow connects Toril’s Material Plane with those of other worlds, including the default world for the D&D core books—the World of Greyhawk." Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting p.230 oblique reference to spelljamming Grand History of the Realms references to spelljamming on p.14, p.31, p.39, p.93 Grand History of the Realms: references to portals to other worlds: p.26, & p.39 Underdark p. 169 reference to spelljamming Shining South p. 14 reference to spelljamming Dragon #351 article on the World Serpent Inn details connections between Faerűn, Eberron and other settings. Worlds & Monsters p. 80 references to 4e illithids engaging in interplanar conquest, exploiting the power of suns, and that they once held an empire that reached to other planes and distant places visible in the world only as twinkling stars.
sciborg3 02-04-08, 02:13 PM	The detaching of Faerun from the Great Wheel and thusly paving the way for Eberron not to adhere to any aligned cosmology was a mistake. You're wrong. Eberron could not exist if it was connected to a cosmology where gods are real. Even Dark Sun can be argued as needing to be isolated from the cosmos because it reduces the impact of its underlying message that there is one world that needs people to take care of it. If you can flee to other worlds, this parallel with our own growing environmental crises is partially lost. I love Planescape, and I love the depictions of the Great Wheel that preceded it and succeeded it. My love and admiration reaches back to standing in a toy store and seeing the cover of the 1e MotP. But I think it has a place in some settings and not in others. I agree separating Toril from the Wheel was a mistake because Toril (and Oerth) were special places in the Multiverse. Ask any Planescape fan or D&D fan and they'll tell you that they dislike DVD. I too dislike the module. You can't use that singular example to make a case for settings that intrude upon one another. I liked DVD. Without you giving specific quotes or references, * In R&C, mentioning they disliked the word aasimar because it reminded them of the word ass. This doesn't apply to the uber-leet Asmodeus of course. * Saying in W&M that the Great Wheel is dead. Saying down with needless symmetry, though needless is a very objective term when speaking of art. * In Ecology of the Fire Archon (elementals WITH HELMETS OMG!) they say that by giving elementals a backstory and correcting a 30 year old problem in D&D. * Saying the Plane of Vacuum was boring, and that the para-elemental planes were unfortunate. * Saying the rules of travel in the Astral plane made it un-fun in W&C. * Saying they are fixing the distinction between demons and devils (another long running problem), without presenting any clear examples of doing so. There are more, but a lot of it requires you to go and read the varied design articles in "Dragon" (what a joke that is turning out to be) and see for yourself.
NoldorForce 02-04-08, 03:10 PM	* In R&C, mentioning they disliked the word aasimar because it reminded them of the word ass. This doesn't apply to the uber-leet Asmodeus of course.It's based on pronunciation, I suspect. (Asmodeus has the phonetic |z|, while aasimar has the phonetic |s|.) Additionally, Asmodeus is a name from a bunch of preexisting sources; "aasimar" is unique to D&D.* Saying in W&M that the Great Wheel is dead. Saying down with needless symmetry, though needless is a very objective term when speaking of art.I'm guessing that you mean subjective here. The point seemed to be more that while creating X that's opposite to Y is fine, there's no inherent need to make it an exact opposite just for the sake of having that opposite.* In Ecology of the Fire Archon (elementals WITH HELMETS OMG!) they say that by giving elementals a backstory and correcting a 30 year old problem in D&D.The current elementals are but magical wildlife in a sense; putting in a backstory, giving them actual ambition (beyond whatever vague thing the elders got), and so forth does at least make them more interesting.* Saying the Plane of Vacuum was boring, and that the para-elemental planes were unfortunate.I wouldn't go so far as to call any such location "the antithesis of fun". But something like the Plane of Vacuum that's a monotone pile of pain doesn't show nearly as much creativity as went into the rest of Planescape.* Saying the rules of travel in the Astral plane made it un-fun in W&C.Not quite; it was the fact that the rules were different from the rules everywhere else that made it weird/not fun. (So the designers said.) In any case, they are right in noting that there isn't much to do on the Astral Plane as it is; oftentimes it's just a giant magical road that takes you to the real action.* Saying they are fixing the distinction between demons and devils (another long running problem), without presenting any clear examples of doing so.I'm not really for this or against it, but they have provided examples of how the distinctions are being solidified. Or were you unable to find examples of how this was fixing a problem?There are more, but a lot of it requires you to go and read the varied design articles in "Dragon" (what a joke that is turning out to be) and see for yourself.True, true; Dragon has been skimpy and mediocre since the 4E announcement. Though keep in mind that it's currently being used as a 4E preview vehicle. Hopefully that will change come June. Though I'm not holding my breath.
Gray Richardson 02-05-08, 12:23 AM	* In R&C, mentioning they disliked the word aasimar because it reminded them of the word ass.To be fair, the word does have a problematical first syllable. I never had a big problem with the name, but I also never quite liked it. Don't discount the art of naming, it is an important consideration in creating a product. While the name might have worked 20 years ago (flowing naturally from the word "aasimon") and where it might have not been so evocative of a swear word back in the day, the designers are trying to introduce the game to a new generation of players. In the 2 decades since the name was coined, the language has changed a little, and you have to consider the sensibilities of today's public. There is no escaping that the name "aasimar" does sound similar to a word that has an illicit cache and might lend itself to sophomoric humor. I think it is a valid concern for the design team to replace the name with one that is less distracting.* Saying in W&M that the Great Wheel is dead. Saying down with needless symmetry, though needless is a very objective term when speaking of art.There is nothing wrong with acknowledging that fact. When the British say "The king is dead, long live the king!", it is not intended as a slight against the deceased monarch. And it is not a slight against the Great Wheel or the 1e designers to say in a melodramatic way that they are going a different way with the cosmology in 4e. Furthermore, the desire to eliminate excessive symmetry is a good design principle. One problem with such symmetry, as they explained, is that the great wheel required you to create 17 similar (but different) creatures to fill each ecological niche for each outer plane. This created a huge diversity of creatures that were not necessarily very distinct or iconic. It often just confused players and diluted the gaming experience. Charming as this was, I think it is a worthy goal to create monsters with stronger identities, that are not easily confused with other monsters, and that provide memorable gaming sessions.* In Ecology of the Fire Archon (elementals WITH HELMETS OMG!) they say that by giving elementals a backstory and correcting a 30 year old problem in D&D.I don't understand your objection to that. The new Archons are conceived as the soldiers of the elemental chaos. As soldiers, it is appropriate for them to wear armor. The armor is useful in 2 ways: It gives them protection over and above the natural substance from which they are made (no reason to think that a metal helmet wouldn't give some added protection to even an Earth elemental, seeing as he might be made out of clay or dirt or sandstone or pumice just as easily as he could be made out of harder minerals.) And secondly it is an emblem of its office and allows it to display its army affiliation, rank insignia, which battallion, division, unit, squad it belongs to, etc. and any special honors it has earned. Plus it has an added bonus of being visually appealing when you use it in artwork. And I don't see anything wrong in trying to add backstory to a creature with lackluster history.* Saying the Plane of Vacuum was boring, and that the para-elemental planes were unfortunate.Well, to be fair, the Plane of Vacuum is kind of boring. And it's lack of air is a major barrier to adventuring there. Boring and mechanically difficult to adventure in are both sound reasons to revamp the inner planes, if you are trying to design a cosmology that facilitates good game play. Admirable design principles if you ask me.* Saying the rules of travel in the Astral plane made it un-fun in W&C.Look, they have a point. While I have run games using the old Astral Plane, and my own players enjoyed the novelty of using intelligence scores for speed, I can appreciate that the designers might feel the weird rules for astral travel may not appeal to the majority of players, or that they unnecessarily complicated astral adventuring, or just didn't appeal to their design aesthetic. You have to expect that the design team is going to make some editing choices in designing the mechanics of planar adventuring, and it is not an insult to the old way of doing things if they happen to not select that mechanic for inclusion in 4e.* Saying they are fixing the distinction between demons and devils (another long running problem), without presenting any clear examples of doing so.I thought they made that case pretty well in Worlds & Monsters. The perceived problem was that it was hard for players to distinguish fiends of different races, that some demons and devils were easily confused for one another and it was sometimes hard to look at a given fiend and tell which side it was on. It is a valid design aesthetic to strive for monsters that are iconic and whose form fits their function. They have chosen to go with demons as raging, brutish, engines of destruction, and devils to be sly and subtle seducers with overtones of fascism and rigid military structure. Monsters that are designed with those two archetypes in mind will hopefully feel more iconic and lend themselves to good game play. Players should hopefully have a better feel for what they are fighting. I am aware that there are many people who cherish the Great Wheel. And I can certainly relate to those who feel crushed that certain beloved features of the game are being changed. But change in itself is not a bad thing. Especially when the changes serve the greater purpose of creating a better gaming experience. To the extent that the designers are trying to make the game better, they are honoring the legacy of the game's original designers, ensuring that the game will continue on to be played by future generations of new fans.
sciborg3 02-05-08, 01:35 AM	To be fair, the word does have a problematical first syllable. I never had a big problem with the name, but I also never quite liked it. So does Asmodeus. And I don't see anything wrong in trying to add backstory to a creature with lackluster history. Sorry, but the number of works I've seen by fans and in publication make me believe the old Inner Planes were far more interesting and far richer in potential if not in actual text/art. Even the Plane of Vacuum did not inhibit any adventure seeing as it only has taken up at most 5 pages in all of published D&D. The armor is useful in 2 ways: It gives them protection over and above the natural substance from which they are made (no reason to think that a metal helmet wouldn't give some added protection to even an Earth elemental, seeing as he might be made out of clay or dirt or sandstone or pumice just as easily as he could be made out of harder minerals.) And secondly it is an emblem of its office and allows it to display its army affiliation, rank insignia, which battallion, division, unit, squad it belongs to, etc. and any special honors it has earned. I can just at easily make rationalizations for the things they claimed were dumb - archons with animal heads for example. Again, its all perception and designers respectful of their public should acknowledge that. Well, to be fair, the Plane of Vacuum is kind of boring. To be fair, an earth elemental with a helmet is the stupidest thing to ever exist in D&D. And yes, I'm including the flump. The perceived problem was that it was hard for players to distinguish fiends of different races, that some demons and devils were easily confused for one another and it was sometimes hard to look at a given fiend and tell which side it was on. Take the picture of the pitfiend and ask what its a picture of and I can almost guarantee you get Orcus. Don't forget Grazz't is supposed to be a demon in the Abyss, an exception to their hallowed division...as are, in truth the yugoloths. 4th edition hasn't even happened and we're already seeing the brutes and tricksters merging together! :rofl: Especially when the changes serve the greater purpose of creating a better gaming experience. In your opinion. Gray, your agreement does little to remove the fact that it is insulting for designers to make these claims as if they were objective, not subjective (yeah, I switched the terms in my last post). I can just as easily say that making the Nine Hells D&D's Burning Legion is derivative (not to mention Shadowfell copies Wraith and Feywild Changeling), or that the lack of philosophical elements has reduced D&D to a CRPG without graphics. I guess given your logic mine is a credible one on why 4e is dull and a waste money. As for making 17 of each creature, that never happened in my memory of D&D. You can't count the exemplars, as they were hardly stand-ins but races in and of themselves with different goals and methodologies. Even then there were not 17. You can do what you like with 4e, the only way it will see money through me is via Paizo or KQtrly unless there is just something amazing down the pipeline from WotC. But I'm not holding my breath.
ripvanwormer 02-06-08, 08:49 PM	I've always pronounced "aasimar" like "ozzy-mar."
Taeldrin Laesrash 02-07-08, 12:15 AM	I can just as easily say that making the Nine Hells D&D's Burning Legion is derivative (not to mention Shadowfell copies Wraith and Feywild Changeling), or that the lack of philosophical elements has reduced D&D to a CRPG without graphics. I guess given your logic mine is a credible one on why 4e is dull and a waste money. I'm not familiar with Wraith or Changeling (Unfortunately), but to me, the Shadowfell is similar to the legends of dark and gloomy underworlds, while the Feywild is like the Plane of Faerie and similar faerie worlds that also pop up repeatedly in mythology. Again, I don't know how the games exactly compare, but it's possibly not that blatant a rip. Also, if they didn't like the Aasimar's name (I, by the way, pronounced it with a long A), why didn't they just redesign them like they did the tieflings? Is the message, 'Evil is cool'?
Shemeska the Marauder 02-07-08, 01:00 AM	(not to mention Shadowfell copies Wraith and Feywild Changeling) The 4e pit fiend speaking "supernal" was what got me.
Gray Richardson 02-07-08, 01:44 AM	Yeah, that totally caught me off guard as well. I take that to mean that there is no more separate celestial, infernal or abyssal languages, but just the one supernal language spoken among the astral dominions. That will take some getting used to.
Shemeska the Marauder 02-07-08, 01:49 AM	Yeah, that totally caught me off guard as well. I take that to mean that there is no more separate celestial, infernal or abyssal languages, but just the one supernal language spoken among the astral dominions. That will take some getting used to. Caught me in a different way. The use of "supernal" struck me as very Mage: The Awakening, combined with how the Feywild and Shadowfell come off in my mind as similar to elements of Changeling and Wraith. Of course WW has so far for 2008 gotten 100% of my gaming money, with nothing to WotC, so maybe I'm just seeing coincidences and thinking them more than that.
sciborg3 02-07-08, 11:05 AM	Again, I don't know how the games exactly compare, but it's possibly not that blatant a rip. I don't think it is. My point wasn't that 4e's cosmology is terrible, but rather they are acting like they are doing everyone a favor with their fluff changes based on nothing but opinion presented as fact. Those examples were to show that 4e can be criticized as well on valid grounds. My objection is to Gray's claim (as I understand it) that the designers never disparaged the old game, then when I presented examples, he says they are largely correct in their disparagement. (maybe I'm reading him wrong) It's okay for people not to like aspects of the game, but designers should respect those who do. If 4e can't stand on its own merits of being fun and interesting, it isn't worth purchasing. Simply, don't tell me 3e wasn't fun and now 4e is. Show, don't tell, as they say in the writer's world.
Taeldrin Laesrash 02-07-08, 09:14 PM	I see. Maybe they'll put out a PSCS book sometime down the line to reconcile with Wheel-fans? (To get a bit psychological, maybe the disparaging of 3e is because they're not totally confident about 4e).
Gray Richardson 02-07-08, 10:28 PM	My objection is to Gray's claim (as I understand it) that the designers never disparaged the old game, then when I presented examples, he says they are largely correct in their disparagement. (maybe I'm reading him wrong)Just to clarify: My claim is that I am not aware of the 4e designers being insulting or disrespectful to the work of previous designers, and that the changes they are making to the cosmology are not arbitrary or capricious but rather necessitated by the updates to the game's mechanics and supported by principles of good game design. To my mind, changing, updating, or even retiring certain elements of the game is not an insult to the prior designers. It neither disparages nor demeans the prior designers nor diminishes their contributions to acknowledge that the game is evolving and that the current stewards are making different choices and taking things in new directions for what is hopefully the betterment of the game. You provided examples (without really commenting specifically as to what they were examples of, or what you found objectionable about them) and my response to your examples was merely to discuss them and explain why I didn't think the examples you gave were disrespectful to the prior designers and why there were real issues there to support considering changes. I truly don't believe the 4e designers have been insulting in the way they have talked about the changes they are making. At the very worst I think a couple of them may have said the odd word or two that came off a little glib or cavalier. But they have not been mean or disrespectful. And maybe this is asking too much, but I think people should give them some slack. After all, the designers are creative types. They don't work for the State Department or the Federal Reserve and should not have to craft their words in such a guarded manner that no one could possibly be offended or misconstrue what they say. It's much better if they are open and share their thought processes with the fans and give us hints and previews of what they are working on. As a community, we all benefit if the designers and fans stay in dialog. :)
sciborg3 02-08-08, 06:23 AM	It's much better if they are open and share their thought processes with the fans and give us hints and previews of what they are working on. As a community, we all benefit if the designers and fans stay in dialog Dialog begins with a presumption of respect. When a designer says they've put a "bullet in the head of the guardinals" I take it to mean the gloves are off - that isn't me nitpicking at their words so they feel like they can't speak. That's them attempting to come off as cool without consideration for anyone who liked the past - including the designers who came before them. That's why I don't feel bad pointing out stuff like how the settings new planes of FeyWild and Shadowfell seem to step into WW territory, or even the primordial titans are a lot like the elemental titans of WW's Scion rpg. I can just as easily take cheap shots if they want to reduce "dialog" to that state. More and more 4e seems like a derivative or even just weak product that purports "fixing" things without any clear sense of what it fixed or even what was so bad about the previous incarnation of the game. Especially when they've gone back to "needless symmetry" with their elemental archons and bizarre mixing of what is a demon vs what is a devil. I know I don't plan to waste my money unless I see something amazing from a team that seems more than determined to insult the cosmology I enjoyed.
sciborg3 02-08-08, 01:23 PM	Of course WW has so far for 2008 gotten 100% of my gaming money, with nothing to WotC, so maybe I'm just seeing coincidences and thinking them more than that. What are you purchasing Shemmy? I was thinking of not spending any more $ on rpgs, but perhaps i just need to escape the needless symmetry of putting all my rpg cash into D&D. ;)
Yaeri 02-08-08, 04:07 PM	What are you purchasing Shemmy? I was thinking of not spending any more $ on rpgs, but perhaps i just need to escape the needless symmetry of putting all my rpg cash into D&D. ;) We're al waiting for 3rd edition 2. (Hey, they made a final-fantasy-10 2.)
sciborg3 02-09-08, 01:30 AM	I've heard Monte Cook's Book of Experimental Might is a potential alternative to going 4e. Anyone checked it out?
The Ubbergeek 02-09-08, 01:39 AM	Again, we are shown why changes are bad, and corporates evil. :rolleyes:
sciborg3 02-09-08, 03:41 AM	Thanks for putting words in my mouth but your straw man argument is nothing but a bunch of crap. I have a problem with respect not with capitalism. Maybe if you take up the art of reading you might have read that. Stop acting like someone is putting a gun to your head and stopping you from buying 4e.
Gray Richardson 02-09-08, 09:44 AM	I've heard Monte Cook's Book of Experimental Might is a potential alternative to going 4e. Anyone checked it out?Monte Cook is a wonderful designer. He has written some truly great material for the game. Oddly enough, when he was on the 3e design team, he was the first one to suggest, and the primary proponent of the idea, that D&D campaign settings need not share the same cosmology, and he advocated moving away from the Great Wheel setup during the design of 3rd edition. Here is his quote: In my home campaigns (when I wasn't playing Planescape), I didn't use the Great Wheel. I figured that a lot of other people didn't, either. So when it came time to talk about the planes during the development of 3rd Edition, I think I surprised everyone by being the first and primary proponent of the idea that not every campaign needed to exist within the same cosmological setup. (As a point in my favor in the discussions, I also knew first-hand how hard it was during my tenure on Planescape development to rationalize that the worlds of Dragonlance, the Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Mystara, and the rest all shared the same cosmology.) I remember that meeting well. I could tell by the looks on people's faces that, when I opened my mouth to speak, they thought I'd blather on about Planescape and Sigil and how it's at the heart of everything. I hope Planescape fans don't feel betrayed when I tell you that I didn't say that at all. The cosmology set up in the original Manual of the Planes, which was based on an appendix in the 1st Edition Player's Handbook (which itself had its roots in original D&D) is great. But it's not the only way to do planes. Not by a long shot. You can read the context of the quote and the rest of his article at this link here: http://www.malhavocpress.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_diary_33 Arguably, Monte Cook's influence was the impetus for the Forgotten Realms team changing Toril's cosmology, and for the revamp of the core cosmology in 4e.
sciborg3 02-09-08, 11:57 AM	I actually agree - though I can't see FR needing to be non-Great Wheel. I like the Astral Sea. I like a lot of 4e ideas, I just don't like the marketing behind them.
Shemeska the Marauder 02-09-08, 01:11 PM	Oddly enough, when he was on the 3e design team, he was the first one to suggest, and the primary proponent of the idea, that D&D campaign settings need not share the same cosmology, and he advocated moving away from the Great Wheel setup during the design of 3rd edition. He wanted there to be more options rather than an assumed default of everything within the Great Wheel. He wasn't advocating rampant retcons however, which is what we ended up with (or at least the first of two rounds of such for FR now that 4e is scrapping the 3e cosmology).
sciborg3 02-09-08, 06:50 PM	Did he create the Keepers? Or that little critter from another dimension that "invades" the inner planes? Or perhaps the Forest of Thought that leads to the hyper-reality of the mercurials? It's funny that for the talk of Planescape shackling settings to the Great Wheel, it actually broached the idea of other planes - even other multiverses. I read an article recently about the problem with ministries trying to make religion (the article specifically mentioned Jesus) cool. They said that the people trying to do that are really wanting to make themselves seem cool, and in the end the actual content meant to be expressed is watered down. This is what I think the 4e designers are doing with their over the top statements - I doubt religious groups would be happy about someone putting a "bullet in the head" of what is effectively an angel in a game that is (was?) largely about fighting evil. I mean really, who says stuff like that unless its some old man trying to hard to be hip to the kiddies?
Kain_Darkwind 02-09-08, 07:16 PM	This is what I think the 4e designers are doing with their over the top statements - I doubt religious groups would be happy about someone putting a "bullet in the head" of what is effectively an angel in a game that is (was?) largely about fighting evil. I mean really, who says stuff like that unless its some old man trying to hard to be hip to the kiddies? I do while telling bedtime stories to my little cousins. Angels, mermaids, unicorns.....all the tales end with a bullet to the head. I figure crying yourself to sleep is just as good as someone singing you to it.
Shemeska the Marauder 02-09-08, 08:18 PM	Did he create the Keepers? Rich Baker created the Keepers IIRC. Or that little critter from another dimension that "invades" the inner planes? That one was Monte. Or perhaps the Forest of Thought that leads to the hyper-reality of the mercurials? Bill Slavicsek there.
ArcTan 02-09-08, 08:20 PM	I don't see that the negative comments are necessarily part of a nefarious marketing strategy. I see them as just plain frankness. Maybe they should be *less* frank, but I prefer that people share what feelings they have honestly. I mean, they're the exact same comments I would make. They're the same comments anyone would make upon being given a franchise they generally like but with some crappy elements that spoil it for them, and being given a chance to get rid of those elements. It's no different from the new Battlestar Galactica team's gentle snark about original Battlestar Galactica and its "robot voices" and "70s haircuts" and "taped-over special effects", or the people working on DC Comics now cracking jokes about the origins of various DC superheroes ("Green Arrow just *happened* to be a playboy millionaire with a bunch of expensive gadgets who chose to fight crime and get a child sidekick, showing the overflowing wealth of creative talent DC had back in those days"). It's impossible to do this without ticking off people who really seem to think those crappy elements were great -- which is another way of saying it's impossible to please everyone without lying about your own opinions. C'est la vie.
The Ubbergeek 02-09-08, 08:35 PM	I do while telling bedtime stories to my little cousins. Angels, mermaids, unicorns.....all the tales end with a bullet to the head. I figure crying yourself to sleep is just as good as someone singing you to it. The real tales were dark and grim. Nothing like we have now.
