Deva or Aasimar?

[Alzrius]

*blink*

This is nonsensical, Alz.

Nobody makes a change "just because." Creative changes like this happen because the creative team believes it's for the better. You may disagree, but that's the motivation behind it.

To then turn around and say that it's "change for change's sake"--when you just said that you could understand changes even if you disagree with them--makes no sense.

Ari, I disagree with you here.

Accepting the premise that people want to make a change because it's for the better is assumed. But the idea is that the change actually makes things substantively better, rather than just making them seem that way.

In that sense, the burden of proof is then on the design team. They're the ones who need to explain precisely how changing "aasimar" to "deva" improves that part of the game (or, more ideally, the improvement will be self-evident). So far, that hasn't happened - there doesn't seem to be any substantive improvement.

My statement regarding "understanding changes that I disagreed with" was predicated on the idea that the changes are substantive. This one isn't, it's a change with no force or effect, and neither improves nor worsens anything. That is change for the sake of change, and that's something I personally don't care for.

I never said you were saying anything about the validity of what other people thought. I'm just pointing out the prevailing attitude that "change I don't like" = "change for no reason but change," and your post just happened to be the latest to invoke the "change for change's sake" mantra.

So when you said "People refusing to accept other people's reasons to make changes" you weren't referring to me? Because when people quote my post and say that "people" refuse to accept other people's reasons, I assume that they're referring to me.

This isn't about the quality of the change, here. This is about whether or not the change being made as any impact at all; I don't think it does, and that leaves the only reason for changing it as being for the sake of making the change. If you think that there is a clear and objective improvement to making "aasimars" be "devas," by all means tell me.

...did you just call a calm, 20-word post that has no emotional weight to it a rant? Methinks you should check the definition of rant again.

It's not the length of the post, nor the emotional weight to it that I was commenting on. Rather, it's the insulting, condescending tone that your post had (like many others you've posted lately) that I was referring to. Being rude is being rude, even if done in a stiff, succinct manner.

Secondly, I pointed out that refusal to accept reasons for change doesn't make those reasons invalid or nonexistent. I didn't point at any change and refer to them as "change for change's sake," so I am definitely not displaying that attitude in my post.

On the contrary. You're assuming that the people who are naming this as "change for change's sake" are necessarily negating the opinions of people who disagree with them - they're "refusing to accept reasons" that other people have said. This isn't true, first because other people are just expressing their own opinions, not laying out design decisions for changing the name, and secondly because people who think this is change for the sake of change are not necessarily negating other people's opinions - they're just expressing their own.

The irony is that, in your sweeping assumption that the people who think this is change for change's sake are "refusing to accept" the reasons of other people, you yourself are refusing to accept the reasoning of the people who disagree with you. Hence, you are most definitely displaying the attitude that you were deriding.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Accepting the premise that people want to make a change because it's for the better is assumed. But the idea is that the change actually makes things substantively better, rather than just making them seem that way.

Sorry, but that's nonsense. There is no objective definition for changes that are "better" or "worse" in this regard. We're talking about purely imaginative, creative endeavors that are 100% opinion-based. If something in this category seems better to someone then it is better to that person. There's no difference and no line of demarcation.

In that sense, the burden of proof is then on the design team. They're the ones who need to explain precisely how changing "aasimar" to "deva" improves that part of the game (or, more ideally, the improvement will be self-evident).

Nonsense. The "burden of proof" is on anyone who wants to argue that their opinion is "right." The design team has no burden to prove anything, because we've already accepted that they're doing things in the way they honestly believe is best. You can agree with them or not, but you're not owed any explanation when you already have that explanation: "Because we thought it was better."

And incidentally, given that the poll attached to this thread shows close to a 2-to-1 ratio in favor of the change, I'd say that the change is substantive--at least for a lot of people.

You don't have to like it. You don't have to agree it's better. That's entirely your right. But arguing that it's just "change for change's sake" is not arguing an opinion, as you seem to think. It's ascribing motivations to the people who make decisions.

"I don't like this change" is an opinion, and a perfectly valid one.

"The people at WotC had no good reason for making this change" is not an opinion. It's an accusation, and it's one that's not born out either by the audience reaction or by your own prior definitions.

 

[The Little Raven]

Sorry, but that's nonsense.

In lieu of another post which will just drag this pointless argument out further, I will just agree with Ari. This is one smart undead rodent.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

The question then is, why the name change? Was it because of the stand by of "Sounds like buttocks?" We've already hit the snag here where people are going to make Deva into diva. Not much of an improvement there, is there? Is it because they wanted a name closer tied to real mythology? Again, we've already hit that, no, it's not tied to mythology, they just found said mythology in the street, mugged it, and ran off with the word.

