Booted Again, or 4e and Planescape

95 posts / 0 new
Last post
Jem
Jem's picture
Offline
Factor
Joined: 2006-05-10
Booted Again, or 4e and Planescape

Option 3, for now: play the 2e fluff, with 3.5e mechanics and the PSCS from the fine folks here at planewalker, and worry about 4e if they ever put out interesting new fluff that makes me want to play in that meta-setting. :^)

Kobold Avenger's picture
Offline
factotums
Joined: 2005-11-18
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.

Wretch's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2006-01-13
Booted Again, or 4e and Planescape

That's just it, Jem.

There are several intriguing ideas in the new system. Their division of fiends is inspired, I like the Far Realms, Fey Realms covers so much of the CG and CN alignment spectrum, with bits of Beastlands thrown in.

But that isn't Planescape per se. I guess I like buffets for a reason.

Kobold,

I agree. The shoehorning wouldn't take too much grease.

sciborg2's picture
Offline
Factol
Joined: 2005-07-26
Booted Again, or 4e and Planescape

What is inspired about their demon/devil division?

__________________

Health Resources: Register family with 911 services, so providers will have info prior to emergency/disaster. Also mental health info & hotlines, articles, treatment assistance options, prescription assistance, special needs registries, legal aid, and more!

Wretch's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2006-01-13
Booted Again, or 4e and Planescape

Leaving aside alignment and home plane; please tell me the difference between a Pit Fiend and a Balor?

If you are digging into the minutiae of resistances and spells, the point is made.

Demons are the Soccer Hooligans of reality. Devils are the ones who have you crying on the floor as you've just gotten finished destroying everything you once believed in.

Lord Zack's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2006-11-10
Booted Again, or 4e and Planescape

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.

Wretch's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2006-01-13
Booted Again, or 4e and Planescape

Puzzled: Before the two were distinctions without a difference, blunt objects slamming against one another like that desk ornament from the 80's.

At least they are making an attempt (long overdue in my mind) to create a meaningful difference between the two.

Vrocks want to destroy everything they see. A succubus (the only human type they have...they need to add polymorth to most devils now) wants to get a thousand men to sign pacts, promising favors and souls for sex and power. That is an enormous difference from the Blood War.

Edited to add: For RPG's in general, no it isn't particularly novel. They are behind the power curve on this. But give credit where credit is due...

sciborg2's picture
Offline
Factol
Joined: 2005-07-26
Booted Again, or 4e and Planescape

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.

__________________

Health Resources: Register family with 911 services, so providers will have info prior to emergency/disaster. Also mental health info & hotlines, articles, treatment assistance options, prescription assistance, special needs registries, legal aid, and more!

Wretch's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2006-01-13
Booted Again, or 4e and Planescape

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

That is not the measure of an interesting character/monster. Role Playing is telling stories and everything not a PC has a specific role. The difference between the Pit Fiend and Balor was indistinguishable. So make a difference in the role, or cut one of them out. They choose the former.

Quote:
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.

Chaos vs. Law isn't the problem. Alignment is a hang up and I've been against it for a long time (though not here). But let's let that go for a moment.

I am reminded of serial killers. There are two flavors, organized and disorganized. An organized killer will find a specific victim, map out his plan, do the deed and clean up after himself.

A disorganized killer sees victim and a switch is set off in his brain. He follows, finds whatever is at hand, does the deed and runs away, his very randomness his only protection.

So if you are talking Chaos, primordial gut wrenching lack of control...does that sound like a fiend who specifically finds out what turns a specific man on and slowly takes advantage of it, embracing his soul in the process?

As far as the who implicit thing, faint lip service at best.

Quote:
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.

What you see as a lack of imagination, I see as another "David" mable. The rock Michaelangelo used had a big chip in the side. This affected what image he could hew out of the rock. And it's the same with any other game; the mechanics and cosmology strongly control the type of story.

With the reboot, I see an enormous amount of new material added which could not be done in Planescape...just as Planescape had stories which are not possible in this setting. When you finish telling/playing those stories, try something else.

But you'll have to speak up about the subtlties of the Demon/Devil interaction. The Blood War was making too much noise. :roll:

sciborg2's picture
Offline
Factol
Joined: 2005-07-26
Booted Again, or 4e and Planescape

Quote:
So make a difference in the role, or cut one of them out. They choose the former.

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.

__________________

Health Resources: Register family with 911 services, so providers will have info prior to emergency/disaster. Also mental health info & hotlines, articles, treatment assistance options, prescription assistance, special needs registries, legal aid, and more!

sciborg2's picture
Offline
Factol
Joined: 2005-07-26
Booted Again, or 4e and Planescape

Quote:
D&D is suffering the same problems that DC Comics ran into several years ago; decades of various disparate worlds and systems running into each other.

Explain how this problem affect the previous editions and the Great Wheel. What was the clash in disparate worlds and systems?

Quote:
In some very real ways, Planescape was created simply to allow access for players to hop from one bit of hodge, to another bit of podge, but with a chance for significant adventures in between.

In a word: No. The fact that the majority of adventures have little to do with the other settings, I can't see that.

__________________

Health Resources: Register family with 911 services, so providers will have info prior to emergency/disaster. Also mental health info & hotlines, articles, treatment assistance options, prescription assistance, special needs registries, legal aid, and more!

Wretch's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2006-01-13
Booted Again, or 4e and Planescape

Using the Rule of Threes, if my first three attempts haven't been successful, I'm letting it go. Either I am incapable, or you are not persuadable, or perhaps you are correct. Having a Pit Fiend attempting to set up a personality cult, is indistinguisable from their normal role of beating the snot out of Balor in some bloody war somewhere.

I am not persuadeable either it seems. Eye-wink

sciborg2's picture
Offline
Factol
Joined: 2005-07-26
Booted Again, or 4e and Planescape

Pitfiends did fight balors, but they also had cults and schemed for other reasons such as serving deposed archdevils (in Apocalypse Stone) or trying to sabotage Ships of Chaos (Into the Abyss).

The pitfiends also filled out the nobility of Hell, whereas the balors were tanar'ri generals dedicated to the Blood War. It makes more sense to say the balors sole reason for existence is the Blood War, though even that statement has exceptions.

I apologize if it seems I'm nitpicking but after all the fallacies (lies?) put out by 4e's marketing department regarding past editions I feel Planewalker is a good place to make a last stand.

__________________

Health Resources: Register family with 911 services, so providers will have info prior to emergency/disaster. Also mental health info & hotlines, articles, treatment assistance options, prescription assistance, special needs registries, legal aid, and more!

Wretch's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2006-01-13
Booted Again, or 4e and Planescape

No apologies necessary. As far as a last stand, folks are still standing 10 years after the closure, not to mention almost 2 editions.

Don't know what lies you are talking about.

But I'm a sucker for pacts for power from eldritch entities and like big booms. Nor was I stricken by the loss of the ethereal to the Astral. They both did the same thing. Always thought the Mind Flayers needed to be significantly different (and I love F. Paul Wilson's work), so that was a slam dunk. And creatures gnawing at the base of reality makes sense as well.