Joni-san 02-09-08, 09:35 PM	http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/8823/1180658406030iu8.jpg
Taeldrin Laesrash 02-09-08, 10:55 PM	I don't see that the negative comments are necessarily part of a nefarious marketing strategy. I see them as just plain frankness. Maybe they should be *less* frank, but I prefer that people share what feelings they have honestly. ... It's impossible to do this without ticking off people who really seem to think those crappy elements were great -- which is another way of saying it's impossible to please everyone without lying about your own opinions. C'est la vie. But it's possible to choose your words carefully to minimize any negative impact. When you're selling a new product, you don't want to give a big 'F*ck you' to the previous users. Saying things like 'We want to put a bullet in the heads of the guardinals' are, mostly for the shock and maybe publicity. The so-called crappy elements aren't crappy for everybody, and you want to respect the other peoples' opinion while pushing your own agenda in an assertive, but nonaggressive manner.
sciborg3 02-09-08, 11:22 PM	It's impossible to do this without ticking off people who really seem to think those crappy elements were great -- which is another way of saying it's impossible to please everyone without lying about your own opinions. C'est la vie. Crappy is a matter of opinion. But I know acknowledging that prevents you from playing the role of big tough guy over your wireless connection so carry on. :rolleyes:
The Ubbergeek 02-09-08, 11:29 PM	Crappy is a matter of opinion. But I know acknowledging that prevents you from playing the role of big tough guy over your wireless connection so carry on. :rolleyes: I don't agree always with him - he is known for his dislike of current Realms - but he is more than a common 4chan-grade bully. he's a great debater, more than anything I will ever be. Anyway, resorting to things like 'it's crappy' is hardly better.
sciborg3 02-10-08, 12:03 AM	Anyway, resorting to things like 'it's crappy' is hardly better. Your "great debater"'s words, not mine.
ArcTan 02-10-08, 02:14 AM	Crappy is a matter of opinion. But I know acknowledging that prevents you from playing the role of big tough guy over your wireless connection so carry on. :rolleyes: Sure. And if the designers hold that opinion, they have the right to express it, no different from you or me. They don't have some sacred charge to treat everything you like with respect if they don't like it. It's impossible to be creative with an existing franchise if the rule is that nothing can be cut up, ripped away or thrown out. That's how franchises stagnate and die.
ArcTan 02-10-08, 02:15 AM	But it's possible to choose your words carefully to minimize any negative impact. When you're selling a new product, you don't want to give a big 'F*ck you' to the previous users. Depends on your strategy. When Carl's Jr. bought Hardee's, their ad campaign was focused on how crappy Hardee's used to be and how they were changing everything to fix it up. This was justified, because Hardee's was doing terribly in the fast food wars and Carl's Jr. was trying to salvage what was left of it by turning it into the east-coast Carl's Jr. It seems to have worked, even though some of Hardee's old customers were probably offended by the ads -- the people who thought "It's nothing like the old, crappy Hardee's? Awesome!" outnumbered the people who thought "It's nothing like the old, beloved Hardee's? Darn."
turalisj 02-10-08, 02:29 AM	Isn't that like what WotC did with 2e and what they are doing now to 3e? :confused:
ArcTan 02-10-08, 02:45 AM	But I don't think even these criticisms are that intense. They aren't saying 3e sucked, just that *certain things in 3e* were silly and worthy of a "bullet in the head". Just as people who now do Green Arrow for DC will mercilessly mock certain aspects of that character (like the "boxing glove arrow"), not because they think everything about old Green Arrow sucked but because making new, better Green Arrow comics means redeeming the extreme silliness that was often there. The new BSG team is *very* open about how dumb some *elements* of the old BSG were. But if they really *hated* old BSG they wouldn't be trying to make a new one -- they're just trying to save old BSG from the things that were silly about it. And sure, if you're a hardcore fan of old BSG that might offend you. Oh well. Sorry. Everyone has a different opinion, and the people in charge have a responsibility to do what they think will make money and satisfy their creative goals, not necessarily yours. (And, really, I think the aspects they've been snarkiest about they have been *because those aspects are relatively trivial*, and it's the super-duper-uber-nerds who really think the presence of the Quasielemental Plane of Vacuum was important enough that they can brand themselves "Quasielemental Plane of Vacuum fans" and argue that their interests are being betrayed. It's like the "No Organic Webshooters" lobby.)
sciborg3 02-10-08, 03:32 AM	It's impossible to be creative with an existing franchise if the rule is that nothing can be cut up, ripped away or thrown out. That's how franchises stagnate and die. It must be great debating strawmen copies of your opponents. Changes are more welcome when they come with a little respect. But it's also possible to find a balance between new and old - the Astral Sea is the perfect example of that. Making alignment more optional is another change I think is great. I hope people who end up spending money on it end up happy, I just feel more and more that supporting 4e means supporting a lot unnecessary disdain. What makes you believe the old was causing the franchise to die anyway? Seems to me like you're talking out of your "aasimar" as usual, pretending your opinion or personal experience is an objective truth. I can at least concede that I'm defending an opinion. Defending one's artistic vision doesn't necessitate attacking the vision it is inheriting from. A representative of a company has, or at least should, have some attempt to make fans feel welcome. Look at White Wolf, they completely recreated their World of Darkness but didn't go back and say their past product (that they charged me for) sucked afaik. Why should I buy 4e if I can expect similar bashing when 5e comes around? They aren't saying 3e sucked, just that *certain things in 3e* were silly and worthy of a "bullet in the head". Just as people who now do Green Arrow for DC will mercilessly mock certain aspects of that character (like the "boxing glove arrow"), not because they think everything about old Green Arrow sucked but because making new, better Green Arrow comics means redeeming the extreme silliness that was often there. You'e comparing the race of NG outsiders that fleshed out Elyisum to a boxing-glove arrow (which Grant Morrison managed to acknowledge as silly and pay homage too on his JLA run)? That's a ridiculous comparison. At least attempt to make a suitable comparison, like Bruce Wayne -- DC's as-atheist-as-you-can-be-there -- getting a snapped spine healed by pseudo-magic. super-duper-uber-nerds who really think the presence of the Quasielemental Plane of Vacuum was important So now anyone who has a problem is a "super-nerd"? You may not know this, but belittling others isn't a genuine method of debate. The point is attacking someone for their taste. I placed a universe like ours - a lightless Void - in my version of the Plane of Vacuum and so I never thought it was boring. If 4e is good, just present it to me. Don't tell me my game was boring and then ask me to join.
Shemeska the Marauder 02-10-08, 03:42 AM	What are you purchasing Shemmy? I was thinking of not spending any more $ on rpgs, but perhaps i just need to escape the needless symmetry of putting all my rpg cash into D&D. ;) One of the WW guys gave me a free copy of Changeling: The Lost at Gen Con, and I've fallen in love with it (and to a lesser extent with Vampire and Mage). The production values kick the teeth out of anything WotC has done in years, and the design ethos fits my tastes more than the direction WotC is going with 4e. At this point it's pretty certain that me (and my gaming group) will be entirely skipping 4e. I've got plenty of stuff to play with without forking over cash to WotC.
sciborg3 02-10-08, 03:47 AM	One of the WW guys gave me a free copy of Changeling: The Lost at Gen Con, and I've fallen in love with it I would love a story hour of your group (yo' peeps as we cool fogies say) based in that setting. Or any WoD setting for that matter.
Bran_Dawri 02-10-08, 10:25 AM	One of the WW guys gave me a free copy of Changeling: The Lost at Gen Con, and I've fallen in love with it (and to a lesser extent with Vampire and Mage). The production values kick the teeth out of anything WotC has done in years, and the design ethos fits my tastes more than the direction WotC is going with 4e. At this point it's pretty certain that me (and my gaming group) will be entirely skipping 4e. I've got plenty of stuff to play with without forking over cash to WotC. It's been a while for me, so can you please enlighten me? Do WW still have that elitist stick up their collective *rses? Don't get me wrong, they've made excellent games (Mage remains my favorite, both setting- and flavour wise), and usually do their background research well enough that you come out of reading their RPG material a bit more knowledgable than before, but the whole "this is only for mature, intelligent gamers, preferably ones with a PhD" attitude they (and the majority of players had going kinda ****** me off.
ripvanwormer 02-10-08, 12:44 PM	I don't see that the negative comments are necessarily part of a nefarious marketing strategy. I mean, they're the exact same comments I would make. Hahahahaha! Exactly. It's as if they'd let you, or anyone else who was a vociferous hater of D&D fluff, be the advocate for the new fluff. Do you see the problem? Not "nefarious," just poorly considered. They should be letting their awesome new designs speak for themselves, rather than trying to show that the designs of everyone who came before them were bad.
ripvanwormer 02-10-08, 01:17 PM	it's the super-duper-uber-nerds who really think the presence of the Quasielemental Plane of Vacuum was important enough that they can brand themselves "Quasielemental Plane of Vacuum fans" and argue that their interests are being betrayed. Sigh. Straw men again. Nobody ever argued that. If you're completely incapable of representing other peoples' arguments honestly, can you please avoid putting words in their mouths at all? No one cares if World and Monsters or the 4e Manual of the Planes mentions the Plane of Vacuum (which the Elemental Chaos has plenty of room for anyway). The issue was that Christopher Perkins snidely called the plane the "anti-fun." Given that I and many other people have, in fact, had fun with it, the comment wasn't so much insulting or treacherous as ignorant and unimaginative. He could as easily have promoted the idea of the Elemental Chaos without denigrating the work of Monte Cook, Erik Mona, Gary Gygax, and others.
sciborg3 02-10-08, 04:09 PM	Well, Rip pretty much said things better than I did. It's disappointing that their marketing is so "crappy" because I think 4e has good ideas such as introducing parallel planes in the Shadowfell and Feywild to allow for less drastic planar travel and to make the planes feel more directly revelant to the campaign world. Opening the Wheel into the Astral Sea was another great idea, perhaps the best one. The Elemental Chaos fixes a non-existent problem - there were always pockets of elemental air in every elemental plane (even Vacuum). I don't recall the spells necessary for planar travel being so extensive or epic, and Planescape gave us the varied elemental homunculi that aid in planar travel. The fiends were problematic depending on how you saw Order/Chaos, but I don't recall it being something overly problematic. The idea that Evil should be focusing fighting good as removal of the Blood War seems to reduce options in my mind. The demons seem boring, the devils more so. Divorcing them from their status as exemplars makes them nothing more than monsters with fancy powers. Again, my opinions, which I'm sure ArcTan will deride me for. Hell, it wouldn't be the same if didn't. :P
ArcTan 02-11-08, 01:41 AM	Hahahahaha! Exactly. It's as if they'd let you, or anyone else who was a vociferous hater of D&D fluff, be the advocate for the new fluff. Do you see the problem? Not "nefarious," just poorly considered. They should be letting their awesome new designs speak for themselves, rather than trying to show that the designs of everyone who came before them were bad. I don't see some coordinated campaign trying to prove that earlier editions were bad. I see candid comments that honestly reflect the attitudes people on the staff hold. I prefer candor. That's all this is about.
sciborg3 02-11-08, 10:37 AM	Before it was invalidating the concern of "uber nerds", now it's about respecting honesty? No wonder you're such a good debater - who can hit the moving target of your stances? Being honest and being respectful aren't mutually exclusive. I'd also love for the designers to come on these boards to debate their "objective" claims since their side obviously has the corporate mouthpiece for now. Though wasn't there something with Shemmy debating (and crushing) designers to the point where they deleted her statements from a chat transcript?
Shemeska the Marauder 02-11-08, 12:02 PM	Though wasn't there something with Shemmy debating (and crushing) designers to the point where they deleted her statements from a chat transcript? It was the chat for the Planar Handbook. WotC posted a heavily censored version of the chat transcript, which among other things, removed a large block of debate about why the Lady of Pain was made LN in the PlHB, their reasoning for that, and who actually was the designer who'd written that portion. The answers were pretty vague, and somewhat evasive when I pressed the point, and nobody actually claimed credit for that alignment issue IIRC. It was not flattering, thus it was removed from the "official" transcript. I posted a complete transcript on Enworld.
sciborg3 02-11-08, 01:07 PM	:eek: That's down right Orwellian! :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: ;)
The Ubbergeek 02-11-08, 04:38 PM	Peoples see frequently conspirations all around. A part of human nature, unfortunatly. Plain inconscience or incompetance is much more common.
ArcTan 02-11-08, 05:33 PM	Before it was invalidating the concern of "uber nerds", now it's about respecting honesty? No wonder you're such a good debater - who can hit the moving target of your stances? Geez. Here's my stance, in executive summary form: Creative people have opinions about the stuff they work with. No creative person who's working with existing material isn't going to have some stuff in the existing material they dislike. They should be able to vent about how they dislike it -- it's impossible to have a complete explanation of *why* they change what they change without accounting for the stuff they just plain dislike. And yes, I think taking a huge amount of umbrage and becoming very defensive over fictional things that have been edited in a new fictional product *is* a sign of uber-nerd-hood. It's like "No Organic Webshooters", like the people who think a female Starbuck destroys Battlestar Galactica, and who signed tear-stained petitions to put Tom Bombadil back in the LotR movies. Being honest and being respectful aren't mutually exclusive. Saying you don't like part of a fictional work or even that you think it's silly, stupid or "anti-fun" isn't disrespectful of *people*, and acting like it is and that it's some kind of big deal is what I dislike about hypersensitive fandom.
Shemeska the Marauder 02-11-08, 06:00 PM	Plain inconscience or incompetance is much more common. The text was specifically edited for content before it was released. It wasn't just a single intact block, or the top or bottom of the text accidentally getting lopped off. It was intentional removal of non-flattering material, or censoring, if you prefer.
Kain_Darkwind 02-11-08, 10:51 PM	Geez. Here's my stance, in executive summary form: Creative people have opinions about the stuff they work with. No creative person who's working with existing material isn't going to have some stuff in the existing material they dislike. They should be able to vent about how they dislike it -- it's impossible to have a complete explanation of *why* they change what they change without accounting for the stuff they just plain dislike. Funny, we didn't have the same level of animosity when 2e changed to 3e. Certainly none of the backbiting. And yes, I think taking a huge amount of umbrage and becoming very defensive over fictional things that have been edited in a new fictional product *is* a sign of uber-nerd-hood. It's like "No Organic Webshooters", like the people who think a female Starbuck destroys Battlestar Galactica, and who signed tear-stained petitions to put Tom Bombadil back in the LotR movies. And every single one of those disagreements can be dealt with in a respectful manner. One can wish Tom Bombadil was in the LotR movies without suggesting that Peter Jackson needs to burn in Hell. Saying you don't like part of a fictional work or even that you think it's silly, stupid or "anti-fun" isn't disrespectful of *people*, and acting like it is and that it's some kind of big deal is what I dislike about hypersensitive fandom. Disrespect need not be targeted at people to be disrespectful. And disagreement need not be disrespectful at all.
GlimmTheGnome 02-11-08, 11:31 PM	Funny, we didn't have the same level of animosity when 2e changed to 3e. Certainly none of the backbiting. I recall quite a few statements about how the mechanics of 2nd edition were in dire need of revision. Things like THAC0, non-weapon proficiencies, multi/dual-classing, etc. were called out as systems that didn't work very well in 2e (and were seeing facelifts in 3e). Explaining why an old version isn't as good as a new version is a natural part of selling something. Third edition's changes were focused more on crunch though, so they didn't seem to stir up emotions as much as the fluff-changes occuring with 4e.
sciborg3 02-11-08, 11:41 PM	If it makes you have less of a cow ArcTan (do kids think quoting Bart is still cool?) I've never shed a tear over any of the 4e designer comments, I'd liken my emotion to irritation. It's enough to make me question supporting 4e designers financially who think the things I like about D&D are not just unworthy of inclusion but open to derision. You're projecting emotions onto detractors that is needlessly causing you to wear out your capslock key and pop blood vessels. All the fluff complaints just prove to me that 3e as a rule-system wasn't unworkable but they just want to cash in by making D&D seem horribly broken. ps. Change have less of a cow to put a bullet in your cow. Yeah, that's cool. Get a milk elemental with a helmet in there too. Yeah, the kiddies will love that and buy our MMORPG-sans-graphics now!
Kain_Darkwind 02-12-08, 05:40 PM	I recall quite a few statements about how the mechanics of 2nd edition were in dire need of revision. Things like THAC0, non-weapon proficiencies, multi/dual-classing, etc. were called out as systems that didn't work very well in 2e (and were seeing facelifts in 3e). Explaining why an old version isn't as good as a new version is a natural part of selling something. Third edition's changes were focused more on crunch though, so they didn't seem to stir up emotions as much as the fluff-changes occuring with 4e. That's just it. You can say something like, 'Thac0 is counter intuitive' or 'high is always better in 3e'. You can also say 'We're going to put a bullet in Thac0, the antithesis of fun.' And that sounds more hostile to people who might have liked Thac0. You could also say 'We think making high numbers and high rolls better than low rolls is better than mixing them up. It keeps everyone on the same level. So sorry, Thac0, you are switching sides.' Then later, after everyone hates this changed Thac0, you mention that while Thac0 is still switched (because it fits with what makes sense now), certain rolls get to 'buck the trend' and so for saves against Life drain, and the skill checks for Open lock, Tumble, Handle animal and Swim are going to be low=good rather than high. There are ways you can say 'this was not working' or 'we didn't like this' without sounding like a dick. And just as important, you need to say 'we didn't like this' rather than 'this wasn't working' when such is the case. Don't lie about how broke it was when you just wanted to change it. Especially when you justify your change as consistent but don't push for consistency elsewhere.
ripvanwormer 02-12-08, 07:31 PM	I don't see some coordinated campaign trying to prove that earlier editions were bad. Of course not, because that's a straw man you've invented to argue with. Nobody said anything about a "coordinated campaign." I agree with the Ubbergeek; it's plain incompetence, not a conspiracy.
ArcTan 02-12-08, 09:11 PM	I agree with the Ubbergeek; it's plain incompetence, not a conspiracy. That would seem to contradict any use of the word "Orwellian".
The Ubbergeek 02-13-08, 12:03 AM	If it makes you have less of a cow ArcTan (do kids think quoting Bart is still cool?) I've never shed a tear over any of the 4e designer comments, I'd liken my emotion to irritation. It's enough to make me question supporting 4e designers financially who think the things I like about D&D are not just unworthy of inclusion but open to derision. You're projecting emotions onto detractors that is needlessly causing you to wear out your capslock key and pop blood vessels. All the fluff complaints just prove to me that 3e as a rule-system wasn't unworkable but they just want to cash in by making D&D seem horribly broken. ps. Change have less of a cow to put a bullet in your cow. Yeah, that's cool. Get a milk elemental with a helmet in there too. Yeah, the kiddies will love that and buy our MMORPG-sans-graphics now! Bravo, you play his game, and worse! Nice strawman and insulting hyperbole, kiddo. Arc do make nice points, though.
sciborg3 02-13-08, 01:12 AM	Nice strawman and insulting hyperbole, kiddo. Thanks! My favorite part was the milk-elemental with a helmet. Out of curiousity, what points of ArcTan's do you like? I like your playing the little yipping puppy to his bulldog, it's really cute. :embarrass Especially when you justify your change as consistent but don't push for consistency elsewhere. Curious for some examples. Do you mean the general farce of demon-devil distinction or something else? What's interesting about all these fluff changes is that it feels more like a homebrew than a standard cosmology. It's a single-world cosmology with a nigh (afaik) definitive creation myth. With the exception of the Astral Sea, fluff-wise it seems more constraining than the Wheel. Untangling alignment from play was necessary, but removing it from impacting the cosmology leaves the new Outer Planes with much less purpose. The end of the Blood War has reduced demons and devils to one-note villains. Why remove races or fold them into each other - that only limits gamers. Naturally, the above is all my opinion. Still, why they bothered to introduce all this escapes me given that iirc WotC has said that their research shows most games use homebrews. Are they hoping this cosmos is so exciting it brings players to use the planes more - I doubt that but perhaps I have a skewed view of this given my stated annoyance of the changes. Why did R&C and W&M not present more crunchiness? In the end one hopes there is enough crunch in there beneath all the fluff-changes. I for one won't be camping at the store for 4e's debut, especially since ArcTan would find me and call me an ubernerd and possibly tear up my BRING BACK CHAINMAIL BIKINIS petition. ;)
The Ubbergeek 02-13-08, 01:40 AM	Your grognardise-flavored failure amuse moi. I'm trčs hurt, petit.
sciborg3 02-13-08, 02:09 AM	Why am I a grognard? Have you read my 4e sig? Or the paragraphs I spent saying all the stuff I liked about it? This is like your post from the last page where you accused people not liking 4e to hating corporations/capitalism. I think you're right - you will never be as good a debater as ArcTan. He at least manages to belittle my actual points. Better strawmen than thin air. :rolleyes:
Kain_Darkwind 02-13-08, 11:01 AM	Curious for some examples. Do you mean the general farce of demon-devil distinction or something else? There we go. They did the succubus/erinyes merger in the most confusing manner possible, removing both names from where they traditionally had been and switching one name over. They established a simplistic categorization for demons and devils. Demons smash and look like monsters, devils deceive and look human. Then they shot it all to crap by putting the scheming 'loths in with the demons. Because 'mezzodemon' sounds better than 'mezzodevil'. If you want to change things, at least be honest about why you are doing it. I would be upset with a succubus change-over "because I {Rich Baker} felt like it", but at least I wouldn't have the double issue of being lied to as well. The yugoloths put the lie to the succubus/erinyes debacle.
sciborg3 02-13-08, 01:17 PM	I recall reading on Enworld that Grazz't will be an exception to the demon/devil distinction. If that happens, their reasoning is pretty much in tatters. Or if Baphomet still has the Tower o' Science.
ArcTan 02-13-08, 03:31 PM	I don't get why the new Yugoloth/Demons destroy the point of the Demon/Devil split. It seems to me to be the result of reading in the old Yugoloth fluff to interpret the new ones. To me, it sounds like Mezzodemons crush, smash, maim and destroy for just as senseless, pointless reasons as other Demons -- they just smash, crush, maim and destroy with better-thought-out tactics. They make plans for how to more efficiently smash, crush, maim and destroy. They have that "disciplined military" vibe to them. But they're not Devils, because their goal is to *destroy*, not to corrupt, and they're ultimately just as senseless as all the other Demons. The old "Every Yugoloth has a million billion Secret Plans that they're secretly fulfilling every time they fight for one cause or another" flavor seems to be gone (I mean, that's the point of jumping back to 1e Daemons instead of the Planescape Yugoloth fluff).
Kain_Darkwind 02-13-08, 05:07 PM	I don't get why the new Yugoloth/Demons destroy the point of the Demon/Devil split. It seems to me to be the result of reading in the old Yugoloth fluff to interpret the new ones. To me, it sounds like Mezzodemons crush, smash, maim and destroy for just as senseless, pointless reasons as other Demons -- they just smash, crush, maim and destroy with better-thought-out tactics. They make plans for how to more efficiently smash, crush, maim and destroy. They have that "disciplined military" vibe to them. But they're not Devils, because their goal is to *destroy*, not to corrupt, and they're ultimately just as senseless as all the other Demons. The old "Every Yugoloth has a million billion Secret Plans that they're secretly fulfilling every time they fight for one cause or another" flavor seems to be gone (I mean, that's the point of jumping back to 1e Daemons instead of the Planescape Yugoloth fluff). Assuming you are right that they are ditching the fluff, Graz'zt still stands out as another sticking point. Of course, 1e fluff for the yugoloths doesn't seem to be the destroy, smash kill that you say it is. "The arcanadaemon is a civilized breed." "They [Piscodaemons] will conspire to overthrow and enslave their masters" "Daemons resemble both devils and demons and will associate with either for their own purposes." I can't find any mention of smashing, brute force, mindless violence or any other such in their description.
ArcTan 02-13-08, 06:02 PM	The point isn't that 1e Daemons were identical to 1e Demons -- the point is that 1e Daemons didn't emphasize the idea of being the greatest conspirators in the planes the way 2e Yugoloths did. Given that 4e Devils are a single, unified force who worship Asmodeus as a god, any flavor about Daemons that says they have fluid loyalties or switch sides or whatever makes them fit better with Demons than Devils. Increasing their appetite for destruction (by emphasizing the military aspect of their flavor) is a way to increase that fit. As for Grazzt, they've got the opportunity for a decent story hook there if they use the idea that he's a traitor Devil who switched sides. I hope they use it.
