D&D 4E 4E Devils vs. Demons article

[Erik Mona]

The problem with today's web article is that it's not terribly well written. It uses far too many superlatives ("all demons do this," "all devils are like this") and allows for zero nuance. I REALLY doubt that the actual final cosmology will be so rigid, so it's just pointlessly pissing people off when it probably never meant to in the first place.

--Erik

 

[Rechan]

The problem with today's web article is that it's not terribly well written. It uses far too many superlatives ("all demons do this," "all devils are like this") and allows for zero nuance. I REALLY doubt that the actual final cosmology will be so rigid, so it's just pointlessly pissing people off when it probably never meant to in the first place.

--Erik

Sims on the WotC board (who was quoted in this thread earlier) said he had to write in generalizations.

 

[Erik Mona]

I'm not saying he's a bad writer, just that this aspect of the piece was badly written.

I suspect, btw, that one reason WotC is so keen to describe non-alignment-based differences between demons and devils is that alignment itself is going to be tossed out on its fanny or radically changed.

--Erik

 

[Nifft]

alignment itself is going to be tossed out on its fanny or radically changed.

And nothing of value was lost.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Cam Banks]

I'm not saying he's a bad writer, just that this aspect of the piece was badly written.

You know what it reads like?

Notes from brainstorming sessions. Ideas are thrown out and debated and tossed back and forth and then a handful of them make it to the page without being crossed out, and typically, they are phrased almost as absolutes. It provides the basis for the product that will eventually come out, and it's the same thing we're seeing all over the place with the 4E previews.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Mortellan]

I'm with GVD on this one. I'm with Mona too. I'm not with WotC. The more updates I read the more it sounds like a whole new game. fluffwise and crunchwise. The abyss idea does sound cool however, but I probably like it because it vaguely reminds me of the Warp or Eye of Terror in Warhammer/40K. Tsk.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I think WotC could save a lot of people a lot of gnashing of teeth over this issue if one of their designers said the following: "Graz'zt is in 4e, and he is a demon."

--Erik

That would certainly make me happy. Six fingers FTW.

 

[Zaukrie]

I'm with Shemeska on this one. Those that don't use the planes a lot, this has little effect on them (or, maybe they'll now start using the planes). Those that really enjoy the planes, and have spent years building up elaborate cosmologies upon the cannon, are not going to like this. My reading is that the rules are being changed to align with the fluff. If the fluff is changing this much, then the rules are changing, meaning it will be hard to just throw the fluff out.

We obviously don't have a great amount of detail, but from where I sit, WotC may have just alienated a large, vocal, active community. That may work in the long run, but it may just keep all those people in 3.5 land.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

You know what it reads like?

Notes from brainstorming sessions. Ideas are thrown out and debated and tossed back and forth and then a handful of them make it to the page without being crossed out, and typically, they are phrased almost as absolutes. It provides the basis for the product that will eventually come out, and it's the same thing we're seeing all over the place with the 4E previews.

Cheers,
Cam

I guess we missed the version where all the devils had tomes.

 

[Zaukrie]

For context on my post, I consider FC1 and Green Ronin's work on the demons, devils and others some of the best D&D ever published.