So I am philosophically biased.

ripvanwormer's picture
Offline
Factol
Joined: 2004-10-05
Booted Again, or 4e and Planescape

'Wretch' wrote:
Their division of fiends is inspired.

No. It's simple-minded, airheaded, and makes for an objectively worse game. It's another example of the 4e team breaking something that didn't need to be fixed. No one in over 30 years has ever complained that demons were too much like devils, because they're supposed to be alike. The words are synonyms, for Demogorgon's sake; they're both incarnations of Evil who have evolved over the millennia to tempt humans and oppose one another, of course they've evolved along parallel lines. They have a common origin, too, according to the Heart of Darkness myth. In ten years of chatting about the planes online I've never heard anyone complain about this, but when the D&D-haters at WotC (for, as their promotion for 4e never ceases to remind us, virtually everything about the flavor and mechanics of every other edition was both lame and stupid) announced it had been a terrible problem, suddenly all the mindless fanboys popped up and said, "Oh, well of course demons and devils should be completely different." No, they absolutely should not.

But you can't tell the difference between a pit fiend and a balor? Really? Or a babau and an osyluth, or a succubus and erinyes? There's a really jarringly obvious distinction that you really should have mentioned: one group is chaotic, and the other is lawful. And if you're not able to distinguish between those two concepts, you're not playing anything that I would recognize as Planescape, since the dichotomy is pretty fundamental to the planes and factions. If a human Xaositect is too much like a human Guvner to you, I don't know what to say.

Tanar'ri are incarnations of Chaos as well as Evil. They tempt by inspiring lusts and tearing down social norms, destroying conscience and humanity. They represent the Deadly Sins, as James Jacobs fleshed out in his recent Demonomicon articles, and they bring out the wrath, lust, greed, sloth, and other wild, untamed instincts to the forefront. They do this using cleverness and guile, subtlety and long-term planning, because Chaos is not stupidity. Graz'zt wishes for Chaos to one day overwhelm the entirety of the multiverse, but he moves toward his goals intelligently, making alliances as necessary along the way. They do not keep their promises, and they do not have to - indeed, it would be counterproductive, physically painful for them, for them to support laws or order.

Baatezu are incarnations of Law. They bring mortal souls into their ranks chiefly through complex contracts. They represent oppression and tyranny, not venal impulses, and while they might toy with mortal emotions and desires (in the same way that a tanar'ri might pretend to make a contract), for they are intelligent enough to use all means available, emotions alone do nothing to bring mortals into their grasp. Only laws and pacts will suffice, and indeed they will often find it advantageous to convince their mortal pawns to reject their emotions, hardening their hearts and persecuting those who seek to fulfill their desires rather than supporting repressive social norms.

This seems pretty different, in my mind, and very much in line with the very different concepts of Chaos and Law. Neither race is purely of Chaos or Law, as both are as defined by their common Evil as they are by either of those other forces, so they are not as different from one another as, say, slaadi and modrons are. But the difference between them is much more obvious, complex, and satisfying than "organized and disorganized serial killers." They're that as well, of course, because tanar'ri are far less organized than baatezu, continually turning against one another like clashing waves in the sea and controlling their underlings only through constant use of force, but your analogy was really about smart killers and stupid killers, and had nothing to do with Law, Chaos, or the races of fiends. Demons are often very clever, and they serve Chaos all the better for it. There is nothing lawful or chaotic about planning, only smart and stupid. A smart demon makes many plans, and chooses or adapts them as situations change, just as a stupid devil adheres to the instructions given him regardless of circumstances. A smart devil will make better plans, and choose between them more intelligently, and a stupid demon may not plan at all.

The 4e dunderheads decided against this interesting yet intuitive dichotomy and instead decided that demons were, broadly speaking, mere monsters going "Rawr! Hulk smash!" while well-fleshed out NPCs like Red Shroud or Malcanthet, who were so important in various plots that came out in Dungeon last year, should be moved to the Hells instead. They decided that Chaos should be, broadly speaking, stupidity.

No, it's not a good idea. It's an unnecessary destruction of years of beautifully fleshed-out canon and taking out the tempters and damned souls from the Abyss - which, I'll remind you, affects not just succubi and their queens but nalfeshnee, glabrezu, loumaras, manes, and all the other demons who sought out, gathered, judged, tempted, enslaved, or were mortal souls - makes the plane a poorer, duller place.

Endorsing the 4e fiend scheme means saying, "Oh no, the Abyss was too interesting! Take away many of its fascinating elements, please, and don't replace them with anything!" There are no stories possible in an Abyss without tempters in it that weren't possible before, since obviously the Abyss has never lacked for beings responsible for pure destruction, Oh, except, as I was reminded on the WotC boards, a story about "Where did all the tempters go?" There are, however, many stories possible in an Abyss where demons crave human souls that are no longer possible in an Abyss where they do not. Since story possibilities have been taken away but not added, things have become objectively worse.

It is not a good idea.

Quote:
I see as another "David" mable. The rock Michaelangelo used had a big chip in the side. This affected what image he could hew out of the rock. And it's the same with any other game; the mechanics and cosmology strongly control the type of story.

That is a very pretty way of saying nothing at all. As with "the whole piecemeal structure is falling apart under its own weight," it's a statement without any support. The structure is piecemeal, but Planescape made it so much stronger, more than strong enough to support the new pieces added in 3e, even by authors ignorant of what came before. I know, because I, and Sciborg and lots of other people who hang out here, have been busy strengthening it, exploring its many textures and possibilities, massaging the pieces into place and cementing them with sturdy new ideas. As an example, the archons were added in the 1e Manual of the Planes and sort of stuck out strangely, but the PSMCII added two new races, the eladrins and guardinals, to balance them out. Further Planescape materials, especially Hellbound, fleshed out their role in the planes and the way they fit into the various alignments further. The structure grew stronger because of these additions, not weaker. More recently, the origin of the fiends was revised in the two Fiendish Codices, with tanar'ri the creations of the obyriths and baatezu as fallen angels. One would think a crude splice like this might indeed make the structure risk falling apart, but we and the cleverer WotC people have come up with a number of fixes that keep things running quite smoothly. And it is smooth; assuming that the Heart of Darkness created the obyriths and ancient Baatorians instead allows all previous canon to still work well.

If your comics analogy was intended to simply mean that the 4e cosmology is simpler than the Great Wheel, this is very much true, but things certainly didn't have to be outright contradicted to be made simpler. You don't have to say that the adventures of Hawkman with the Justice League never happened in order to reconcile the Golden and Silver Age versions of the character, and you don't have to take damned souls out of the Abyss in order to make it understandable to new players. Some changes are simply bad.

The Blood War adds "too much noise?" No, it adds precisely as much noise as you need. Nothing says it has to be involved in everything fiends decide to do; demons and devils could have any goal in 2e and 3e that they can in 4e. The 4e demonic desire to "Invade the mortal world and destroy everything! Rawr!" was perfectly possible before, and whether they did so in order to advance the Blood War or just for the joy of destruction is completely up to the DM. A baatezu tempts in order to recruit Blood War soldiers or to increase its own personal power, both motives possible in 2e and 3e and neither mutually exclusive. 4e has added no possibilities, only taken one very interesting one - the Blood War - away.

sciborg2's picture
Offline
Factol
Joined: 2005-07-26
Booted Again, or 4e and Planescape

........what he said. Eye-wink

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...

