Booted Again, or 4e and Planescape

It should be noted that in DC Comics the multiverse exists again, it's different than what it was like with Crisis On Infinite Earths, as some of those worlds don't exist anymore, some do, and there's an Earth-50 which is the home of the Authority, Stormwatch, WildCATS, Gen 13, etc.

They decided they wanted some of that complexity back again, even with the "other comic companies (that we purchased) stuff in other Earths" things they had going.

Much of the things from PS like the Blood War and Modron March could still exist under the new cosmology. The new cosmology is supposed to be more open, with a less defined planes, though it does make some things from the Great Wheel hard to work with at times.

PS also could still have the cosmology the way it was, and still work fine with 4e rules. Already I've seen hints that their making PHB Eladrins fit in FR, by continuing to call them Gold or Sun Elves.

Many of the 4e changes are usually in terms of things like monsters and races, and it's easy enough to fix those with a little work.

Other 4e changes like Paladins of any alignment, Rangers of any alignment (that's a 3e change), Warlords, and Warlocks (3.5e change) actually have things to add to PS with more options. Though it might result in certain NPCs getting retconned as different classes.

What is inspired about their demon/devil division?

And what has changed in 4e? Demons have become stupider and that's about it fluffwise. I like some of the mechanics, but calling the fluff inspired seems insane to me.

Explain to me the vast difference between the two in 4e. Especially now that the Pit Fiend's more interesting magic abilities are gone.

As for the succbus versus the enriynes, if anything commiting crimes of passion fits more with chaos than with law. As per why the enriynes ending up taking on multiple duties and more the role of the evil courtesan than the woman who drives you to animal lust. Really this seemed well covered in previous editions implicitly at the least.

4e's flaw is lack of imagination. They reduced any complex notions of Chaos and Order into demon's smashing and devils tempting. This was more than possible in the previous editions and simply emphasizing this in their new campaign setting would have been fine.

Instead they've removed potential complexity for those that want it.

Again, explain to me what the new difference in roles is.

Also, I'm not following your David analogy. How can me having my Great Wheel interfere with the 4e cosmology? Why was it necessary to exclude a cosmology 30 years old for the new? Now that Dragon/Dungeon in is online, they have the space to support both in the magazines.

As for the problems with Order vs. Chaos, this is a non-argument for me since most of my interest in alignment is the conflict between objective alignment as a force of nature (because you can go there) and the subjective confusion that arises from this. So yes, alignment can be confusing/contradictory but that is the source of my interest in it. There are, as I see it, greater subtleties in the agents of Order/Chaos than simply planning versus spontaneity.

As for the Blood War, again you are presuming it is a bad idea - I disagree. It was something uniquely D&D. Why would two sides fight this battle? For what purpose? Some speculated it was a waste of time, a smoke screen, while other authors proposed that it was the deciding factor in how evil would be defined.

Now we have an Exalted-lite cosmology with some Changeling/Wraith thrown in. Interesting, likely cool art and ideas, but hardly anything amazing or worth touting as the Great Wheel's successor.

........what he said.

but seriously, i think you should post that on the 4e boards...well, I would if I though f4nboys wouldn't rationalize it away or dismiss it by calling you grognard...

To be fair though, there is something to be said for tearing it all down and starting all over. I think it is purely a matter of inclination, and I really can't buy the argument that one solution is "objectively" superior to the other. A new start means you lose all the richness of tradition, but you gain a whole set of possibilities that didn't exist before by virtue of no longer being beholden to a pre-existing canon. Referring to a canon is a double edged sword. It can add texture to a world, but it can also be a creative prison if the canon doesn't correspond with your vision. I

Personally, think it's just reactionary to bemoan the loss of D&D canon, because for one, we aren't really losing it, as it will still be there, and for another, what is replacing it hasn't been given enough time to develop it's own richness against which to judge it in relation to the existing canon. 1st edition wasn't much different when it was released. At some point all systems become weighed down by their histories, and eventually if you want to do anything truly new, and not derivative or beholden or in some way referential to what came before, you have to be willing to start over.

There is no right or wrong way of playing D&D. That's patently absurd. Any RPG is just a set of tools at a DMs disposal for crafting a narrative with their players. Which tools are actually useful or appealing to a DM will always be a matter of personal taste. No matter how romantic the 30 year history of D&D is to you, it means something totally different to each person. I for one couldn't really care less, because I find the vast majority of D&D canon material as being useful only in so far as it serves my vision as a DM. The moment I don't feel it suits my story, I disregard it, without a second thought. My campaigns have their own internal logic. Whether or not the "richness" of D&D canon will supplement that or contradict that is effectively random. It is always the DMs prerogative to pick and choose what works. I really don't see how 4e will change much of anything in that respect.