Flame_Drake 02-13-08, 06:45 PM	As for Grazzt, they've got the opportunity for a decent story hook there if they use the idea that he's a traitor Devil who switched sides. I hope they use it. But what sides are there anymore if the Blood War no longer exists? If the battle ended, that takes half the potency of a traitor devil away. Drake
sciborg3 02-13-08, 11:07 PM	I don't get how Grazz't would leave his prison of Hell, and doing so, would decide he wants to destroy creation. I find the demons becoming Nephandi-lite a little silly actually... The yugoloths are just boring now as well as mere mercenaries working for mortals. Seems contradictory to the demonic HULK SMASH lines we were fed. And if they can do contract work toward destruction in their mercenary role, why was it so bad for demons like the succubus to lure mortals to destruction to feed the CE plane? The lines between demon and devil are only as clear (imo less clear) as they were before 4e. The point is that they didn't "fix" their nonexistent problem - it was just more failed marketing. Here's a quote from the D&D general board: I went to check out 4th ed on the internet and what I saw disturbed me. All three 4th ed core rule books have demons or symbols associated with demons/devils on the cover. The players handbook has an angry tiefling, the monster manual has a charging baatezu Note that as stated in W&M that "charging baatezu" is supposed to be Orcus.
almagest 02-14-08, 01:22 AM	Reading through this thread makes me wonder how many of you have actually read through Worlds and Monsters. One of the main "conceits" mentioned for 4e was that planes with a static theme were going to be removed, or changed. This is mentioned particularly in the sections about the former elemental planes. The replacements/reimaginings are meant (we'll see if this is indeed the case) to provide a more varied and interesting gaming experience at all player levels. As such, incorporating yugoloths into the Abyss contradicts nothing the designers have said. Sure, the Abyss contains large numbers of brutish destroyer types. There's no reason there can't be exceptions though -- such as Graz'zt and Baphomet. Likewise, there's no reason the Nine Layers of Hell can't have exceptions. Also, W&M is a marketing book, yes, but it's also the thoughts of the game designers. They aren't marketing people. Professional writers or not, they're not here to be politically correct. They're conveying their thought processes and emotions about something they've worked on for a while. I don't know how many of you have worked professionally on a long-term development (in any field) project that changes an existing product, but the notes in W&M are a good representation of what runs through your mind. Also, as other's have said, it's obvious there's no campaign to slander past works to sell new ones. I just don't see why some people are so up in arms over candor. I'd rather see "this sucks; here's why:" instead of passive drivel like "we really feel this change shifts the paradigm of the game and really makes you think outside the box as compared to the existing, still fantastic, material."
almagest 02-14-08, 01:26 AM	Also, nowhere does it say Devils can NOT leave the Nine Hells. Any mention of this is taking quotes out of context, and again leads me to wonder who's actually read the book. Devils cannot easily leave hell (W&M, p. 77)
sciborg3 02-14-08, 03:06 AM	I'd rather see "this sucks; here's why:" Your argument sucks, here's why: First - I love how when designers disparage something it's candor and creative freedom, but my opinions make me a grognard, a communist, or an "uber-nerd" who is "up-in-arms". If they think the things I liked about the game are stupid, and they seem to be actively against their inclusion (ala putting a bullet in the head) why should I buy the game? It's like if someone was allowed to write a sequel to Harry Potter and started off by saying "That Ron was a useless ****, I've put a bullet in his head and won't be mentioning him at all." I think fans who liked Ron have some right to feel insulted and not buy the book. You people act like having problems with 4e is equivalent to eating babies. (how's that hyperbole taste? hmmmmmmmmmmmm!) Sure, the Abyss contains large numbers of brutish destroyer types. There's no reason there can't be exceptions though -- such as Graz'zt and Baphomet. Likewise, there's no reason the Nine Layers of Hell can't have exceptions. So how is this different from the demons and devils in the past? The idea of the Abyss as a plane of Chaos made it far more easy to explain anomalies like Grazz't than the new cosmology does - or rather what we've seen of it. Maybe they've done a terrible job marketing by insulting but 4e will be great. I just don't plan to preorder it. Any mention of this is taking quotes out of context, and again leads me to wonder who's actually read the book. :eek: How downright Orwellian of me....:rolleyes:It's really a minor point. Besides, if designers don't have to read past edition material before disparaging it, why should we have to read a $20 advertisement for 4e? Rather than bad mouthing their predecessors, they could have spent more time giving out cool ideas about their fluff. Instead they came of as a whiny group that wants to make something seem better than it really is by attacking something else.
almagest 02-14-08, 11:25 AM	Stuff If you're going to result to ad hominem attacks and baseless accusations about me calling you anything, then please don't respond to my posts. If you can stay civil, then please explain to me how you can consider your argument valid if you haven't read the book. Trying to argue against something that you haven't even read seriously hurts your credibility.
Joni-san 02-14-08, 12:23 PM	http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/9969/1199191094633ev9.jpg I am strangely OK with that.
sciborg3 02-14-08, 12:27 PM	If you're going to result to ad hominem attacks and baseless accusations about me calling you anything, then please don't respond to my posts. I wasn't necessarily talking about you. And I didn't attack you. Why are you so up in arms over candor? If you can stay civil, I've been as civil with you as the 4e designers have been with their commentary on the creative work of others. More so if anything. Are you throwing baseless accusations because my points hit home? then please explain to me how you can consider your argument valid if you haven't read the book. Trying to argue against something that you haven't even read seriously hurts your credibility. Agreed. So did the designers of 4e read Planescape's Guide to the Inner Planes, Inner Planes monstrous compendium, or Faces of Evil - a guide to fiends? Because if they did, how is it that so many of the "problems" they're trying to fix were addressed in those books?
The Ubbergeek 02-14-08, 12:57 PM	Have you thought that maybe they DID? And that's the whole problem? Things may make sense for you - or me, that don't make them good or sensefull in an objective manner.
almagest 02-14-08, 12:57 PM	I wasn't necessarily talking about you. And I didn't attack you. Why are you so up in arms over candor? You quoted me, and addressed me, and mentioned a slew of things that I didn't say and had nothing to do with. How much clearer can it be? I've been as civil with you as the 4e designers have been with their commentary on the creative work of others. More so if anything. Are you throwing baseless accusations because my points hit home? Read the book before you make judgments on what 4e designers have said. You're taking quotes you've read on a message board out of context. If you feel the same way after reading the book, then fine. Nobody's arguing against your right to have an opinion (at least I hope not). Agreed. So did the designers of 4e read Planescape's Guide to the Inner Planes, Inner Planes monstrous compendium, or Faces of Evil - a guide to fiends? Because if they did, how is it that so many of the "problems" they're trying to fix were addressed in those books? Read the book; you'll find out if they address any of these points. Also, "well they did it, so why can't I?" is a logical fallacy and isn't going to cut it, sorry.
Shemeska the Marauder 02-14-08, 01:16 PM	If you can stay civil, then please explain to me how you can consider your argument valid if you haven't read the book. Trying to argue against something that you haven't even read seriously hurts your credibility. The relevant portions of the book regarding the various fiends have been quoted elsewhere, and provided as pdfs by WotC. He can comment on that without having read the $20 advertisement, and be just as informed as someone who dropped that sum for a coffee table book of previews. Besides, with as long as sciborg3 has been here, and given the quality of his past writing that he's shared with folks, his credibility is among the least in this thread that I would question. That he's not a f4nboy shouldn't be a knock against the validity of his concerns.
sciborg3 02-14-08, 01:22 PM	Okay. You seem like a nice person so I should say that my attitude is meant to be a mockery of 4e designers. I was referring to various references made prior in this thread. Yet if you can take offense to me taking a post out of context, how much worse is it when 4e designers take the history of D&D and pull bits of it out of context to disparage it? I've read huge sections of the book at Barnes/Borders. I can't justify to myself to pay for something I see as advertisting, so I may have missed something. My point is that 4e's complaints refer to nonexistent problems. No one ever said to me that the demons and devils were hard to distinguish until the 4e designers said so, then suddenly the 4e mafia suddenly act like it's been ruining their games since D&D began. I'm not advocating a boycott, nor am I saying no one should buy 4e. I just don't feel like spending money on something when it obviously wants to omit the very things I like about the game. Unfortunately that's not enough for some people, who claim I'm an ubernerd/communist/what-have-you as if they put their livesavings into Hasboro's stock.
sciborg3 02-14-08, 02:06 PM	Besides, with as long as sciborg3 has been here, and given the quality of his past writing that he's shared with folks, his credibility is among the least in this thread that I would question. That he's not a f4nboy shouldn't be a knock against the validity of his concerns. Awwwwwww, Shemmy.....on Valentine's day no less! *warm fuzzies* though i should admit i am being a jerk, if only to prove a point. in consideration, i owe almagest an apology. you came midway into my descent into silliness/sarcasm and so in your position i would perhaps be offended by me. (if that makes sense) I apologize for my insanity. I will now resume my regular flavored sciborg3...
almagest 02-14-08, 02:32 PM	The relevant portions of the book regarding the various fiends have been quoted elsewhere, and provided as pdfs by WotC. He can comment on that without having read the $20 advertisement, and be just as informed as someone who dropped that sum for a coffee table book of previews. Besides, with as long as sciborg3 has been here, and given the quality of his past writing that he's shared with folks, his credibility is among the least in this thread that I would question. That he's not a f4nboy shouldn't be a knock against the validity of his concerns. Nowhere did I claim he was a "f4nboy". Nowhere did I say he needs to purchase anything, either. Libraries exist for a reason, you can read things in book stores without purchasing them, and I borrow books from people all the time. Please don't put words in my mouth. Also, I've read tons of material on 4e on the Wizards web site, on these forums, on ENWorld, etc. Yet I came across new and more clear material from all aspects of 4e in W&M. Simple question -- have you read through either preview book, Shemeska? I'm also not debating the quality or credibility of sciborg's previous posts. You're putting words in my mouth again. I've lurked here for a while, and I've seen first hand evidence of this. I'm talking about the specific issue at hand. Giving someone a free pass based on past actions is a bad idea.
Shemeska the Marauder 02-14-08, 02:44 PM	Simple question -- have you read through either preview book, Shemeska? W&M yes, R&C no.
sciborg3 02-14-08, 02:48 PM	I mean this as a genuine question - almagest, what point are you making? That the designers can say what they want? I think they can say what they want too, but they should be called out on the inaccuracy/ignorance/disrespect of their comments.
ArcTan 02-14-08, 04:21 PM	But what sides are there anymore if the Blood War no longer exists? If the battle ended, that takes half the potency of a traitor devil away. Drake With the Devils worshiping Asmodeus as their all-father and god, *any* turning away from or against Asmodeus is a huge betrayal, whether or not there's some particular enemy group he's betraying them to.
sciborg3 02-14-08, 04:33 PM	hmmmmm, that is interesting. if the Seed of Evil is the reason Asmodeus betrayed his master, then is Grazz't's betrayal merely the launching of a probe, so to speak, so that his wayward devil servant can learn more about the nature of the demons? As much as I hate Asmo's master of all conspiracies role in D&D I have to admit such storylines would intrigue me.
The Ubbergeek 02-14-08, 11:04 PM	Shemmy, got an high respect of you generaly, but you felt to my and others's low side by using "f4nboy" Though an arcanoloth would be more witty and less 'leet snarky'.
sciborg3 02-15-08, 12:30 AM	I'm sure he's just tired of the 4e mafia dogging anyone who has the slightest problem with 4e. How can you be offended by that and not anything the 4e designers have said? I think "f4nboy" is far less of a problem than putting a bullet in the head of a holy being...I know it can only be as bad as calling someone an "ubernerd"...
Taeldrin Laesrash 02-15-08, 01:01 AM	http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/9969/1199191094633ev9.jpg I am strangely OK with that. I can settle for this. It's not what I want, but I'm willing to compromise if this is what I get. With the Devils worshiping Asmodeus as their all-father and god, *any* turning away from or against Asmodeus is a huge betrayal, whether or not there's some particular enemy group he's betraying them to. Hm. The way I see this, this sort of thing actually keeps part of the spirit of the Blood War: Evil will always turn on itself and that's why Good has a fair chance of victory. I'm not counting on WotC to follow up on this, though, as the new cosmology seems like, to me, just a more exotic dungeon.
sciborg3 02-15-08, 02:51 PM	the best way to classify the fiends would be to base each race on a Nightwish song. I'm listening to While Your Lips are Still Red and damn, who knew that guy could sing!
ArcTan 02-17-08, 11:18 PM	Hm. The way I see this, this sort of thing actually keeps part of the spirit of the Blood War: Evil will always turn on itself and that's why Good has a fair chance of victory. I'm not counting on WotC to follow up on this, though, as the new cosmology seems like, to me, just a more exotic dungeon. I don't see why. The other deities got just as mad at Asmodeus for betraying the god he once served as Asmodeus would presumably get mad at Grazzt for betraying him. That's kind of the nature of betrayal. I really don't like "Evil always loses because Evil is completely incapable of cooperation" crap. I honestly think it's false and a form of shallow wishful thinking, and at the very least it's become such a big, glowing obvious cliche in fantasy writing especially that I'm tired of it.
EvilVegan 02-18-08, 12:08 PM	This whole thread is full of fail. I don't normally talk like that, but the first page just made me want to vomit from all the tears and self-flagellation. USE THE 2nd EDITION PLANESCAPE FLAVOR AND STOP CRYING, GROGGIES! Or better yet, don't upgrade. No one cares that you don't like 4e. No one. They might have their own opinions on the new edition, but it doesn't matter. 4e doesn't match 3e. 4e didn't change anything in the 3e cosmology, because the 4e cosmology is new and 3e cosmology is still perfectly functional. It isn't a modification on the old. It is tossing out the old and creating a new thing. If there isn't an alignment scale there is no need for 3 separate and nearly identical divisions of demons. YES they are nearly identical, I said it. They're all lower-plane, evil creatures that want your soul for some reason. Their motivations are the same. Their approaches were different, but nothing that requires 14124 books describing machinations of these completely irrelevant differences. Alignment is not necessary to roleplaying. It is a facet of character design that lends itself to a certain type of roleplaying. If you like it, keep it. It had almost no in-game impact anyway, basically it was just justification for actions that you want to take. Really, there isn't much difference between "I'm killing and looting this goblin because he's evil." and "I'm killing and looting this goblin because I'm evil". You still fight a goblin, kill him, and take his stuff. Probably after barging in to his home. What is more useful than alignment is simply writing up a backstory and determining what the character's personality is like. Then you can approach things without an arbitrary straight jacket and have something that actually matters to your character. It isn't "I help orphans because I'm lawful good" its "I help orphans because my parents died horribly when I was a child and I was lucky enough to be taken in by a good family". This same character might kill hookers for the exact same reason. His 'alignment' is irrelevant and unnecessarily restrictive. The bloodwar is also irrelevant to most campaigns. All background text is mostly irrelevant. The only relevant material is that which affects PCs. Don't get me wrong, the Bloodwar is excellent fiction. It is a good story. But it isn't important. It isn't needed. It isn't automatically better than any other option. Because that's all it is. A flavorful option. :rolleyes:
TheHarrow 02-18-08, 01:54 PM	the best way to classify the fiends would be to base each race on a Nightwish song. I'm listening to While Your Lips are Still Red and damn, who knew that guy could sing! This. Oh, this. Dark Chest of Wonders: an artifact appearing to be an empty (dark) treasure chest. When you close and open the top, it fills with <Wonders>... A pound of green, the new 3-6 mafia cd, a certain furry Marauder, or the 4e design team to answer for transgressions or be lauded for creativity.
Taeldrin Laesrash 02-18-08, 02:50 PM	BS BS BS BS... Because that's all it is. A flavorful option. :rolleyes: And what happens to the people who like the new 4e rules, but whose favorite setting is getting shafted? The planes are more than flavor, like it or not. With the new structure, numerous spells must be redesigned. Races have disappeared, or have been changed beyond recognition. Many old systems won't work without the old cosmology. And you can't say it doesn't matter when we are forced to take on the new cosmology if we want to play 4e.
The Serge7 02-18-08, 04:14 PM	I was content to continuing sitting back, reading this thread, but this post just begged for a rebuttal and a rebuke. Or better yet, don't upgrade. No one cares that you don't like 4e. No one. They might have their own opinions on the new edition, but it doesn't matter. The fact that you're responding to the folks who seem to have issues with aspects of 4ed -- particularly the manner in which some of the designers have marketed the creations, not on 4ed in and of itself -- suggests that there are folks out there that care. 4e didn't change anything in the 3e cosmology, because the 4e cosmology is new and 3e cosmology is still perfectly functional. It isn't a modification on the old. It is tossing out the old and creating a new thing. No, 4ed isn't new. It's an overhaul of existing concepts. Some elements were tossed and some were kept in. It's an overhaul like the transition from 1ed to 2ed was an overhaul, although this one is far more drastic. If there isn't an alignment scale there is no need for 3 separate and nearly identical divisions of demons. YES they are nearly identical, I said it. They're all lower-plane, evil creatures that want your soul for some reason. No, not really... Generally speaking, devils want your soul; demons want to destroy you body and (sometimes) soul; yugoloths want to watch you writhe in agony. But, that's neither here nor there. Their motivations are the same. Their approaches were different, but nothing that requires 14124 books describing machinations of these completely irrelevant differences. Aside from there not being 14124 books on the subject to begin with, what does this have to do with anything? Alignment is not necessary to roleplaying. It is a facet of character design that lends itself to a certain type of roleplaying. If you like it, keep it. It had almost no in-game impact anyway, basically it was just justification for actions that you want to take. I don't know what games you're playing, but in most games I've been exposed to or run, alignment often has in-game impacts and consequences... Really, there isn't much difference between "I'm killing and looting this goblin because he's evil." and "I'm killing and looting this goblin because I'm evil". You still fight a goblin, kill him, and take his stuff. Probably after barging in to his home. Uhhh... For a paladin, there's a huge difference. For players in a complex gaming environment, there's a huge difference. But, I doubt any of this really applies in your case... What is more useful than alignment is simply writing up a backstory and determining what the character's personality is like. And how exactly does alignment prevent your from doing this...? Frankly, most quality games I've been exposed to and have run do exactly this while utilizing alignment. Then you can approach things without an arbitrary straight jacket and have something that actually matters to your character. It isn't "I help orphans because I'm lawful good" its "I help orphans because my parents died horribly when I was a child and I was lucky enough to be taken in by a good family". Which is why the character's lawful good...? This same character might kill hookers for the exact same reason. His 'alignment' is irrelevant and unnecessarily restrictive. Or he's really a thrall of Demogorgon and doesn't know that one of his personas is a murderous misogynist? As an aside, since when is good behavior associated with killing hookers? I think I see why you don't like alignments... They make too much sense. The bloodwar is also irrelevant to most campaigns. All background text is mostly irrelevant. The only relevant material is that which affects PCs. Then it should follow that there is no need to change the cosmology at all and that the designers should just stick to developing new mechanics, right? Don't get me wrong, the Bloodwar is excellent fiction. It is a good story. But it isn't important. It isn't needed. It isn't automatically better than any other option. My impression is that folks aren't complaining so much about the removal of the Blood War so much as they are annoyed and frustrated with what they perceive as outright attacks and misinformation spread by some 4ed designers. The most vociferous voices targeting the 4ed transition, sciborg and ripvanwormer, have routinely stated that there are qualities in the new edition they like. What they don't like are the tactics and tone taken to promote these changes. Because that's all it is. A flavorful option. And there are many other ways to move away from that option without coming across like there's something wrong with it. :rolleyes: Oooo! I want to play! :rolleyes:
Alpha_Moose 02-18-08, 04:45 PM	And what happens to the people who like the new 4e rules, but whose favorite setting is getting shafted? Then use the 4e rules and the old flavor. That's it. Anyone who is using a homebrew setting has to do the same. It might take some work, but if you like the new rules and the old flavor that much it should be worth it. And you can't say it doesn't matter when we are forced to take on the new cosmology if we want to play 4e. we are forced to take forced When did this happen?
Taeldrin Laesrash 02-18-08, 05:51 PM	Alright, so we're not forced to change. Poor wording. However, putting the old cosmology into the 4e setting may be no small feat. Maybe I'm just lazy, but I've seen a fair number of gamers just take the writing as is, and not do much with it.
The Ubbergeek 02-19-08, 12:21 AM	Alright, so we're not forced to change. Poor wording. However, putting the old cosmology into the 4e setting may be no small feat. Maybe I'm just lazy, but I've seen a fair number of gamers just take the writing as is, and not do much with it. A good DM his worth can MSU (Make Stuff Up), especially if you don't do really much planescaping. All of those outcries are exagerated.
Alpha_Moose 02-19-08, 10:38 AM	Alright, so we're not forced to change. Poor wording. However, putting the old cosmology into the 4e setting may be no small feat. You don't have to do it all at once. Just only transfer races or classes that your players will use. You don't need to give a monster or even a plane stats unless it is going to be met in game. In a big way you have it easy. For someone making homebrew there's not just making any race/monster that they want, there's also all of the history that needs to be made. If your using Planescape or the Great Wheel you already have all the history. Far more than Eberron and about equal to Forgotten Realms (sometimes this can be seen as a disadvantage though).
ripvanwormer 02-20-08, 01:05 PM	This whole thread is full of fail. I don't normally talk like that, but the first page just made me want to vomit from all the tears and self-flagellation. No one seems nearly as concerned about 4th edition as you are about things people have said about 4th edition. I'm sure comments on internet message boards are very important, but possibly not quite as important as you seem to think they are. I can imagine the outrage if I had said "Worlds and Monsters made me want to vomit." Why, I would be a nerdy nerdy grognard, which is the worst of all things to be! How dare I have such a hysterical reaction over something so trivial? There are so many more important things going on in the world, like comments left on internet message boards, which directly affect you in real and lasting ways. Obviously. We appreciate your concern, really we do, and we're glad to have it finally pointed out to us how very black the metal that we're made of is. The next time someone boils soup, we will finally know why people need a flashlight to see inside of us. In summary, people tend to use the internet to vent. That's what you're doing now. It's not worth getting your cast iron lid all steamy over.
ArcTan 02-20-08, 03:59 PM	So venting is okay, venting about venting is bad, but venting about venting about venting is okay again. It's some kind of odd-numbered rule or something. For my part, I judge whether I approve of venting based on whether I think the people venting are correct or not. But the odd-numbered rule must be easier to keep track of.
Kain_Darkwind 02-20-08, 07:02 PM	For my part, I judge whether I approve of venting based on whether I think the people venting are correct or not. But the odd-numbered rule must be easier to keep track of. So you are 100% behind the venting in this thread, since it is about the yugoloths being changed, and as no one can contest, they have in fact been changed? Or do you apply a more lofty and self-serving criteria to the selection process? Did you really mean whether or not you agree with the people venting?
ArcTan 02-20-08, 07:14 PM	Yes, I decide whether to approve of something based on whether I think the people talking are correct, which means whether I agree with them. On matters of opinion, "whether I think you're correct" is the same as "whether I agree with you". (Of course, a lot of this venting hasn't really been restricted to "The Yugoloths have been changed!" but has branched outward into "And the devs are lying liar liar faces when they say that their interpretation of the original Daemon fluff is that their new fluff is more similar to it than the 2e fluff was! They're Orwellian manipulators!") Any other hairs you'd care to split?
ripvanwormer 02-20-08, 07:43 PM	So venting is okay, venting about venting is bad Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the "pot calling the kettle black" metaphor, or perhaps you've just never managed to understand it. It implies that both are equally "bad," actually. If I'm accusing Vegan of lacking perspective, it's implied that I'm accusing myself of the same thing. Otherwise I wouldn't be comparing two equally black things, but a black thing and a gray thing (a drow calling a duergar black, for example). My point is that I do some venting in my posts, and so does Vegan. I'm not making a value judgment on whether this is "good" or "bad," only trying to inspire some basic self-awareness. If Butch Cassidy calls Ma Barker a bank robber, and Ma Barker says that is the pot calling the kettle black, it does not mean that Ma Barker doesn't think she's a bank robber.