__________________

Health Resources: Register family with 911 services, so providers will have info prior to emergency/disaster. Also mental health info & hotlines, articles, treatment assistance options, prescription assistance, special needs registries, legal aid, and more!

ripvanwormer's picture
Offline
Factol
Joined: 2004-10-05
Booted Again, or 4e and Planescape

'sciborg2' wrote:
........what he said. Eye-wink

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...

Haha, they say "grognard," and we say "fanboy." It's much the same thing. They could call us fanboys too, and it would be accurate - insofar as I get a bit touchy where Planescape is concerned, I'm very much a Planescape fanboy, just as I've noticed a lot of 4e fanboys - not Wretch here, who I'm not lumping in with the "fanboy" crowd - get genuinely angry when someone suggests that 4e, a game none of them have fully even seen yet, might be less than perfect. I don't think I've earned the word "grognard," though, which I think of as a badge of honor.

The 4e cosmology is fine enough as these things go, but it seems to be lacking in comparison to the Planescape cosmos, principally because of its inferior presentation of demons and the - at present - much less varied assortment of upper planar creatures. I don't think my status as a Planescape fanboy makes me wrong.

Archdukechocula's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2008-02-24
Booted Again, or 4e and Planescape

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.

ripvanwormer's picture
Offline
Factol
Joined: 2004-10-05
Booted Again, or 4e and Planescape

'Archdukechocula' wrote:
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.

You're talking about something different from what I'm talking about. I agree that dumping previous canon opens up alternate possibilities, but that's not my complaint. My complaint is a very narrow one: an Abyss which does not contain demons who seek to corrupt and harvest mortal souls gives us less possibilities than an Abyss in which they do. Saying "there are no succubi in the Abyss" gives us limitations, but does not, in itself, add any possibilities.

Your argument, "Graz'zt can be anything now! Durao could have some other crazy thing instead of Blood War armies!" is true, as far as it goes, but doesn't change the fact that the 4e Abyss is objectively less useful than the 3e one was.

Quote:
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.

Well, exactly. I'm not comparing the Great Wheel to the 4e cosmology as it might be 30 years from now. I'm comparing it to the way it is, as they've described it. I'm comparing actuality, not potential. In 30 years, the 4e cosmology might have evolved into something truly wonderful, or they might revert back to something more like the 3e cosmology, or they might have rebooted a dozen times and only have something a few years old, or something brand new. The 3e cosmology might have evolved into something amazing in 30 years too. It's not useful to bring up things that might possibly happen in some alternate future. It is useful to point out that they've introduced a senseless restriction which makes the Abyss less fun.

It's absolutely fair to say that the Great Wheel is better, at present, because it has more characters and plot hooks developed for it. This is a legitimate reason to continue using the Great Wheel instead of waiting a few decades for the new cosmos to equal it. Now, as Kobold Avenger and Wretch have pointed out, the two cosmologies can be reconciled to some degree. You can have something very much like the 4e cosmology with the Abyss put among the Astral Dominions, for example, and you won't have lost anything. Or we could port a lot of Planescape canon into the new cosmology, or aspects of the new cosmology into the Great Wheel. So it's not like we have to choose only using one or the other, and I'm certainly not "bewailing the loss" of 1e-3e canon.

I'm simply making a criticism which no one has yet, on here or in lengthy arguments on the WotC boards, countered. The 3e Abyss, as detailed in the Fiendish Codex I and Demonomicon articles, is better than the 4e Abyss because the 4e demons are more limited and less useful. This is not in itself an invitation for a broader argument on canon. It is not a reactionary protest against all change. It is simply an observation that one particular change was a bad idea. Because it was. You can go with that change and you aren't "playing D&D wrong," but you will have a more limited Abyss. I think this limitation is senseless and won't improve your game one whit; it's based on a misunderstanding of what Law and Chaos mean, an assumption that chaotic means "stupid and incapable of planning" instead of "mercurial and prone to change or adapt plans."

Quote:
There is no right or wrong way of playing D&D.

I didn't say there was; you're arguing too broadly. The statement is absurd because it's a straw man. There are versions of the Abyss that contain more inherent story hooks than the others, however.

sciborg2's picture
Offline
Factol
Joined: 2005-07-26
Booted Again, or 4e and Planescape

Quote:
There is no right or wrong way of playing D&D. That's patently absurd.

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.

__________________

Health Resources: Register family with 911 services, so providers will have info prior to emergency/disaster. Also mental health info & hotlines, articles, treatment assistance options, prescription assistance, special needs registries, legal aid, and more!

Archdukechocula's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2008-02-24
Booted Again, or 4e and Planescape

'ripvanwormer' wrote:
You're talking about something different from what I'm talking about. I agree that dumping previous canon opens up alternate possibilities, but that's not my complaint. My complaint is a very narrow one: an Abyss which does not contain demons who seek to corrupt and harvest mortal souls gives us less possibilities than an Abyss in which they do. Saying "there are no succubi in the Abyss" gives us limitations, but does not, in itself, add any possibilities.

I don't really agree with that. The only qualitative difference is the nature of the narratives you can construct within that set of rules. Before you remains an infinite set of possible story lines within a given restriction. More broadly, limitations simply define the area in which you can construct a story. All stories use them because they give definition to a place. Whether or not a limitation is useful or a hindrance is entirely dependent upon how you approach that issue. Geography is defined as much by what isn't there as what is.

To give a concrete example, what makes Sigil what it is really is the restrictions built around a broad concept. It is the city at the center of everything that is a portal to all the planes, but it is what can't be done in that context that really defines Sigil and gives it it's character. It is called the Cage for a reason. The flavor of Sigil would be radically different if, for example, you didn't need a key to open most portals. Each version of sigil would be different, would allow for different sets of stories, but neither would be "objectively" better simply because one has a restriction and the other doesn't. Each simply sets a different tone for what types of stories can be told. You can't tell a story about the search for a portal key in a Sigil where portals are all free for use. You can't use the rich symbolism of the cage if sigil becomes an open pathway.

Possibility gives us the option to choose a path, but the path chosen is defined by its boundaries. The Abyss always had a set of boundaries of one kind or another built into it. All that has happened is that they are chosing to change what those boundaries are. Yes, that means on the one hand you can't do stories centered around demons who harvest souls.

However, the piece you miss is that it opens up the possibility for stories that are in fact contingent upon that restriction. Why aren't there demons in the Abyss? Do demons want it? Do they abhor it for some reason? What are the exact nature of these restriction? A new logic is created for the planes that requires new stories, new understanding, new explanations. As it is now, the Abyss is defined by its relationships with demons. That relationship carries a set of possibilities and restrictions with it, just as an abyss without demons carries its own set of possibilities and restrictions. That is the nature of all stories. Whenever you define anything you are removing a world of possibilities just the same as you are describing a new world.

