It's over? Really? Was this not meant to herald an apocalypse as the consolidated forces of the Lower Planes steamrolled over the Prime and Celestial dominions?
How exactly was the war "ended"? The Abyss was cast down through the Elemental Chaos, but both it and the tanar'ri still exist.
I'm DMing my first campaign now, and my basic premise has been for the party to slowly uncover the machinations of the Blood War influencing (if not outright directing) the struggle between Bane and Cyric on the Prime. Of course, I can always overrule canon and declare that the Blood War goes on, but I'd rather my campaign reflect canon if possible.
Cyric brained Mystra wit ha stick.
Dweomerheart blows up, azuth and Vel get booted out.
Vel dies by the Symbul, and Big A kills Azuth, and takes his divine stuff and becomes a god .
Big A moves the abyss and hells and then declares the blood war over.
welcome to the Elemental Chaos.
I suppose with the Abyss now so far physically removed from the Nine Hells, there isn't a solid frontier in the Rift to be fought over, but surely the tanar'ri and baatezu still intend on annihilating each other?
no more info to my knowledge, no more info exists on the matter.
but I miagine yes, they would still try to kill each other....
You might want to read the Emperyan Oddessey(sp). I know the last book has a Demon invasion of the upper-planes in it. Well the Astral Sea...
Just FYI, the Empyrean Odyssey does show a demon invasion of Celestia, although no connection to the Blood War is stated. The main demonic forces attacking Celestia are the minions of Orcus. Asmodeus doesn't appear in the trilogy, although the giant "body" of Azuth is seen floating in the Astral plane. Neither the Simbul nor Vel appear in the trilogy.
The 2e/3e Blood War does not make sense with the 4e material as written. You have to alter one or the other if you're going to be using it within your campaign. Good luck.
Alter the cosmology, the world axis sucks anyway. :P So did the tree. Screw 'em both, bring back the wheel.
Yes no more cosmic soup...bring back the Wheel...
Back to the OP..
They got rid of the Blood War due to a dislike in the designers of something called monsterbation...when NPCs fight each other. As they think it takes off the focus of the PCs...(ahem with limited imaginations...sorry.)
Personaly I feel like this is a lousy reason to make canon...so my opinion is to go off cannon on it. Why the need to reflect canon by the way?
Consider also that demons have no way to replenish their ranks with souls now, as souls go to the Astral upon death, and the Abyss is no longer in the Astral. War would seriously deplete the demons of lower rank tanar'ri. Manes, Vrocks, Hezrou, Glabrezu, Nalfeshnees, etc. Without an incoming supply of souls, the lower ranks will keep graduating up or getting killed off, and there are no new incoming souls to replenish their ranks. Demon ecology must be severely crippled by this.
They may be seeking alternate ways of filling their ranks. Perhaps they can still claim souls who have made pacts with them, which might make them ever more solicitous to sorcerers and mages, spurned lovers and feuding clan members. Perhaps they are out hawking their wares in the Material Plane making deals as if the Abyss were having a fire-sale.
Then again, maybe they could corrupt elementals. Plenty of elemental critters there in the Elemental Chaos. Maybe their ecology will adapt somehow to work with the material at hand.
But Asmodeus is now a greater god, and the Abyss doesn't have anyone of comparable power to help launch (or withstand) an attack against Hell. This frees up Asmodeus and his ilk to divert their attention elsewhere. The world should quake in fear that these great powers are no longer fighting each other. After all, idle hands are the Devil's playground.
but, i think it's a good thing for D&D in general. for FR, if you really want to get into it demons and devils might still be at war, but fighting through proxies in the prime material. their armies can't smash into each other like they used to (yet). as a result, demonic apowers are trying to create permanent, world destroying portals that can allow their limitless hosts to pour out into the prime and kill everyone, dragging a world, screaming and dying, into the elemental chaos.
diabolic powers seek to oppose them and corrupt souls. eventually, a world can be made to sacrifice itself on the Altar of a Million Silenced Souls, and be pulled into Asmodeus's 9 Hells (each Hell, in fact, is one of the past victims of Asmodeus' agents, perhaps).
just a thought.
Everything in the past that happened with it (as of 3.5 continuity, at least) still happened. They just advanced the story. Yes they ended the Blood War. Some folks may not agree with the choice. But Wizards didn't retcon anything by ending it.
Neither the demons nor the devils have anything to gain at this point in fighting each other, especially as they have to fight through various planes to get at each other..