ArcTan 02-20-08, 08:03 PM	I don't see how Vegan's post implies a lack of self-awareness. The act of "venting" itself is a neutral act that doesn't mean anything. Venting is stupid or non-stupid depending on the content of the venting in question. Attempts at drawing a false equivalency ("Yeah, but you're getting mad at *me* for getting mad, so you're just the same as me!") are a stupid meta-level deflection of the actual topic ("Is what you're mad about a *valid* thing to get mad about?"). And yes, it's absolutely valid to get mad about someone else getting mad for totally invalid reasons.
ripvanwormer 02-20-08, 08:15 PM	...are a stupid meta-level deflection of the actual topic ("Is what you're mad about a *valid* thing to get mad about?"). But that is the topic. Vegan's whole point, as I read it, was that it's stupid to complain about changes to the game because you can always change it back, or continue to play 1e, 2e, or 3e. That is, he was ranting because he felt the earlier posters (which logically includes you, by the way) were ranting about something that wasn't consequential enough to rant about. An appropriate response to "USE THE 2nd EDITION PLANESCAPE FLAVOR AND STOP CRYING, GROGGIES!" is "Stop crying and ignore the thread if you don't care for it." Or, in your case, "Stop crying and ignore the 2nd edition Planescape flavor if you don't care for it." Or, more generally, EvilVegan was implying that it's invalid to complain about the merits of something that you can easily ignore. This is obviously not your philosophy, ArcTan, but it seems to be Vegan's. When I criticize him, I am not criticizing you, though you seem to think I am.
EvilVegan 02-21-08, 10:33 AM	And what happens to the people who like the new 4e rules, but whose favorite setting is getting shafted? Use the rules and keep the setting? The planes are more than flavor, like it or not. With the new structure, numerous spells must be redesigned. Races have disappeared, or have been changed beyond recognition. Many old systems won't work without the old cosmology. And you can't say it doesn't matter when we are forced to take on the new cosmology if we want to play 4e.You aren't forced to take on anything if you want to play 4e. I've played 3e Darksun. I've played 3e Planescape. When I played Darksun, which btw doesn't exist in 3e, did I not allow myself to play a Mul because "they disappeared" with 3e? I mean, there aren't any 3e rules for Muls, so they can't possibly exist right? The fact that you're responding to the folks who seem to have issues with aspects of 4ed -- particularly the manner in which some of the designers have marketed the creations, not on 4ed in and of itself -- suggests that there are folks out there that care.Yes. There are folks that care. There is nobody that cares that they care though. And when I say "nobody" please understand that I mean "nobody important". In other words, there is nobody listening to your complaints that can do anything about it. The people that care are the other people complaining about it, who are just as ineffectual when it comes to changes. No, 4ed isn't new. It's an overhaul of existing concepts. Some elements were tossed and some were kept in. It's an overhaul like the transition from 1ed to 2ed was an overhaul, although this one is far more drastic.Some names of some things were kept. That's about it. It isn't an overhaul. It is a new system. Let's say you have a car. You want to "overhaul" the car, so you buy a new engine, a new body, new tires, new interior, new everything. Some of the stuff resembles things on the other car that you "overhauled", but the old car is still sitting in the driveway with all of its parts in tact. It still runs fine and gets you from A to B. Some people still like the old car better and drive the old car. Some people bought the new car. Some people drive the new car, but took the tires from the old car. You can still use the old. You can take whatever you want from either system and use them in the other system. You can change anything in any book. Ever. Everything you are complaining about is optional flavor text that has no true impact on anything at all other than which house rules you house rule and which setting you choose between when gaming. Personally I'd prefer a slimmed down, flavorless core set of books, but that wouldn't attract new players. Simpler rules and fiction will though. Those new people that go the extra mile will find planescape information easily and I'm 100% sure that 1 day after 4e comes out there will be an "unofficial" website with 4e rules for planescape, if it even takes a full 24 hours I'd be surprised.I don't know what games you're playing, but in most games I've been exposed to or run, alignment often has in-game impacts and consequences...Ok, admittedly any system that is designed to have in-game impact will have in-game impact. Please show that the in-game impact and consequences are beneficial to the game and not just arbitrary restrictions that were added on specifically to make alignment have an ingame impact. So yes, there is an impact because they decided that there should be an impact to validate having the system in place. That doesn't mean the system or the impact is necessary or beneficial. "Bards can't be lawful, monks can't be chaotic, . . . blah blah ARBITRARY CRAP AD NAUSEUM. . . SEE alignment does affect the game." Circular arguments are fun!Uhhh... For a paladin, there's a huge difference. For players in a complex gaming environment, there's a huge difference. But, I doubt any of this really applies in your case...Uhhhh. . . for a paladin, violating his code has gaming impact because they made it do so. You can have codes of ethics and morality without alignment as a system in the game. That's the nature of special class restrictions, which is exactly what the paladin code is. And how exactly does alignment prevent your from doing this...? Frankly, most quality games I've been exposed to and have run do exactly this while utilizing alignment.How does alignment specifically/exclusively enable good roleplaying? It is unnecessary for roleplaying and often is poorly understood or implemented. Please reference Paladin Threads for examples. Alignment doesn't prevent roleplaying. It limits it. For example lets look at your next statements: Which is why the character's lawful good...?Who said (or even implied?!) he was lawful good? I said he had a history that lead him to make a decision. I said he helps orphans. That is not lawful. It may be a good act, but actions don't always show entirity of the person...Or he's really a thrall of Demogorgon and doesn't know that one of his personas is a murderous misogynist? As an aside, since when is good behavior associated with killing hookers? I think I see why you don't like alignments... They make too much sense.When did I say it was good behavior to kill hookers? It was an example of a character that was not good performing good and evil actions because of his backstory, unrelated to alignment. This guy has personality and problems not an alignment. Why does he have to be a thrall to anything? Why can't he just be "quirky and :censored: up"? Because alignment is a (poorly designed) straight-jacket that you are forcing on to my backstory, that's why. The character with a backstory and personality is better for roleplaying than jotting down "alignment" on a character sheet. Just like a paladin with a detailed ethic/moral code is better than saying "I'm Lawful Good." I'd much rather play a man called to religious piety struggling with inner turmoil such as alcoholism or traumatic childhood events. Forcibly boiling down infinitely complex combinations of motivations and quirks to 9 overly-simple options is ludicrous. Then it should follow that there is no need to change the cosmology at all and that the designers should just stick to developing new mechanics, right?Yes and no. It follows that there is no reason to adjust flavor or not adjust flavor. If the flavor is optional (and it always was/will be) then changing the option is also optional. There is no reason to do one or the other. New players won't know the difference and old players are smart enough to keep what options they like. The people designing the game have their own opinions on what they want the worlds to be like, so they're doing what every good DM does. They're houseruling it. Unfortunately for the grognards the designer's house rules are considered "official". News flash: There is no "official" other than what your DM says is official.My impression is that folks aren't complaining so much about the removal of the Blood War so much as they are annoyed and frustrated with what they perceive as outright attacks and misinformation spread by some 4ed designers. The most vociferous voices targeting the 4ed transition, sciborg and ripvanwormer, have routinely stated that there are qualities in the new edition they like. What they don't like are the tactics and tone taken to promote these changes.K. I feel exactly the same way (about dragonborn boobs and sexy/tall dwarves, but still). Nobody cares though. Complaining won't change anything and there is no reason to get upset about new material that doesn't affect old material. New people won't know the difference. Old people can keep the old stuff. Nobody is hurt by the changes. And there are many other ways to move away from that option without coming across like there's something wrong with it.Understandable. What justification would you like them to give with changing a cosmology they don't like? If they're changing it because they don't like it, chances are that when they talk about it, they'll discuss, and more importantly exaggerate, things they don't like. Seems pretty standard for human behavoir. For example, when we met native americans and they were necessary to our survival our culture loved them as "Noble savages". Once we estabilished ourselves and decided that we wanted their land, they became "brutal drunken rapists". Treating the old material as "inherently poor" makes it easier to discard it and create something new. I'm sorry that you expect the staff at WOTC to be more than human. I would think if anyone were used to hyperbole it would be an internet community. Oooo! I want to play! :rolleyes: Game on! :rolleyes:
EvilVegan 02-21-08, 12:03 PM	In summary, people tend to use the internet to vent. That's what you're doing now. It's not worth getting your cast iron lid all steamy over. Can I be teflon? Cast iron just implies that I'm fat. Also, do all pots and kettles even have lids? I had a bad day, what can I say. . . Or, more generally, EvilVegan was implying that it's invalid to complain about the merits of something that you can easily ignore. This is obviously not your philosophy, ArcTan, but it seems to be Vegan's. When I criticize him, I am not criticizing you, though you seem to think I am.I was not implying that at all. My problem was more with the people that were complaining that things were changing, not that people were pointing out that the old system had merit. I like Planescape. In the bloodwar my favorite group is the Yugoloths, which is precisely why I started reading this thread to begin with. I've always preferred their methods over the other two sides and their story is just over-all more pleasing to me. I was disappointed when there weren't any yugoloths in the MM1. Did I lament my plight? No. I carried on without official yugoloths. I still had unofficial yugoloths. You see, I was hoping this thread was actually about "Yugoloths in 4e." which, to a degree, it is. But it was more "Lets cry about 4e some more with Yugoloths as the main thing to rip our hair out about now". It's just getting old. I personally was hoping for unbiased information about Yugoloths. I dont' care what they change. At all. I just wanted to know the new info. What I found was a bunch of "OMG NOES!" and "CAN YOU BELIEVE?!?!?!" Yes. I can believe. They're making a new world with new planes. Anything they create is 100% their prerogative, just like it will be mine when I streamline my homebrew to match up to 4e mechanics and I choose to omit the bloodwar and the core cosmology altogether (As I did with 3e. And 2nd ed. And 1st ed.). I'm also not using halflings at all, or dwarves as written, or dragonborn or tieflings or eladrin or drow. And really if the biggest thing to complain about is "They're using mean language to talk about things they didn't like in the old system" and "they renamed yugoloths to yugodemons" I think we might be running out of things to critique. So I started critiquing the critique. They're not the only one who ran out of things to critique.
ripvanwormer 02-21-08, 02:50 PM	I was not implying that at all. My problem was more with the people that were complaining that things were changing, not that people were pointing out that the old system had merit. I was accusing you of the former, not the latter. I never thought you were saying that it was invalid to talk about why you like things. You're saying that it's invalid to complain about things that you can ignore. This is something you seem to believe. It's not something I believe. I think it's perfectly fair to talk, on a D&D message board, about why you disapprove of changes to D&D. Whether or not they're "forcing" you to accept these changes seems beside the point. Whether or not I use them is a separate consideration from whether or not I like them. I don't think your complaint is reasonable. This is a D&D message board, and this is one of the things we're going to talk about. If you don't approve of the discussion, you're welcome to ignore it. As for whether or not I've run out of things to complain about - perhaps. I don't feel like discussing the same issues over and over again in thread after thread. Regular readers know I think the Abyss is better with succubi in it, for example, and I don't want to be like ArcTan and spam every thread I can with the same dull opinions about how horrible everything is. So I haven't been complaining about 4e changes lately, and don't intend to start again. That's my personal choice, though, and I don't think there's anything wrong with saying "I still prefer X to Y." If you like yugoloths as an independent race (as I do) feel free to say so. I don't think there are many other people around here inclined to call you names for expressing an opinion on the official design choices, whether you intend on adopting them personally or not. It's the exactly the same way that I can discuss, in a different forum, what I think about Windows Vista even if I don't intend to upgrade to it. This is not out of bounds, and posts about how stupid people are for judging ideas on their aesthetic merits even if they don't have a practical impact on them personally are not appreciated, not clever or cool, and need to stop. Now. Yes, I think things would be nicer if the WotC designers weren't quite so upfront about how they believe things we like suck donkey butt. The snide jibes, usually based on ignorance or distortion of what they're discussing, don't really help their argument at all. Chris Perkins' "I hope people will give our new replacement of the Inner Planes a chance" was nice, and I'd like to see more of that and less "ooze mephits rotfl."
EvilVegan 02-21-08, 04:56 PM	I was accusing you of the former, not the latter. I never thought you were saying that it was invalid to talk about why you like things. You're saying that it's invalid to complain about things that you can ignore. This is something you seem to believe. It's not something I believe. I think it's perfectly fair to talk, on a D&D message board, about why you disapprove of changes to D&D. Whether or not they're "forcing" you to accept these changes seems beside the point. Whether or not I use them is a separate consideration from whether or not I like them. I don't think your complaint is reasonable. This is a D&D message board, and this is one of the things we're going to talk about. If you don't approve of the discussion, you're welcome to ignore it.More importantly, its a 3.x message board. :) Again, I'm not so much against being upset as I am bored that everyone is still surprised at the sheer number of changes. Boredom isn't always reasonable. Like I said, I was having a bad day. I can get behind a few of the changes. Most of them are arbitrary and pointless. Just like the previous cosmology was arbitrary and pointless. Games tend to be arbitrary and pointless. That's often the point. As for whether or not I've run out of things to complain about - perhaps. I don't feel like discussing the same issues over and over again in thread after thread. Regular readers know I think the Abyss is better with succubi in it, for example, and I don't want to <snip> spam every thread I can with the same opinions about how horrible everything is. So I haven't been complaining about 4e changes lately, and don't intend to start again. I'd noticed. I wasn't ever bothered by your comments. That's my personal choice, though, and I don't think there's anything wrong with saying "I still prefer X to Y." If you like yugoloths as an independent race (as I do) feel free to say so. I don't think there are many other people around here inclined to call you names for expressing an opinion on the official design choices, whether you intend on adopting them personally or not. I prefer yugoloths as an independent race in some situations. I think the line is blurry and unnecessary in most situations. I don't mind the discussion about yugoloths. I mind whining about the changes. Not discussion about the changes, but the completely astonished and offended tone a lot of people take. I mean, a few months ago, even I was surprised by the drastic changes. The more that came out the less I saw that I liked. But I don't care what the designers say about anything because their opinion doesn't matter to me. I want some rebalanced mechanics and that's about it. I like some of the mechanical features of ToB and Saga. I'm by no means a fanboy of the fiction they're creating. I wasn't a fanboy of the previous incarnations either. But this is mostly because no one is as creatively ressonant with my personality as I am. I would love a real discussion of the state of yugoloths. Few people would be reasonable about it (you are one of those few) and no one really has official information about it. As such I don't know why I keep expecting these "XXX in 4e" threads to be anything other than conjecture vs whining. Really, it's my fault for expecting more than is possible. Maybe after 4e is released I can see/join in some valid discussions. It's the exactly the same way that I can discuss, in a different forum, what I think about Windows Vista even if I don't intend to upgrade to it.Vista vs XP is a good comparison to 4e to 3e. Neither upgrade is required, one will no longer be supported, and complaining about Vista doesn't change it. Except that Microsoft will probably release a patch to correct the complaints against Vista and WotC won't care about the complaints against 4e. Until it's time for 5e. This is not out of bounds, and posts about how stupid people are for judging ideas on their aesthetic merits even if they don't have a practical impact on them personally are not appreciated, not clever or cool, and need to stop. Now. Yes, I think things would be nicer if the WotC designers weren't quite so upfront about how they believe things we like suck donkey butt. The snide jibes, usually based on ignorance or distortion of what they're discussing, don't really help their argument at all. Chris Perkins' "I hope people will give our new replacement of the Inner Planes a chance" was nice, and I'd like to see more of that and less "ooze mephits rotfl." But ooze mephits are total rolfcopters. :) I wish they'd just print the stupid books already and let the chips fall where they may. I'm just tired of hearing moaning about an unreleased product. I don't read the designer blogs because they're boring and horribly exaggerated and I won't pay $ for preview books about unfinished products. It's just horribly wearing. The boards are slow and everything seems stupid and trite since the announcement. It's like everything is on hold. . .
The Serge7 02-21-08, 08:04 PM	Yes. There are folks that care. There is nobody that cares that they care though. And when I say "nobody" please understand that I mean "nobody important". In other words, there is nobody listening to your complaints that can do anything about it. The people that care are the other people complaining about it, who are just as ineffectual when it comes to changes. This is a huge assumption on your part. For all we know, designers are reading these and other threads that showcase certain fans' concerns and, although we may never see the designers publically acknowledge them, the fruits of these "gripes" may show up somewhere. Some names of some things were kept. That's about it. It isn't an overhaul. It is a new system. From what I've seen (and I admit that it's relatively little compared to others, possibly yourself included), it's an overhaul in the same way 2ed was to 1ed. But, your points taken, so I won't waste time debating it. "Bards can't be lawful, monks can't be chaotic, . . . blah blah ARBITRARY CRAP AD NAUSEUM. . . SEE alignment does affect the game." Circular arguments are fun!Uhhhh. . . for a paladin, violating his code has gaming impact because they made it do so. You can have codes of ethics and morality without alignment as a system in the game. That's the nature of special class restrictions, which is exactly what the paladin code is. How does alignment specifically/exclusively enable good roleplaying? It is unnecessary for roleplaying and often is poorly understood or implemented. Kind of like any other rule in this and similar games... Alignment doesn't prevent roleplaying. It limits it. For example lets look at your next statements: Who said (or even implied?!) he was lawful good? I said he had a history that lead him to make a decision. I said he helps orphans. That is not lawful. You did. In your example. It may be a good act, but actions don't always show entirity of the person...When did I say it was good behavior to kill hookers? You did. In your example. It was an example of a character that was not good performing good and evil actions because of his backstory, unrelated to alignment. This guy has personality and problems not an alignment. Actually, he has personality and problems that are reflected by his alignment. Why does he have to be a thrall to anything? Why can't he just be "quirky and :censored: up"? I was using the PrC as a (facecious) explanation to your example. Because alignment is a (poorly designed) straight-jacket that you are forcing on to my backstory, that's why. In the hands of those incapable of utilizing it. The character with a backstory and personality is better for roleplaying than jotting down "alignment" on a character sheet. We're back to this again. As I said before, most games I've run and most games to which I've been exposed feature characters (both PC and NPCs) "with a backstory and personality" in addition to "jotting down 'alignment' on a character sheet." The two (personality and background/alignment) are not mutually exclusive. Just like a paladin with a detailed ethic/moral code is better than saying "I'm Lawful Good." I'd much rather play a man called to religious piety struggling with inner turmoil such as alcoholism or traumatic childhood events. Which may well be reflected in his LG alignment (using your paladin example for the sake of clarity). However, his LG alignment does not mean that he's a carbon-copy to the lucky guy from a wealthy, kind-hearted family who never had a drop of alochol who too is called to religious piety. Forcibly boiling down infinitely complex combinations of motivations and quirks to 9 overly-simple options is ludicrous. Since when do motivations and quirks boil down to "9 overly-simple options?" The alignments are intentionally broad to allow for a wide range of possibilities within them. As I quickly illustrated above. Yes and no. It follows that there is no reason to adjust flavor or not adjust flavor. If the flavor is optional (and it always was/will be) then changing the option is also optional. There is no reason to do one or the other. New players won't know the difference and old players are smart enough to keep what options they like. The people designing the game have their own opinions on what they want the worlds to be like, so they're doing what every good DM does. They're houseruling it. Unfortunately for the grognards the designer's house rules are considered "official". In practical application, this is true. However, you'd have to be a fool to believe this. The fact that there's 30+ years of meta-history and discussions about that meta-history reveals that the actual practice completely counters what you're stating. You know it and just don't want to own up to it. News flash: There is no "official" other than what your DM says is official.K. You know, there are times when this and similar comments are valuable and times when they're not. This is one of those times when it's not, especially in light of the issues folks have with this transition. New people won't know the difference. Old people can keep the old stuff. Nobody is hurt by the changes. Clearly, you're wrong. What justification would you like them to give with changing a cosmology they don't like? If they're changing it because they don't like it, chances are that when they talk about it, they'll discuss, and more importantly exaggerate, things they don't like. State why the change is made, say how it will improve/streamline gameplay, and move on. Reference 3ed for the sake of letting current gamers know what's changing and that's it. They can have all the discussion and trash-talking they want behind closed doors. Seems pretty standard for human behavoir. For example, when we met native americans and they were necessary to our survival our culture loved them as "Noble savages". Once we estabilished ourselves and decided that we wanted their land, they became "brutal drunken rapists". :uh-huh: I won't even go here. Treating the old material as "inherently poor" makes it easier to discard it and create something new. No, it alienates folks who would otherwise give the new material a chance. I'm sorry that you expect the staff at WOTC to be more than human. Don't be foolish. I expect them to let real marketers speak for their products in order not to tick folks off needlessly.