In essence, all that is changing is the fact that the old storied narrative that existed will no longer have support, and that an entirely new narrative will take its place. We can't really fairly reject that new narrative when the story has yet to be told. As great as Crime and Punishment is, we never would have had The Brothers Karamazov if Dostoevsky just kept writing about Raskolnikov.

But that is the position 4e has taken. That the rules governing travel in the Astral were not fun, that the plane of Vacuum wasn't fun, etc.

If Eberron's cosmology had replaced the Great Wheel, it would a giant loss. But as an option it was great, it offered new perspectives that hopefully will see their potential as Keith intended.

If 4e's core setting was willing to strike out as adding to options with courage to let the market and fans decide, I would be gun-ho. But instead they tell me the Great Wheel is dead and has been replaced by an Exalted-lite cosmology that is "better".

It's bad business and another chapter in the ever ridiculous canon-wars where designers compete to define the truth of D&D instead of letting fans decide.

Kind of. What I'm focused on is that there are a number of terrific stories that used to be possible in the Abyss that aren't now.

You're saying that there are still an "infinite" number of possibilities in the now more-limited Abyss, but I think that misses the point. It's possible to define the Abyss more narrowly and still make some use of it, but it no longer does many of the things I wanted it to do. And defining it more narrowly doesn't improve it, and doesn't add any additional story possibilities.

It doesn't follow that I therefore would want, to use your example, Sigil to be more broadly defined, but if Sigil was defined more narrowly so that, for example, arcanaloths were no longer part of it, I would protest that as a pointless and needlessly limiting change.

If the Abyss was even more narrowly defined so that, for example, the only kind of demon left was glabrezu and things that looked like glabrezu, there would still be an "infinite" number of story possibilities, but it would still be a much-impoverished place. Your abuse of the word "infinite" aside, there is a real, meaningful loss of untold infinities of possibilities when the Abyss no longer has its demons of lust and the intellect, its tempters and harvesters of souls.

You're still arguing too broadly, in abstracts, and neglecting the real loss of functionality. Yes, all stories have limitations; this is so obvious that it's insulting. I never tried to apply my argument to all limitations. All versions of the Abyss don't have this particular limitation, and those without it are better.

No matter how many times you seek to call my narrow argument "unconvincing" by making a much broader one, it won't work. I don't hate all change and I don't hate all limitations. I hate this change and this limitation. Because the 3.5 Abyss is objectively better. It does everything the 4.0 Abyss does, and more.

I actually mentioned a similar possibility above. If the Abyss doesn't have succubi, what happened to the succubi? Can we go on a quest to bring them back? That, at least, is a concrete story idea, although it's one contingent on the old, superior version of the Abyss.

You're not suggesting a concrete hook, though, but only a half-idea for a "new logic" behind the Abyss, not making any suggestions for how this new logic translate into ideas that are awesome enough to make up for the lack of succubi and the whole concept of demons representing unchained venal sins.

I'll propose something that I don't think is very daring: that your arguments are vague and general because they cannot become more specific. Because the 4.0 Abyss is objectively impoverished, and nothing can possibly come from taking whole races and themes from the Abyss that make up for the loss of those races and themes. There are, as a moment's thought should make clear, no "new logics" applicable to the new Abyss that weren't equally applicable to the old Abyss. The old Abyss had room for plenty of layers without tempters or lost souls in it, plenty of layers based on the elements or directly connected to the Inner Planes via portals, plenty of room for alliances forged between elemental and demon lords during the Age Before Ages. The old Abyss has everything the new Abyss has, but the new, more limited Abyss has nothing the old Abyss does not have, except limitation itself. Limitation, in a vague general sense, can be good, but it is not fun in itself, and limitation in itself is all this limitation can offer.

I'm interested in being practical, not being "fair." Yes, I'd rather discuss intellectual matters with a 30 year old than an infant. That might not be "fair," but few would argue that my preference is not a sensible one.

The new cosmology is not yet as good as the old one, and it may never be. It is not as developed. There's no reason to be sure it ever will be. This is a fact. It's perfectly legitimate reason to choose one over another. "Fairness" doesn't enter into it. "I'm not having as much fun, but I'm being very fair."

Which has nothing to do with their ability to plan. That's a function of intelligence, not alignment. You're essentially saying that being chaotic means they're unable to make full use of their ability scores.

Being chaotic means they prefer change and mutability to sticking to something planned long ago, but this does not prevent them from making a plan. It simply means they're going to interpret it more flexibly than a lawful fiend will.

