D&D 5E Do you care about setting "canon"?

[pemerton]

why would you want to base your publishing strategy on that mishmash of reboots, retcons and alternate dimensions?

To the best of my knowledge, Disney is a far bigger and wealthier company that WotC. So that's the first reason that comes to mind.

 

[Imaro]

@Imaro, @Shasarak, @Elderbrain

I am utterly baffled. You are now arguing that it is a house rule to play a character with the 4e Good alignment with the same personality and outlook as a 2nd ed AD&D character with the CG alignment, even though the description of Good clearly encompasses the description of CG.

No, a DM can play any creature any way he wants... however claiming said creature has an alignment of Chaotic Good in 4e... well yes that would be a houserule. Since you aren't claiming that but are instead claiming the latter... I am bafled as to where house rules come into play.

Presumably, it follows that you think that no character before AD&D could be played identically with an AD&D character because the prior alignment descriptors were different.

Who claimed this... what we claimed was that 4e does not officially and in the actual rules of the game allow for one to have a chaotic good alignment... answer a simple question, is this true or not?

Presumably, it follow that you think that every LE monster that, in 4e, was relabelled "Evil" was fundamentally changed.

Wow you presume alot. Again we've made a simple claim which I have clarified by asking a question above, which I'm assuming you'll answer as opposed to presuming anything else...

This is just bizarre. Utterly bizarre. Why do you think the label is more important than the actual personality, motivation, moral outlook, etc - which have not changed one iota!

Because the DM can play the creature in any way he chooses but the actual label is what a creatures alignment is... this is especially important in campaigns where the factions of alignmment are actual cosmological forces in the multiverse.

 

[Imaro]

To the best of my knowledge, Disney is a far bigger and wealthier company that WotC. So that's the first reason that comes to mind.

Like Hasbro... right?

 

[pemerton]

claiming said creature has an alignment of Chaotic Good in 4e... well yes that would be a houserule.

<snip>

the actual label is what a creatures alignment is... this is especially important in campaigns where the factions of alignmment are actual cosmological forces in the multiverse.

No one claimed that 4e eldadrin have the CG alignment - that is not part of the 4e mechanics. I claimed that eladrin in 4e, as in 2nd ed AD&D, are otherworldy beings of CG bent.

Your complaint seems to be that they are not CG outsiders in some technical sense (the technicality itself differs between 2nd ed AD&D, 3E and 5e - I don't know if you regard those as objectionable changes to lore or not). That doesn't seem to be any different from complaining that their planar home has changed, or that the cosmology has changed - those things are all bound up together. It's not a new ground of objection - as in, it wouldn't make sense to generally welcome 4e cosmology, but identify the non-CG status of eladrin as a distinct source of frustration.
[MENTION=6779993]Elderbrain[/MENTION]'s complaint, though, seems to be that they are not "officially" CG. That the label has changed.

 

[pemerton]

Like Hasbro... right?

I don't understand. Are you saying the reason Hasbro is a big company is because it hasn't changed lore in the way that Marvel does?

 

[Jester David]

Like Hasbro... right?

Well... in 2015, Habro pulled in $4.5 billion. Disney pulled in $52 billion. It is literally an order of magnitude larger than Hasbro.

Hasbro is a wealthy toy company that pulls in a fair amount of money for a specialized business (i.e. toys). Disney makes more money each year than half the countries in the world; if it's revenue were a GDP it'd be around #78, between Azerbaijan and Panama.

 

[Imaro]

I don't understand. Are you saying the reason Hasbro is a big company is because it hasn't changed lore in the way that Marvel does?

No the point was you compared Disney... the parent company of Marvel vs. WotC... whose parent company is Hasbro. So you explain to me what that comparrison was supposed to actually infer since now you seem to be back to comparing Marvel... though again with a parent company, Hasbro. Are you speaking to the parent companies or the subsidiaries? And exactly what point are you making?

 

[Imaro]

Well... in 2015, Habro pulled in $4.5 billion. Disney pulled in $52 billion. It is literally an order of magnitude larger than Hasbro.

Hasbro is a wealthy toy company that pulls in a fair amount of money for a specialized business (i.e. toys). Disney makes more money each year than half the countries in the world; if it's revenue were a GDP it'd be around #78, between Azerbaijan and Panama.

I said "like" as in they were both the parent companies who make substantially more than the subsidiaries. In other words comparing WotC and Disney makes no sense... Just as comparing Marvel and Hasbro makes no sense.

 

[Imaro]

No one claimed that 4e eldadrin have the CG alignment - that is not part of the 4e mechanics. I claimed that eladrin in 4e, as in 2nd ed AD&D, are otherworldy beings of CG bent.

EDIT: Yes and if we generalize enough eventually we get to the point where all monsters are the same... "They are both monsters in the monster manual... so they are the same"

As a more concrete example... otherworldly beings of CG could also describe Djinni in 3.5. More importantly Eladrin in 4e aren't "Good" in alignment, they can be any alignment so they are just as likely to have a chaotic good bent as a lawful evil one... You as a DM are choosing to give them a CG bent. That's my point.

Your complaint seems to be that they are not CG outsiders in some technical sense (the technicality itself differs between 2nd ed AD&D, 3E and 5e - I don't know if you regard those as objectionable changes to lore or not). That doesn't seem to be any different from complaining that their planar home has changed, or that the cosmology has changed - those things are all bound up together. It's not a new ground of objection - as in, it wouldn't make sense to generally welcome 4e cosmology, but identify the non-CG status of eladrin as a distinct source of frustration.

@Elderbrain's complaint, though, seems to be that they are not "officially" CG. That the label has changed.

So you're saying both official alignment as well as the entire cosmology changed... and yet Eladrin (a race tied to cosmology) somehow stayed the same as they were in the previous 3 editions even with said changes? And this is ignoring the fact that 4e made them elves... erased the numerous subraces that comprised the Eladrin race in previous editions and so on. Yet they're the same... is that really what you and others are claiming?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*