EvilVegan 02-22-08, 10:00 AM	This is a huge assumption on your part. For all we know, designers are reading these and other threads that showcase certain fans' concerns and, although we may never see the designers publically acknowledge them, the fruits of these "gripes" may show up somewhere. Very true, though I wouldn't call it a "huge" assumption. There is always a miniscule chance that someone at WotC wastes their time reading every single complaint thread.Kind of like any other rule in this and similar games...Yep. The precedence and prevelance of arbitrary rules doesn't necessitate them. You did. In your example. You did. In your example. Oh? Here's my example: "... It isn't "I help orphans because I'm lawful good" it's "I help orphans because my parents died horribly when I was a child and I was lucky enough to be taken in by a good family". This same character might kill hookers for the exact same reason. His 'alignment' is irrelevant and unnecessarily restrictive." Where did I say that he was lawful good? Where did I say it was a good action to kill hookers? I said "it isn't that's he helps orphans because he is lawful good". I further went on to stress the point that he wasn't precisely good by showing that he also kills hookers, which means that I was indicating that it is actually bad to kill hookers. Actually, he has personality and problems that are reflected by his alignment. Faulty circular logic . This statement is entirely backwards and is only true if you accept the premise that alignment is present/necessary. What alignment are real people? You can't fit most people into alignments and you shouldn't expect realistic fake people to fit in 9 molds either. Also, please reference a "What alignment is Superman/Batman/Goatboy/ETC?" threads for anecdotal examples. And I'm not saying you can't use alignment to make a believable character. I'm saying you don't need it. And judging by the number of flamewar paladin threads it isn't as clear cut as some people would like. Personally I feel I have a superior grasp of the D&D alignment system (compared to new people, not you) , but that comes from years of playing with it. It confuses some people. Those people would benefit from it's removal. The people that understood and appreciate it can continue to use it (I imagine there will be plenty of optional side-bars for all the legacy fluff like alignment). The people that understand it and don't appreciate it (like me!) probably weren't using it or focusing on it as a roleplay tool anyway (I removed alignment from my campaigns over 7 years ago.) Cost/benefit analysis. Old people that like can update. New people it might confuse won't be confused by it. Old people that didn't like it don't care. New people and people that didn't like it benefit. Old player's that liked it will be fully able to continue using it, though there won't be official support in the form of spells like detect evil and holy word. By the way, they are removing a lot of these spells, effects, and features (like paladin codes) from the game completely separate from the alignment system anyway. In the hands of those incapable of utilizing it.HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! Oh. That's rich. The old "you/they are too stupid to understand something I have a personal preference on". Priceless! That kind of language is more offensive than "the plane of void is the antithesis of fun"! At least the designers insulted the material rather than the people that liked the material. Those people decided to take offense anyway, but whatever. . . We're back to this again. As I said before, most games I've run and most games to which I've been exposed feature characters (both PC and NPCs) "with a backstory and personality" in addition to "jotting down 'alignment' on a character sheet." The two (personality and background/alignment) are not mutually exclusive.I never said they were mutually exclusive. I said trying to force them to work together is unnecessary and brings nothing beneficial to the game. They work fine together. But guess what, the game also works fine if you remove alignment entirely and just focus on personality or history. I personally feel it works much better. Which may well be reflected in his LG alignment (using your paladin example for the sake of clarity). However, his LG alignment does not mean that he's a carbon-copy to the lucky guy from a wealthy, kind-hearted family who never had a drop of alochol who too is called to religious piety. No. It doesn't. So if they're so different, why bother with the description of them both being Lawful good? They might occasionally break the law, they might occasionally be mean and selfish. With LG tacked on to their character sheet it makes them less robust. Even if they're both Paladins, they have class restrictions and abilities that function just fine without alignment. Smite and detect evil were somewhat problematic as was the paladin code, so the removal and improvement of these features would be beneficial. They may not have been a problem for you (or me), but it was obviously a problem for some. Since when do motivations and quirks boil down to "9 overly-simple options?" The alignments are intentionally broad to allow for a wide range of possibilities within them. As I quickly illustrated above.Which I quickly refuted as showing that alignment was an unnecessary convention with the description you listed. In practical application, this is true. However, you'd have to be a fool to believe this. The fact that there's 30+ years of meta-history and discussions about that meta-history reveals that the actual practice completely counters what you're stating. You know it and just don't want to own up to it.So now anyone who disagrees with you is a fool and I'm being obtuse? Awesome! 30+ years of crap-meta-history and discussion about crap-meta-history doesn't automatically mean that it is "the awesomely bestest and only available option ever". Just because this is what we've had to talk about simply because the previous authors decided it was what we would have to talk about doesn't mean that it has any inherent value. The people that made up the meta-history made it up. It isn't real. It isn't necessary. It is 100% optional. I think in my 18 years of gaming it may have had a realistic in-game impact in one campaign, and it was a Planescape campaign. The rest of the time it was backstory and never once had any effect on my character or the party he was with or the story he was in. It would have been 100% just as relevant if they said that demons live in candy-gum-drop-land and shoot beams of happiness everywhere they go, except when they attack your party. The meta-setting/history has no real effect on anything in the game. This is because this is a game of make-believe. It's like running around in a blank world and nothing exists until it observably affects something else. You know, there are times when this and similar comments are valuable and times when they're not. This is one of those times when it's not, especially in light of the issues folks have with this transition.The issues some folks have with the transition. Some people like the changes. Some people (myself included) are completely unaffected by the changes (unless you count pouring through droves of whining to get to real substance). That makes three groups naysayers, yaysayers, and mehsayers. Which one is the loudest and most likely to complain? Here's a hint: people don't typically say anything when they're content but rarely shut up when they're disatisfied. There is actually no true sample of people that can be taken to see if the new edition changes are going to be good or bad for the industry until after it is released. That's yet another reason this complaining serves no purpose. Especially when the complaints seem to be not against the subject matter, but the manner in which other people discuss their opinions.Clearly, you're wrong. CLEARLY! Because you can't still use the old stuff, as the instant 4e is released every single source of previous edition fluff will completely disintegrate! Wow, it does suck that people produce new material in light of the inevitable destruction of all we know and love. I see your point now! ... Are you serious? Do you seriously believe you can't continue playing planescape in 4e, just like you could in 3e? There is no official 3e planescape and it works 100% fine! New people don't have a clue about planescape and ignorance of the setting is truly bliss. They won't possibly know what they're missing. And if they do find out it isn't hard to figure out. That's the joy of the internet and make-believe.State why the change is made, say how it will improve/streamline gameplay, and move on. Reference 3ed for the sake of letting current gamers know what's changing and that's it. They can have all the discussion and trash-talking they want behind closed doors.Ok. You don't like the way some people discuss things they don't like. That's cool. I don't like that they're trying to "sex it up". See, that's the point, it is possible to just accept other people's opinions as opinions and move on. That's all they've done, they stated their opinions. Trash talking them here isn't going to change things. Discussion might, but I saw mostly trash talk, knee-jerking, and whining. So I called it out. I'm not the only one who gets upset when people don't properly reference their complaints with logical analysis. Basically, it is me complaining about people complaining about people complaining. No, it alienates folks who would otherwise give the new material a chance.You speak as if my statement was not also correct. It alienates fans who liked the material (aka fanboys or grognards) and it also makes it easier for the authors of the new material to discard the old. These folks that are being alienated though, they probably already have a good product to use. Provided, coincidentally, by the same people who they're complaining about. Either that or they're complaining about something that wasn't even updated fully to 3e and has no reason to see an update to 4e.Don't be foolish. I expect them to let real marketers speak for their products in order not to tick folks off needlessly.Ah. Foolish! I'll stop immediately now that you called me on it! Just like everyone here will stop whining because I called them on it. Just like the designers will change their tone when discussing things they don't like because anonymous internet people called them on it! It's the circle of foolishness!
The Ubbergeek 02-22-08, 08:07 PM	for example, and I don't want to be like ArcTan and spam every thread I can with the same dull opinions about how horrible everything is. You just can't handle someone with an oppinion who go against yours and can debate like he met the ancient greeks and romans, perhaps?
EvilVegan 02-23-08, 07:59 AM	So. . . Yugodemons eh? Any stats on them yet?
NoldorForce 02-23-08, 05:53 PM	Still haven't seen 'em. Personally, I don't like mixing them in with demons. But that's less because it ruins the previous arbitrary trichotomy than because it supports the new arbitrary dichotomy. I like having yugoloths and such around as interplanar mercenaries that aren't necessarily aligned with other evil folks; just goes to show that there's always more than what you expect out there.
Kain_Darkwind 02-23-08, 07:05 PM	You just can't handle someone with an oppinion who go against yours and can debate like he met the ancient greeks and romans, perhaps? :yuck: Oh my god, pop it out of your mouth for a second and breathe. ArcTan has shown himself perfectly capable of defending his opinions without a cheerleader squad. His mastery of fallacy, hyperbole and misdirection aside, one may in fact not like his actual opinions, regardless of how well or poorly he defends them. I don't like the way the change was implemented, as it seems to be the least creative direction (other than leaving them alone or out) one could have taken with them. Hopefully we'll get to see some of their stats prior to June, but I'm fairly sure that mechanical issues won't be big in anyone's mind as far as gripes. (Which would be the opposite of 3.5, where the mechanics entirely failed to put the loths on equal footing with devils or demons.) However, it is unlikely that balors and ultroloths will be the same level if they are both demons, as that would create some needless overlap. It would be interesting if they abandoned the 'same level' approach for all three of them they had in 3e for a wildly different comparison to each other, but who knows?
The Serge7 02-26-08, 09:47 AM	Very true, though I wouldn't call it a "huge" assumption. There is always a miniscule chance that someone at WotC wastes their time reading every single complaint thread. Why is it a waste of time? Yep. The precedence and prevelance of arbitrary rules doesn't necessitate them. The rules in question are often arbitrary only to those to who don't like them or have problems utilizing them. I tend to see the latter being the most prominent expression. Oh? Here's my example: "... It isn't "I help orphans because I'm lawful good" it's "I help orphans because my parents died horribly when I was a child and I was lucky enough to be taken in by a good family". This same character might kill hookers for the exact same reason. His 'alignment' is irrelevant and unnecessarily restrictive." Where did I say that he was lawful good? Where did I say it was a good action to kill hookers? In your example. I said "it isn't that's he helps orphans because he is lawful good". Right. You attempting to express the notion that his helping has nothing to do with his LG alignment but with his background, baggage, nature, etc. I further went on to stress the point that he wasn't precisely good by showing that he also kills hookers, which means that I was indicating that it is actually bad to kill hookers. Perhaps you need to learn to write more clearly...? This is not an attack, just an observation. Faulty circular logic . This statement is entirely backwards and is only true if you accept the premise that alignment is present/necessary. It is present in D&D. It is necessary in D&D (or has been historically) due to the nature of spells, class availability, disposition after death, and so forth. What alignment are real people? You can't fit most people into alignments and you shouldn't expect realistic fake people to fit in 9 molds either. How have we managed to jump to "real people" here? I thought we were talking about a game... At any rate, you behave as if the nine alignments some how constrain your ability to role-play your character. I deny that limited perspective and, once again, posit that the problem isn't the alignment system as a whole, but folks' inability to utiliize it. Oh no! I'm being an elitist! Just like I'm an elitist because I know that some people can't draw or act or throw a football! Also, please reference a "What alignment is Superman/Batman/Goatboy/ETC?" threads for anecdotal examples. I thought we were talking about D&D... But, I suspect most folks would agree that Superman's LG, Batman's CG, and... Who the hell's Goatboy? I allow that there are debates on these alignments, but there are debates on concepts that are widely held and supported by a prevalence of information. This doesn't change the fact that alignment is not a constraint and, when used well, broadens opportunities and experiences in D&D. And I'm not saying you can't use alignment to make a believable character. I'm saying you don't need it. And judging by the number of flamewar paladin threads it isn't as clear cut as some people would like. Personally I feel I have a superior grasp of the D&D alignment system (compared to new people, not you) , but that comes from years of playing with it. Uh-oh. Another elitist. At any rate, I'm all for streamlining when it makes sense. Removing THAC0 and bonuses alwasy being positive and so forth. And I don't know that alignment's a sacred cow... However, the notion that there's something wrong with it because some people have a hard time figuring it out and therefore means it must be tossed seems like we're throwing the baby out with the bath water. Cost/benefit analysis. Old people that like can update. New people it might confuse won't be confused by it. Old people that didn't like it don't care. So, new people are automatically dumb? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! Oh. That's rich. The old "you/they are too stupid to understand something I have a personal preference on". Priceless! That kind of language is more offensive than "the plane of void is the antithesis of fun"! **shrug** If you want to see it like that. In any event, you're pretty much saying the same thing regarding new people. You're just using nicer language. At least the designers insulted the material rather than the people that liked the material. Those people decided to take offense anyway, but whatever. . . Again, if you want to see it as an insult in order to grant your "arguments" greater validity due to emotional weight, go for it. The fact remains that some people will grasp the concept faster than others and utilize it to greater value. This doesn't mean that all people necessarily agree... I happen to like and respect Shemeska's ideas, but I disagree with most of them even if I like, respect, and understand them. I never said they were mutually exclusive. I said trying to force them to work together is unnecessary and brings nothing beneficial to the game. They work fine together. But guess what, the game also works fine if you remove alignment entirely and just focus on personality or history. I personally feel it works much better. That's nice. And, if WotC changes things in a direction you seem to advocate, we'll have to see how it works. But suggesting that the alignment system somehow restricts in-depth roleplaying, which is what you've been doing, is wrong-headed. No. It doesn't. Yes. It does. So if they're so different, why bother with the description of them both being Lawful good? They might occasionally break the law, they might occasionally be mean and selfish. With LG tacked on to their character sheet it makes them less robust. No, it doesn't. It reveals that they both value Law and they both value Righteousness. However, they came to both in different ways due to different experiences... Yet, they still stand for much of the same things. Given that they're human, they will make mistakes and they will have to repent and atone (they're not spiritual paragons, afterall), but their overarching goals and desires are LG in nature. This doesn't mean they're carbon copies of each other. Are you new to this? Even if they're both Paladins, they have class restrictions and abilities that function just fine without alignment. Smite and detect evil were somewhat problematic as was the paladin code, so the removal and improvement of these features would be beneficial. **shrug** We'll see. They may not have been a problem for you (or me), but it was obviously a problem for some. I'm not convinced of this... But let's go with it. Which I quickly refuted as showing that alignment was an unnecessary convention with the description you listed. Hardly. You just disagree with it. Which is why I asked if you were new. So now anyone who disagrees with you is a fool and I'm being obtuse? Awesome! Amazing! We agree on something. 30+ years of crap-meta-history and discussion about crap-meta-history doesn't automatically mean that it is "the awesomely bestest and only available option ever". Just because this is what we've had to talk about simply because the previous authors decided it was what we would have to talk about doesn't mean that it has any inherent value. Never said it did/does. The people that made up the meta-history made it up. It isn't real. Are you sure we're not talking about real-life? Cause, I swear you referred to real-life earlier. I just want to make sure I'm understanding you... The issues some folks have with the transition. Some people like the changes. Some people (myself included) are completely unaffected by the changes (unless you count pouring through droves of whining to get to real substance). You're coming to a message board and whining about the whining! Good lord! Because you can't still use the old stuff, as the instant 4e is released every single source of previous edition fluff will completely disintegrate! Actually, that's pretty much right in terms of official support. Are you serious? Yes. There is no official 3e planescape and it works 100% fine! New people don't have a clue about planescape and ignorance of the setting is truly bliss. To you perhaps. See, that's the point, it is possible to just accept other people's opinions as opinions and move on. That's all they've done, they stated their opinions. No, that's not "all they've done." That's the point of some on this thread. There are ways to express an opinion without being a prick about it. Trash talking them here isn't going to change things. We don't know that. Discussion might, but I saw mostly trash talk, knee-jerking, and whining. So I called it out. No... Really, you just offered more trash talk, knee-jerking, and whining. You speak as if my statement was not also correct. I think most of anything valuable in what you had to offer was covered by the massive pile of refuse in your tone. These folks that are being alienated though, they probably already have a good product to use. Provided, coincidentally, by the same people who they're complaining about. It's not the same people. Same company, but not the same people. Ah. Foolish! I'll stop immediately now that you called me on it! Excellent. I expect you won't respond to this post then. Just like everyone here will stop whining because I called them on it. Everyone here isn't whining, though. Just like the designers will change their tone when discussing things they don't like because anonymous internet people called them on it! And they may well do so.
The Ubbergeek 02-26-08, 07:34 PM	His mastery of fallacy, hyperbole and misdirection aside, one may in fact not like his actual opinions, regardless of how well or poorly he defends them. Pot calls the kettle black, eh?
Kain_Darkwind 02-26-08, 11:44 PM	Pot calls the kettle black, eh? If you've got some proof, evidence or even an poor example, by all means let's see it. Otherwise, shut your trolling mouth.
The Ubbergeek 02-27-08, 03:09 PM	The whole thread is quite it, or at least when he started to argue with ArcTan. *yawns* Apparently, agreeing with ArcTan is stupidity. Anyway.
Kain_Darkwind 02-27-08, 09:17 PM	The whole thread is quite it, or at least when he started to argue with ArcTan. *yawns* Apparently, agreeing with ArcTan is stupidity. Anyway. You seem to have trouble employing English at all, which is no doubt why you worship ArcTan, surely the first person you met who could string together an entire sentence. You suggested that I was a pot calling the kettle black by suggesting ArcTan makes use of fallacy and hyperbole. Are you somehow trying to grunt out in your cavetalk that disagreeing with ArcTan is stupidity? That the second one disagrees with the most holy opinion of ArcTan, their words carry no more merit than the spittle that dribbles down your unwiped chin? I apologize most profusely if I've misunderstood your stance on the matter, I'm trying very hard to uncover the point you've probably buried in there.
Fabius Maximus 02-28-08, 08:31 AM	I think the whole point was that you also used fallacy and hyperbole. And there is no need to get personal.
EvilVegan 02-28-08, 01:46 PM	Why is it a waste of time?Because it isn't a good sample of the fanbase. It's a small section of people and of those that are vocal there may or may not be millions of others that disagree with them. The rules in question are often arbitrary only to those to who don't like them or have problems utilizing them. I tend to see the latter being the most prominent expression.Hm. I think you may want to learn the meaning of arbitrary. I understand and have no problem utilizing the rules of the game "Slugbug" but that by no means makes any of those rules non-arbitrary. The nature of games tends to lead most of the rules to being arbitrary. The point is to reduce the arbitrary rules to those that are beneficial to the game. "If you see a volkswagen beetle, punch someone and yell out 'slugbug (color)'. You can't slug someone for a vehicle that has already been spotted and slugged for. Rinse/repeate. Winner has fewest bruises." Pure gaming gold. All those arbitrary rules make for a hilarious road-trip game. Alignment wouldn't help them be any more fun.In your example. Right. You attempting to express the notion that his helping has nothing to do with his LG alignment but with his background, baggage, nature, etc. Perhaps you need to learn to write more clearly...? This is not an attack, just an observation.Perhaps I do. Perhaps you need to learn how to read better? I said "it isn't because he's lawful good that he performs [this action]". There are two ways to read this either "He is lawful good but he isn't making this particular decision based on his alignment" which doesn't make much sense because that is a lawful good action. Or the correct way "He isn't lawful good, but he's doing this action regardless". So, I could see where you got confused, but please take the whole of the paragraph into consideration. The main problem is that you are already approaching everything as "This character has an alignment" where I am showing that it doesn't. You are applying your preconcieved notions of alignment onto my examples. Please understand that when I show that alignment is unnecessary I may use examples of characters that do not technically have an alignment. You are resorting to semantics to dodge the issue. It is present in D&D. It is necessary in D&D (or has been historically) due to the nature of spells, class availability, disposition after death, and so forth. Those features are only necessary if you include alignment. Learn what "circular argument" means. How have we managed to jump to "real people" here? I thought we were talking about a game...We are talking about the game. So I guess we don't want our characters to have realistic personalities. I'm sorry, I didn't realize you wanted to play a kid's cartoon. Pardon me while I twirl my moustache and laugh maniacally. "They'll never stop my plan to feed all the virgins to the dragon!" :evillaugh . . . :rolleyes: Alignment leads to fictional caricatures, not believable characters. You can further add more to these caricatures to make them more believable, but the alignment doesn't help or hurt. It is useless. This is more semantics as well. Please try to understand the point behind the words before focusing on the words themselves. At any rate, you behave as if the nine alignments some how constrain your ability to role-play your character. I deny that limited perspective and, once again, posit that the problem isn't the alignment system as a whole, but folks' inability to utiliize it. Do I believe that? I said they are unnecessary and don't add anything beneficial to the roleplay. I said they limit what your character can do within the restrictions of the alignment, but that doesn't limit you from roleplaying that alignment. You still have the same ability to roleplay your character, you just can't do certain things with that character. Those things may or may not add depth, but the restriction is on options, not on ability to roleplay. Again, an insult towards the capabilities of people with different opinions than yours. Oh no! I'm being an elitist! Just like I'm an elitist because I know that some people can't draw or act or throw a football!So if we had an arbitrary rule that you had to draw your character or throw a football in order to play, those would be good rules? The rules don't need to include arbitrary things that some people can't do. You're stalling. Please show that alignment is inherently useful. I thought we were talking about D&D... But, I suspect most folks would agree that Superman's LG, Batman's CG, and... Who the hell's Goatboy? I allow that there are debates on these alignments, but there are debates on concepts that are widely held and supported by a prevalence of information. This doesn't change the fact that alignment is not a constraint and, when used well, broadens opportunities and experiences in D&D.Batman is CN and Superman is NG. What "most people" agree on shows that the alignment system is at best a 'general consensus' rule that doesn't mesh well with "roll a die, add a number, higher = better". Goatboy is a character on saturday night live and would probably be CS (chaotic stupid). Learn what a constraint it. If you are forced to write it down on a character sheet and it limits what you can do and also affects which spells will successfully target you it is a constraint. At any rate, I'm all for streamlining when it makes sense. Removing THAC0 and bonuses alwasy being positive and so forth. And I don't know that alignment's a sacred cow... However, the notion that there's something wrong with it because some people have a hard time figuring it out and therefore means it must be tossed seems like we're throwing the baby out with the bath water.No. It seems like removing a benign tumor from the baby. If some people have a problem (enough to notice) with it and it doesn't add anything, then remove it. Show that the alignment system isn't "bathwater" or "a tumor" and is actually part of the Baby. That is "show that it is necessary and brings something beneficial to the game". So, new people are automatically dumb?No, they're automatically new. They are learning a new system. An arbitrary alignment system that doesn't mesh with their view of the world is unnecessary and doesn't add to the game. **shrug** If you want to see it like that. In any event, you're pretty much saying the same thing regarding new people. You're just using nicer language.No, you intentionally misinterpretted what I said in a negative light. I said they may not understand alignment because they're new. Any new system will include things that not everyone will automatically understand. I think reading comprehension is yet again an issue. You are the one insulting people for not understanding something you like, not me. It's abundantly obvious that you're trying really, really hard to find these things to argue with me about. You are twisting my words to make it look like I'm insulting new people, when really all it is is that I admit that some people can have a problem with the grey areas of the alignment system, as evidenced by real world examples of people having problems with it and getting worked up about it to the point that alignment threads are almost always locked down. This isn't about "understanding" the subject matter, this is differences of opinion within the "general consensus" that alignment requires. I'm glad you've got as much free time as I do. I'm getting paid to sit here, what's your excuse? Again, if you want to see it as an insult in order to grant your "arguments" greater validity due to emotional weight, go for it. The fact remains that some people will grasp the concept faster than others and utilize it to greater value. This doesn't mean that all people necessarily agree... I happen to like and respect Shemeska's ideas, but I disagree with most of them even if I like, respect, and understand them. Ok, I know you're just being snarky for no reason at this point, but I'm going to point out something. Hopefully, you aren't in belligerent mode and can actually read it and take something from it for future diplomacy checks. When you say that there is only a problem when 'X' is "In the hands of someone incapable of utilizing 'X'", that is insulting. It indicates that I am incapable of doing something, when the truth is I just prefer not to do it. You are turning my personal preference into a percieved deficit in capabilities. "I don't like drinking poo." "Well that's only because you are incapable of drinking poo." "Uhh. No." So you see (or more likely, you still don't see), it's an unnecessary insult. It's amusing (as most of your posts are) that you even mention that you "disagree with most of them even if I like, respect, and understand them" after posting that someone who doesn't like the current alignment system is simply "incapable of utilizing it." That's nice. And, if WotC changes things in a direction you seem to advocate, we'll have to see how it works. But suggesting that the alignment system somehow restricts in-depth roleplaying, which is what you've been doing, is wrong-headed. Please show that forcing all characters to have one of 9 Alignments is not a restriction. I think you may want to learn what a restriction is. "You are restricted to these 9 alignments". Regardless of the actual impact this has on depth of roleplaying, it is going to be a restriction. And BTW WOTC has made several changes that I disagree with. Other than mechanics I haven't liked 90% of the changes they're making. Yes. It does.Oh? I think I've found the perfect example to show your contrariness. You're so adamant at disagreeing with me you even disagree with me when I'm agreeing with you! AWESOME! Check it out: However, his LG alignment does not mean that he's a carbon-copy to the lucky guy from a wealthy, kind-hearted family who never had a drop of alochol who too is called to religious piety. No. It doesn't.I was completely agreeing with your point and you contradict me. I knew you were either being snide for the sake of argument or you aren't trying to understand what I'm saying. No, it doesn't. It reveals that they both value Law and they both value Righteousness. However, they came to both in different ways due to different experiences... Yet, they still stand for much of the same things. Given that they're human, they will make mistakes and they will have to repent and atone (they're not spiritual paragons, afterall), but their overarching goals and desires are LG in nature. This doesn't mean they're carbon copies of each other.Oh, thats wierd, you just said that it did right above this portion. For reference (and humor!) I'm going to post the dialog again. However, his LG alignment does not mean that he's a carbon-copy to the lucky guy from a wealthy, kind-hearted family who never had a drop of alochol who too is called to religious piety. No. It doesn't.Yes. It does. Please make up your mind. Also, please show that their overarching goals, desires, and beliefs, if they are so varied within the spectrum of all things Lawful and Good, need to be pigeonholed into the same exact description of both highly varied and unique creatures. Again, I'd like to point out that I fully agreed with you and said they weren't carbon copies. They are very different, to the point that saying they're both lawful good is unnecessary. Are you new to this?Are you? Does it help prove your point if I'm new or not new? Does it have any relevance at all? Oh wait, no it doesn't, you're still stalling and using faulty logic (attacking the person rather than the argument) to do so. And by the way, I've been playing since 1989. So no, I'm not new, I'm old. If you had read my post you might have picked that up, but probably not. You're too busy trying to find points to make semantic arguments about to actually read anything and try to understand it. **shrug** We'll see.It will be seen by those capable of seeing it. I'm not convinced of this... But let's go with it.Not convinced that I understand alignments or not convinced that some people have problem with it. I don't care either way, but I would like to point out the unnecessary insult implied in the first option and a lack of veracity in the second one. Either way, you're wrong. Hardly. You just disagree with it. Which is why I asked if you were new.I do disagree with it. Which is why it's absurd to ask if I'm new. It doesn't matter if I'm new or old, that is an insult to avoid the point. The point is you have absolutely no way to show that Alignment is necessary, as it is not. Since you cannot do so, you have resorted to insulting my understanding of the subject matter without showing anything to the contrary. It's highly amusing. If it is "hardly unnecessary" Please show how... Without using a circular argument such as "It is necessary for alignment to be built into the system because there are spells/classes/abilities that work off of alignment because alignment is built into the system." Never said it did/does.Hm. Let's recap. Yes and no. It follows that there is no reason to adjust flavor or not adjust flavor. If the flavor is optional (and it always was/will be) then changing the option is also optional. There is no reason to do one or the other. New players won't know the difference and old players are smart enough to keep what options they like. The people designing the game have their own opinions on what they want the worlds to be like, so they're doing what every good DM does. They're houseruling it. Unfortunately for the grognards the designer's house rules are considered "official". In practical application, this is true. However, you'd have to be a fool to believe this. The fact that there's 30+ years of meta-history and discussions about that meta-history reveals that the actual practice completely counters what you're stating. You know it and just don't want to own up to it. Just because this is what we've had to talk about simply because the previous authors decided it was what we would have to talk about doesn't mean that it has any inherent value. I say that the meta-setting has no inherent value and boils down to house rules. You say that this is true but you have to be a fool to believe it (which is amusing in itself). You then say that the fact that there is 30 years of history and discussion shows that I was incorrect to state that it has no inherent value. Then I say that it doesn't matter that there was 30 years of discussion about it, that doesn't show that it has inherent value. Then you say you didn't say that it did have inherent value. Interesting. Are you sure we're not talking about real-life? Cause, I swear you referred to real-life earlier. I just want to make sure I'm understanding you...The fact that you can't separate an analogy made to the realism of a character's personality and a discussion of the metasetting is very amusing. Yet more semantics. You're coming to a message board and whining about the whining! Good lord!Yep. I already pointed that out. As did a few other people, who I agreed with in a very good-natured exchange of banter. Please try and keep up. Actually, that's pretty much right in terms of official support. How much official support do you need? Do you write into cust serv often? Read the FAQ before bedtime? You describe yourself as someone who has a better grasp of the subject matter than any person who has lived before or will live after. I would think if anyone didn't need official support, it would be the people who understand the alignment system. I'm honored to stand in your presence. It's like sunshine on my miserable ignorant life to be near one who likes using the alignment system! /hyperbole To you perhaps.To anyone capable of understanding the old material. No, that's not "all they've done." That's the point of some on this thread. There are ways to express an opinion without being a prick about it.I know. Your posts are sublime examples of how not to do this. Look, I know they used some language to discuss the previous material that could be seen as harsh, but it was harsh towards the subject matter, not the people using the subject matter. Everyone has come on here acting like the designers have punched their mothers in the face. They didn't like the old stuff, they will talk about the things they didn't like it. If you do like it, GREAT, it's still there. It will affect your games if you decide to go to 4e. If all of these changes are that important to you, don't upgrade. If you're smart enough to understand and appreciate everything like you say you are, then simply upgrade it.No... Really, you just offered more trash talk, knee-jerking, and whining. Oh good, I should fit right in. What's the problem? I think most of anything valuable in what you had to offer was covered by the massive pile of refuse in your tone.I see. You didn't appreciate my tone to the point that you didn't actually read anything I wrote or attempt to formulate any rational thoughts about that subject matter, and yet you chose to respond anyway, and thus your lack of understanding of what I said is somehow my fault. Hilarious. Keep it coming.It's not the same people. Same company, but not the same people.Actually it's not the same company, but is a lot of the same people. The people that produced yugoloths were with TSR. Some of those people were hired by WotC (Bill Slavicsek for instance). I don't claim to be an expert on the subject though and this was just yet another semantic argument you use to divert from the real subject matter. Everyone here isn't whining, though.No they aren't. Again, reading comprehension is key to comprehending what you read. If I say everyone here will stop whining and it is obvious that not everyone is whining, then perhaps the correct understanding of the sentence is everyone who is whining will stop whining and those that aren't whining will continue to not whine. And then everyone will have stopped whining. As in, "All people involved in this thread will no longer be whining" not "Everyone here is whining and will now stop." I'm glad you have a better grasp of alignment than you do of language. Please try harder to have real points. These horrible semantic arguments you keep bringing forth over and over are a little too trite for my tastes. And they may well do so.One would hope. Maybe emailing someone would serve more purpose than whining on an internet forum? You know, trying to contact them directly. I often stand in my closet and complain about my neighbor's dog crapping all over my yard. He always comes into my closet and makes sure I'm okay with it. Side note, here's an example of a good post about the change to alignment systems that doesn't involve whining (which happens to also be something I believe): If they were keeping alignment, but toning it down and using it as a roleplaying aid rather than crutch and system trait, I would like a shaded scale. Instead of 9 boxes, make it a circle, with the alignments on the outside. Like a color pallette in Photoshop. Vile/Exalted and extraplanar creatures would be on the outside edge, most mortals would be on the inside (nearest neutral) and PCs would be in the middle. Instead of saying "I'm lawful good." you would just put a dot on a shaded circle kind of in the upper left area, perhaps closer to neutral or lawful, but not as simple as "LG". I could get behind a system like that, since it would be much easier for new people, it is more streamlined, and keeps the old flavor. You could even put exceptions like one big dot in the general LG section with a star in the CE section stating that "with regards to hookers and puppies this character is homicidal, but in all other situations will behave LG"."See, I don't like alignments, but this contains information that is useful if the designers do happen to read it. As you said the designers should do; state what you are changing and why, without insulting the material or the people using/designing the material. Any additional info is unnecessary (such as extensive opinions as why you would change it or not).