Quote:
Well, exactly. I'm not comparing the Great Wheel to the 4e cosmology as it might be 30 years from now. I'm comparing it to the way it is, as they've described it. I'm comparing actuality, not potential. In 30 years, the 4e cosmology might have evolved into something truly wonderful, or they might revert back to something more like the 3e cosmology, or they might have rebooted a dozen times and only have something a few years old, or something brand new. The 3e cosmology might have evolved into something amazing in 30 years too. It's not useful to bring up things that might possibly happen in some alternate future.

And what I am saying is, that isn't a fair comparison. It's like comparing the intellectual abilities of a 30 year old with an infant, and then deriding the infant for it. It may be accurate to say that the former is more intelligent than the later, but it isn't very meaningful without the context, and doesn't justify the derision. SImilarly, 3e D&D has more too it because of history, but that doesn't really justify dismissing 4e. They are two qualitatively different things, and have to be judged in their own context, otherwise the judgment is largely meaningless. 4e should be judged as a new system, because that is what it is.

Quote:
I'm simply making a criticism which no one has yet, on here or in lengthy arguments on the WotC boards, countered. The 3e Abyss, as detailed in the Fiendish Codex I and Demonomicon articles, is better than the 4e Abyss because the 4e demons are more limited and less useful.

I guess we have an inherently different outlook on this. I see limitations as just defining the boundaries of a story. I don't see limitations as "objectively worse". Rather, they just makes things different. It's the same with Genre. You try to work within a confine of a genre because it offers a trade off. You accept restrictions of convention because it adds flavor and atmosphere to your story, presumably because that enhances the story you are trying to tell. Is Sci-fi better than historical fiction because it offers more freedom of action? Or are they just two qualitatively different sets of possibilities and limitations, each usable in different ways? Whether or not these new restrictions on the Abyss will enhance or detract from a story you are trying to tell depends on what story you are trying to tell, not on some objective measurement. That's really all I am trying to say.

Wretch's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2006-01-13
Booted Again, or 4e and Planescape

I said

Quote:
Leaving aside alignment and home plane; please tell me the difference between a Pit Fiend and a Balor?

ripvanwormer said:

Quote:
But you can't tell the difference between a pit fiend and a balor? Really? Or a babau and an osyluth, or a succubus and erinyes? There's a really jarringly obvious distinction that you really should have mentioned: one group is chaotic, and the other is lawful. And if you're not able to distinguish between those two concepts, you're not playing anything that I would recognize as Planescape, since the dichotomy is pretty fundamental to the planes and factions.

Which frankly proves my point. From the prospect of role, there is no difference between the two groups. While I cannot speak to your use of the two groups, for the most part, both groups seem to spend more time as pells for the PCs weapons then as some kind of mastermind. Their role as tempters and collectors of souls is a distant third place...if it really exists at all.

I find the dismissal of organized vs disorganized killers too flip. You state that Chaos isn't stupid. I agree. But you also state that they go about it with long term planning. Um, sorry, no. Every molecule of their being is suffused with chaos. This isn't a "lifestyle choice" as it is for humans; it's intrinsic to their being. Just like the (mischaracterized) "stupid" killers, it has nothing to do with their IQ, it comes down to self control. And Chaos ISN'T about self control. Doesn't make them stupid. Needless to say, this can be attributed to a difference in style and emphasis.

But to get back to roles. How does one conquer reality? The new system divides it into two different approaches.

A Devil want to control reality. That is their sense of Law. MY rules. If humans are still around, but they hold all the marbles, peachy keen. If they have to win by letting all of mankind destroy themselves as they collect souls? Okay. Do they care if they have to foster base desires and lack of control within it's victim? Fine, as long as they win. Because it is no longer about "philosophical purity", it's about control. So when an Archdevil wants to conquer Friesia, he says "Send Simeon".

Demons meanwhile, have an easier and harder role. Destroy everything. When they are the last ones standing, THEY control reality. Not a lot of rocket science involved, but with their tourettes of the soul, it's more in keeping with (one interpretation) of their nature. Does that mean they aren't smart enough to attack critical junctions in reality? Of course not. And they'll use their powers in subtle and effective ways. When an Archdemon wants to take out Friesia, he says "Send in them."

Rapier vs Mace. Instead, you seem to want both groups to be indistinguishable, except for philosophy. (And yes, I know that philosophy is a critically important part of PS. But the application, of demanding Chaotic beings acting...well, not chaotic makes the supposed philosophical differences moot). Instead, I see a wider and realer seperation between the two philosophies, with the addition of different roles, when put into action. If a succubus is using the exact same planning and tactics as an eyrine, what's the difference again?

Nor do I see the reason for the outcry about "souls don't get to go to the Abyss anymore". Technically, the souls should go to whatever God has dominion. It seems there is plenty of room for a Hell in the system. But is HAS to be in the Abyss, or it isn't fun anymore? It HAS to be a demon who tempts people, or it isn't fun anymore? There HAS to be a Blood War, because there isn't enough material? Seriously?

They've removed the Blood War...but added a war between the Gods and the Primordials. They've taken the Blood War, and added potential wars between the Elements which never existed. No Blood War, but the ShadowFell has a Mexican Standoff.

Yep, I see your point. They're paring the stories down to nothing.

Quote:
That is a very pretty way of saying nothing at all.

Well, I'm sorry you dismissed my point. Archdukechocula has reiterated exactly what I was showing. And he reiterated that sometimes, you can go too many times to the same well. Instead of making another minute adjustment to the Great Wheel (thus alienating the base) they tried to rework everything. What adjustments would you accept to the Cosmology? What major change to the Great Wheel would be acceptable?

I think that any change to things would be met with a similar outcry, so why not reboot the whole thing, perhaps fostering new stories, attracting new players, and supposedly streamlining rules. Or should they put out a Manual of the Planes 4, which to all intents and purposes, is indistinguishable from MotP 1, MotP 2 (albeit with great art and some other frills), or Maunal of the Planes 3?

It's a gutsy move on their part. And the parts that do work from their perspective they kept.

I, meanwhile, have never been in their target demographic, but am intrigued by the possibilites. The parts I really love about PS is reasonably easily tranferable to the new Cosmology.

Wretch's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2006-01-13
Booted Again, or 4e and Planescape

Quote:

Well, exactly. I'm not comparing the Great Wheel to the 4e cosmology as it might be 30 years from now. I'm comparing it to the way it is, as they've described it.
I'm comparing actuality, not potential. In 30 years, the 4e cosmology might have evolved into something truly wonderful, or they might revert back to something more like the 3e cosmology, or they might have rebooted a dozen times and only have something a few years old, or something brand new. The 3e cosmology might have evolved into something amazing in 30 years too. It's not useful to bring up things that might possibly happen in some alternate future.

Quote:
And what I am saying is, that isn't a fair comparison. It's like comparing the intellectual abilities of a 30 year old with an infant, and then deriding the infant for it. It may be accurate to say that the former is more intelligent than the later, but it isn't very meaningful without the context, and doesn't justify the derision. SImilarly, 3e D&D has more too it because of history, but that doesn't really justify dismissing 4e. They are two qualitatively different things, and have to be judged in their own context, otherwise the judgment is largely meaningless. 4e should be judged as a new system, because that is what it is.

