Ampersand: Graz'zt from MoP
- Thread starter ppaladin123
- Start date
Not especially.
Looking back to 1e there was nothing especially subtle or cunning about most Demon Lords. Jubilex, Orcus, Demogorgon. They fought amongst each other but it certainly didnt seem to involve the level of machination and politicking which the Arch devils seemed to possess.
If you go back to BECMi then its even more apparent. There you had demons which were the Immortals of Entropy, specifically interested in destroying all of existence.
In D&D-land, all things are possible but not necessarily probable. I am sure that in-game, many creatures powerful and wise ask the questions you list above.
Mechanically speaking, whatever he has done to himself or had done to him means that he gets treated as an elemental for purposes of mechanical effects. What that means in terms of falvor text is up to DM interpretation.
Shemeska
Adventurer
There wasn't much exploration on the topics in 1e, though you really start to see more subtlety/complexity and shades of gray as the demons were further developed in 2e and 3e. I wouldn't take the relatively undeveloped 1e fiends as justification for 4e's restrictions and rebranding on demons and devils - demons are always crazy destroyers and devils are always the opposite, and anything in between gets removed or shoehorned in to one or the other (Graz'zt, yugoloths, and who knows what will happen to Malcanthet...).
I'm not sure that's a particularly valid comparison though, given how different the material was to the 1e and 2e AD&D/3.x fiends and cosmology.
Personally I hated the 3e cosmonology with a passion, a different plane for absolutley everything, way over detailed when it came to monsters and villians, I actually like the fluff light nature of it as it allows dms to be a lot more creative.
Wormwood
Adventurer
Yep.
Not only are my creative juices flowing, but I have had more creative input from my players regarding the Feywild than anything from the old cosmology. Ever.
Shemeska
Adventurer
This.
Previously you had lots of details and you could choose to use it or not. There was material to inspire new DMs and players alike. With 4e there's very little information, and very little to inspire any new players or DMs. This may improve as time goes on with 4e, but the books thus far released suggest otherwise with the lack of flavor they've provided.
You're confusing a purposeful question (Let's make this ambiguous so people can decide) with laziness (Countless typos in every article, errata longer then I am, the mix up between poison and acid damage, lack of understanding of the very fluff you're supposed to work with).
4e doesn't fall very often in the first category. I've gotten to the point where I adamantly believe nobody in any of the branches talks with each other or to other people in their branch. It's the only way these severe "Right hand has no clue what the left hand does" mistakes can keep happening