I would nto say Asmodeus being a god is anything that will stop the demons. They have the shard of absolute evil, after all, and that shard spanwns demons form the plane itself. The domons do not need souls to increase their number (though they can still take them, they likely still have access to the fugue plane).
Gomez
Yeah I keep thinking 'So wait, what the frak is/was Ao doing during all of this?' with pretty much everything relating to anything involving gods and 4E.
he was having Tea with I believe Pun Pun.
We don't know that Ao did nothing; it may be that Ao held the crystal sphere together and prevented it from shattering. Heck, it is not even for sure that Ao survived the Spellplague. He is probably immune, but I could imagine a circumstance (unrevealed to us as yet) where Ao sacrificed his own life to prevent the universe (well, Toril's Material Plane at least) from blowing entirely up.
But that's just one theory. Ao moves in mysterious ways...
He's around, he just wont (for now) be used.
Of course he was flamed for it.
Rich in the old "ask" thread pretty much said Ao wont be getting used anymore.
He's around, he just wont (for now) be used.
Of course he was flamed for it.
Ao was a mistake...as was everything (just about) that had to do with the gods post The Avatar Trilogy. The Gods should have been...left alone for DMs and Players to develope and decide on. It is a good idea that they realized they needed to fix it...I just really disagree with How they fixed it. I would have perfered a more scapel type fix....then the sledge hammer we got.
but, i think it's a good thing for D&D in general. for FR, if you really want to get into it demons and devils might still be at war, but fighting through proxies in the prime material. their armies can't smash into each other like they used to (yet). as a result, demonic apowers are trying to create permanent, world destroying portals that can allow their limitless hosts to pour out into the prime and kill everyone, dragging a world, screaming and dying, into the elemental chaos
This is actually exactly how I thought of dealing with it. The Blood War may no longer occur as it once did, but the Prime Material now seems to be the middle point between the Nine Hells and the Abyss, and devils could easily find common cause with Bane, as demons might throw their weight behind Cyric (of course, their ultimate allegiances will be to Asmodeus or a demon lord, respectively).
While I've been very happy with 4E overall, I absolutely reject the idea that evil fighting evil is uninteresting. On the contrary, I think it allows for a lot of nuance, intrigue, and moral dilemmas for player characters. Right now, I've had the (good-aligned) party approached by a cell of Banite Zhentarim in Hillsfar (their leader is the granddaughter of the Thayan ambassador to Hillsfar; I wanted to establish the connection between Bane and Thay early on, plus I do a badass Russian/Thayan accent). The Banites are willing to offer the party critical intelligence on Cyricist plans, as they cannot risk acting on their own out of fear of retaliation.
This puts the party in a very awkward position. They have the intelligence and ability to thwart Cyricist operations in Hillsfar, but they would be acting both at the request and to the benefit of Banites. Do they refuse to help the Banites if refusal means allowing Cyricists to murder the First Lord of Hillsfar?
I dunno about you guys, but I'm really sinking my teeth into this angle.
but, i think it's a good thing for D&D in general. for FR, if you really want to get into it demons and devils might still be at war, but fighting through proxies in the prime material. their armies can't smash into each other like they used to (yet). as a result, demonic apowers are trying to create permanent, world destroying portals that can allow their limitless hosts to pour out into the prime and kill everyone, dragging a world, screaming and dying, into the elemental chaos
This is actually exactly how I thought of dealing with it. The Blood War may no longer occur as it once did, but the Prime Material now seems to be the middle point between the Nine Hells and the Abyss, and devils could easily find common cause with Bane, as demons might throw their weight behind Cyric (of course, their ultimate allegiances will be to Asmodeus or a demon lord, respectively).
While I've been very happy with 4E overall, I absolutely reject the idea that evil fighting evil is uninteresting. On the contrary, I think it allows for a lot of nuance, intrigue, and moral dilemmas for player characters. Right now, I've had the (good-aligned) party approached by a cell of Banite Zhentarim in Hillsfar (their leader is the granddaughter of the Thayan ambassador to Hillsfar; I wanted to establish the connection between Bane and Thay early on, plus I do a badass Russian/Thayan accent). The Banites are willing to offer the party critical intelligence on Cyricist plans, as they cannot risk acting on their own out of fear of retaliation.