Yes, demons are more impulsive than devils; devils are not impulsive at all, while demons are very impulsive. They can, however, plan as well as anything with a brain can. They can spin their momentary impulses into schemes that last centuries or millennia, and change their plans on a dime. Chaos means flexibility, while robbing them of their ability to plan makes them less flexible.

Your (interpretation of 4th edition) demons are stereotypes. They're less diverse, interesting, and deep than properly played demons. Properly played demons are completely mad, but they may be fiendishly clever. Your demons are something much less, and all because of a misguided view of what alignment means.

The devils want to control/demons want to destroy dichotomy is, however, more or less as true in 3e as it is in 4e. If we discard your inapt serial killer analogy, I can get on board with it. There are many demons in 3e whose motives are exactly as crude and limited as you describe. However, demons should be broader than that. They don't merely want to destroy reality; they want to increase Chaos however it may manifest. Many take greater delight in destroying morality and social mores than they would in mere murder or carnage, more pleasure in convincing a married couple to kill and eat their children than in tearing the space-time continuum apart.

In fact, many demons emphatically do not want reality to be destroyed. If reality is gone, how will they have fun? There's so much more Chaos that can be wreaked in a reality that continues to exist. They may, in fact, work to oppose entropic cults like Tharizdun's in order to keep the multiverse continuing in screaming agonized ecstasy for all eternity. Chaos, even evil Chaos, can create as well as destroy, transform and mutate rather than kill. To turn all demons into Doomguard is... an unnecessary and ugly limitation. It's not the good kind of limitation that we may praise in the abstract. It's inferior, I think obviously so, to the more flexible classic view of demons.

No. I'm demanding they act intelligently as well as chaotically. I described exactly what I mean by chaos, and it should be obvious how this clearly differs from law. A succubus' goals and methods, bringing out the Beast in her victims, are completely different form an erinyes' methods, luring her victims into foul pacts and questionable marriages, transforming society into an oppressive and reactionary force while the succubus seeks to transform society into an orgy or unhealthy chaos.

The Ecology of the Succubus and Erinyes on the Mimir describes the difference a bit better. Both can be intelligent planners, and yet one is indisputably chaotic and one is indisputably lawful. They are not the same. They are obviously different, and each has its own distinct role in the game.

Not as fun as it would be otherwise, no. Seriously. Demons are so much more interesting if they have a reason to interact intimately with human minds instead of merely killing them. This is better, and I am absolutely serious. I can't imagine how you could possibly think it wasn't.

Sorry, but that war was mentioned (though not using the word Primordials) in the Fiendish Codex I and Elder Evils for the old cosmology. For that matter, it's part of Greek mythology, and the myths of the Babylonians, Norse, and so many others. It's always been part of Planescape, and it's certainly not incompatible with the Blood War. They haven't added anything, but they've taken something interesting enough to get an entire boxed set out of away.

Are you unaware of the existence of elemental vortices? There are no wars between the Inner Planes that could not have happened in 2e or 3e. I would argue that the presence of more Inner Planes as discrete factions made for much more potential conflict than a multiverse where all the elements continually coexist could ever have. A war between Bwimb II of the Paraelemental Plane of Ooze, with her ooze paraelemental hordes seeking mystical crystals that will empower her hordes still further, allied with the forces of Juiblex, battling against the tssng of the Quasielemental Plane of Mineral, allied with gemstone dragons and their allies the genies of the Elemental Plane of Air is much more compelling than elemental archons on this randomly floating hunk of elemental material fighting against the inhabitants of some other randomly floating hunk within the continually changing Chaos, where nothing is permanent and victory within it is therefore fairly meaningless in the long view.

And there were certainly always contending factions on the Plane of Shadow, from the illumians, to the khayal, to the shades and shadow dragons and shadowswyfts, Dark Ones, gloamings, greeloxes, shadar-kai, and pseudo-elementals. If the Shadowfell has new plot hooks, well and good, but I'll wager it has none that couldn't have fit under the 3e planar structure.

Am I being too dismissive of the new cosmology's possibilities? Possibly, but I think my point is made. The new version of the Abyss adds no possibilities that didn't exist before, but it takes entertaining possibilities (demons of temptation rather than mere destruction, the Blood War) away. I wasn't trying to argue anything about the rest of the 4e cosmos, but I can certainly see the argument that the Elemental Chaos is inferior too.

Not that that matters. They could have rearranged the Plane of Shadow, the Astral Plane, the Inner Planes, or anything else without making demons more needlessly limited and less fun. My criticism about the way fiends have been held in 4e - obviously, incontestably, unquestionably inferior to their former possibilities - has nothing to do with what they may have added elsewhere. The 4e scheme is a dumb view of what chaos means and what demons can be. Vague and vacuous analogies with Renaissance art aside, appealing broadly to the virtues of limitations does not disprove the impoverishment of this particular limitation. Better things can and have been done.

