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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 6136218" data-attributes="member: 95493">I don't have the 3.0 books (except where they were not reprinted in 3.5 .. so I do have manual of the planes) but I'm going to hope and assume they are similar to 3.5 ones that I do own.To that end; devils and demons. 3.5 Monster Manual. Devil has the Baatezu subtype. Demons = Tenar'ri.Does that mean that there is a mention to Sigil? No. But we haven't really been talking about Sigil, the factions or anything like that so far so why bring it up now? Does it mention the blood war? Maybe but I didn't bother looking. But in the simple act of specifying that these creatures were not only devils and demons, but specific kinds of devils and demons they incorporated "planescape" lore. They added in rich detail and a grand history that groups can further explore. Can you equally ignore those two subtypes? Absolutely, don't go looking for what they mean and you're done.Existed altered but unbroken seems to apply. In the core seems to apply. Sigil? No but the planes are represented. Beyond that, not mentioning sigil is a GOOD thing as it doesn't alienate people. I don't quite see your point.A whole page? Why didn't you say so?[/sarcasm] 3e's MotP has a full chapter on it. And as I already pointed out "It's not as if 3e can't be pretty easily [changed]" applies too.First, this isn't a continuity scale the way you think it is. A scale doesn't go from minimalist-to-good/ness.Second, a proper scale would be minimalist-to-extremist(or maximal).. more or less meaning to range from "hands off / light touch" to "in depth / super involved". Since that is the true scale and you are saying 4e lies at the farther end of the scale then I must once again ask..Third, in what ways does 4e differ from previous editions on making things good? All editions tried to make their lore good, 4e is not alone here..Fourth, yes they threw out things that came before, but that by itself does not make something good. If you were watching a show for 3 seasons and the fourth suddenly replaced or severely altered EVERY aspect of it then you would be pissed. It doesn't really matter if that 4th season is good in its own right, the fact it isn't the same show would get it struck down. Now if that new show was done in tandem with the original, or was a completely new show in its own right then that would be acceptable. But merely changing things to make them "better" does not qualify as actually being better.And 4e makes me rewrite how I use nearly ALL creatures; especially extraplanars but not limited to them (looking at you core races). It also makes me reintroduce the planes that I like in the structure I like. Again, we are talking to the same thing from different sides and so far you haven't shown me why yours is special.The reasons planescape is special have to do with a few factors. Not least of which is how old and continuous it is. 4e has no such claim. Next is how much remains constant. Again no such claim for 4e. I have only ever briefly used Sigil and the actual planescape game material myself but that isn't the conversation here. It isn't just planescape vs. non-planescape. It is great wheel vs. world axis.I could write the same argument about classic pharaphonic religion vs. this new fangled christian religion. I would still only be convinced to convert from the older and more established and likely more well respected religion to the new "one true" religion if that religion was better.. not calling itself better but actually being better. As I asked before .. what makes 4e's better? What did they ADD? I can tell what they took away and I liked those elements so that part of the argument is going to fail for me. What makes it better? In what ways is it more good?So does planescape. Specifically that is planescapes thing, about how belief shapes the plane and how things are not set in stone. Is it easy? No, but it is possible. Now compare that at a base level to the elemental chaos vs. celestial spheres (or whatever those are each called). In that you are never going to change the elemental chaos. You might be able to carve out your own sphere but that's about it, the gods can't really change things so you are unlikely.Of course, as I said in my last post, this all does ring slightly true of early (in continuity I don't know when it was written/published) canon. Law vs. Chaos was (in theory) the first conflict and that is more or less what 4e tries to set up. Perhaps that would be your hook if you wanted to use "planescape" without the baggage. Do an earlier setting where things are still being discovered and are more primordial (I can't think of a better word, no relation to the primordial gods).(I apologize for the spelling mistakes that are coming up.) Also, metaplot? Raven queen had what to do with the shaddarki? Tharazdun is doing what and where? The party must be involved because the core books say they have to be. My problem here, outside of being "4e's version" is that is that planar/godly stuff are overly involved in PC's lives right from the get go. That IS metaplot my friend. So yes, double standard much. It would be as if the core rulebook had mentions to Sigil and how a great king lived there and that king was necessary for the party to win at their current goal. Seems like extra baggage that the game could do without in the core books, supplements perhaps but no need in core. The 3.5 PHB said things about the gods that were relevant to the PCs, but never got into Vecna's power-plays or details of Pelor's secret cabals on the planes, nor should it.And my point, which you seemingly ignored, is that 4e has it's own fiction and outside of being 4e's I see nothing redeeming about it but you somehow do. If I don't like marvel comics then I shouldn't be playing Marvel Heroic Roleplaying. That's fair. But if I do like Marvel and did play that game/system.. then why am I wrong when someone else comes in and tells me that the Marvel universe is wrong and we should all now use DC because its "Better"? Now, replace (my version) of marvel with planescape and DC with world axis, in case that was not clear. Planescape has priority by virtue of being here first, if nothing else. (Though there is certainly "else" as well. You just seem unfazed by those concerns.)I was worried that this line may have been unclear. I'm going to requote that entire passage so I can clarify.The "gods" you quoted (the last one of the bolded part) referred to the primordials. They were over the top evil. They were the titans. Super-involved "real gods" vs. over the top evil .. primordials (old gods?).Now I'll continue..It was pointing out how one group is super involved but surprisingly flavourless. Or as others have cioned but I actually like.. disneyesque. The important part missed, which I'll say again: It represents everything wrong when people say L = G and C = E, taken to extremes and then said to be better.It is a slighyly oldschool approach IMHO. It is saying that chaos = bad = demons and then making them even more 2D because of it. It is everything wrong with alignment arguments online AS a cosmology. Yes I know bane and them are evil and whatnot but the overriding alignment I see here is L-C. LG-G-N(U)-E-CE. It is saying that even if the evil gods are evil they aren't really that bad they aren't CE. It takes all nuance out of the equation and becomes disneyesque.</blockquote>

Verification