This puts the party in a very awkward position. They have the intelligence and ability to thwart Cyricist operations in Hillsfar, but they would be acting both at the request and to the benefit of Banites. Do they refuse to help the Banites if refusal means allowing Cyricists to murder the First Lord of Hillsfar?
I dunno about you guys, but I'm really sinking my teeth into this angle.
Evil fighting Evil is one thing, but the way that it was portrayed in the past editions was poorly done.
It seemed to me that the only thing that kept Evil from overrunning Faerun or the Flaeness was bad guys killing or feuding with other bad guys. Whether it's the Bane v. Cyric divide or Overking Ivid v. Duke Szefferin, what kept the villainy out was not good guys fighting impossible odds, but rather, bad guys betraying each other. It wasn't the actions of some bold PCs who staved off the collapse of Furyondy or brought the Scarlet Brotherhood to the negotiating table. It was intrigues happening in the camps of the villains.
The Blood War was a cool idea yeah, but what was the point? It's not like anything that you did could matter--even a party of level 20 PCs was going to get slaughtered by limitless hordes of tanar'ri--and there's nothing compelling about sparing this or that settlement of cursed souls in Carceri.
On the other hand, moral dilemmas like you've laid out ARE compelling gameplay. Ultimately, your PCs can confront and defeat both the banites and the cyricists. What I like about the 4E was that it dropped the "evil v. evil means that good has a chance", to "evil is going to stomp on good unless the PCs take up the cause".
It's not like anything that you did could matter--even a party of level 20 PCs was going to get slaughtered by limitless hordes of tanar'ri--and there's nothing compelling about sparing this or that settlement of cursed souls in Carceri.
A world exists beyond the PCs? A setting grows and evolves outside of whatever bubble of influence they play a role in? The Blood War was a force of nature more than something a single individual could grab and alter in any easy way. A setting need not be centered around the actions of PCs. The world need not revolve around them.
On the other hand, moral dilemmas like you've laid out ARE compelling gameplay. Ultimately, your PCs can confront and defeat both the banites and the cyricists. What I like about the 4E was that it dropped the "evil v. evil means that good has a chance", to "evil is going to stomp on good unless the PCs take up the cause".
Bingo. That's the eventual aim. I actually had the PCs enter an impossible encounter with one of the Banite cell leaders at first. The party was level 4 at the time, and each of the cell leaders is a level 11 elite. I have the inevitable backlash against the Banites set up as the wrap-up of the heroic tier.
Rich in the old "ask" thread pretty much said Ao wont be getting used anymore.
He's around, he just wont (for now) be used.
Of course he was flamed for it.
Ao was an absolutely terrible idea and if we to suddenly disappear never ever to be seen again that would be the best thing to happen to the realms.
As for the blood war, it's heavily implied it is merely on hold and that as soon as Asmodeus feels he has the upper hand, he's more than willing to restart the entire war on his terms. So proxy battles and a sort of cold war feeling are a perfect fit for the current way it works.
A world exists beyond the PCs? A setting grows and evolves outside of whatever bubble of influence they play a role in? The Blood War was a force of nature more than something a single individual could grab and alter in any easy way. A setting need not be centered around the actions of PCs. The world need not revolve around them.
Why bother caring about a world you're playing in when you can have absolutely no effect on it? Might as well do whatever you like if your actions have no consequences or do anything that isn't specifically sanctioned by some outside canon source. His point was why do you care what happens when your actions aren't going to matter anyway? He's precisely right.
Personally I much prefer the actions of my players (over multiple campaigns or whatever else) to alter the world than some novel or sourcebook. But that's just me and I find one of these things far more compelling (for everyone at the table) than the other personally as a mode of advancing the game/world.
not htat Midnight/mystra was well liked as her write up was not well done......
It's not like anything that you did could matter--even a party of level 20 PCs was going to get slaughtered by limitless hordes of tanar'ri--and there's nothing compelling about sparing this or that settlement of cursed souls in Carceri.
A world exists beyond the PCs? A setting grows and evolves outside of whatever bubble of influence they play a role in? The Blood War was a force of nature more than something a single individual could grab and alter in any easy way. A setting need not be centered around the actions of PCs. The world need not revolve around them.
if they are the heroes, then yes it should.
A world exists beyond the PCs? A setting grows and evolves outside of whatever bubble of influence they play a role in? The Blood War was a force of nature more than something a single individual could grab and alter in any easy way. A setting need not be centered around the actions of PCs. The world need not revolve around them.