Emphasis mine. Yeah, it doesn't do more things you want it to do. That isnt an objective metric. That is a personal opinion. The existence or abscece of succubi in the Abyss is not an objectively positive or negative thing. It is entirely a personal opinion as to which scenario is better. The main assertion of your argument that I fundamentally disagree with, and find a little bizarre, is that you keep making this claim that one type of narrative is objectively better. By what objective standard? All you can offer is that one case offers more possibilities, but you at the same time concede both a)that in fact each scenario has infinite possible story lines, and b) that a scenario of restrictions on the abyss results in story lines that could not exist without those restrictions. Both those admissions contradict directly the claim that a demon populated abyss offers more possibilities. It would be more accurate to say they offer a different set of possibilities. Since your only objective metric you offer is the one of More is Better (which is still really a personal opinion), and in essence you concede that you don't really even get more with a demon populated abyss, the claim of objectivity just makes no sense to me. Just say "I like it better". That is a completely legitimate thing to say.

This illustrates that your assertion isn't objective, but is infact a personal opinion. On the one hand you argue that a set of restrictions upon the abyss is obectively worse, because it creates limitations. Therefore, your argument rests on the claim that limitations are objectively bad because you lose something. It would therefore follow that additions and the removal of restrictions would add something, since your assertion is inherently binary. Yet at the same time you say that loosening restrictions is bad in the context of Sigil. To me this seems to suggest that what you are really in favor of is a preservation of things as they are now. That's fine, I just dont appreciate people making the claim that this is something objectively better. There simply is no "objective" means to discuss personal preference in cosmology. The metric you employ is an arbitrary one (More is Better) that is really a personal value being dressed up as some sort of objective standard.

But by that reasoning, there is a "real meaningful loss" by the very penning of the planescape world, and moreso with each and every release that expands upon the world. Why? Because the more the world is detailed, the is "a real, meaningful loss of untold infinities of possibilities". Every time a plane becomes more defined, I am given a set of new restrictions to the stories I can tell. Devils and Demons have been in an endless bloodwar with their infinite legions? Well, that means I can't really tell a story of a pact between devils and demons to invade Mount Celestia without rewriting planar cosmology. That there is an eternal hatred between the two that is irreconcilable is a limitation on my storytelling. But that very limitation gives us the Blood War and everything surrounding it. Without that eternal enmity, you could still "do everything and more", including having giant wars between demons and devils, but you would never have an endless war between the Baatezu and Taanari with the features of the blood war, because that very bit of fluf is entirely dependent upon that specific set of restrictions

But if your standard is truly objective, it should be universally applicable as a rule. If it is not, then how can you claim it is objective? That you apply it only to one instance just illustrates that it is a personal preference in response to a specific bit of story, not in fact an objective rule. That is why the broad arguments are relevant, because you are invoking an incredibly broad principle. Throwing words like objectivity around is pretty insulting itself, because you are in essence implying that people who think something different don't just disagree with you, but in fact are ignoring some cosmic principle that should be rationally discernable. You are basically holding up your claim, and making the argument that your claim is logically infalliable. That's pretty insulting to someone who holds a different opinon (particularly when their opinions are well reasoned), since the hidden implication is that they will only disagree if they are too stupid to understand, and claims like that require a pretty robust defense if you ask me.

I don't know much of anything about this change beyond what has been said in this thread, so making a concrete storyhook is difficult, unless I am to craft from whole cloth. If I did know what the new cosmology of the Abyss is in complete detail, I can assure you I could develop a story that would work only in the new context. As of the moment however, you simply have to take my word for it.

Ah, but your argument is actually as general and abstract as they come, despite the rhetorical reference to devil in the details. You claim objectivity. Objectivity necessarily requires a concrete proof of an assertion. You have yet to provide a proof. You merely assert that the loss of a thing is objectively worse without yet having established proof for why the loss of a thing is objectively worse. Your "proof" for why it is worse is actually just a series of opinions (the abyss is "richer" with Taanari, not being able to tell stories with succubi is bad, etc). Opinions are not really proof. Therefore your claim isn't objective. It is just an opinion that you are presenting as a universal truth.

You miss the central point of my statement. I absolutely appreciate that you, personally, would rather hang out with the thirty year old guy, if we are to extend this analogy. That is a legitimate thing. You have every right to your personal preference, and that is 100% your perrogative, and I would never seek to suggest you would be wrong for doing so. What I object to is your claim that hanging out with this guy is objectively better than investing in the child, because the guy is smarter and has more to talk about. I see just as much in the eyes of that child as you see in that conversation. That's not measurable.