Deva?=Aasimar?=Angels? - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Deva?=Aasimar?=Angels?

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
davesaunders
May 30, 2009 22:50:52 I read Rich Bakers posts and everybody elses and ill admit I still dont fully get it. And how does this change past history now like if something says that an angel or deva did something? Is that the old version now or the new version or what?
#2
borris
May 31, 2009 2:27:54 It's just a matter of nomenclature.

What used to be called an Aasimar is now a Deva.
The archons and angels of old are now regrouped under the now broader term Angel (note that 3.5 devas were already types of angels).
Just like moon elves and sun elves are now called eladrins.

It doesn't have to change past history at all. If some old lore refers to a trumpet archon or an astral deva, then that character is one of the creatures 4e refers to as Angels.
#3
sfdragon
May 31, 2009 3:27:17 slight rule retcon.

Mr. Baker answered a question in the ask the developer thread though
#4
niirfa
May 31, 2009 5:49:02
It's just a matter of nomenclature.

What used to be called an Aasimar is now a Deva.
The archons and angels of old are now regrouped under the now broader term Angel (note that 3.5 devas were already types of angels).
Just like moon elves and sun elves are now called eladrins.

It doesn't have to change past history at all. If some old lore refers to a trumpet archon or an astral deva, then that character is one of the creatures 4e refers to as Angels.

It'd be unfair actually to say it is just a matter of nomenclature. Devas in 4e have a whole lot of lore that doesn't fit quite right with 2e-3e aasimar, as well as a very different appearance.

That said, they're supposed to be the same race, though the differences are so stark I can easily see why one might be confused. I have a retcon in my head that I'm currently using in my campaign but it's hardly official.
#5
lord_karsus
May 31, 2009 10:13:10 -I can't say I get it fully, either, and have given up trying to do so. Suffice to say, when mentions of the race are made in older books, they are references to the older edition versions, while when references are made in newer books, they are references to the new edition versions.
#6
markustay63
May 31, 2009 14:53:20 Although it is possible to use the Spellplague to reconcile many of the 4e changes, some still defy logic.
#7
quale1
Jun 01, 2009 11:28:07 you could say that this is a new type of deva, that appeared after the planar rearrangement

astral, movanic and monadic devas weren't particularly tied to the Prime but to inner and transitive planes
#8
ChrisTheS
Jun 01, 2009 11:55:20 It wouldn't be unreasonable to suggest that most of what were previously referred to as Aasimar are humans with the deva heritage feat. Now there are a lot more of the genuine article.
#9
markustay63
Jun 01, 2009 12:56:26 Or we could just say "the Sages were wrong", and now we know better (which will happen again come 5e). For most of the stuff - except where a definite conflict with canon history exists - that seems the easiest explanation for everything.

In other words, "it was always that way".
#10
arcas_shan
Jun 01, 2009 13:04:40 The Aasimar were retconned into being Devas in the FRPG. I really don't like it. I've made my own Aasimar (and Tieflings because the new ones don't fit the old lore) http://www.planewalker.com/forum/old-tieflings-and-others-4e . Given time and inspiration I will try to remake the old Celestials (Devas and Eladrin (the true ones), Planetars, Archons etc...
#11
ChrisTheS
Jun 01, 2009 16:37:58
Or we could just say "the Sages were wrong", and now we know better (which will happen again come 5e). For most of the stuff - except where a definite conflict with canon history exists - that seems the easiest explanation for everything.

Perhaps, but it seems like such a good way to keep the established fluff of the old race while not stepping on the toes (or fake wingtips) of the new one.
#12
zanan
Jun 01, 2009 17:21:20
I read Rich Bakers posts and everybody elses and ill admit I still dont fully get it. And how does this change past history now like if something says that an angel or deva did something? Is that the old version now or the new version or what?

History? What history? All the 4E player needs to have fun is the new books and all that is in there.
#13
davesaunders
Jun 06, 2009 15:16:24
History? What history? All the 4E player needs to have fun is the new books and all that is in there.

the history that says "devas/angels/aasimar" in old editions when they are something new i mean.
#14
JudgeDookie
Jun 07, 2009 0:13:13 Oh, my. The Day's of Ody come back to me now.
#15
ody_saraph_of_karsus
Jun 08, 2009 8:43:05
Oh, my. The Day's of Ody come back to me now.

