D&D 4E D&D Fluff Wars: 4e vs 5e

[Igwilly]

I’m not going into an alignment discussion here, but analyze 4e’s gods and you’ll see where they belong in each alignment. And one page of off-target descriptions is not “support”; at least not appropriate one.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

What was nice though is that none of the mechanics were alignment specific. So if as a DM wanted to play one of the bad guys differently in regards to alignment than what was in the book, there was nothing that was going to affect the player end of the mechanics in order to do so.

So much freedom as a DM!!

Sent from my XT1096 using Tapatalk

That is pretty much how it is in 5e too.

 

[Parmandur]

When thinking of those D&D Next surveys, I'm reminded of the cartoon Gravity Falls where the deuteragonist, Mabel Pines, gives a boy she's crushing on a questionnaire: "Do you like me? a) yes, b) definitely, c) absolutely!!" Sometimes the questions and answers of surveys are framed against being able to express the respondent's sentiments accurately, but are instead designed to cater to the surveyor's own presuppositions.



As someone who enjoys (and studies) ancient religions, I greatly preferred the World Axis (and its mythological narrative) over the Byzantine Great Wheel. The World Axis feels more "organic" and real for my own cosmological sensibilities. I liked having angels of all sorts of different alignments aligned to the different gods. I liked how the gods of different, including opposing, alignments were allied together against the primordials and all have their domains in the celestial realms. I loved the Feywild and the Shadowfell that 4E introduced. This all felt mythical. It felt real. It felt natural. It felt alive. It did not feel gamist, like the Great Wheel often does for my players and me. The Great Wheel being "Byzantine" is not a selling point for me. Quite the reverse, actually. I'm not interested in all the settings of D&D being connected by the Great Wheel. Quite the reverse, actually. I'm not interested in the artificial and superficial alignment system being hardwired into the model of the cosmos. Quite the reverse, actually. And yes, lest I be accused of something I have not said, I also disliked it when the World Axis was shoe-horned into every prior setting.

Verbiage aside, they were 1-5 sliding scales, with the goal being to tweak things till they averaged in the 4-5 range: in regards to flavor, that can be seen in the multiple attempts at Goblinoids in regards to initial negative feedback on the first try.

I also find ancient myth and religion fascinatin and have studied it extensively: if I wanted realism on that front, I'd be playing Runequest, not D&D (I'd be open to playing some RQ, mind you, but I don't for whatever reason).

The silliness of the Great Wheel may not be a draw for you, but it is apparently for most. WotC went out of their way to acknowledge the World Axis schema in the DMG, but given limited space they had to focus mainly on what folks want.

 

[dave2008]

The DMG doesn't, but there is more information in the Manual of the Planes, The Plane Above: Secrets of the Astral Sea, The Plane Below: Secrets of the Elemental Chaos, Underdark (a little, but not much), Player Options: Heroes of the Elemental Chaos, as well as various articles in Dragon and Dungeon Magazine during the 4E era.

Sent from my XT1096 using Tapatalk

That is not relevant to my point, I was talking about the 5e DMG. The issue is support for the Dawn War / World Axis cosmos in 5e. The books you reference are all 4e products.

There is about as much information regarding the Dawn War and World Axis cosmos as there is for the other options in 5e and specifically the 5e DMG.

To clarify: I prefer the cosmos and mythology developed in 4e myself. In fact, it is what I use in my 5e games!

 

[dave2008]

I’m not going into an alignment discussion here, but analyze 4e’s gods and you’ll see where they belong in each alignment. And one page of off-target descriptions is not “support”; at least not appropriate one.

But again, that is about as much, if not more, support than they gave for the others

 

[thanson02]

That is not relevant to my point, I was talking about the 5e DMG. The issue is support for the Dawn War / World Axis cosmos in 5e. The books you reference are all 4e products.

There is about as much information regarding the Dawn War and World Axis cosmos as there is for the other options in 5e and specifically the 5e DMG.

To clarify: I prefer the cosmos and mythology developed in 4e myself. In fact, it is what I use in my 5e games!

Sorry, my bad. Got mixed up on which one you were talking about.

Sent from my XT1096 using Tapatalk

 

[Tony Vargas]

I second that about CE in 4e. It skewed a lot more towards "burn down the world" then "having fun while doing evil."

In any other edition 4e-CE, would'd've simply been insane (in 1e, that'd've meant having no alignment at all).

The traditional LE vs CE was more a matter of organization vs individuality (like and L|C divide). The way I like to think of it is that the 4 extreme alignments each compromise one component for another. LE's value organization and tradition, but bend and manipulate them to do evil, they revel in evil, but reign it in when they have to. CEs revel in evil, but may pass on opportunities to do more and greater evil if it means giving up their personal freedom. NE, OTOH, can completely devote itself to evil for its own sake.

I’m not going into an alignment discussion here, but analyze 4e’s gods and you’ll see where they belong in each alignment. And one page of off-target descriptions is not “support”; at least not appropriate one.

It's not like gods need oodles of mechanical support. Acknowledge they're there, maybe give domains (if that's not obvious enough), and off you go.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

In any other edition 4e-CE, would'd've simply been insane (in 1e, that'd've meant having no alignment at all).

The traditional LE vs CE was more a matter of organization vs individuality (like and L|C divide). The way I like to think of it is that the 4 extreme alignments each compromise one component for another. LE's value organization and tradition, but bend and manipulate them to do evil, they revel in evil, but reign it in when they have to. CEs revel in evil, but may pass on opportunities to do more and greater evil if it means giving up their personal freedom. NE, OTOH, can completely devote itself to evil for its own sake.

It's not like gods need oodles of mechanical support. Acknowledge they're there, maybe give domains (if that's not obvious enough), and off you go.

Those are good definitions.

I am hoping at some point they make a "pimp your fiend/celestial to be a little more unique" thing that would reference various gods (or maybe some mixture of 4e style Exarchs/PF style Heralds--you may not be able to fighter Zehir, but you can fight his #1 flunky). It isn't very high on my list though (a little adjusted description and tacking on a couple of domain spells/subclass features seems like it does most of the work)

 

[dave2008]

Sorry, my bad. Got mixed up on which one you were talking about.

Sent from my XT1096 using Tapatalk

No worries, I wasn't exactly clear in my response.

 

[Darkness]

... He's a 4venger of old. ...

This may not be meant negatively, but let's not use edition war terminology anyway, please.