Let me disagree in a different way, though I'll second archduke's thoughts. RIGHT NOW, 4e is a more creative place then PS is because of it's lack of definition.

As you pointed out, the act of definition excludes so many possibilities. But the Great Wheel has 30 years of definition...

I have to provide details and context. In some ways, I prefer to have the barest bones, instead of buying lots of fluff.

ripvanwormer's picture
Offline
Factol
Joined: 2004-10-05
Booted Again, or 4e and Planescape

'Archdukechocula' wrote:
The only qualitative difference is the nature of the narratives you can construct within that set of rules.

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.

Quote:
However, the piece you miss is that it opens up the possibility for stories that are in fact contingent upon that restriction. Why aren't there demons in the Abyss?

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.

Quote:
And what I am saying is, that isn't a fair comparison.

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."

sciborg2's picture
Offline
Factol
Joined: 2005-07-26
Booted Again, or 4e and Planescape

Quote:
Which frankly proves my point. From the prospect of role, there is no difference between the two groups.

Pit fiends are the nobility of Hell. Balors exist to wage the Blood War. The idea that neither devils nor demons tempted mortals or corrupted them is contradicted by kingdoms falling under the sway of both races in Greyhawk.

Osyluths serve as spies to the overall hierarchy of Hell, which is what allows them to cast other fiends into the Pit of Flame as punishment. No demon can do that - they can only punish traitors by hunting them down.

Having read Hellbound and Faces of Evil, I can assure you that the roles of demons and devils have been fleshed out and discussed at length.

Quote:
Let me disagree in a different way, though I'll second archduke's thoughts. RIGHT NOW, 4e is a more creative place then PS is because of it's lack of definition.

That's like saying you can paint better pictures with one color of paint, or make more kinds programs using a programming language that lacks features.

I just don't see the amazing creative potential behind the new cosmos. Give some ideas that were not possible before.

__________________

Health Resources: Register family with 911 services, so providers will have info prior to emergency/disaster. Also mental health info & hotlines, articles, treatment assistance options, prescription assistance, special needs registries, legal aid, and more!

ripvanwormer's picture
Offline
Factol
Joined: 2004-10-05
Booted Again, or 4e and Planescape

'Wretch' wrote:
But you also state that they go about it with long term planning. Um, sorry, no. Every molecule of their being is suffused with chaos.

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.

Quote:
But the application, of demanding Chaotic beings acting...well, not chaotic makes the supposed philosophical differences moot

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.

Quote:
But is HAS to be in the Abyss, or it isn't fun anymore?

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.

Quote:
They've removed the Blood War...but added a war between the Gods and the Primordials.

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.

Quote:
They've taken the Blood War, and added potential wars between the Elements which never existed.

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.

sciborg2's picture
Offline
Factol
Joined: 2005-07-26
Booted Again, or 4e and Planescape

Quote:
There are no wars between the Inner Planes that could not have happened in 2e or 3e.

The Law-Chaos war that ended up being fought between the Wind Dukes and the obyrith began as a battle in the Inner Planes.

Quote:
I see limitations as just defining the boundaries of a story. I don't see limitations as "objectively worse". Rather, they just makes things different.

Having two options would mean one can't be measured in term of the other. When some jackass designer says "The Great Wheel" is dead, then one can't help but notice Mom and Dad sold your Rolls Royce and gave you a Camry.

Quote:
You accept restrictions of convention because it adds flavor and atmosphere to your story, presumably because that enhances the story you are trying to tell

How many amazing stories can you tell using "Demon SMASH! Arrrrgghh"? There's a reason Hulk gained intelligence, became Emperor, and returned to smack around Tony Stark and Co.

Additionally, the massive flaw in your argument is that a setting is a place to draw stories from. So, how can there be more stories for a group to develop with less potential?

Again, had they simply made an alternate cosmology instead of a replacement we wouldn't be worrying about this.

__________________

Health Resources: Register family with 911 services, so providers will have info prior to emergency/disaster. Also mental health info & hotlines, articles, treatment assistance options, prescription assistance, special needs registries, legal aid, and more!

Archdukechocula's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2008-02-24
Booted Again, or 4e and Planescape

'ripvanwormer'][QUOTE='Archdukechocula' wrote:
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.

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.

Quote:
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.

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.

Quote:
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.

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

Quote:
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.

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.

Quote:

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 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.

Quote:
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.

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.

Quote:
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."

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.

ripvanwormer's picture
Offline
Factol
Joined: 2004-10-05
Booted Again, or 4e and Planescape

'sciborg2' wrote:
Again, had they simply made an alternate cosmology instead of a replacement we wouldn't be worrying about this.

I wouldn't even mind a replacement cosmology that didn't make so many plots and stories that were possible in the old cosmology impossible in this one. The "Squaring the Circle" adventure in the Hellbound boxed set couldn't be played in the new cosmology. The Savage Tide adventure path from last year's Dungeon Magazine couldn't be played in the new cosmology. Why needlessly close so many doors? What was added that makes up for this loss? Our antagonists in this thread haven't been able to name any additions that weren't equally possible in the old cosmos, only compose generic paeans to limitation as an abstract good in its own right.

Nobody had a problem with the fact that two races of evil have similar methods until the existence-hating entropes at WotC told them they should. No one with a passing familiarity with the concepts of Law and Chaos could ever have failed to play demons and devils very differently from one another. The changes were senseless and, yes, objectively bad.

sciborg2's picture
Offline
Factol
Joined: 2005-07-26
Booted Again, or 4e and Planescape

Quote:
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.

You're conflating concepts here. The older person will have more potential to engage you on an intellectual level, because he has more to bring to the table. You aren't going to use a baby to sound off creative literary thoughts.

It's always possible to get smaller - one can simply remove unwanted elements they dislike. One cannot add elements that were removed save by luck. The point is when you have more options (Order vs Chaos, Parallelism of Elements, Power of Belief) there is more potential.

There is nothing in the new cosmology I couldn't come up with in two hours - less since I've read White Wolf products like Exalted, Wraith, Changeling. This is why Worlds and Monsters focused so much on what the new cosmology *didn't* have, rather then on its creativity. Look at the difference between this and Eberron's planes, which offer up new potential that also didn't hijack the old's place.

The big complaint was redundancy of plot ideas, but really by their logic there is a natural limitation to how much fun fighting the Hulk in tanar'ri form is going to be.

__________________

Health Resources: Register family with 911 services, so providers will have info prior to emergency/disaster. Also mental health info & hotlines, articles, treatment assistance options, prescription assistance, special needs registries, legal aid, and more!

ripvanwormer's picture
Offline
Factol
Joined: 2004-10-05
Booted Again, or 4e and Planescape

'Archdukechocula' wrote:
Emphasis mine. Yeah, it doesn't do more things you want it to do. That isnt an objective metric. That is a personal opinion.

It's an objective metric. It's not merely my opinion that it doesn't do these things anymore, it really no longer does them.