I completely agree with this. The world should never revolve around the PCs. When it does, when it revolves solely around the PCs, it becomes less realistic, too simplistic, and more cartoony. It makes the world feel incredibly small. NPCs, nations, cultures, they should all have their own "life" beyond what the PCs could do to them, otherwise they're nothing more than a cardboard backdrop. Even the most powerful PCs should always feel like there are more powerful NPCs out there in the world, usually with their own goals and motivations that have little or nothing to do with the PCs. The world should be big, realistic, deep, and interesting on many levels (not just the "next big thing."
Why bother caring about a world you're playing in when you can have absolutely no effect on it? Might as well do whatever you like if your actions have no consequences or do anything that isn't specifically sanctioned by some outside canon source. His point was why do you care what happens when your actions aren't going to matter anyway? He's precisely right.
Just because the world doesn't revolve around the PCs doesn't mean that they can't have any effect on it. If the PCs choose to save a tiny group of people caught between two forces in the Blood War, you're right: it won't have an effect on the Blood War. But it will mean a lot to those people they save and it will also mean a lot for the PCs. That's something to care about, and it's actually more meaningful because the PCs took a great risk in order to save people who would have died. It doesn't matter that they can't stop the Blood War. It matters that they cared, that they risked their lives, and they will likely have friends for life among the NPCs that they saved.
In a broader sense, it's almost seems like you're implying that nothing real people do in the real world is important or worth caring about. The world is bigger than us, there will always be people and situations far more powerful than us, no matter how long we live. Why do anything, then? If you can find an answer for that, and if you can see how people can be heroic in our own real world, then you'll have the answer. It's actually far more meaningful and worthwhile when the world is more realistic. The risks are greater, but so are the rewards.
Why bother caring about a world you're playing in when you can have absolutely no effect on it? Might as well do whatever you like if your actions have no consequences or do anything that isn't specifically sanctioned by some outside canon source. His point was why do you care what happens when your actions aren't going to matter anyway? He's precisely right.
Personally I much prefer the actions of my players (over multiple campaigns or whatever else) to alter the world than some novel or sourcebook. But that's just me and I find one of these things far more compelling (for everyone at the table) than the other personally as a mode of advancing the game/world.
Yeah...sorta like having Asmodeus becoming a god and ending the Blood War( which makes little sense as demons and devils had gods supporting them in the blood war before...). Or the thousand other things they did for 4th edition to 'make the PCs' center stage....
I agree with Jorunhast and Shemeska_the_Marauder that a good RPG setting and such should have things that the PCs can't completely change. It makes the victorys you have all the more worthwhile, because even the smallest things changes things.
As to the whole part in caring about it? To me being a hero does not mean fighting the battles you know you will win. Being a hero is fighting the battles you know you will loose but you fight them anyway, because it is the right thing to do. Saving a village from a orc raid might not be a earthshaking event...so should the PCs just ignore it because in the end it actualy changes little?
The Blood War was a cool idea yeah, but what was the point? It's not like anything that you did could matter--even a party of level 20 PCs was going to get slaughtered by limitless hordes of tanar'ri--and there's nothing compelling about sparing this or that settlement of cursed souls in Carceri.
My question is why would the PCs want to stop the Blood War? The was the point...it was a morale conflict. Should they even get involved in it more. It also drew upon the conflict between Chaos and Law. Which is hard to do. But everyone was involved in the Blood War at some level.
Also why have evil monsters at all? Even 20th level PCs are going to get slaughtered by the endless hordes of evil monsters...and what is so compelling about saving any village from any threat?
The Blood War was a cool idea, but I never found it particularly compelling to build a campaign around. You may have had a different experience, but I never found thought wow, Chaotic Evil OR Lawful Evil... which one is less EVIL??? The nature of the Great Wheel, with planes stretching to infinity further made the conflict silly--how can one side or the other ever control MULTIPLE planes (and sub-planes) that have no end? I know, clueless Prime and all, but honestly...
4E on the other hand, makes a much better distinction between the two sides. the Tanar'ri are now far more interesting, and the Baatezu, while changed significantly less, are improved by the changes to their ancient enemy.
but the Blood War wasn't a moral conflict. If one side or the other were to win, the fluff made it clear that all the multi-verse would be imperiled. Chaos v. Law was an interesting way to go, but the Baatezu were just as likely to torture and kill as the Tanar'ri were to seduce and scheme, so what was the difference in practice? The extensive writing about Baatezu advancement, while adding color, never actually helped build a better adventure--I'm going to kill O'ppoonqoualzz and banish him for a thousand years to Baator, and don't particularly care about whether or not he's going to be bumped down to Cornugon when he gets there.