Huh, What?

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 davesaunders May 30, 2009 22:50:52	I read Rich Bakers posts and everybody elses and ill admit I still dont fully get it. And how does this change past history now like if something says that an angel or deva did something? Is that the old version now or the new version or what?
#2 borris May 31, 2009 2:27:54	It's just a matter of nomenclature. What used to be called an Aasimar is now a Deva. The archons and angels of old are now regrouped under the now broader term Angel (note that 3.5 devas were already types of angels). Just like moon elves and sun elves are now called eladrins. It doesn't have to change past history at all. If some old lore refers to a trumpet archon or an astral deva, then that character is one of the creatures 4e refers to as Angels.
#3 sfdragon May 31, 2009 3:27:17	slight rule retcon. Mr. Baker answered a question in the ask the developer thread though
#4 niirfa May 31, 2009 5:49:02	It's just a matter of nomenclature. What used to be called an Aasimar is now a Deva. The archons and angels of old are now regrouped under the now broader term Angel (note that 3.5 devas were already types of angels). Just like moon elves and sun elves are now called eladrins. It doesn't have to change past history at all. If some old lore refers to a trumpet archon or an astral deva, then that character is one of the creatures 4e refers to as Angels. It'd be unfair actually to say it is just a matter of nomenclature. Devas in 4e have a whole lot of lore that doesn't fit quite right with 2e-3e aasimar, as well as a very different appearance. That said, they're supposed to be the same race, though the differences are so stark I can easily see why one might be confused. I have a retcon in my head that I'm currently using in my campaign but it's hardly official.
#5 lord_karsus May 31, 2009 10:13:10	-I can't say I get it fully, either, and have given up trying to do so. Suffice to say, when mentions of the race are made in older books, they are references to the older edition versions, while when references are made in newer books, they are references to the new edition versions.
#6 markustay63 May 31, 2009 14:53:20	Although it is possible to use the Spellplague to reconcile many of the 4e changes, some still defy logic.
#7 quale1 Jun 01, 2009 11:28:07	you could say that this is a new type of deva, that appeared after the planar rearrangement astral, movanic and monadic devas weren't particularly tied to the Prime but to inner and transitive planes
#8 ChrisTheS Jun 01, 2009 11:55:20	It wouldn't be unreasonable to suggest that most of what were previously referred to as Aasimar are humans with the deva heritage feat. Now there are a lot more of the genuine article.
#9 markustay63 Jun 01, 2009 12:56:26	Or we could just say "the Sages were wrong", and now we know better (which will happen again come 5e). For most of the stuff - except where a definite conflict with canon history exists - that seems the easiest explanation for everything. In other words, "it was always that way".
#10 arcas_shan Jun 01, 2009 13:04:40	The Aasimar were retconned into being Devas in the FRPG. I really don't like it. I've made my own Aasimar (and Tieflings because the new ones don't fit the old lore) http://www.planewalker.com/forum/old-tieflings-and-others-4e . Given time and inspiration I will try to remake the old Celestials (Devas and Eladrin (the true ones), Planetars, Archons etc...
#11 ChrisTheS Jun 01, 2009 16:37:58	Or we could just say "the Sages were wrong", and now we know better (which will happen again come 5e). For most of the stuff - except where a definite conflict with canon history exists - that seems the easiest explanation for everything. Perhaps, but it seems like such a good way to keep the established fluff of the old race while not stepping on the toes (or fake wingtips) of the new one.
#12 zanan Jun 01, 2009 17:21:20	I read Rich Bakers posts and everybody elses and ill admit I still dont fully get it. And how does this change past history now like if something says that an angel or deva did something? Is that the old version now or the new version or what? History? What history? All the 4E player needs to have fun is the new books and all that is in there.
#13 davesaunders Jun 06, 2009 15:16:24	History? What history? All the 4E player needs to have fun is the new books and all that is in there. the history that says "devas/angels/aasimar" in old editions when they are something new i mean.
#14 JudgeDookie Jun 07, 2009 0:13:13	Oh, my. The Day's of Ody come back to me now.
#15 ody_saraph_of_karsus Jun 08, 2009 8:43:05	Oh, my. The Day's of Ody come back to me now. Huh, What?