The Serge7 02-28-08, 05:25 PM	Because it isn't a good sample of the fanbase. It's a small section of people and of those that are vocal there may or may not be millions of others that disagree with them. And you know this how? Have you seen any objective research to support this? I doubt it. Frankly, this is a pathetic attempt to obscure the issue... So, I'll ignore it. Hm. I think you may want to learn the meaning of arbitrary. I understand and have no problem utilizing the rules of the game "Slugbug" but that by no means makes any of those rules non-arbitrary. The nature of games tends to lead most of the rules to being arbitrary. Then, within the context of the game, they are not arbitrary; they are what define the game in question. Of course, given your... newness to all of this, I can understand your difficulty in grasping this concept. The point is to reduce the arbitrary rules to those that are beneficial to the game. I don't disagree with this. "If you see a volkswagen beetle, punch someone and yell out 'slugbug (color)'. You can't slug someone for a vehicle that has already been spotted and slugged for. Rinse/repeate. Winner has fewest bruises." Pure gaming gold. All those arbitrary rules make for a hilarious road-trip game. Alignment wouldn't help them be any more fun. Nice hyperbole and misdirection. Sophistry all the way around. The concept for alignment is not arbitrary within the context of D&D, even if some folks (for various reasons) do not like it. It reflects a certain perspective that is inherent to the game and, again (even though I know it hurts), tends to require a little effort on the part of those interested in utilizing it. And, unlike an idiotic game called slugbug, it doesn't result in pain nor it is random in nature. Perhaps I do. Perhaps you need to learn how to read better? I read just fine. I understand how difficult this can be to get, so I'll try to use smaller words. You reference the alignment in the same clause as the persona you present. Even if I allow that you meant what you're claiming you meant (which I honestly don't... You're not that... new), it reveals poor syntax and sentence structure on your part. I said "it isn't because he's lawful good that he performs [this action]". There are two ways to read this either "He is lawful good but he isn't making this particular decision based on his alignment" which doesn't make much sense because that is a lawful good action. Or the correct way "He isn't lawful good, but he's doing this action regardless". Because he's Chaotic Good? Or Neutral Good? The problem you have is the perception of alignments as creating carbon copies out of individuals. Clearly, that's not and has never been the case... Hell, even outsider archetypes reflect variations on alignments (the Lords of the Nine are an excellent example, among many others, of the diversity found within a single alignment and that's if we use them exclusively as symbols rather than as individuals). So, I could see where you got confused, but please take the whole of the paragraph into consideration. I did. In the future, don't try so desparately to back-peddle in order to avoid being boxed in and summarily refuted. The main problem is that you are already approaching everything as "This character has an alignment" where I am showing that it doesn't. You are applying your preconcieved notions of alignment onto my examples. Actually, I'm not. In some examples, were you said a certain character was a certain alignment that matched or didn't match their action, I was responding to your positioning... Of course, since you've (quite cleverly) have attempted to redirect what you're saying, I am applying notions about alignment based upon the recognition that there's a great deal of variety within a given alignment and that most reasonable people will tend to agree with many alignment applications. Most reasonable people... Please understand that when I show that alignment is unnecessary I may use examples of characters that do not technically have an alignment. You are resorting to semantics to dodge the issue. Well, that's what this is all about: semantics. It's all about language and how it's manipulated to allow people to grasp a concept or define a particular ethical/moral ideology. I'd tutor you on this concept, but I haven't the time or patience. Those features are only necessary if you include alignment. Learn what "circular argument" means. Which is an accusation that could be thrown at virtually anything, particularly (as you've noted earlier) games. However, that's what makes the game exist, the existence of rules that are no longer "arbitrary" within the context of the environment. We are talking about the game. So I guess we don't want our characters to have realistic personalities. I'm sorry, I didn't realize you wanted to play a kid's cartoon. Pardon me while I twirl my moustache and laugh maniacally. "They'll never stop my plan to feed all the virgins to the dragon!" :evillaugh I was talking about a game; you started talking about real people. In any event, since you're trying to transition to a moot point, if you can associate people within certain personality traits and types, something routinely done and with some level of accuracy and success in psychological environs, you can certainly do the same thing with alignment. Alignment leads to fictional caricatures, not believable characters. Only in the hands of the incapable. And alignment, frankly, has little to do with that now that I think about it. People like to toss alignment out there as an excuse because they're incapable or are challenged by roleplaying. I've played rpgs that don't use alignment and the same folks that have problems role-playing tend to be the same ones that have difficultly grasping alignment. Uh-oh... I'm being an elitist again! Just thought I'd throw that in there so you don't have to waste time trying to appeal to emotions and sideline the issue. You can further add more to these caricatures to make them more believable, but the alignment doesn't help or hurt. I thought alignment hurt by virtue of it being there in the first place...? After all, that's why they're caricatures, right? And that's why alignment hurts, right? Just trying to keep up with your shifting arguments. It is useless. This is more semantics as well. Please try to understand the point behind the words before focusing on the words themselves. First, refer to my comments about language earlier. Second, refer to my comments about learning how to write. Do I believe that? I said they are unnecessary and don't add anything beneficial to the roleplay. Yes, they do. They add depth and variety that further reinforces personality, codes, associations... Hell, existence and Ideals in a D&D campaign. I said they limit what your character can do within the restrictions of the alignment, but that doesn't limit you from roleplaying that alignment. You still have the same ability to roleplay your character, you just can't do certain things with that character. Those things may or may not add depth, but the restriction is on options, not on ability to roleplay. I thought you said that alignment makes a caricature, an unrealistic caricature at that... Now you're suggesting that it's not all that bad. Which one is it? Again, an insult towards the capabilities of people with different opinions than yours. Not different opinions. Limited understanding. So if we had an arbitrary rule that you had to draw your character or throw a football in order to play, those would be good rules? Rules have nothing to do with what I was referring to. I was referring to the ability to grasp a concept, the talent inherent in drawing well, and the ability to play sports (a specific one in this case) well (being athletic). I was referring to your anemic attempt to make me appear like an elitist jerk. I'm not a jerk. The rules don't need to include arbitrary things that some people can't do. The rules don't include those things. You can train people who may not have a natural inclination to grasp certain concepts that ability. Hell, in any rpg, you'll have people who aren't as talented as others in roleplaying leading the charge in adjudicating rules, while others are excellent at strategy. These are all elements of the game, but some people excel in certain ones more than others. This is the case with alignment in D&D. You're stalling. If you think so. Please show that alignment is inherently useful. No, you started with the accusation that it's unuseful and, for my money, you've shown no reason whatsoever to date to support your position. Ante up. Batman is CN and Superman is NG. What "most people" agree on shows that the alignment system is at best a 'general consensus' rule that doesn't mesh well with "roll a die, add a number, higher = better". Which is pretty much D&D and the nature of roleplaying in a nutshell aside from the strict numeric components. Virtually everything in rpgs works in this fashion. Are you new to D&D? Goatboy is a character on saturday night live and would probably be CS (chaotic stupid). I'm sure. Learn what a constraint it. If you are forced to write it down on a character sheet and it limits what you can do and also affects which spells will successfully target you it is a constraint. Let's play semantics and context. Let me know if I'm going too fast. In your example, constraint is being applied negatively as a bind, a retrainer. I argue that alignment offers variety and a quick way to help define an aspect of a character, town, kingdom, world, plane, etc. It adds depth and serves as a roleplaying tool with mechanic overtones. It's not a constraint. No. It seems like removing a benign tumor from the baby. Then don't remove it. If some people have a problem (enough to notice) with it and it doesn't add anything, then remove it. No, leave it there and those folks can ignore it. Show that the alignment system isn't "bathwater" or "a tumor" and is actually part of the Baby. That is "show that it is necessary and brings something beneficial to the game". Show how it's a tumor. No, they're automatically new. They are learning a new system. An arbitrary alignment system that doesn't mesh with their view of the world is unnecessary and doesn't add to the game. So you know all the new people? That's funny. I recall when I was new, the alignment system made perfect sense to me... But I'm an elitist, so I suppose that's why. No, you intentionally misinterpretted what I said in a negative light. I said they may not understand alignment because they're new. Any new system will include things that not everyone will automatically understand. I think reading comprehension is yet again an issue. Sounds like you're calling them dumb to me. It also sounds like we'll have to toss out entire aspects like the game, like combat, adjudication of certain actions, and so forth since those are things that some new people are to... "new" to understand. You are the one insulting people for not understanding something you like, not me. No, not you... You haven't called anyone whiners or blasted them for sharing their opinions. Nope. Not once. Not at all. It's abundantly obvious that you're trying really, really hard to find these things to argue with me about. You are twisting my words to make it look like I'm insulting new people, when really all it is is that I admit that some people can have a problem with the grey areas of the alignment system, as evidenced by real world examples of people having problems with it and getting worked up about it to the point that alignment threads are almost always locked down. This isn't about "understanding" the subject matter, this is differences of opinion within the "general consensus" that alignment requires. My, aren't we getting defensive. I'm glad you've got as much free time as I do. I'm getting paid to sit here, what's your excuse? What does this have to do with anything? Aren't we talking about alignment? And real life? Ok, I know you're just being snarky for no reason at this point, but I'm going to point out something. Hopefully, you aren't in belligerent mode and can actually read it and take something from it for future diplomacy checks. Right back atcha! When you say that there is only a problem when 'X' is "In the hands of someone incapable of utilizing 'X'", that is insulting. It indicates that I am incapable of doing something, when the truth is I just prefer not to do it. You are turning my personal preference into a percieved deficit in capabilities. Actually, when I started in my earlier responses to you, I made it crystal clear that I was referring to most of my personal experiences. You were the one that, desperate for something to cling to, jumped at the comment and strove to define me by it and use it as leverage to support your swisscheese argument. It's amusing (as most of your posts are) that you even mention that you "disagree with most of them even if I like, respect, and understand them" after posting that someone who doesn't like the current alignment system is simply "incapable of utilizing it." Please show that forcing all characters to have one of 9 Alignments is not a restriction. I think you may want to learn what a restriction is. "You are restricted to these 9 alignments". Regardless of the actual impact this has on depth of roleplaying, it is going to be a restriction. Refer to my earlier comments about semantics and context. Wow, this is getting redundant. Please make up your mind. I have, but we'll leave it at that for now. I'll refer to the rest of this later. It will give you time to catch up.
EvilVegan 02-29-08, 08:27 AM	<snip>I didn't, and am not going to read the entirity of your post. After the first two portions of your response (and one would assume by your track record, the rest of your response) were full of troll logic and entirely pointless insults when I haven't technically done anything to you to warrant it, you don't deserve another moment of my time (after this moment, of course), whether I'm getting paid or not. You can't come up with any real points so you call me new, insult my intellect, and resort to poorly constructed semantic arguments that have no real relevance to anything being discussed. You are posting for the simple enjoyment you get from illiciting a negative response from me, and while typically I appreciate that, it has gone on too long and our posts are just too big for it to be fun any more. In other words, you aren't actually trying to defend your position with logic or reason, you are simply here to attack me. I'm glad I warrant that much effort and emotion in your life. Happy gaming!
Kain_Darkwind 02-29-08, 01:18 PM	I didn't, and am not going to read the entirity of your post. After the first two portions of your response (and one would assume by your track record, the rest of your response) were full of troll logic and entirely pointless insults when I haven't technically done anything to you to warrant it, you don't deserve another moment of my time (after this moment, of course), whether I'm getting paid or not. You can't come up with any real points so you call me new, insult my intellect, and resort to poorly constructed semantic arguments that have no real relevance to anything being discussed. You are posting for the simple enjoyment you get from illiciting a negative response from me, and while typically I appreciate that, it has gone on too long and our posts are just too big for it to be fun any more. In other words, you aren't actually trying to defend your position with logic or reason, you are simply here to attack me. I'm glad I warrant that much effort and emotion in your life. Happy gaming! Nice. "I can't think of anything to say to you so I'll call you a namecaller and leave." Considering your posts were as full of as many snarky comments and more venom then The Serge7's, I find it supremely ironic that you are trying to walk off on the moral high ground here. But I suppose that's why we invented the word 'hypocrisy' in English. You came onto this thread to call those that were upset with a change stupid and got upset yourself when someone took you to task over it. You are epic fail at its epitome.
EvilVegan 02-29-08, 02:29 PM	Nice. "I can't think of anything to say to you so I'll call you a namecaller and leave." Considering your posts were as full of as many snarky comments and more venom then The Serge7's, I find it supremely ironic that you are trying to walk off on the moral high ground here. But I suppose that's why we invented the word 'hypocrisy' in English. You came onto this thread to call those that were upset with a change stupid and got upset yourself when someone took you to task over it. You are epic fail at its epitome.Hm. Interesting hyperbole and hipocrisy yourself. First of all, I'm not upset at Serge or anything he said, it was just getting absurd (on both sides). This happens when people talk on forums sometimes. Second, I can think of plenty of things to say and I can think of many ways to kick a rabid dog as well. That doesn't mean it does any good. Walking away from a pointless discussion is probably best for all involved. I had already stated all the points I cared to make and his arguments were starting to be an endless loop of "lol noob" style posturing. If he's only going to insult me, and I'm only going to insult him, without any logical discourse or point, there is no reason for either of us to continue. Are you saying I should have continued along the inevitable course to a flamewar that locks down the thread? I see from most of your posts that you do feel this way, as you rarely post anything of worth or value, and simply insult those you come across with things that make me laugh. I really laughed when you told Ubbergeek to pull it out of his mouth. Priceless. Would you please read his post and show anywhere that there was a point to anything he said that wasn't just a pointless insult that further throws flame on this silly troll party. I already admitted, multiple times, that I was doing the very thing I was complaining about others doing, both in my responses to Serge7 and to Ripv. I don't know what else you want from me, nor why you did exactly the same thing that you're insulting me for doing when I did what I did. The best part is that this isn't what our argument was about. It was about roleplaying and alignment and changes to 4e. Please learn to read a little better. My main point is that alignment is an unnecessary convention and it can sometimes confuse people new to D&D. His main point was "lol you're a stupid noob and you don't know how to do stuffs". It's a real page turner! Hello pot. This is kettle. Meet other pot and other kettle. And all the little pots and kettles that also chimed in. We're all cookware here. This thread is full of hipocrisy. I'm glad you decided to join. I think you're just mad that I'm the one that backed out first. If Serge had backed out you would have stayed silent, regardless of the amount of insults he has thrown at me. I know you don't like me because I have a different opinion than you. That's fine. I like you just fine when you aren't being a prick. And you're often funny when you are being one. Win-win situation for me. Epic win.