It's my opinion that this is a bad thing, but it's an objective fact that some amount of functionality has been lost. If they came out with a new iPhone that no longer got internet access, you could argue that, in your opinion, this limitation made it superior because the Internet distracted you from work, but the fact that there has been a loss without corresponding gain is not a matter of opinion.

Quote:
this claim that one type of narrative is objectively better.

No, I'm claiming that the Abyss is better with the Blood War and corrupted souls as well as pure destruction than it is with demons interested in mere destruction alone. I'm not talking about all narratives or any narratives; I'm talking about that narrative. The type of narrative hasn't changed, only the quantity.

And it's better the old way. I have no patience with attempts to make this argument into one about objectivity versus subjectivity. It's about the Abyss. I have no patience with claims that maybe someone could really think the Abyss is more awesome now, and that opinion is just as valid, because it obviously isn't. So stop pretending. Not all opinions are equal. My opinion has some basis in reality, in how the game is actually played, and yours is rooted in abstractions. You obviously care little or nothing about the Abyss as a campaign setting, but are interested only in defending subjectivity from some abstract moral standpoint.

My view is based on an objective metric, and I think the alternatives are mere stubborn subjectivity for its own sake rather than concerns about actual gameplay.

Quote:
but you at the same time concede both a)that in fact each scenario has infinite possible story lines

"There is an orc in a room guarding a pie" has infinite possible storylines, too. "There is an orc in a room guarding both a pie and an antique sword in the style of the Septeguin Dynasty" has a superior variety of possible hooks. Your use of the term "infinite" is a mere distraction without meaning.

Quote:
and b) that a scenario of restrictions on the abyss results in story lines that could not exist without those restrictions.

In fact, I specifically refuted this, except for the "search for the missing succubi" plotline that requires the old Abyss to make any sense.

Quote:
What I object to is your claim that hanging out with this guy is objectively better than investing in the child

If I had claimed such a thing, I would have objected to it too. I didn't. I said the 30-year-old would be better company intellectually than the infant would, but I never said there weren't other criteria which might cause me to prefer the infant. We were investigating one criterion: intellect, and in that metric the 30-year-old is objectively superior.

Quote:
It would therefore follow that additions and the removal of restrictions would add something, since your assertion is inherently binary.

No, it wouldn't. I'm discussing something specific. You're discussing abstractions. I don't think the Abyss necessarily needs to be more flexible than it was in 3e (I don't think they need to add good-aligned demons, for example). I think it's better with succubi in it. Demons are more interesting if they can act intelligently as well as impulsively.

You keep trying to turn this into a completely different argument over a claim I'm not making. I've never claimed that more is always better. Succubi demons are better than no succubi demons. You find the argument you're arguing against to be ridiculous because you're arguing with a straw man of your own creation, and it is little wonder that such a thing would be ridiculous.

I refuse to let this argument turn into an off-topic debate on subjectivity in general. I'm talking about the Abyss, and I'm only talking about the Abyss. I'm not making outrageous claims that all my opinions are really objective, or that more is always better in every situation, or any of the claims you want me to be making. I'm only saying that my (classic) interpretation of tanar'ri is better. If you like, that's an opinion. It's an opinion with some meat behind it, though, where yours has none. I dislike being wishy-washy with my opinions, saying, "Oh, but I'm sure what you do is right for you." I'm sure it isn't. It adds nothing and takes away so much that is awesome. I'm sure the 4e demonology makes for an inferior play experience in every conceivable campaign. This remains true, whether you agree I'm being objective or not. You can keep being mired in subjectivity, and I'll have fun talking about the Abyss and all the cool elements that improve it instead. There comes a point when I don't think being Very Concerned about other people's subjective viewpoints that they might possibly have is useful. I think it is useful to point out all the cool things that can happen in an Abyss where the demons care deeply about the fate of your soul, and the loss of those ideas is a very real loss. I think the word "objective" sums this up nicely, but if you'd rather argue about the definition of words than talk about the Abyss... I'm not going to be very cooperative in that.

Archdukechocula's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2008-02-24
Booted Again, or 4e and Planescape

'ripvanwormer' wrote:

It's an objective metric. It's not merely my opinion that it doesn't do these things anymore, it really no longer does them.

It's my opinion that this is a bad thing, but it's an objective fact that some amount of functionality has been lost.

'ripvanwormer' wrote:
No. It's simple-minded, airheaded, and makes for an objectively worse game.

That is what I was arguing with you about. But, you now seem to agree that, in fact whether or not this change is bad or not is an opinion. You originally made a broad proclamation about quality referecing this specific case. I am arguing against your assertion in this second quote. Since you now seem to be disowning that asserition and modifying it to "you objectively lose functionality" which is not the same assertion, I am less inclined to disagree. Yes, you can't do certain things that you could do before. I never once contested that. I was contesting your assertion that this makes for an objectively worse game.

Kobold Avenger's picture
Offline
factotums
Joined: 2005-11-18
Booted Again, or 4e and Planescape

There's something that needs to be said about "No Needless Symmetry" that the developers in Worlds and Monsters were saying. It's a statement that I feel is stupid, since apparently weren't creative enough to make things different with the gaps.

It's like my statement in another thread, were I wonder if they'll not include American Apache helicopters in D20 Modern 4e because there's already Russian Hind helicopters, because that would be "needless symmetry".

They went through all this effort to make Demons and Devils different, much of what I really don't like at all. And then throw away the traditional Archons and Guardinals (at least for now) because they can't think of anything creative to do. If the concern was "well, PCs don't fight them enough" than they should think of putting in an interesting revamp, hell, I even thought of a way of revamping Guardinals to fit into their "assumed setting" while reducing their furriness too.

I don't mind a bunch of the Eladrin changes though, since they basically said, "all previous Eladrin are now nobles, and we'll make High Elves and Grey Elves into their commoners at the lowest level of their society". Still their ideas of Tieflings really really suck, they've removed a lot of creativity and options by making all Tieflings have Bison Horns and Dinosaur Tails, or making them the Goatborn.

Now I don't mind the Astral Sea and it's Dominions at least, because there's an infinite number of "planes" vs. 17 outer planes. But still they have quite a creative deficit now, as they've taken away many things that worked just fine in previous editions. Of course I know they still are recycling many of the planes from the Great Wheel, like Baator, Arborea, Mt. Celestia, Pandemonium, and Acheron and Limbo (Elemental Chaos) and the Abyss (Elemental Chaos) but they've changed parts of those planes that were more interesting. They never suffered from the whole, "well these places are too detailed" like half of the countryside of Faerun suffered from.

Already there's the whole, "well you need to be this level, to go here" attitude on many of the planes (though that view existed in 1e).

Wretch's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2006-01-13
Booted Again, or 4e and Planescape

Arch is correct, you are not. You like telling certain kind of stories. This new system does not automatically lend itself to those kind of stories...but makes other stories much more accessible. Meanwhile, all his comments on the Blood War stand up to scrutiny. What if I wanted the Giants and Demons to make a run at Ysgard? Can't do that without all kinds of rigamerole to justify why the Devils don't hit them in the flank. Elemental War? Lots of fussing around narrative blocks to find the narrow cracks which will allow that narrative. So to, if you tried, could you tell some of the stories you would like in the new cosmology. (Easier in my mind to file off the "law and chaos" monikers, but that's me.)

