Deva or Aasimar?

[Klaus]

I'm pretty sure they first appeared in the Planescape MC Vol 2.

Yep. With a nice DiTerlizzi illo to go with it.

 

[Trickstergod]

Except that Devas are godlike, if not actual divinities in both Hinduism and Buddhism. The connotations are all wrong. If you want a real word, Nephilim is a better choice.

This.

At least one of the things that irks me about 4th edition is the rather arbitrary, unnecessary name swaps - particularly when a new or renamed monster is taking the name that some other monster had. I like the eladrin, but was it really necessary to call them eladrin?

The same here with aasimar. The original name was fine, the name change was completely unnecessary, and if the name was going to be changed? Nephilim. It's a real word and it's more accurate.

 

[Alzrius]

This.

At least one of the things that irks me about 4th edition is the rather arbitrary, unnecessary name swaps - particularly when a new or renamed monster is taking the name that some other monster had. I like the eladrin, but was it really necessary to call them eladrin?

The same here with aasimar. The original name was fine, the name change was completely unnecessary, and if the name was going to be changed? Nephilim. It's a real word and it's more accurate.

Quoted for truth.

Changing something to make an actual improvement is something I can understand, even if I don't agree with it. But changing something simply for the sake of changing it? To me that's, as they say on teh intert00bs, "made of fail."

Seriously, why play musical chairs with the names of the celestial races? It doesn't seem to accomplish anything in terms of making 4E a better game.

 

[The Little Raven]

But changing something simply for the sake of changing it?

People refusing to accept other people's reasons to make changes as legitimate does not make them "change for change's sake."

 

[Khairn]

Aasimar is far from favorite name, but Deva is worse. Blah. Change for the sake of change without any actual improvement.

Change the spelling of Aasimar (as has already been suggested) if folks have a problem with a "AA" celestial race.

 

[Alzrius]

People refusing to accept other people's reasons to make changes as legitimate does not make them "change for change's sake."

I find it amusing that you're talking about "refusing to accept other people's reasons," when in fact I didn't say anything about the validity of what other people think; I was just saying what I, myself, thought. In effect, you're ranting against the very behavior that you yourself are displaying in your post.

Now, fly away, little raven, fly away.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Changing something to make an actual improvement is something I can understand, even if I don't agree with it. But changing something simply for the sake of changing it? To me that's, as they say on teh intert00bs, "made of fail."

*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.

 

[The Little Raven]

I find it amusing that you're talking about "refusing to accept other people's reasons," when in fact I didn't say anything about the validity of what other people think; I was just saying what I, myself, thought.

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.

In effect, you're ranting against the very behavior that you yourself are displaying in your post.

...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.

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.

 

[Wormwood]

People refusing to accept other people's reasons to make changes as legitimate does not make them "change for change's sake."

Three months ago, I'd have .sigged this.

Today, I'll just agree.

 

[Nyaricus]

I can't wait to see what Order of the Stick does to this new development.

The OotS guy said he wasn't planning on upgrading anything to 4e though, last time I checked (and yeesh, when was the last time I read that strip?!)

----------------
Now playing: Quo Vadis - In Contempt
via FoxyTunes