EvilVegan 02-29-08, 05:36 PM	At Kain's Reasonable and Benevolent Behest: And you know this how? Have you seen any objective research to support this? I doubt it. Frankly, this is a pathetic attempt to obscure the issue... So, I'll ignore it.No, I have not seen any objective research on the number of D&D players worldwide that post on this forum. I'm not writing a thesis paper on the subject. It is obvious that a lot more people play D&D than post on this forum. It is obvious that a lot more people post on this forum than posted in this thread. It is obvious that a lot more people are going to speak up on issues they feel negatively about. Do you think this thread is a good representation of the fanbase? Then, within the context of the game, they are not arbitrary; they are what define the game in question.Of course not, within the context of the game they are not arbitrary. Within the context of game design and attracting new players they are arbitrary. Which did you think I was discussing? I don't disagree with this.I know. You have reasonable ideas between your insulting my newness. Nice hyperbole and misdirection. Sophistry all the way around. The concept for alignment is not arbitrary within the context of D&D, even if some folks (for various reasons) do not like it. It reflects a certain perspective that is inherent to the game and, again (even though I know it hurts), tends to require a little effort on the part of those interested in utilizing it. And, unlike an idiotic game called slugbug, it doesn't result in pain nor it is random in nature.First of all, it is entirely relevant to this discussion. If I were designing a new game of slugbug and could remove parts that didn't work correctly, I should do so. I'm not talking about anything in the context of D&D as it already exists. I'm talking about recreating D&D with a new system that doesn't contain things that don't add anything beneficial to the experience. I read just fine. I understand how difficult this can be to get, so I'll try to use smaller words. You reference the alignment in the same clause as the persona you present. Even if I allow that you meant what you're claiming you meant (which I honestly don't... You're not that... new), it reveals poor syntax and sentence structure on your part. How would you have written it? "For example take the following character concept: His father murdered his mother, who was a prostitute when he was a young child. This brutal event has scarred his psyche. But he was raised by a nice family after spending a brutal few years in an orphanage. Now that he is grown, he is very kind to children, but he blames his mother for his harsh life and takes any of his frustrations out by occasionally killing hookers during times of stress, but otherwise follows laws as best as he can and tries to help all those he comes across, whether they find out about it or not." The problem is, no matter what sentence I post nor how expertly I word it, you will still attempt to apply your views of alignment to any description I write. You may change which alignment you apply based on the amount of descriptive text, but you are already assuming that alignment is a natural and necessary portion of any character description. As such you won't accept any example of an alignmentless character. I'm not saying you can't apply alignment to the above character example. You most certainly can. I'm saying it doesn't add anything to the character other than "an alignment" which no one has ever shown to be inherently beneficial. Because he's Chaotic Good? Or Neutral Good? As I said, you will apply an alignment regardless of the wording of my sentences. This is an example. The problem you have is the perception of alignments as creating carbon copies out of individuals. Clearly, that's not and has never been the case... Hell, even outsider archetypes reflect variations on alignments (the Lords of the Nine are an excellent example, among many others, of the diversity found within a single alignment and that's if we use them exclusively as symbols rather than as individuals).That is not a problem, as I do not feel that way. I fully agreed that alignment doesn't automatically create carbon copies of a character to the point that it is so broad as to be unnecessary. I claimed it leads to caricatures that you can then add to in order to make a more robust character. I did. In the future, don't try so desparately to back-peddle in order to avoid being boxed in and summarily refuted.I didn't back-peddle. My sentence structure was fine. You will apply your "Alignment-Belongs" paradigm to any character description, regardless of it's structure. Actually, I'm not. In some examples, were you said a certain character was a certain alignment that matched or didn't match their action, I was responding to your positioning... Of course, since you've (quite cleverly) have attempted to redirect what you're saying, I am applying notions about alignment based upon the recognition that there's a great deal of variety within a given alignment and that most reasonable people will tend to agree with many alignment applications. Most reasonable people...So you admit that regardless of how I word things, you are applying an alignment either way. Well, that's what this is all about: semantics. It's all about language and how it's manipulated to allow people to grasp a concept or define a particular ethical/moral ideology. I'd tutor you on this concept, but I haven't the time or patience.No, it isn't. It is about game design and removing unnecessary concepts that don't add to the game. Which is an accusation that could be thrown at virtually anything, particularly (as you've noted earlier) games. However, that's what makes the game exist, the existence of rules that are no longer "arbitrary" within the context of the environment.A circular argument is one in which the conclusion is assumed in the premise. You are stating that the rules are not arbitrary because they are already built into the system. This assumes that the rules are built into the system and in no way shows them not to be arbitrary. I was talking about a game; you started talking about real people. In any event, since you're trying to transition to a moot point, if you can associate people within certain personality traits and types, something routinely done and with some level of accuracy and success in psychological environs, you can certainly do the same thing with alignment.I'm not saying that you can't apply alignments. I'm saying doing so brings nothing beneficial to the game. Only in the hands of the incapable. And alignment, frankly, has little to do with that now that I think about it. People like to toss alignment out there as an excuse because they're incapable or are challenged by roleplaying. This doesn't show alignment to be any more or less necessary. I've played rpgs that don't use alignment and the same folks that have problems role-playing tend to be the same ones that have difficultly grasping alignment. Uh-oh... I'm being an elitist again! Just thought I'd throw that in there so you don't have to waste time trying to appeal to emotions and sideline the issue. I would just like to say "Have you seen any objective research to support this? I doubt it. Frankly, this is a pathetic attempt to obscure the issue... So, I'll ignore it." I thought alignment hurt by virtue of it being there in the first place...? After all, that's why they're caricatures, right? And that's why alignment hurts, right? Just trying to keep up with your shifting arguments.I didn't say alignment hurt by virtue of it being there. I said it causes problems for some and doesn't bring anything beneficial. I don't know how much clearer I can word that. Alignment hurts by virtue of being hard for some people to understand and based on a group consensus. Yes, they do. They add depth and variety that further reinforces personality, codes, associations... Hell, existence and Ideals in a D&D campaign.Those are excellent things in a very specific type of campaign, one designed to be a battle of Good against Evil or Order against Chaos. And as you said, it simply serves to reinforce personality, codes, associations. I'm not saying you can't have it in your campaigns, I'm saying there is no reason to include it in a Core ruleset. I thought you said that alignment makes a caricature, an unrealistic caricature at that... Now you're suggesting that it's not all that bad. Which one is it?You still have the same ability to roleplay a caricature as you do to roleplay a realistic, believable character. Rules have nothing to do with what I was referring to. I was referring to the ability to grasp a concept, the talent inherent in drawing well, and the ability to play sports (a specific one in this case) well (being athletic). I was referring to your anemic attempt to make me appear like an elitist jerk. I'm not a jerk.OK. The rules don't include those things. You can train people who may not have a natural inclination to grasp certain concepts that ability. Hell, in any rpg, you'll have people who aren't as talented as others in roleplaying leading the charge in adjudicating rules, while others are excellent at strategy. These are all elements of the game, but some people excel in certain ones more than others. This is the case with alignment in D&D.Yes. But that doesn't make alignment necessary or beneficial. If you think so.I do.No, you started with the accusation that it's unuseful and, for my money, you've shown no reason whatsoever to date to support your position. Ante up.Prove god doesn't exist to a christian. I have posted numerous times why I feel alignment is unnecessary. It leads to confusion amongst new players. It doesn't add anything beneficial to character development beyond the benefits provided by a good backstory and personality (and those two features bring much more to the table than alignment, as shown by your own varied examples). It leads to flamewars on internet forums. Which is pretty much D&D and the nature of roleplaying in a nutshell aside from the strict numeric components. Virtually everything in rpgs works in this fashion.Yes it does. Most of the story/roleplay portion of D&D works as house rules and on-the-spot decision making. When the game includes a feature that causes confusion to the point that alignment does (judging by the internet forum we are currently on, which you seem to believe is a good sampling of the fanbase) that it causes strife at the table, it may not be the best design feature. It would be better to relegate this feature to yet another issue that is an on-the-spot houserule or a variant. Are you new to D&D?Does this matter? I'm sure.Me too. Let's play semantics and context. Let me know if I'm going too fast. In your example, constraint is being applied negatively as a bind, a retrainer. I argue that alignment offers variety and a quick way to help define an aspect of a character, town, kingdom, world, plane, etc. It adds depth and serves as a roleplaying tool with mechanic overtones. It's not a constraint. Then don't remove it.But it's so unsightly. No, leave it there and those folks can ignore it.It takes up space in the PHB, increasing production cost and hedging out more interesting material.Show how it's a tumor.Refer to above.So you know all the new people? That's funny. I recall when I was new, the alignment system made perfect sense to me... But I'm an elitist, so I suppose that's why.No, I don't. Where does my knowledge of the new players enter in to what I said? I know that some new people do have a problem with it. Some people have problems understanding how to roll a d20. The only difference is that rolling a d20 and adding a number is more necessary and beneficial to the ruleset of D&D than alignment. Sounds like you're calling them dumb to me.Well, I said some people don't understand alignment when first reading it. If that means, to you, that they are dumb, that isn't me calling them that. That would be you calling them that and projecting your beliefs onto others. People not understanding a concept I understand doesn't make them dumb. That isn't something I believe, but it is something you have shown you believe. I understand that certain people grasp different concepts differently, regardless of their intelligence. It also sounds like we'll have to toss out entire aspects like the game, like combat, adjudication of certain actions, and so forth since those are things that some new people are to... "new" to understand. Yes. Like iterative attacks (gone) numerous skills (reduced) actions being relagated to assumed status (passive skill checks). The list goes on. Many many many aspects of the game are being tossed out because they're hard for some new people to understand. No, not you... You haven't called anyone whiners or blasted them for sharing their opinions. Nope. Not once. Not at all.Um. . . you do realize that insulting people for whining or sharing their opinions is different than calling them stupid for having opinions different than mine. Also I already admitted the futility of my initial rant. My, aren't we getting defensive.Just observant. What does this have to do with anything? Aren't we talking about alignment? And real life?What does my newness (and 19 years hardly feels that new) have to do with anything? I was just stating my gladness at us both having free time. Right back atcha!Um. . . Ok. . . I was being sincere. I realize you're getting emotionally frustrated at my posts and might be looking for things to argue about rather than for truth. That's human nature when arguing.Actually, when I started in my earlier responses to you, I made it crystal clear that I was referring to most of my personal experiences. You were the one that, desperate for something to cling to, jumped at the comment and strove to define me by it and use it as leverage to support your swisscheese argument.So you understand that telling people that they're incapable of utilizing something you prefer is actually insulting, but you just weren't insulting anyone nearby. K. I beg you to go back and honestly read the context of your statement and please show that it wasn't directed at me. I said: "Alignment is a poorly designed straight jacket that you are forcing on to my backstory." You said: "In the hands of those incapable of utilizing it." That isn't very "crystal clear" that it isn't directed at me. I am capable of utilizing it, that doesn't change the fact that I feel it is a poorly designed straight-jacket on character development. I don't like the way alignment is implemented in the game system, that doesn't mean I can't use it. I'm fully capable of doing so.I have, but we'll leave it at that for now. I'll refer to the rest of this later. It will give you time to catch up. You do realize that you completely contradicted yourself, right? I mean, you're kind of trailing off at this point, but it is amusing. It's also amusing that you're trailing off at exactly the point where I brought it up. Try to tone the outright insults down a bit. I'll do the same.
The Serge7 02-29-08, 08:05 PM	Okay, I'm back. Yea for me! And BTW WOTC has made several changes that I disagree with. Other than mechanics I haven't liked 90% of the changes they're making. Then why did you bother get involved in this conversation/debate? Frankly, I don't care if you like or dislike the changes. I honestly don't care if you like or dislike alignment. My issue with you (and with a few others on this thread) is jumping in and getting ticked at folks who aren't themselves going out of their way to be rude or even attacking the new edition so much as they are addressing the tone used to support the edition. I frankly like some of the things they're doing and, even though I disagree vociferously with any removal of alignment from D&D, it won't stop me from buying the new edition. There are, however, ways to express change and the manner in which this was one in some cases sucked and some folks called it to question. Oh? I think I've found the perfect example to show your contrariness. You're so adamant at disagreeing with me you even disagree with me when I'm agreeing with you! AWESOME! Check it out: I was completely agreeing with your point and you contradict me. I knew you were either being snide for the sake of argument or you aren't trying to understand what I'm saying. I can see how I could have misinterpreted your intent, although it doesn't absolve you from poor syntax and writing earlier. I can assure you, though, only a few people get me riled up enough to go out of my way to disagree with them on principle. You're not one of those people. Also, please show that their overarching goals, desires, and beliefs, if they are so varied within the spectrum of all things Lawful and Good, need to be pigeonholed into the same exact description of both highly varied and unique creatures. Because those overarching goals, desires, and beliefs -- even if varied -- all fall under Lawful Good motivations and ends. Again, I'd like to point out that I fully agreed with you and said they weren't carbon copies. They are very different, to the point that saying they're both lawful good is unnecessary. No, it is necessary because it reflects that although they are very different in certain respects, they both represent the ethical and moral interests and pursuits associated with Lawful Good. At their hearts (in a spiritual cosmology) they share this. Are you? No, I'm not. Does it help prove your point if I'm new or not new? Does it have any relevance at all? Actually, it does... But that's neither here nor there. Oh wait, no it doesn't, you're still stalling and using faulty logic (attacking the person rather than the argument) to do so. Actually, I'm attacking the validity of your argument as well as you... I rarely bother, but watching you backtrack and completely change your tone to appear as the victim here makes it worth it. And by the way, I've been playing since 1989. So no, I'm not new, I'm old. If you had read my post you might have picked that up, but probably not. You're too busy trying to find points to make semantic arguments about to actually read anything and try to understand it. It will be seen by those capable of seeing it. I can assure you that the "new" comment has nothing to do with what you think it has to do with. But that's an aside. Not convinced that I understand alignments or not convinced that some people have problem with it. I'm certain that some people have problems with it. I also suspect you may not understand it as well, although that was not what I originally thinking based upon your initial post. I don't care either way, I suspect you do. but I would like to point out the unnecessary insult implied in the first option and a lack of veracity in the second one. See! You DO care. I'm touched. Either way, you're wrong. No, I'm not. Some folks don't get alignment the same way some folks can't draw well. And, given some of your posts, I suspect that you don't understand it. I do disagree with it. Which is why it's absurd to ask if I'm new. It doesn't matter if I'm new or old, that is an insult to avoid the point. You're right, it doesn't matter. The point is you have absolutely no way to show that Alignment is necessary, as it is not. Since you cannot do so, you have resorted to insulting my understanding of the subject matter without showing anything to the contrary. It's highly amusing. Alignment is necessary to the game as it has been described over 30+ years and, although I'm not sure how the new 4ed cosmology will reflect alignment, I suspect that if it is removed it's a mistake rather than an improvement. If it is "hardly unnecessary" Please show how... Without using a circular argument such as "It is necessary for alignment to be built into the system because there are spells/classes/abilities that work off of alignment because alignment is built into the system." As far as I'm concerned that's not possible for this game, as it's been published for the past 30+ years, to function properly without alignment. What you're asking parallels removing the Community Chest on Monopoly... Sure, the game will limp along, but it won't make as much sense and, in essence, changes the game. Now, if you cut out all of the alignment-relevant aspects of the game, then perhaps your issue has some level of validity. But then... why play D&D? Hm. Let's recap. I say that the meta-setting has no inherent value and boils down to house rules. You say that this is true but you have to be a fool to believe it (which is amusing in itself). You then say that the fact that there is 30 years of history and discussion shows that I was incorrect to state that it has no inherent value. Then I say that it doesn't matter that there was 30 years of discussion about it, that doesn't show that it has inherent value. Then you say you didn't say that it did have inherent value. Interesting. Allow me to clarify for you: the value is not inherent; rather value is assumed by the continued presence of a meta-game continuity that binds three and half editions and speaks even to the new cosmology. This is why I never said the value was an "inherent" one. That's why I said that your position, in practical application (or, perhaps, "technical application"), was true, but not in reality. The fact that you can't separate an analogy made to the realism of a character's personality and a discussion of the metasetting is very amusing. What's amusing is your bouncing around constantly on thin, floating ice on a half-frozen river for balance. That's why you keep on bringing up these "realistic" issues. Yet more semantics. Refer to my earlier comments about the value of language. How much official support do you need? Do you write into cust serv often? Read the FAQ before bedtime? Another distraction that has nothing to do with this discussion. You describe yourself as someone who has a better grasp of the subject matter than any person who has lived before or will live after. Where did I say this? When did I say this? Hmmm... I... Smell... Desperate HYPERBOLE! Which you even point out in your post. I'm glad that you decided to waste some time with it. I know. Your posts are sublime examples of how not to do this. Just imitating you in that regard. Look, I know they used some language to discuss the previous material that could be seen as harsh, but it was harsh towards the subject matter, not the people using the subject matter. Everyone has come on here acting like the designers have punched their mothers in the face. As I've said before, there's nothing wrong with supporting the new direction in lieu of the old; however, what we've seen are desparate attempts to shore up the move by denouncing and insulting the old... An "old" that's important to some people. And that attitude has put a bad taste in the mouths of folks who would otherwise give (and probably will still give) 4ed a chance. Some of the comments even imply that the new designers have little understanding or knowledge of the material that precedes late 3ed and, while that's somewhat bizarre to me, that's a discussion for another time. They didn't like the old stuff, they will talk about the things they didn't like it. If you do like it, GREAT, it's still there. Actually, I'm not sure they were always familiar with the "old" stuff... Oh good, I should fit right in. What's the problem? I didn't see as much of that nonsense from the folks to whom you were directing it. I see. You didn't appreciate my tone to the point that you didn't actually read anything I wrote or attempt to formulate any rational thoughts about that subject matter, and yet you chose to respond anyway, and thus your lack of understanding of what I said is somehow my fault. Hilarious. Keep it coming. Who said I didn't understand what you were saying or that I didn't attempt to formulate rationale thoughts regarding your ideas (such as they are)? I said that I didn't what you might have had to offer in value was covered up by the gargabe of your tone. Please [b]READ[/I] and try to [b]COMPREHEND[/I] rather than trying to jump to conclusions to support your position. It would save both of us a lot of time. No they aren't. Again, reading comprehension is key to comprehending what you read. Is this a circular argument? If so, I thought those weren't allowed? If I say everyone here will stop whining and it is obvious that not everyone is whining, then perhaps the correct understanding of the sentence is everyone who is whining will stop whining and those that aren't whining will continue to not whine. And then everyone will have stopped whining. As in, "All people involved in this thread will no longer be whining" not "Everyone here is whining and will now stop." Or, it means that you think everyone is whining... I'm glad you have a better grasp of alignment than you do of language. Please try harder to have real points. These horrible semantic arguments you keep bringing forth over and over are a little too trite for my tastes. Refer to my earlier comments on the value of semantics. It's one of the reasons why people are somewhat miffed with some of what they've seen with 4ed marketing. As an aside, if my comments were so trite, you wouldn't spend time responding to them. One would hope. Maybe emailing someone would serve more purpose than whining on an internet forum? You know, trying to contact them directly. And how do you know if folks haven't done this and that they're just following up here? Another assumption on your part? Like their not reading any of the threads about the product they're getting ready to release. I often stand in my closet and complain about my neighbor's dog crapping all over my yard. He always comes into my closet and makes sure I'm okay with it. That's because you and your neighbor clearly have a special relationship (and you have some kind of bug in your closet). Side note, here's an example of a good post about the change to alignment systems that doesn't involve whining (which happens to also be something I believe): See, I don't like alignments, but this contains information that is useful if the designers do happen to read it. Although I believe that the alignment system, particularly when viewed from a planar perspective, is a circle already, and don't agree with the notion that it's a crutch, I don't disagree with most of your non-whining post. The only thing I disagree with entirely is the last sentence in terms of behavior. As you said the designers should do; state what you are changing and why, without insulting the material or the people using/designing the material. Any additional info is unnecessary (such as extensive opinions as why you would change it or not). I don't mind extensive opinions as to why something's being changed, particularly if I disagree with the change, because the additional information may change my mind, or at the least, allow me to respect the change. Otherwise, I agree with this.
The Serge7 02-29-08, 08:56 PM	No, I have not seen any objective research on the number of D&D players worldwide that post on this forum. I'm not writing a thesis paper on the subject. It is obvious that a lot more people play D&D than post on this forum. It is obvious that a lot more people post on this forum than posted in this thread. It is obvious that a lot more people are going to speak up on issues they feel negatively about. Actually, I see about as much support of things as I do dislike on most of these threads (WotC in general). But that's besides the point. Do you think this thread is a good representation of the fanbase? No, I don't. I do suspect, however, that these boards are a good representation of those deeply interested in the historical D&D cosmology. Of course not, within the context of the game they are not arbitrary. Within the context of game design and attracting new players they are arbitrary. Which did you think I was discussing? You've routinely brought up the arbitrariness of alignment in the game. I was referring to that. In the creation of a game system, yes, anything is arbitrary until the game is established. First of all, it is entirely relevant to this discussion. If I were designing a new game of slugbug and could remove parts that didn't work correctly, I should do so. No, it's a misdirection given the simplistic, and somewhat childish nature of the "game" you reference. It draws a parallel to the attitude that alignment is likewise simplistic (which, if I take what you've said in earlier posts, you don't necessarily believe it is) and childish. I'm not talking about anything in the context of D&D as it already exists. I'm talking about recreating D&D with a new system that doesn't contain things that don't add anything beneficial to the experience. I'm speaking of both. The problem is, no matter what sentence I post nor how expertly I word it, you will still attempt to apply your views of alignment to any description I write. You may change which alignment you apply based on the amount of descriptive text, but you are already assuming that alignment is a natural and necessary portion of any character description. As such you won't accept any example of an alignmentless character. Because there is not such thing in extant D&D... And because it generally works well. I'm not saying you can't apply alignment to the above character example. You most certainly can. I'm saying it doesn't add anything to the character other than "an alignment" which no one has ever shown to be inherently beneficial. Nor inherently detrimental. As I said, you will apply an alignment regardless of the wording of my sentences. This is an example. As I said before, you're offering descriptions and I'm stating a likely alignment. Are you asking me not to apply an alignment? If you are, you need to provide a reasonable well described character that completely defies any alignment application. That is not a problem, as I do not feel that way. I fully agreed that alignment doesn't automatically create carbon copies of a character to the point that it is so broad as to be unnecessary. I claimed it leads to caricatures that you can then add to in order to make a more robust character. Alignment only leads to caricatures of those incapable of or uncomfortable with alignment. Incidentally, most people I know tend to create their characters before applying alignment. That's how I typically do it for my PCs. I didn't back-peddle. My sentence structure was fine. Yes, you did; and no, it wasn't. You will apply your "Alignment-Belongs" paradigm to any character description, regardless of it's structure. I can see how you see this, but the fact remains that you are describing beings doesn't show how there isn't an alignment. Until you do, there will be a likely alignment... So, even if it's not my goal, it's going to be the result... Although in all the cases, I was responding to your question as to alignment. So you admit that regardless of how I word things, you are applying an alignment either way. I'm answering your questions about alignment relative to your description. I'm not going out of my way to apply one. No, it isn't. It is about game design and removing unnecessary concepts that don't add to the game. The concept does add to the game. A circular argument is one in which the conclusion is assumed in the premise. You are stating that the rules are not arbitrary because they are already built into the system. This assumes that the rules are built into the system and in no way shows them not to be arbitrary. Because those are the rules that define the game. They are, therefore, no longer arbitrary. It's just like semiotics. The relationship between words and language is initially arbitrary until the rules of language are established in which case, as far as practice goes, they are no longer arbitrary to the users. I'm not saying that you can't apply alignments. I'm saying doing so brings nothing beneficial to the game. Yet, you have desparately been trying to show that alignment cannot be applied with your examples. And it does provide something beneficial to a game, like a kind of quick personality trait to help some folks utilize and role-play their characters with greater efficiancy. I would just like to say "Have you seen any objective research to support this? I doubt it. Frankly, this is a pathetic attempt to obscure the issue... So, I'll ignore it." No, unlike your comment which is just your opinion that you've thrown out as fact, I've been consistent in stating my opinions as my own experiences. I didn't say alignment hurt by virtue of it being there. I said it causes problems for some and doesn't bring anything beneficial. I don't know how much clearer I can word that. If it doesn't bring anything beneficial and it causes problems for some, it's painful. Alignment hurts by virtue of being hard for some people to understand and based on a group consensus. Then doesn't this mean it hurts by it being there? Doesn't that mean you feel its detrimental? How is this not the same thing? Those are excellent things in a very specific type of campaign, one designed to be a battle of Good against Evil or Order against Chaos. Not necessarily, although for many people, this would be the dominant approach. I'm not saying you can't have it in your campaigns, I'm saying there is no reason to include it in a Core ruleset. This only works if you completely excise every aspect of alignment, including determing what's good, or evil, or lawful, or chaotic from the game. And the more something like this is considered, the less like D&D it becomes. It would be like taking juggles out of Tekken... You'd suddenly be playing some Capcom game. I happen to like Namco and Capcom, but when I want Tekken, I play it. You still have the same ability to roleplay a caricature as you do to roleplay a realistic, believable character. I don't think you answered the question... But since we're trying to be more civil (as per your last sentence in this post), I'll let it go. OK. Yes. But that doesn't make alignment necessary or beneficial. Nor do your comments show how it's inherently detrimental (although you've gone back and forth as to if it is and how it is). Prove god doesn't exist to a christian. Actually, there are quite a few former Christians... I have posted numerous times why I feel alignment is unnecessary. It leads to confusion amongst new players. It doesn't add anything beneficial to character development beyond the benefits provided by a good backstory and personality (and those two features bring much more to the table than alignment, as shown by your own varied examples). It leads to flamewars on internet forums. Well, I've offered reasons why alignment is necessary. As for confusion to new players, as I've said before, there are aspects of combat and various other things that I'm sure will confuse them. That doesn't automatically mean that all of things are tossed out. Does this matter? For the sake of civility, no it doesn't. It takes up space in the PHB, increasing production cost and hedging out more interesting material. No, remove an additional picture. Where does my knowledge of the new players enter in to what I said? Haven't you been bringing up new people all along? I know that some new people do have a problem with it. Some people have problems understanding how to roll a d20. The only difference is that rolling a d20 and adding a number is more necessary and beneficial to the ruleset of D&D than alignment. How is this the case? Well, I said some people don't understand alignment when first reading it. If that means, to you, that they are dumb, that isn't me calling them that. That would be you calling them that and projecting your beliefs onto others. I don't think they're dumb (well, not always). I think they may lack talent in that area and cope by disliking alignment. People not understanding a concept I understand doesn't make them dumb. That isn't something I believe, but it is something you have shown you believe. I have? Where? Other than my implication directed towards you, where did I state outright that folks who didn't get alignment are dumb? I understand that certain people grasp different concepts differently, regardless of their intelligence. I'm glad we can agree on this. Um. . . you do realize that insulting people for whining or sharing their opinions is different than calling them stupid for having opinions different than mine. Perhaps. But both are pretty rude. Also I already admitted the futility of my initial rant. I'm glad you did it once more, then. Just observant. I say potato, you say... What does my newness (and 19 years hardly feels that new) have to do with anything? I was just stating my gladness at us both having free time. Again, in the name of civility... Um. . . Ok. . . I was being sincere. I realize you're getting emotionally frustrated at my posts and might be looking for things to argue about rather than for truth. That's human nature when arguing. Actually, I spend most of my time smirking at these posts. So you understand that telling people that they're incapable of utilizing something you prefer is actually insulting, but you just weren't insulting anyone nearby. K. No, it's not insulting. I have a hard time mingling around complete strangers by myself.. It stink at it and folks have told me so. I wasn't offended by it nor did I find it insulting. It's what it is. I recognize that I'm not the strongest when it comes to rules or even in the mechanical building of characters... I don't grasp that aspect as well as story-telling and the role-playing side of character building. And folks have told me as much in a kind fashion. I accept it and don't find it offensive so long as they're not being jerks about it. You took what I said and decided to twist it into an insult when it was an observation. I beg you to go back and honestly read the context of your statement and please show that it wasn't directed at me. It wasn't. I was pointing out my experiences and observations in general. I've never played with you and, although I still think your post that got this started was really... well, unpleasant, I was not suggesting that you had issues with comprehending alignment. I honestly can't say that I still feel that way, but I did not initially. I said: "Alignment is a poorly designed straight jacket that you are forcing on to my backstory." You said: "In the hands of those incapable of utilizing it." That isn't very "crystal clear" that it isn't directed at me. **sigh** You took ownership in the backstory part, but my response was in general. And I stand by it. I am capable of utilizing it, that doesn't change the fact that I feel it is a poorly designed straight-jacket on character development. I don't like the way alignment is implemented in the game system, that doesn't mean I can't use it. I'm fully capable of doing so. Very well. You do realize that you completely contradicted yourself, right? I mean, you're kind of trailing off at this point, but it is amusing. It's also amusing that you're trailing off at exactly the point where I brought it up. **shrug** I've already responded to the second half of that post. Try to tone the outright insults down a bit. I'll do the same. Very well.