I'd love to tell stories about the Fey influencing Astral politics without the old ruberics of alignment weighing me down. Maybe a story about the Tithe of Fairies owed to Hell, or how the Titans and the Undead are in bidding war with Titania for her support in some endeavor. But narratively, they are impossible within your cosmology. Isn't your cosmology just as "objectively bad", where every story has to revolve around minutea of philosophical points?

Wretch's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2006-01-13
Booted Again, or 4e and Planescape

Kobold,

I disagree with your analogy. To make it correct, you would need to have d20 cut entirely the role of "helicopter" from the game for it to be accurate. Just as rip is saying that a succubus in all ways indistinguishable from her old role, is somehow less because she no longer sports an eight arrowed symbol tattooed on her...somewhere.

D&D never really had a "destroy all of reality" monster subset that I recall (but I haven't read every single book), so for this system it is innovative (old hat elsewhere). To their helicopters, they've added some nukes. Instead, rip had a helicopter with an arrow and a helicopter with eight arrows. Oh, and some fancy warheads on some of them. So objectively they are adding to the game.

ripvanwormer's picture
Offline
Factol
Joined: 2004-10-05
Booted Again, or 4e and Planescape

'Wretch'...but makes other stories much more accessible.

"More accessible" doesn't make up for "completely inaccessible." Every hook you mention is possible in the old cosmology, while many hooks from the old cosmology - those involving the Blood War or corrupting demons - basically don't work at all in the new cosmos. How do you use the Hellbound boxed set in a cosmos without a Blood War in it? How do you run Savage Tide in an Abyss where Malcanthet and Shami-Amourae have no reason to exist?

[quote wrote:

Meanwhile, all his comments on the Blood War stand up to scrutiny. What if I wanted the Giants and Demons to make a run at Ysgard? Can't do that without all kinds of rigamerole to justify why the Devils don't hit them in the flank.

Nonsense. Have the demons in question come from a layer of the Abyss that wasn't involved in the Blood War. Easy peasy; there are an infinite number of them, after all.

A more sensible argument would be about devils doing something, since they only have nine layers to play with. But it's still not the issue you're making it out to be. The Blood War makes as much noise as you need it to, no more and no less. The Blood War is not the only goal the baatezu have, and it need not be so overwhelming that it prevents them from pursuing other goals. Simply say the baatezu have plenty of troops available at that moment to fulfill their current Blood War objectives and also ally with the fey to conquer Arcadia or whatever. They have to make the decision that Arcadia is more useful to them than Gehenna is at the moment, but there's no reason at all to assume the tanar'ri will instantly overwhelm their defenses if they're partly distracted.

If your view of the Blood War is so limiting, then I can understand why you'd object to it, but there's nothing inherent in the war or the cosmology that mandates it be treated that way. In fact, canon refutes your opinion. Many of the Abyssal lords, in canon, have nothing at all to do with the Blood War. Graz'zt doesn't, Sess'innek doesn't, and Kostchtchie doesn't. Any of their schemes are going to be immaterial to what's good for the Blood War and what isn't. Of the Lords of the Nine, only Bel need concern himself with the Blood War. The others are above such concerns; their armies do not fight in the Blood War and can be used for anything they desire. The Blood War is run by the Dark Eight so that the Lords of the Nine, saving only Bel, can embroil themselves in other schemes.

Quote:
Elemental War? Lots of fussing around narrative blocks to find the narrow cracks which will allow that narrative.

This doesn't make any sense at all. There have always been wars in the Elemental Planes.

Quote:
I'd love to tell stories about the Fey influencing Astral politics without the old ruberics of alignment weighing me down. Maybe a story about the Tithe of Fairies owed to Hell, or how the Titans and the Undead are in bidding war with Titania for her support in some endeavor. But narratively, they are impossible within your cosmology.

Why would that be impossible? There's nothing in the structure of the Great Wheel that prevents such things, or indeed from incorporating the Feywild wholesale. As I said before, I'm discussing a very narrow subject: a less usable Abyss. Your non sequiturs about fey are irrelevant to this. The Great Wheel is more than capable of incorporating any sort of fey, and changing the Abyss or eliminating the Blood War does not make fey any more or less usable.

It's funny, because the idea of the tithe of Faerie to Hell (I think the Abyss would work better, personally) is a subject I've discussed extensively on the DiceFreaks boards, which uses essentially the Great Wheel cosmology. It's an idea that works fine.

Perhaps you're under the illusion that I'm arguing that strict adherence to Planescape canon allows for all possibilities. I'm not sure where you might have gotten an idea like that, but I imagine it would be easy to argue with. No, I'm saying they made the Abyss crappier in 4e. I have no problem with changing the setting to suit your needs: I'm just saying that there are no needs you have that these specific changes improved.

You don't have any arguments for why the Abyss is better with more limited demons and no Blood War because there are none. It is simply worse.

ripvanwormer's picture
Offline
Factol
Joined: 2004-10-05
Booted Again, or 4e and Planescape

'Wretch' wrote:
Just as rip is saying that a succubus in all ways indistinguishable from her old role, is somehow less because she no longer sports an eight arrowed symbol tattooed on her...somewhere.

Sigh. No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the Abyss is less if it doesn't have succubi in it, not that succubi are less because they're not in the Abyss. The politics involving the succubus queens and ladies was interesting and important to many of the plane's hooks and plots. The War of Ripe Flesh in the history of the Abyss is a good and flavorful background detail. The erinyes of Baator are very distinctive and have their own history, and the succubus background doesn't make much sense with their orderly society.

Quote:
D&D never really had a "destroy all of reality" monster subset that I recall

The Galchutt from Monte Cook's Chaositech (alluded to but not named in the Book of Vile Darkness) work very well for that, but of course this is basically the goal of the obyriths and many tanar'ri.

The difference is need not be the only goal that demons have. Just as it's bad for the game to have the Blood War to be the only priority of the tanar'ri and baatezu, it's bad for the game to have "destroying all reality" be the only goal for the demons. Some demons can be very much into that, but what if I want them to do something else, something chaotic that demons would like but devils wouldn't? For example, what if I want to have them ally with the giants and invade Ysgard, a hook that already exists in the background of Rule-of-Three in, I think, In the Cage: A Guide to Sigil? What if I want them to corrupt a group of elves into depravity, as they've done in Faerun, or lure a paladin into corruption to become the first of the death knights, as they've done on Oerth? There are so many interesting things they can do other than merely destroy, but that doesn't mean you can't use some of them to destroy things as well. They were allied with the Doomguard even in Planescape, after all, and if that doesn't imply they wish to destroy all reality, I don't know what would.

It's clearly better for them to have more than one possible goal. Chaos is variety after all; the Abyss is infinite variety within the spectrum of chaos and evil. It is not merely destruction, but corruption, transformation, and foul growth. It seeks to reproduce, cancerously, to spread itself throughout the multiverse: but this is creation, not destruction. The Abyss also, sometimes, seeks to preserve. Giving the Abyss a reason to oppose the entropic legions of the Far Realm, or the more entropic lords of the Abyss, is too interesting a hook to pass up.

