Why is 4E's cosmology so bad?

I think it stems from the fact that with the 4e cosmology, they basicly said "no, it isn't" to the previous planescape setting.  I don't think there's anything wrong with it, really.  It's just that it is such a drastic change.  It seems like much of the planescape setting we love was thrown out the window and into the street to get run over by a bus, and so of course many PS fans winced.  In any case, DMs will do whatever they want with it, so I don't think it's such a big deal.

Personally, I don't disagree with the adaptations to the cosmology.   I won't adapt to them, because I'm a Planescape fan and I like the Great Wheel.

Here's what I DO object to in their reconception of the cosmology:

1.  The design maxim to destroy "needless symmetry."  But I like symmetry.  Symmetry is elegant.  Apparently I didn't realize that the old planes were full of a bunch of pointless crap monsters that they just made up because they were slaves to symmetry

2.  Not a reconfiguration of the planar geography per se so much as 'planar politics', but the motivation for ending the Blood War rankled me a little.

3.  Worse than either of these, though, is some of the flippant attitudes that designers displayed while making these changes.  If they had stated their intentions to change while still being respectful of the old way, ("Guys, we know the Great Wheel is a D&D tradition, but we really feel like 4e needs to break with that tradition and explore a new direction.") I personally would have had a lot less of a problem with it.  I still would not have used it (see point 1 above for why) but I would have had less of a negative attitude. 

Instead we got "Guardinals?  Pfft.  What's the point?  Who ever used them anyway? I can't remember what plane they're from."  and  "The Planes are full of stupid monsters because they were forced into existence by all the needless symmetry." by a bunch of people who probably had never READ the PSMC appendices.

I expect to be told that I'm having badwrongfun for doing things my way on message boards.  It's a huge part of how gaming folks relate to one another online.  But to have the designers take that kind of tone really seemed unprofessional.

The attitude of the game designers above mentioned really does irk me.

I really like the feywild, from what little I've heard of it, and I think that succubi being Devils works (though I'm probably one of the few people here that likes this change), and I like Devils being fallen angels (all though I think the story about how they fell leaves something to be desired) but that's it.

I would have liked to see the Planes go through some changes, but only if the changes resulted in a cosmology at least equally interesting and detailed.

One thing that really bothers me is the new celestials. We've got angels which all look basically the same, and just make me want to yawn. Have the game designers actually ever bothered researching what angels are like in real world lore? They are much much more interesting than the ones they came up with, and if they had just updated the existing celestials by drawing upon some real world inspiration they could have really come up with something awesome (not to say I don't like the pre-4th ed celestials, they are some of my favorite D&D creatures, but still they could have been improved upon).  The new angels are very far from being an improvement in my opinion.

Also no aasimar, and I'm not hopeful that when they're reintroduced (apparently with a new name) that they'll be something I'd actually want to play, after all tieflings fell below my expectations.

I also don't like how much the planes have been simplified, and I really don't like the new alignment system. I think better options would have been:

A: just throw out the system for alignment, you don't need to have it be a system to say that a plane is made of the "raw stuff of evil", or to have "evil dragons" or whatever anyhow.

B: just keep the old one.

Oh, and hi, I'm new here.

Monsters don't plot!  They patiently wait in their lairs, twiddling their thumbs, until the PCs come to kill them!

The Astral Sea as a concept is good, as to how the planes fare in it will have to wait until December. Feywild and Shadowfell are cool, though both seem to have been done better via Changeling tD and Wraith tO.

The Elemental Chaos has potential, but so far is dull compared to the elemental nations in their separate planes. These elemental forces no longer feel like cohesive societies/environs and instead are a grab-bag.

The lack of alignment as even a concept removes the fantastic feel of the planes, making them more like other planets.

The demons as raving monsters is done poorly, and the concept is better done in Warhammer. The devils as the sole planners has already failed because of Orcus's cults and organizations. Having to reiterate how every demon is a wild murderer brings down even great articles like the one about Yeenoghu. "All demons kill, he does it better." Bleh.

The end of the Blood War has made evil enter into a new staleness, making the game feel more like a generic CRPG cloning something better. The lack of celestials has removed imo the most fascinating beings in the game and ones that really made D&D's alignment concept stand out. I have no desire to murder children or seduce mortals as demons do, but I am interested in being a better person and loving my  neighbor - exemplars embodying those qualities brought a whole new dimension to the game.

The primordials don't seem very awe-inspiring, the part where Erek-Hus killing Io really smelling like something we did in elementary school where we went up to 11 to make our gods /characters awesome by killing established beings of might. It was fun for kids, pathetic for adults. It really brings down other monsters - for example the abominations as unwanted divine offspring were cool and as weapons for the primordials...well it sucks and it feels like something from Exalted, where the primordial vs gods was handled better.

In short, I won't buy anything 4e save perhaps for the MotP though its looking really, really doubtful.