EvilVegan 03-01-08, 09:46 AM	You're right, Alignment is useful and/or beneficial. The problem is that we're arguing two slightly different things. And that might be my fault since I'm not framing things well. We didn't get a good start. That is also my fault. I feel alignment needs to be toned way down as far as mechanical game impact is concerned. When I say it isn't necessary or beneficial, the claim is mostly (85%) in relation to in-game mechanical aspects. Also I feel that a section encouraging people to create rich backstories (or at least a few points of interest) and personalities would be more beneficial than alignment (the other 15%).* When successfully used as a character building tool for new people it serves it's purpose well enough. It lets them make a character without a backstory or personality, which they can then later add on to in-game to flesh out (and hopefully between sessions write a backstory). They get their caricature ready and the character will come from in-game decisions or the backstory they flesh out later. "I'm a lawful good fighter raised by donkeys, lets play!". There's nothing wrong with doing this. And people who do have problems with roleplaying at least have something to fall back on when a moral dilema approaches. People that rely solely on alignment to make character decisions should probably steer clear of in depth roleplay though. The problem enters in when there are mechanical game aspects that require alignment and players to interact intuitively, such detect evil and the ever-vexing paladin's code (as well as many other features). At least, that's where the confusion I've seen arises. And that is where the poorly designed portions of the game come in. For example, Detect evil at will is often a suspense killer as the only way anyone evil can slip one over on a 1st level paladin is to have high level spells that block this ability. How can anyone lure a paladin to commit evil if he (almost) automatically knows they're evil and can't talk to them anyway? "The greatest trick the devil ever did was convincing the world he didn't exist. Then a paladin killed him on sight because he radiated so much evil." There are so many features of the game that are affected by alignment other than character development. It is a simple tool for character design that got extrapolated into almost every single facet of the game, from spell effects to the entire planar cosmology. It's just too prevalent. It isn't necessary or beneficial for it to be as prevalent as it is. And of course, that's only my opinion (and I have no research papers to back it up :D). *: Alignment, as it currently exists in D&D, leads to a very specific type of game world, one where Moral and Ethical dilemas have tangible effects that can be seen and interacted with via magic. For a campaign setting archetype this is fine (and I would be happy to see a variant with the various aligned spells and abilities for those campaign-styles). For a base game system this may or may not be necessary (that's a judgement call/preference). As I had said in my previous post, a circular scaled version of alignment would be more useful for character development as long as you didn't have to adjucate spell effects and class abilities on it. And from your examples this is similar to how you view alignment when designing characters. But as far as generating characters quickly, anything that breaks down people into archetypes works well. White Wolf's Nature and Demeanor were decent. Separate from alignment but more in tune with pseudo-psychology is the nine-sided Enneagram (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enneagram_of_Personality), which would detail how certain people respond in certain situations (various divisions of "Fear, Anger, and Love", complete with how these archetypes act in times of stress or complacency). Birthsigns would work well as character models (a la Elder Scrolls games with mechanical benefits, or just good old fashion astrology simplified to game level). Religious affiliation/dogma is another tool. Or simple sample "archetypes" with one or two personality quirks would be just as useful. There are any number of things you can include to accelerate character personality creation. None of them are quite as in depth as just getting in character and thinking about what has happened to your character and what decisions he makes, but any could serve as a jumping point. It is in this way that alignment is unnecessary for character development. It can be replaced, removed, or better yet simply relagated to fluff and the game still functions. It isn't the only unnecessary feature, of course. Also, as another side note, there are many different cultures that do not share our western view of a dichotomy between good and evil or order and chaos. These cultures may have difficulty interacting with a system where this paradigm is assumed. Also, this inundation makes it difficult to design new campaign worlds without tangible alignment effects or with modified paradigms that are based on religions that weren't descended from Zaranthustran-thinking. Truce?
The Serge7 03-01-08, 10:51 AM	You're right, Alignment is useful and/or beneficial. The problem is that we're arguing two slightly different things. And that might be my fault since I'm not framing things well. We didn't get a good start. That is also my fault. Frankly, my major issue with you was not so much your opinion (with which I disagree) but your tone. I likely would have never entered this thread save for the tone... Which is what led to my (intentional) tone. Since we're starting over again, I figured I'd be honest. I feel alignment needs to be toned way down as far as mechanical game impact is concerned. When I say it isn't necessary or beneficial, the claim is mostly (85%) in relation to in-game mechanical aspects. Also I feel that a section encouraging people to create rich backstories (or at least a few points of interest) and personalities would be more beneficial than alignment (the other 15%). See, while I want to respect this position, I don't really understand it because it seems to me that you believe alignment has been the dominant factor in backstory development. Conversely, I see alignment as a component of rich character development and that one may have an alignment without the former, but not the former without the latter; i.e. rich backgrounds stories cannot exist in D&D without an actual alignment, but an alignment can exist without a rich background. If anything, this leads to poor role-playing for PCs and important NPCs, but allows for quick and simple applications of the mechanics for run-of-the-mill NPCs (like monsters straight from the MM or red-shirt NPCs). I suppose this is where I would then, in the past three and a half editions, have issues with your desire to reduce the mechanical aspect as well, if I'm understanding you properly. Of course, I don't know how this will pan out with 4ed. I may like the change/reduction/removal of alignment and there may be a way to incorporate spells/abilities/class features that replace those that focused on alignment, but I don't expect that I'll be immediately favorable of the change. So, and without any sarcasm on my part, please let me know if I'm understanding you based upon my response above. When successfully used as a character building tool for new people it serves it's purpose well enough. It lets them make a character without a backstory or personality, which they can then later add on to in-game to flesh out (and hopefully between sessions write a backstory). They get their caricature ready and the character will come from in-game decisions or the backstory they flesh out later. "I'm a lawful good fighter raised by donkeys, lets play!". There's nothing wrong with doing this. And people who do have problems with roleplaying at least have something to fall back on when a moral dilema approaches. People that rely solely on alignment to make character decisions should probably steer clear of in depth roleplay though. I guess my expectations of new folks is different from others. Every time that I've played with new D&D gamers in the past ten+ years, I required a full wrought backstory be written. I would work with the player, after it was written, to find a way to work the story into my setting and would determine how well it fit into the selected alignment. Most times, the alignment made sense; other times, if I didn't think it did, we would discuss until we both had an understanding of the alignment intent (which, 90% of the time, resulted in the selected alignment being changed or the background/character exposition being adjusted to suit the selected alignment). So, my gamers never started out with caricatures (aside from the occasional and rare one-nighter). I suppose for games in which there's not a requirement for full-fledged development before the first campaign with that character, your perception of how alignment is used would be accurate... I have just never experienced that in 21 years of gaming. The problem enters in when there are mechanical game aspects that require alignment and players to interact intuitively, such detect evil and the ever-vexing paladin's code (as well as many other features). At least, that's where the confusion I've seen arises. And that is where the poorly designed portions of the game come in. Okay... For example, Detect evil at will is often a suspense killer as the only way anyone evil can slip one over on a 1st level paladin is to have high level spells that block this ability. How can anyone lure a paladin to commit evil if he (almost) automatically knows they're evil and can't talk to them anyway? It's been my experience (and my own actions) that have resulted in detect evil being used inaccurately in most applications. The spell requires three rounds to determine the precise location of an aura. That's 18 seconds of someone staring around which, in a role-playing environment, could be considered rude and inappropriate... Assuming that the individual(s) sticks around long enough to be identified. As for the paladin talking to the evil person bit, associating with and speaking to (as in rebuking the evil or responding to the comments made by the evil) are two different things in my mind. Still, I do admit that this spell and its availability to a paladin does create extra challenges for theDM, but these challenges are not insurmountable to the point that they are strong grounds for the kind of redress you seek. "The greatest trick the devil ever did was convincing the world he didn't exist. Then a paladin killed him on sight because he radiated so much evil." The Usual Suspects! Heh. Nice! I just watched this this past weekend. I love that movie. There are so many features of the game that are affected by alignment other than character development. It is a simple tool for character design that got extrapolated into almost every single facet of the game, from spell effects to the entire planar cosmology. It's just too prevalent. It isn't necessary or beneficial for it to be as prevalent as it is. Well, at this point, we're getting into a wholesale overhaul of the game, not so much the actual use of the "mechanic" as it stands. While I do agree that it's very prevalent in the macroscopic sense, I don't know how prevalent it is in individual games... Of course, in my own games, the issue is not just alignment, but the conflict between the challenges of alignment, practicality, and truth when certain alignment aspects are taken too far (like a formerly LG church that, through it's expansion and desire to rid the world of Evil, becomes increasingly violent to the point that it attacks other LG churches and eventually becomes LN and, finally, LE). And of course, that's only my opinion (and I have no research papers to back it up :D). Fair enough. I have no research other than my own experiences and hearing those of others. *: Alignment, as it currently exists in D&D, leads to a very specific type of game world, one where Moral and Ethical dilemas have tangible effects that can be seen and interacted with via magic. For a campaign setting archetype this is fine (and I would be happy to see a variant with the various aligned spells and abilities for those campaign-styles). For a base game system this may or may not be necessary (that's a judgement call/preference). As I had said in my previous post, a circular scaled version of alignment would be more useful for character development as long as you didn't have to adjucate spell effects and class abilities on it. And from your examples this is similar to how you view alignment when designing characters. Although I don't necessarily agree with your issues, I don't think that what you're saying here is untrue. Also, as another side note, there are many different cultures that do not share our western view of a dichotomy between good and evil or order and chaos. These cultures may have difficulty interacting with a system where this paradigm is assumed. Also, this inundation makes it difficult to design new campaign worlds without tangible alignment effects or with modified paradigms that are based on religions that weren't descended from Zaranthustran-thinking. Those cultures (which I suppose I'm somewhat attuned to given that certain African cultures are far more cyclical than most Western) can still fall within the alignment system because it's not a dichotomous system. Although I disagreed with plenty of Planescapes material (despite it still remaining my favorite published D&D setting), one of the things it did quite well was showing how complex, cyclical, and counter-intuitive alignment could be. The fact that there's a Great Wheel for the cosmos rather than a Great Box reveals that alignment can function either dichotomously (like Arborea being diametrically opposed to The Nine Hells) or cyclically (the various Neutral planes playing off everyone else). Or even that good, evil, law, chaos, and the neutrals take turns dominating the Cosmos. Truce? Done and done. :)
EvilVegan 03-01-08, 12:50 PM	See, while I want to respect this position, I don't really understand it because it seems to me that you believe alignment has been the dominant factor in backstory development. Conversely, I see alignment as a component of rich character development and that one may have an alignment without the former, but not the former without the latter; i.e. rich backgrounds stories cannot exist in D&D without an actual alignment, but an alignment can exist without a rich background. If anything, this leads to poor role-playing for PCs and important NPCs, but allows for quick and simple applications of the mechanics for run-of-the-mill NPCs (like monsters straight from the MM or red-shirt NPCs). I suppose this is where I would then, in the past three and a half editions, have issues with your desire to reduce the mechanical aspect as well, if I'm understanding you properly. Of course, I don't know how this will pan out with 4ed. I may like the change/reduction/removal of alignment and there may be a way to incorporate spells/abilities/class features that replace those that focused on alignment, but I don't expect that I'll be immediately favorable of the change. Alignment as a component of character development is fine. But I do think that a background and personality can exist without an alignment. The amount of information you have about a person greatly affects this. The more in depth and descriptive you get about a character and what sort of things he believes, the less alignment becomes important. Also a character might have traits that pull characters in opposite directions, which would result in a "neutral" alignment, but they aren't "Neutral" they have very strong moral feelings that occasionally don't match. Similar to how some people are pro-choice and anti-death penalty or pro-life and pro-death penalty. Or similar to racists who might be Lawful Good towards their own race and Chaotic Evil towards another. There aren't many instances where this would be a big deal in character development though, so it's only a minor point. Despite how much time I spent talking about it. As far as redshirts are concerned it depends on the type of campaign. An exalted campaign should have more in depth character design even for the redshirts. They might only be working for the BBEG because they're trying to save their family, not cause they're evil. All that aside, I don't think there should be many, if any, impact on the mechanics of the game due exclusively to personality. A cleric being seen as a "Good" person and getting ahead in his church and winning the hearts of those around him should have much more of an effect than his personal beliefs. If he's seen as "Good" but really is having his opponents murdered and likes little children, in D&D he would be found out by a 1st level spell. Reputation has less import in the scheme of things than whatever powers determine who glows when you cast a detection spell. Its all these little mechanical "glitches" causing my overall dislike of the alignment system. This could be adjusted while keeping the alignment system though. Saving throws vs alignment detection would be a good start, and there are numerous house rules to adjust for this stuff. But if you're trying to make a streamlined system and there are enough glitches to iron out that removal of the feature bypasses, I say go for it. Like you said, these alignment issues don't come up too often in practice. Dramatic moral dilemas can exist without the system. But I'm sure there will be at least a detailed sidebar for alignment. 30 years is a lot to just completely dump. I guess my expectations of new folks is different from others. Every time that I've played with new D&D gamers in the past ten+ years, I required a full wrought backstory be written. I would work with the player, after it was written, to find a way to work the story into my setting and would determine how well it fit into the selected alignment. Most times, the alignment made sense; other times, if I didn't think it did, we would discuss until we both had an understanding of the alignment intent (which, 90% of the time, resulted in the selected alignment being changed or the background/character exposition being adjusted to suit the selected alignment). So, my gamers never started out with caricatures (aside from the occasional and rare one-nighter). I suppose for games in which there's not a requirement for full-fledged development before the first campaign with that character, your perception of how alignment is used would be accurate... I have just never experienced that in 21 years of gaming.Welcome to my world. People randomly invite players to the game who don't know how to play and aren't familiar with roleplaying, with only a few hours notice and they expect to be in the game immediately. I play a diplomacy-focused bard and we start every encounter with me making a diplomacy check, the first round of which is interrupted by our elf duskblade charging whoever I'm talking to and killing them; except for once when we're talking to a few humans where the elf interrupts me and makes an untrained diplomacy check (If it hadn't been an obviously pivotal RP encounter (and completely out of character for me) I would have charged the guy he was talking to, just to pay him back). And he only did that because he was in a hurry to get into some sort of combat and knew he wasn't supposed to attack the human. The faster the RP is over the faster he can kill something with a sword. We typically alternate between me and my friend DMing, we added a new player and here's his detailed backstories for the two campaigns: Campaign 1: I'm a half-orc fighter, my mom was raped. Campaign 2: I'm a half-orc barbarian, my mom was raped. I play in several campaigns that last maybe 4 sessions before 75% of the players (or the DM) flake out. Most/all of my good players have moved away or have to focus on their new families and careers. I'm left with flakes, newbs, bores, and actual munchkins. To be honest I've recently given up on playing all-together and I'm going to try and get into a living forgotten realms game when that starts up with a friend of mine coming back to the game from 2nd ed. This might be the reason I sometimes come to the boards in such a foul mood. Those cultures (which I suppose I'm somewhat attuned to given that certain African cultures are far more cyclical than most Western) can still fall within the alignment system because it's not a dichotomous system. Although I disagreed with plenty of Planescapes material (despite it still remaining my favorite published D&D setting), one of the things it did quite well was showing how complex, cyclical, and counter-intuitive alignment could be. The fact that there's a Great Wheel for the cosmos rather than a Great Box reveals that alignment can function either dichotomously (like Arborea being diametrically opposed to The Nine Hells) or cyclically (the various Neutral planes playing off everyone else). Or even that good, evil, law, chaos, and the neutrals take turns dominating the Cosmos.The Great Wheel is a great example of my alignment circle I was talking about. Remove all the extraplanar aspects of it and boundaries and it's a great description of alignment. The stronger you align with a particular alignment the closer to that edge you are. Problem characters exist in different spots on the circle. I don't think it's a good generic cosmology though, just a good alignment description for character development. My view of what alignment should be as a tool for character development (variable shaded circle with dots) matches the physical representation of the great wheel cosmology. That's a bit too much importance of alignment for my tastes. Character development is OKAY and having an after-life that makes life-choices and beliefs important is OKAY, but should they be physically identical?
The Serge7 03-02-08, 09:43 AM	Alignment as a component of character development is fine. But I do think that a background and personality can exist without an alignment. Yes, they can. And they do in games other than D&D. And, even in D&D, they're not as restrictive as it sounds like you fear they are. The amount of information you have about a person greatly affects this. The more in depth and descriptive you get about a character and what sort of things he believes, the less alignment becomes important. Actually, I would say the reverse. The more information, depth, and description I have on a character makes it more clear to me what an alignment likely is and, in a role-playing environment, how close the PC is actually playing the alignment s/he selected. Indeed, knowing that you have an alignment and facing serious moral and/or ethical dilemmas is one of the factors of the game I like the best because I think that's what many people do in real-life, even if it's over relatively trite things. Also a character might have traits that pull characters in opposite directions, which would result in a "neutral" alignment, but they aren't "Neutral" they have very strong moral feelings that occasionally don't match. Well, this is only if you view alignment as a straight-jacket in which there's no give. My view is that most mortal creatures, particularly humanoids, will have some "give" in their behaviors. They will stray from their overall intent and goals due to lusts, hatreds, great loves, and momentary lapses in commitment. However, when taken as a whole, character's behaviors are what determine alignment, not (in most cases) a single issue. True, a LG character that goes on a murdering spree with the intent to cause harm and receive pleasure in doing so to innocent (if ignorant) people isn't going to remain LG after the first murder, but the same LG character who -- starving or just hungry -- snatches a piece of fruit from a market stand isn't going to suddenly backslide. Similar to how some people are pro-choice and anti-death penalty or pro-life and pro-death penalty. Considering how complex both of these positions tend to be, I don't think it's as simple as your seem to be suggesting. I suspect that there are a variety of reasons for folks to have these positions... And, if I were to apply an alignment to these issues, I'd say you could almost certainly have all nine represented. This is much the same as what we saw in Planescape's faction system. Most of the factions seemed to more-or-less represent/favor a particular alignment, but were populated by folks from all of them. Or similar to racists who might be Lawful Good towards their own race and Chaotic Evil towards another. I admit this one's harder for me to view objectively since I'm African American, but I would go as far as to say that hatred of any kind that seeks to justify murder or harm to others based upon something like race with no rationale for it never qualifies as good. At best, it's neutral when not acted out and immediately evil otherwise. Being able to love other people within your race or family does not mean you can't still be evil. There aren't many instances where this would be a big deal in character development though, so it's only a minor point. Despite how much time I spent talking about it. This would depend upon the game... In my games, these conflicts are standard and par for the course. As far as redshirts are concerned it depends on the type of campaign. An exalted campaign should have more in depth character design even for the redshirts. They might only be working for the BBEG because they're trying to save their family, not cause they're evil. Fair enough. I'll buy this. All that aside, I don't think there should be many, if any, impact on the mechanics of the game due exclusively to personality. Which is where you find alignment problematic, right? A cleric being seen as a "Good" person and getting ahead in his church and winning the hearts of those around him should have much more of an effect than his personal beliefs. If he's seen as "Good" but really is having his opponents murdered and likes little children, in D&D he would be found out by a 1st level spell. Reputation has less import in the scheme of things than whatever powers determine who glows when you cast a detection spell. Well, let's remember that the mechanics of the game do not (or at least should not) function at the expense of the role-playing/campaign development. Both should work hand in hand... So, a DM could state that in certain religions, running around testing folks for their alignment is considered rude or unacceptable. Conversely, who's to say that the cleric in question isn't being protected by another god or patron (like a demon or devil) who has concealed his alignment? There are plenty of ways around this type of thing. Thus, reputation can (and does in games with which I'm familiar) have as much, and at times greater, import than the spells and mechanics as written. Its all these little mechanical "glitches" causing my overall dislike of the alignment system. Well, as written, I suppose these are problems. But, as I said, I've never seen the material to be strictly as written as the campaign building aspect takes over at some point. This could be adjusted while keeping the alignment system though. Saving throws vs alignment detection would be a good start, and there are numerous house rules to adjust for this stuff. I do like this idea. It would make it easier for new DMs moreso than for PCs. But I'm sure there will be at least a detailed sidebar for alignment. 30 years is a lot to just completely dump. I hope so. <snip> I typically killed folks like this in the first game and invited them not to return. Or else other players did. To be honest I've recently given up on playing all-together and I'm going to try and get into a living forgotten realms game when that starts up with a friend of mine coming back to the game from 2nd ed. I haven't played regularly in two years... It's a painful experience. This might be the reason I sometimes come to the boards in such a foul mood. I usually don't post. Hell, I don't post much on my own site anymore. I'm hoping 4ed will get me back into things. I don't think it's a good generic cosmology though, just a good alignment description for character development. My view of what alignment should be as a tool for character development (variable shaded circle with dots) matches the physical representation of the great wheel cosmology. That's a bit too much importance of alignment for my tastes. Character development is OKAY and having an after-life that makes life-choices and beliefs important is OKAY, but should they be physically identical? No, not necessarily. Although I like the Great Wheel, I understand some folks' issues with it, particularly those of us interested in mythology and the attempt to cram myth into this system. Still, I never agreed with FR's move away from the Great Wheel, although I never minded DL not being a part of it (save from the Planescape perspective).
ArcTan 03-05-08, 04:50 AM	Actually, I would say the reverse. The more information, depth, and description I have on a character makes it more clear to me what an alignment likely is and, in a role-playing environment, how close the PC is actually playing the alignment s/he selected. Indeed, knowing that you have an alignment and facing serious moral and/or ethical dilemmas is one of the factors of the game I like the best because I think that's what many people do in real-life, even if it's over relatively trite things. I face moral dilemmas in real life all the time. I just don't do so according to some crappy two-axis grid. Indeed, I've *never* faced a situation that could be simplistically boiled down to something D&Dish like "I know I'm Lawful Good, but now I have to choose between being Lawful and being Good". Generally it's more casting about for the *definition* of Good, or finding out that two competing definitions of Good have a hold on you, two definitions you didn't realize were competing or even distinct until this very moment (like, say, duty to your mother vs. duty to the rest of your family).
The Serge7 03-05-08, 08:39 AM	I face moral dilemmas in real life all the time. I just don't do so according to some crappy two-axis grid. Uh-huh. Indeed, I've *never* faced a situation that could be simplistically boiled down to something D&Dish like "I know I'm Lawful Good, but now I have to choose between being Lawful and being Good". Generally it's more casting about for the *definition* of Good, or finding out that two competing definitions of Good have a hold on you, two definitions you didn't realize were competing or even distinct until this very moment (like, say, duty to your mother vs. duty to the rest of your family). And how is this any different from a well played D&D character? The major difference, if there is one, is the same one faced by any author or playwright: While the player is aware of the alignment circle and the ethical/moral nature of the campaign setting in general, the character within the game-text is not necessarily aware of it, but knows that there are certain ideals to which s/he adheres and will attempt to act accordingly based upon those ideals. S/He doesn't necessarily have any idea that his ideals reflect a greater cosmological construct.