I keep coming back to the word "objective." I really can't get past it. The fact that the Abyss is worse in the 4e interpretation is inescapable. There is no metric by which it is has been improved. If you stop and think a bit, I think you'll see that I'm right. Nothing has been created in the 4e Abyss, only destroyed. The designers have smashed up Michaelangelo's David, leaving only rubble that cannot possibly be made into anything that could ever equal what came before. I'm sure someone could make lots of beautiful tiny sculptures, but it's not the same.

Narfi Ref's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2004-09-09
Booted Again, or 4e and Planescape

To use common internet parlance, this thread is made of awesome.

Clueless's picture
Offline
Webmonkey
Joined: 2008-06-30
Booted Again, or 4e and Planescape

... something like that.

Wretch's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2006-01-13
Booted Again, or 4e and Planescape

Why do I feel that isn't a compliment?

Narfi Ref's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2004-09-09
Booted Again, or 4e and Planescape

What? Oh, nevermind. Pretend I'm not here. Let the debate continue!

Wretch's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2006-01-13
Booted Again, or 4e and Planescape

Rip,

You know what, I'm remembering that I really don't have a dog in this fight. As I sit here listening to you cite chapter and verse at me about how flexible PSCS is, with specific books mentioned no less (and don't for a moment think I don't appreciate the irony of THAT), I recall that PS is my second favorite planer cosmology.

So, to be honest, the new cosmology has the twin merits of not being my favorite toy cast aside, which makes reviewing the new cosmology less personal, and noting that the new D&D cosmology cleaves closer to my favorite planer setting, which biases me just as much as your love of driven, long term planningChaotic creatures.

Which is why I 'm not predisposed to judge it too harshly.

You've defended your position well and while I am unconvinced by your assertions that alignment is critical in distinguishing between devils and demons, yet it is not so critical that it actually meaninglfully affects the actions of said demons, it was well debated

sciborg2's picture
Offline
Factol
Joined: 2005-07-26
Booted Again, or 4e and Planescape

I can see planning being lawful, but only if innovation is chaotic. In fact, if we put the same limitation on baatezu they should be either unable to change tactics or terrified that innovation will dissolve into chaos. Like generals refusing to use new tactics, adapt their methods (legions losing to guerillas), etc. One might argue tanar'ri can't easily gain ground but baatezu can't easily hold it.

To some extent this and much subtler flaws of both races are covered in Faces of Evil, for all the attempts of the 4e designers to pitiful harp that they are make innovations and explanations no one has thought of. The best part is the mercenary yugodemons who seem pretty lawful too me by their childish distinctions.

I suspect its only natural for humans to be predisposed to Order - we exist in colonies. Even Moorcock took a long, long time to show the flaws of Order and at times it was an incredibly subtle enemy. For example, Corum's people were exterminated because their ordered world made them far too lax.

__________________

Health Resources: Register family with 911 services, so providers will have info prior to emergency/disaster. Also mental health info & hotlines, articles, treatment assistance options, prescription assistance, special needs registries, legal aid, and more!

ripvanwormer's picture
Offline
Factol
Joined: 2004-10-05
Booted Again, or 4e and Planescape

'sciborg2' wrote:
I can see planning being lawful, but only if innovation is chaotic. In fact, if we put the same limitation on baatezu they should be either unable to change tactics or terrified that innovation will dissolve into chaos.

That's a good point, and I agree with that. If tanar'ri are unable to plan ahead, then baatezu are likewise unable to change their plans to adjust for new circumstances. Demons would be unable to make an alliance or acquire an object that lacks an immediate benefit to them, and devils would be unable to retreat or regroup if their foes have weapons or allies they didn't anticipate.

I think it's probably more like I said above, though. Dim-witted, lower-ranking tanar'ri and baatezu are unable to plan or improvise, respectively, while more intelligent ones are better able to use the advantages of their respective creeds without being ridiculously crippled by the disadvantages.

Obviously there is much more to Law and Chaos than the ability to plan or improvise, however, and it is easy to distinguish one from the other regardless. Their goals, strategies, and desires, the things they seek out and the things they avoid, will all be different.

sciborg2's picture
Offline
Factol
Joined: 2005-07-26
Booted Again, or 4e and Planescape

Well, to me what is important is HOW do beings attempt to live according to their ideals. A demon feels with every fiber of its being that it needs to be Chaotic and Evil, but there are no definitive guidelines on how to go about this.

In fact, not only are different demons likely to go about this in different ways, but many are likely to go ape-poo over how other demons decide to live the ideal....see conflicts between people of same religions, political affiliations, heck even scientific discipline.

The challenge facing planars is that they can physically interact with the alignment in question so they know there it exists objectively though paradoxically it seems to support subjective interpretations...to a point.

This same goes for devils, save that here the stronger LE beings dictate their view to the lesser ones. However, just like when lower rung workers become CEOs/generals, suddenly their applying their view.

__________________

Health Resources: Register family with 911 services, so providers will have info prior to emergency/disaster. Also mental health info & hotlines, articles, treatment assistance options, prescription assistance, special needs registries, legal aid, and more!

Arytiss's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2006-08-11
Booted Again, or 4e and Planescape

'ripvanwormer' wrote:
For example, what if I want to have them ally with the giants and invade Ysgard, a hook that already exists in the background of Rule-of-Three in, I think, In the Cage: A Guide to Sigil?
It's also suggested that Kostchtchie has plans along these lines in the entry on Ysgard in Planes of Chaos.

mad_red's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2008-05-12
Booted Again, or 4e and Planescape

Hi!

I agree with the standpoint that 4e planes have not added any new possibilities that were not already there. They haven't created a new basis that is wholly different from before. I argue that 4e strips away the detail and goes back to basics. It doesn't head off into a new direction. 4e demons and devils are tanar'ri and baatezu in their most basic or infantile manifestation. The downside: There is less detail already worked out, to either use or leave be. The 'upside': We have a 'new' basis and 30 years of work ahead of us!

This is a very stupid thing to do.

How much trouble would it take to build up something like Planescape?
And how much trouble would it take to convert it to what the 4e planes offer now?
So which is the better deal?

It's easy to destroy something, but it's difficult to create something. That's why technology and art is preserved and mimicked, while new technology and art created alongside it. One does not need to reinvent the wheel. One does not disable a 30 year old guy and pretend it's a young child.

4e does what any child can do: the basics. Any DM can simplify the Abyss for his own campaign if he wants to. If he finds any aspect of Planescape too complicated or restricting, he just strips away that part and gives his creativity free range. You keep the old stuff; you just don't use it. No alignment? Ok. No clever demons? Sure.

So for the creative mind, more = less AND more.

PS: Excuse for being such an old-fashioned grognard! Eye-wink

Planescape, Dungeons & Dragons, their logos, Wizards of the Coast, and the Wizards of the Coast logo are ©2008, Wizards of the Coast, a subsidiary of Hasbro Inc. and used with permission.