As for the poll, keep in mind that there are many people here who will vote for Deva because "Change away from older editions is always good," and in my personal opinion, there are far more people here that are willing to do that then there are people who will vote the opposite.

 

[The Little Raven]

Not much of an improvement there, is there?

I'd say that going from "ass" to "singer" as the closest, mistaken name association is a big improvement. Though I will miss the LotF references, I suppose.

Again, we've already hit that, no, it's not tied to mythology, they just found said mythology in the street, mugged it, and ran off with the word.

One of the definitions of deva is "celestial being," and the root from which it is believed to be derived from means "celestial." It has been translated as god, spirit, demigod, celestial being, angel, deity or any supernatural being of high excellence. And since the working name for aasimar/deva for 4e was Celestials, I'd say it's not out of line to use the name.

Sanskrit: deva

deva-ṛṣi — of the celestial sages
deva-udyānāni — celestial gardens

 

[Alzrius]

Sorry, but that's nonsense. There is no objective definition for changes that are "better" or "worse" in this regard. We're talking about purely imaginative, creative endeavors that are 100% opinion-based. If something in this category seems better to someone then it is better to that person. There's no difference and no line of demarcation.

Sorry, but your saying it's nonsense is nonsense.

You're the one who pointed out that this change was made by the creative team. They did so in their capacity as game designers, and as you also pointed out, was done with the idea that it was for the better for the game. However, they have yet to point out any way in which this name-change is better for the game, save for what people may or may not read into it as an opinion. That's change for change's sake, since it's predicated on nothing more than a hope that people's opinion will match theirs.

Nonsense. The "burden of proof" is on anyone who wants to argue that their opinion is "right." The design team has no burden to prove anything, because we've already accepted that they're doing things in the way they honestly believe is best. You can agree with them or not, but you're not owed any explanation when you already have that explanation: "Because we thought it was better."

"Nonsense." You say that word often, but I don't think you understand what it means.

The design team is under a burden of proof because they're the ones who want us to buy and play their game. Admittedly, this is a small part of it, but that rationale holds. They thought this change was an improvement to the game? Why? How? Just because they believe that this change is for the best isn't enough. If they have a reason, let's evaluate it, and if not, that is (you guessed it) change for its own sake.

And incidentally, given that the poll attached to this thread shows close to a 2-to-1 ratio in favor of the change, I'd say that the change is substantive--at least for a lot of people.

That means people like the change, which is fine, but that doesn't make the change substantive. What did this alter that made an improvement to D&D as a whole?

You don't have to like it. You don't have to agree it's better. That's entirely your right. But arguing that it's just "change for change's sake" is not arguing an opinion, as you seem to think. It's ascribing motivations to the people who make decisions.

Those people have yet to make their motivations known, so in the meantime it's a perfectly reasonable response to make our own evaluations, and state what conclusions we've come up with. I see this as indeed being change for the sake of change. If there's a substantive way in which this alteration improves upon the game, please tell me - opinion is just an opinion, I want to know what the design decision was for this. Otherwise, this is just them changing it to say they're changing it.

"I don't like this change" is an opinion, and a perfectly valid one.

"The people at WotC had no good reason for making this change" is not an opinion. It's an accusation, and it's one that's not born out either by the audience reaction or by your own prior definitions.

The audience reaction couldn't bear this out anyway, so it's rather weird that you'd mention that as though it means something. By my own definitions, it is indeed borne out, because I'm of the belief that there are no design reasons or implications behind this change, and I doubt the people at WotC had any either. If that's not the case, I welcome being proven wrong.

 

[Alzrius]

In lieu of another post which will just drag this pointless argument out further, I will just agree with Ari. This is one smart undead rodent.

He's not the only one. You're pretty smart too, to let this go. Kudos to you for knowing when to quit.

 

[Drowbane]

I'm not fond of 4e's tendencies to change names or give names of older monster-types to new races. Examples: dragonborn (not what they were in 3e), eladrin (from celestial-fey-types to Uber-Elf?)

Aasimar (blood of the Aasimon) have been an established thing for what... 15+ years?

off-topic-mini-rant: Seriously, did we need two Elf-types in the PHB... really?

 

[SKyOdin]

While some people have suggested Nephilim as an alternative, I think Nephilim would be a terrible choice. The Nephilim of Hebrew legend were the descendants of fallen angels who had intercourse with wicked humans. They were also described as evil giants and cannibals. While not all references to Nephilim are to evil beings, there are enough evil connotations to the word Nephilim to make it problematic.

Anyways, I like the change from Aasimar to Deva. Aasimar just sounds too much like something someone made up by pulling syllables out of a hat.

 

[Warrior147]

I like the name "Deva", but I don't like the pronounciation. "Deva" is apparently pronounced "Day-va", but I prefer to proncounce it "De-va" or "Dee-va"