D&D 5E The Multiverse is back....

[SkidAce]

But nobody has ever fussed or screamed about canon at my table.

Its all about managing expectations.

 

[Hussar]

I think the way you think of Orcs is not the way that TSR or WOTC has in the past; the planes in the 1E MotP are presented in the same manner as Orcs in the MM..

Well, I look at it like this. This is a kobold:

and this is a kobold:

http://media.wizards.com/2014/downlo.../MM_Kobold.pdf

Yet, despite sharing pretty much nothing, there's not a single whisper of a hue or cry about the changes. Imagine if they redrew Vrock to that degree what would happen. The planes in the 1e MotP are presented as a complete setting - complete with named unique individuals, and very specific details.

If the books were resources, the would say something along the lines of, "Here is what you can expect in a given plane. Here are fifteen different ideas for an "evil" plane. Pick and match what you like." That's what a resource book looks like. Instead, the 1e MotP is a campaign setting guide and everything that comes after that simply builds on that campaign setting.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I think I finally had an epiphany.

Let me see if I can work through this so that it makes sense, because, for me at least, it seems to explain why I'm having such an uphill battle trying to make my point.

The difference here is between a resource and a setting. The Planes (not Planescape, but all the Planes) are a single setting, not a resource.

I think you may have a point here. (I'll think on it some more.) I think your comparison about orcs vs. drow and their respective baggage is apt.

I do suspect this is another example of a continuity/shades-of-gray issue where the line of division between the two is set differently for different people.

 

[Nellisir]

http://media.wizards.com/2014/downlo.../MM_Kobold.pdf

Kobold not found.

 

[Remathilis]

I don't know what @Hussar had in mind, but perhaps the goal is to present an alternative interpretation of Appendix IV of the PHB? As someone who first learnt about Acheron's cubes and shards in Jeff Grubb's MotP, I thought that it made the eternal battle between orcish and goblin spirit-hordes considerably less compelling, by making their battleground rather silly. (The description of the earthmotes in Asgard/Gladsheim struck me the same way.)

Instead of Hussar's version of Acheron, then, I might want to publish a version that is better suited to the orc-goblin conflict than the canonical version.

Well, why don't you?

But that's not really what you're asking. Your asking "Why is the official version the cube version?" There are dozens of alternate planar cosmologies and variant planes; the d20 market alone covers hundreds of them. WotC is not, nor cannot, stop you from making your own Acheron (indeed, the SRD doesn't actually list the Great Wheel outer planes; they FORCE you to make your own Acheron if you are publishing), nor does WotC police what you do in your own home game.

The issue then is why WotC chooses to use its own unique version of the cosmology with 30+ years of pedigree as its default version. Question seems dumb when you put like that, right? Paizo uses its own special planar layout, nobody's demanding they re-write Axios or the elemental planes. Why NOT build on the lore of decades?

"Because I don't like it!" Is the only answer I've heard.

 

[Remathilis]

And that's probably fair enough. I have to admit, before 4e came out, I would have never, ever, in my wildest imagination, thought that repurposing some esoteric, almost never used critter like an eladrin into something that became one of the most popular races for the game would have caused that much angst.

What's esoteric to someone is a favored creature to someone else.

However, we're all guilty of it. You said how you disliked how 2e re-purposed daemons (a type of demon) into a NE mercenary fiend. I say I disliked how 4e re-purposed eladrin (a type of celestial) into a PC teleporting elf. No difference to most people; except preference and perhaps time. (making the change in 1986 was a lot easier and less angsty than making it in 2008).

Then again, I don't think many people ragequit because of devas or archons. I think the fact WotC opted to play VERY fast and loose with a LOT of cannon (everything from races to classes to deities to monsters) hurt 4e. As KM said, it insulted many people's intelligence to say "Your elf was a wizard? Stupid. Elves are rangers. ELADRIN are wizards!" even if fundamentally it was no different than the high/wood elf split in 5e.

 

[skotothalamos]

I'd have to go take a look at the 4e MM, I can't remember what 4e has to say about kobolds, but, I don't recall a link to dragons.

"Kobolds revere dragons" are the first three words of the 4e Monster Manual entry on Kobolds.

The 4e DMG sample adventure featured a band of kobolds protecting their dragon.

Dragon Magazine 332, from 2005, talks in depth about kobolds and their dragon heritage.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Does this make sense? Is it fair to say that The Planes are a setting and not a resource?

So, like, "Orcs worship Gruumsh" is setting, but "Orcs worship gods of violence and destruction" is resource?

I think the distinction is a little artificial. They're all shades of the same thing.

My own preference would go, "Orcs of the Sword Mountains follow their chief, Brath Ukrypt, who honors the one-eyed god Gruumsh, a god of slaughter." So you could import those orcs into your game, or run an orc with nothing in common with those orcs and not be violating someone's canon.

 

[Aldarc]

That is what we do. But it's a rare thing for monsters of completely different natures to have the same name, would you not agree? Aside from chromatic and metallic dragons (which are still both essentially dragons) I'm not sure I can think of an example. For simplicity's sake it's better that they have different names. Which is what I expect WotC will do if they decide to incorporate both.

It's not even remotely the same. One is a generic title that is expected to apply to different people. Another is a species name. It's more like having the word "octopus" apply both to an aquatic cephalopod and a flying mammal.

This may be a reflection on my own shortcomings as a gamer, but I can't say that I agree, and I think that's because of my own association of the name 'archon' less with a creature and more with a historical office, and one that I could see used by various creature types. So for me, 'archon' is a generic title. An 'archon' has never existed in my imaginative consciousness as a mythical creature, not like unicorns, angels, demons, or giants have. Celestial archons strike me as a just another subset of angels, though I'm sure some Planescape fan will condescendingly tell me how wrong I am about that. An 'archon' was always an official, a 'lord' or 'ruler' of ancient Athens. So regardless of the past editions, I don't see 'archon' as a creature nor do I see it akin to an octopus being used to apply to both a cephalopod and a flying mammal. Furthermore, that analogy is incredibly silly given how animal names are in fact reapplied to other unrelated animals, both in English and many other languages.

 

[Parmandur]

While the resource/setting distinction makes sense, in practice it is really blurred. And WOTC will, as a rule, favor setting, because $$$