Why all the fiendish love?

RPG_Tweaker · Sep 24, 2007

One of the early newsbriefs is about restructuring of the devils/demons. Asmodeus gets promoted to god-hood. Tieflings swindle gnomes out of a space as a core race. The warlock becomes a core class.

Has our gaming society become so twisted that evil behavior and fiendish heritage has become hip?

Patlin · Sep 24, 2007

While none of these changes bothers me individually, it's interesting how far the pendulum has swung from 2e. The PHB is certainly the most visible portion of the D&D rules. Why place Tieflings there instead of the Monster Manual? It seems vaguely unwise.

blargney the second · Sep 24, 2007

Look at it another way: it's very hard to make a plot-proof character when evil's built right into your PC. As a DM I'm really looking forward to this.
-blarg

Celebrim · Sep 24, 2007

In a word, 'Diablo'.

In a sentence, it's 'turning the game up to 11'.

In a paragraph, I noticed this trend in 'Expedition to Castle Ravenloft', which totally departed from the point and theme of the module (gothic horror), in favor of tropes that are more conventional. Hickman I think would be appalled, since this totally departs from his vision of 'mature play doesn't have to involve juvenile shock value, and probably doesn't', to say nothing of offending his religious sensibilities. In retrospect, the game has been heading in this direction for a long time. I consider myself fairly staunchly in 'It's a game of pretend, and it's moral value is what you make of it', but at least one of thier recent occult inspired products I consider utterly beyond the bounds of my religious sensibilities.

Nifft · Sep 24, 2007

Can't imagine who would love a fiend*.

Cheers, -- N

* Or two...

mhacdebhandia · Sep 24, 2007

I object to the notion that "society" has to be "twisted" for demonic elements to be useful as a prominent part of the game.

Maybe, just maybe, it has nothing to do with society because it's not a moral issue, I don't know.

Of course, hysteria over this issue is a bit foreign to anyone who (like me) is viewing this whole "Christianity" thing from the outside, perhaps.

RPG_Tweaker · Sep 24, 2007

Patlin said:
While none of these changes bothers me individually, it's interesting how far the pendulum has swung from 2e. The PHB is certainly the most visible portion of the D&D rules. Why place Tieflings there instead of the Monster Manual? It seems vaguely unwise.

Especially since a tiefling is prominently featured on the 4E PHB cover art.

Makes me wonder if WotC might be hoping for a little controversy

RPG_Tweaker · Sep 24, 2007

Nifft said:
That ability was missing from my 3.5e MM. It's not in the SRD either.

I think that puss is de-fanged.

Cheers, -- N

KarinsDad · Sep 24, 2007

mhacdebhandia said:
I object to the notion that "society" has to be "twisted" for demonic elements to be useful as a prominent part of the game.

Maybe, just maybe, it has nothing to do with society because it's not a moral issue, I don't know.

In poor taste is still in poor taste, regardless of moral issues.

For me, it's not that having fiendish PC races is morally wrong, it's that it's not DND. If I wanted to play Demons and Devils, I'd play that instead.

Nifft · Sep 24, 2007

KarinsDad said:
If I wanted to play Demons and Devils, I'd play that instead.

Tieflings, Drow and the like are very popular choices. The "redeemed bad-boy" is a longstanding cliche.

I think WotC is trying to cash in on popular choices, rather than controversy. But I can't imagine they'd remove popular choices to avoid controversy, so long as that controversy came from outside their target market.

Cheers, -- N

Why all the fiendish love?

RPG_Tweaker

Explorer

Patlin

Explorer

blargney the second

blargney the minute's son

Celebrim

Legend

Nifft

Penguin Herder

Attachments

mhacdebhandia

Explorer

RPG_Tweaker

Explorer

RPG_Tweaker

Explorer

KarinsDad

Adventurer

Nifft

Penguin Herder

Similar Threads