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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GVDammerung" data-source="post: 2695389" data-attributes="member: 33060">Could you please refer me to a source that has “movanic” as a Theosophical concept.  To my knowledge this term is a complete invention unique to D&D.The larger point, I think, is that the lower planes of D&D are not analogous to any single or even predominating occult tradition.  They are, rather, a conglomeration - a mish-mash - a stitchery of threads from a variety of occult inspirations, co-mingled with unique inventions.  I would contend this is part of their appeal and that too close an adherence to any “real” occult tradition, unleavened with any original inventions, would tend to loose some of that appeal. Take Green Ronins’, Armies of the Abyss and the use of the Qlippoth, with which I believe you are familiar.  The Qlippoth were introduced into the Abyss substantially unleavened in Armies of the Abyss.  For those readers unfamiliar with the mythology of the Qlippoth, this is no problem.  For those familiar or for those who do a little research, the addition of the Qlippoth raises a host of questions.  e.g. - At one extreme: The D&D multiverse adheres to the forms of the kabbalah? At the other: There are “tunnels” that underlay the Abyss?  I like the addition of the Qlippoth to D&D’s planar mythology but the manner of that introduction, almost wholesale, unleavened adoption was lazy.  Grab an idea and throw it in without substantial adaptation to D&D’s mythology.  And this is the point.D&D’s mythology is not occult mythology.  D&D draws on occult mythology but then modifies and adapts that occult mythology into something uniquely D&D. Planescape, like its approach or otherwise, invented more than it borrowed.  Armies of the Abyss, to draw the contrast, borrowed at least as much as it invented.  Planescape (Faces of Evil, lets say) is then the superior D&D product.  This is not to say that Armies of the Abyss was bad; it was not bad.  It simply was not the best D&D because it was less inventive than it might and should have been.  It borrowed too much without adapting that borrowing more closely to D&D.  In fairness, it must be noted that “open” and “closed” content prevented a true integration but it is also fair to note how the D&D demon princes yet appeared in “disguise.”  Further work along this line, except more on a conceptual level, would have improved Armies of the Abyss.  To again use an example with which you are familiar, think Gord and those novels use of D&D tropes “in disguise” when published by New Infinities.  Such has and can be done.Of course, with the Fiendish Codex: Hordes of the Abyss there is no need to dissemble.  Everything is “open.”  It would then be a great waste of an opportunity if Hordes of the Abyss  too closely modeled occult mythology without making it fit with and accommodate D&D mythology.   Occult mythology is not D&D mythology and should not be substantially imported into D&D mythology unleavened.</blockquote>

Verification