Retcon the dumb "Faction War" and bring back the FULL on Blood War?

[Klaus]

Has this EVER been true in D&D?

I'm blanking on ANY campaign setting that didn't have advancement. Indeed, unless you go the 4e "X amount of products and out" method, it seems like the only viable method is to eventually move the timeline forward...

I assume both TSR and WOTC noticed that it was more profitable to reproduce the campaign setting Y years down the road than to produce ANOTHER regional/race supplement especially after the "big" areas have been detailed.

Greyhawk, up until the Greyhawk Wars/From the Ashes. Every product up until that point was in accordance to the World of Greyhawk boxed set.

Eberron, since its launch, has set the date at 998 (four years after the Last War).

 

[Nightson]

I'm just chiming in to say I totally agree with Ari on basically every single point but he's covering it so much better then I would.

 

[bastrak]

Count me as a supporter of the Blood War and the Great Wheel.

And for that matter just about all the fluff 4e ditched.

 

[Imaro]

Count me as a supporter of the Blood War and the Great Wheel.

And for that matter just about all the fluff 4e ditched.

Count me in this boat as well.

 

[underthumb]

I'm a serious fan of Planescape and I too wish that 4th edition had not subverted many of its prior characteristics.

I agree with those saying that the Blood War was awesome. It allowed what is normally an event bounded within the lifetime of a mortal (a war) to be a constant. The war itself became a feature of the lower planes, a stable characteristic. And its true justification was not made clear--while the incomensurate nature of the fiends was the most common explanation, Planescape cannon made clear that scholars were simply out of their depth. There were many ideas, but none of them were guaranteed to be true.

On the other hand, I also agree that the fiends were humanized too much. Baatezu forces in Hellbound: The Blood War were basically modern armies (navy, marines, army) and they fought using what looked like human tactics.

 

[Kurtomatic]

This isn't about editions. I thought the Blood War was boring and contrived when they first rolled it out in 2E, and nothing I've seen in any edition before or since has changed that. The assertion that the Blood War 'explains' why the fiends haven't 'taken over' is the iconic root of its phony, unconvincing narrative in my opinion. Just one contrivance stacked upon another.

You know how there was always those bits of D&D content that seem silly, ridiculous, or even embarrassing? You accept the presence of these annoying ideas as the cost of engaging with all the game has to offer, but you segregate parts of the game into a bucket of Things To Ignore, or otherwise minimize or change completely for your personal game. The tricky bit is, we don't all have the same stuff in that bucket. No edition of D&D is unscathed by this.

The Blood War has had plenty of ink spilled over it, and anyone that wants to engage that narrative has source material to work with.

I've had similar doubts about the Faction War, but I can see that one both ways, and I share in the disappointment that we'll never see the intended conclusion. Ongoing metaplot is tricky business, and the risks require a pretty high reward. I'm not sure the Faction War was a wise investment in that regard, but without seeing the whole picture its hard to say.

 

[Glyfair]

I've heard this a few times and I don't think anyone has given me a good example. It's a similar statement as when people say the planes should be more "fantastic" and "mystical". Yet, they never give an example for what they mean by this. I think the way the planes are written is pretty fantastic and mystical to me, so I'm not sure what they mean and they never explain it.

I'll pull an example, for me, from your very post.

Why not? People fight wars over religious differences, which is just as dumb and isn't much different. Aren't they also fighting for full control over the lower planes? That's how I've always looked at it.

That's giving human motivation to a supernatural, iconic force.

 

[Glyfair]

2) 4th ed, much as I love it, screwed up by dumping the Law/Chaos alignments. BAD IDEA!
Alignment sure as hell is important..Hell...you know? devils, demons, angels, modrons etc etc.
All good stuff to play with!

Alignment for some of the supernatural beasties is almost hard coded, that is not a bad thing, nor should folk complain about it. It is good for D&D.
ALignement is a great, quick guide to the rough, general moral & ethical attitudes of NPCs, it's as important as AC, THAC0, BAB or whatever (depending on yer edition)

ALignment is a good thing as it shows, oddly enough, the game has maturity, as morals & ethics are important. It's a stage director's shorthand notes for the guide work he does to get the characters to act to what you'd expect..but this doesn't stop 'em having individual quirks.
Exceptiosn being the plaanr beasties may have absolute hard alignments, it's why they are the way they are.

A marut isn't some big metallic giant, it's Law and the application of the rule of law personified.

Devils ain't "Lawful but Chaotic on fridays to suit Bob the DM"
it jsut means Bob the DM shouldn't have them doing chaotic things without a heck of a good DM reason...but chaotic, and dirty backstabbing devious, ain't necessarily the same thing..and devils are the masters of duplicity and charm.

Honestly, no one really understands the Law/Chaos dynamics. At least there is no consistent idea pf what they mean. Look at the various discussions on the alignment of House or Batman, etc. Everyone picks out various elements to say they are Chaotic or Lawful. There are too many "pick and choose" elements to determine whether someone is lawful or chaotic. (Not that good or evil are exempt, but there is less disagreement there).

Then again, Law/Chaos isn't gone (even eliminating the odd keeping of LG/CE). Read the description, Maruts are still Lawful. Their motivation is the same, it's just not tied to the game mechanic "alignment." Creatures and characters still can have so called lawful and chaotic motivations. You just don't have to decide whether a creature that has a strong code of conduct they stick to that deals with tearing apart civilization is lawful or chaotic.

 

[DaveMage]

Greyhawk, up until the Greyhawk Wars/From the Ashes. Every product up until that point was in accordance to the World of Greyhawk boxed set.

Eberron, since its launch, has set the date at 998 (four years after the Last War).

I don't think Al-Qadim, Birthright or Spelljammer had any significant changes in the game books either.

 

[Oryan77]

Because they're not people. Making them care about philosophical/theological concerns, except for how they can use those to acquire more souls, is exactly what I'm talking about in terms of humanizing them.

I'll pull an example, for me, from your very post.

That's giving human motivation to a supernatural, iconic force.

I'm still not seeing Ari's view of what fiends should be like. All I'm really getting from his explanation is that fiends should be nothing more than a tool for some hack-n-slash.

I mean really, you guys are throwing around the term "humanizing", but then you follow it up with, "they should scheme and plot against mortals". If they are beyond caring about territory in the lower planes, and they are so supernatural that they don't care about emotional pleasures such as love, lust, or racial hatred, then why would they care about plotting & scheming against mortals? That sure seems just as humanizing to me. What makes that any different? I must have drank too much last night while playing Modern Warfare 2 for too long, cause I'm just not getting your guys viewpoint on this