The Blood War was a cool idea, but I never found it particularly compelling to build a campaign around. You may have had a different experience, but I never found thought wow, Chaotic Evil OR Lawful Evil... which one is less EVIL??? The nature of the Great Wheel, with planes stretching to infinity further made the conflict silly--how can one side or the other ever control MULTIPLE planes (and sub-planes) that have no end? I know, clueless Prime and all, but honestly...
4E on the other hand, makes a much better distinction between the two sides. the Tanar'ri are now far more interesting, and the Baatezu, while changed significantly less, are improved by the changes to their ancient enemy.
Actualy there was no fluff that stated the fact if one side won they would take over the multiverse...that was a belief of some celestrials who supported the war to draw it out. No one really knows what would have happened if they weren't fighting it. Actualy they did hint that if the sides stopped fighting and worked together that would threaten the Multiverse.
but the Blood War wasn't a moral conflict. If one side or the other were to win, the fluff made it clear that all the multi-verse would be imperiled. Chaos v. Law was an interesting way to go, but the Baatezu were just as likely to torture and kill as the Tanar'ri were to seduce and scheme, so what was the difference in practice? The extensive writing about Baatezu advancement, while adding color, never actually helped build a better adventure--I'm going to kill O'ppoonqoualzz and banish him for a thousand years to Baator, and don't particularly care about whether or not he's going to be bumped down to Cornugon when he gets there.
The Blood War was a cool idea, but I never found it particularly compelling to build a campaign around. You may have had a different experience, but I never found thought wow, Chaotic Evil OR Lawful Evil... which one is less EVIL??? The nature of the Great Wheel, with planes stretching to infinity further made the conflict silly--how can one side or the other ever control MULTIPLE planes (and sub-planes) that have no end? I know, clueless Prime and all, but honestly...
4E on the other hand, makes a much better distinction between the two sides. the Tanar'ri are now far more interesting, and the Baatezu, while changed significantly less, are improved by the changes to their ancient enemy.
Actualy there was no fluff that stated the fact if one side won they would take over the multiverse...that was a belief of some celestrials who supported the war to draw it out. No one really knows what would have happened if they weren't fighting it. Actualy they did hint that if the sides stopped fighting and worked together that would threaten the Multiverse.
which is why i said "imperiled"
unifying the lower planes under a single rule (whether demonic or diabolic) would certainly "Imperil" the multi-verse (or at least the Outer Planes), as it would likely shift the multi-verse's chief axis from Law-Chaos to Good-Evil.
unifying the lower planes under a single rule (whether demonic or diabolic) would certainly "Imperil" the multi-verse (or at least the Outer Planes), as it would likely shift the multi-verse's chief axis from Law-Chaos to Good-Evil.
Ah but you said if one side won...that is not true though. The Blood War kept it safe because it kept them joining together. If one side had actualy won...then they would be in a weaken position as the united Celestrial Realms would be able to hold them off.
Also victory in the Blood War wouldn't unify the Lower Planes under one Rule...The Yuogoloths would still be what they are...and then renemants of the loosing side would still be there...the victor would be in a stronger positionn but a very exposed position.
Also the Blood War allowed for good vs good conflict...The neutrals were aiding both sides to maintain the balance. The Blood War had a very intrigueing effects on the Outer Planes that went very much beyond a standard morale question.
I mean your interpertation of it is valid and you didn't like it...it is a matter of taste. I really liked all the things I could do with it.
Though if what you said is true...why does the multiverse does not feel imperiled? I mean one side did win after all.
Actualy there was no fluff that stated the fact if one side won they would take over the multiverse...that was a belief of some celestrials who supported the war to draw it out. No one really knows what would have happened if they weren't fighting it.
This is actually going to be the basis for a campaign that I have planned. The final villain will be a "fallen" angel/celestial who does not share that belief. His goal is to force the armies of the other upper planes (or their 4e equivalents) to intervene in the Blood War - by driving a horde of fiends through Toril and to the slopes of Mount Celestia. The death of a single world is to him an acceptable sacrifice to accomplish a goal that he believes will bring an end to the Blood War.