Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lonely Tylenol" data-source="post: 3800933" data-attributes="member: 18549">Adherence to good ideas is a good thing in and of itself.  Adherence to stupid ideas is a stupid thing in and of itself.  If a traditional idea is good, it's a good idea.  If a traditional idea is bad, it's a bad idea.  If a non-traditional idea is good, it's a good idea.  If a non-traditional idea is bad it's a bad idea.  This is a tautology that doesn't need to consider the status of the idea as traditional or non-traditional in order to cash out the good or bad.  In other words, that an idea is traditional is irrelevant to the matter of whether it's a good idea or a bad idea.  Therefore, being traditional is not a good predictor of whether an idea is good or bad, with the following caveat: traditional ideas that were bad ideas at the time they came into currency are not likely to have survived because the people who believed them were worse off than the people who did not.  Traditional ideas are therefore more likely to have been good ideas at the time.  It may be the case that for a particular traditional idea, it is still a good idea because the conditions it applies to have changed little.  However, since this can only be decided on a case-by-case basis, and the likelihood of it being originally a good idea is uncertain, an idea's status as traditional is again rendered irrelevant.  Replace "tradition" with "continuity" and you might have an argument here.Where does this statement come from?  Who said any of this was for novelty's sake?  As an example, take the proposed changes to the planes.  They're not for novelty's sake.  Rich Baker pointed out that one of the strengths of the changes is that you can plug any plane you like into it, without having to retcon anything.  That's a deliberate design element that demonstrates that the changes were not for their own sake but for the sake of achieving a particular goal.You certainly know a lot about Gehenna.  Perhaps you have read articles and books that deal with that plane.  Perhaps the existence of those articles renders future articles on the same subject redundant, and unjustified by an edition change.  I know that if I want to know more about Gehenna while I'm playing 4th edition, I'll consult the Fiendish Codex II.  I have not seen anything in the previews that indicates I won't be able to carry fluff forward between editions.Or, it'll be totally smooth because you can just chuck the core cosmology and replace it with the Great Wheel wholesale.</blockquote>

Verification