Sounds like you're talking about the Scarred Lands, a d20 setting WW made a handful of years ago.  That setting was excellent, very well designed, mostly well written, had a strong atmosphere and boasted being one of the few truly "gritty" fantasy settings available for d20.  Unfortunately WW decided it wasn't making enough money and the line tanked with years of potential material still untapped.  That is what happens to good things in the rpg world, they drown under the weight of all the dross.

I went thru the entire 4E Monster Manual yesterday intentionally looking for Good or Lawful Good monsters, and only found ONE - the Celestial Charger, which is LG. ALL of the others monsters are of nonGood alignment... I'm hoping there will be a few more Good creatures in Monster Manual II, but I doubt it. Some third party should release a 4E book with Good and Lawful Good monsters - there's plenty out there! As was pointed out earlier, I'ts hard to play an Evil PC with no Good creatures to fight! As far as whether the 4E Primordials vs. Gods things is lame, I'm suspending judgement until I see some actual Primordial stats... and yes I know Orcus is supposedly a corrupted Primordial, but I mean a "pure", non-Abyssal Lord variety.

She was indeed talking about Scion.

Anyhow until I see aasimar back (and done in an at least equally good, but hopefully even more interesting manner as in 3rd), some more interesting celestials, and more monsters that tend to be good aligned I'm sitting 4th edition out. I would also very much like to see a better thought out and more detailed 4th edition cosmology. However I very much doubt that the problems with it are going to be corrected any time soon.

I know this is unrelated to the planes and planar things, but apparently there's a real lack of non damage inflicting sort of spells as well, I hope this isn't the case (I haven't looked into the magic system yet myself) but if it is, that's also a massive disapointment. Combat (not to mention the game in general) is much more interesting when there is a wealth of other spell options besides simply dealing damage. In fact if I had to choose between having a lot of damage dealing (and damage healing for that matter) spells and few that don't relate to dealing damage, or just the opposite (lots that don't deal or heal damage, and very few that do), I'd choose just the opposite, as I'd rather have to find creative ways of using spells in and out of combat than just out right dealing and healing damage.

Mind you, evil PCs can fight evil creatures too - and probably fight them as often, if not more so, than the good. 

 Otherwise, yes, it sounds like you're left with converting monsters from previous editions.

*sigh* Too true 420. The whole change to cosmology is just part of their way of changing the mood of the game. The focus of the game is now structured around combat and believe me 4e isn't soley responsible. I saw a lot of combat emphasis in 3.0 and 3.5 as well with powergaming and min/max metagaming in the spotlight and mood and roleplaying banished to the foreground.

Also very true. However I feel that 2nd edition on some levels seemed to encourage more roleplaying and narration.

I like to compare monsters manuals, in the 2nd edition monsters manual there was a health of background information and monster ecology stuff. Now I know some people though it was useless but I personally loved it. Even when I thought that the background or origin story for the creature was stupid I liked having the option of reading it and deciding whether to use it or not. Taking a look at the 3rd edition monster manual (I'm not going to look at the 3.5 manual or the 4 manuals that came out afterward) we notice that some of the monster ecologies are still there but they seem to be much shorter, as if they were cut for space. The 4th edition monster manual has not only eliminated most of the monster ecology stuff but they barely even have visual descriptions for the monsters. Instead they just have a picture (over the years I have seen so many different artist approaches to monsters) instead. The whole thing is pretty much just stat blocks with sections on tactics in battle. Apparently PCs aren't supposed to interact with monsters outside of combat.

Well, I know myself and a few others are trying to do some work rehabilitating the new meta-setting mythos over at The Piazza. This whole effort was really kick-started when I read Otogi's article on including the PS setting into 4th edition. I was trying to wrap my head around the changes that would be necessary but he proved that the more things change, the more they stay the same -- all the elements of Planescape can easily be reincorporated into the planar structure of the new meta-setting.

Anyway, I know you folks over here at Planewalker are extremely talented, so why not take it upon ourselves to breathe new life into Planescape for 4th Edition? I know, it was way easier to do for 3e when all that needed to be done was rules adjustments, but maybe that's where some of the fun is. We've got ourselves a semi-blank slate to work with on which we want to sketch some of the shame shapes as the old Planescape while still giving us the liberty to change some things around a little. Don't think of it as Wizards killing a beloved thing (which, admittedly, they are) but rather an opportunity to remake that thing in a new shape!

Well altering the cosmology/setting some could be quite interesting, it's just that whomever is working on it makes sure to call it something like Alternate Planescape (just for example). But I think to start off it would be best to stay true to the established Planescape and just covert it to 4th ed rules.

I remember in 2nd ed seeing somewhere a bunch of interesting options for aasimar and tiefling, that's something that was missing in 3rd and is once again in 4th, and very unfortunately so in my opinion (all though the feats to grant functioning wings found in races of faerun were a nice addition). I had hoped that 4th edtion would add back in more diverse options for such races, and think if these races are converted to 4th by someone here it would be good to base them more on 2nd edition.  Of course 2nd edition had so much more in general for Planescape that much of the convertion would have to be based on it anyhow.