This would only be inconsistent if I was advocating 4e flavour in a 5e game.
However, since virtually no 4e canon is being brought forward into 5e, I don't care.
So, no, I don't see the contradiction. 4e ejected a lot of older flavour. Whenever there was a choice between maintaining previous canon and trying something new that might gain more traction, they hit the eject button every time.
Now, they probably went too far with this. But, for me, that's the better option than, "We must never deviate from what came before because it might bother someone who's using a twenty year old supplement."
That's not correct; it's an inconsistency because you're against introducing lore elements into the Core Rules, as well as game settings that aren't the origin of that lore, except for when you happen to find it interesting. The fact that you like it in 4E and don't like it in 5E doesn't mean that your position is in any way less hypocritical.
I understand that you see this as a case of the difference between people who prioritize continuity between editions, and people who don't. But your previous statements weren't directed towards questions of continuity, but rather were professing a preference for "generic Core rules" and "keeping one setting's lore away from other settings," which makes your then saying that you liked it when 4E broke both of those maxims appear counter-intuitive, at best.
Alzrius - Sure, I've defended 4e against various criticisms, both valid and ridiculous.
Thing is, I'm not, in any way, criticizing Planescape. It's not that PS lore is bad or good. I'm quite sure lots of PS lore is fantastic. Fair enough. But, in any discussion of planar elements, for some reason, "It was written this way before thus it should NEVER be changed" becomes the base reason for shutting down any discussion.
Leaving aside the fact that you were, in fact, criticizing Planescape (e.g. your complaints about how it allowed for cross-setting characters which apparently made for games that were objectively bad), the real problem is that you were criticizing the people who like the setting, and want it's continuity taken into account when further planar matters are dealt with in 5E (something which is, by the way, a perfectly valid opinion to hold).
Now, it's fine to debate how much or how little continuity should matter when a new edition is being released; again, that's part and parcel of the debate that goes into such new editions, and having such debates is part of the reason why we have forums on EN World. But your critiques are over-wrought invectives that grossly mischaracterize the people you're indicting; case in point, you continue to refer to instances of people who calmly and politely post such opinions as "shutting down" the conversation - it's fairly clear that nothing could be further from the truth, and yet you continue with such assertions anyway.
This is doubly ironic because your "defenses" of 4E often - if not usually - crossed the line into similar territory. You claim that you (and unspecified others) are the victims of a "chilling effect" in this regard, that people who are fans of Planescape are trying to inhibit or discourage you from sharing your opinions in this matter, and yet not only is this demonstrably not true, but it closely resembles the behavior you exhibited towards those who had anything critical to say of 4E.
If an element has failed to gain traction after twenty years, there shouldn't be any problem in revising that element.
Luckily, Planescape has in no way failed to gain traction. Check your own poll for confirmation of that.
There has to be something like a statute of limitations on just how long we have to maintain a particular piece of gaming lore before it becomes possible to revisit it and possibly rewrite it. Not that we have to. It might be that that idea is good enough to stand on its own. Fair enough.
Or if the revised idea is poor enough to not be able to stand on its own. But that's not the point you've been putting forward; you've been trying to cast yourself as the victim of a band of fanatics while you struggle for free-thinking evaluation, which is highly disingenuous.
But, "This is the way we did it before" is never a good enough reason to keep doing it.
To say that it's "never" a good enough reason is a categorical statement (and categorical statements are always bad). You assert that continuity is not a virtue; fair enough, but by that same token neither is it a vice.
What is a vice is continually misrepresenting the intentions and actions of the people who argue in favor of it, as you have continually done.
