Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6132636" data-attributes="member: 22779">Brand new?&nbsp; Really?&nbsp; Adding a single line, &quot;Sometimes works with gods&quot; is a totally new monster that resembles the old in no way, shape or form?&nbsp; Particularly considering that the old version NEVER INCLUDED YOUR LORE in core?&nbsp; Heck, I didn't even know about the &quot;hates gods&quot; thing until this thread.&nbsp; Never heard of that before.&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; Because no write up of Yugoloths, outside of Planescape actually includes that lore.Like I said in the other thread, &quot;hates gods&quot; could actually be a perfectly interesting hook.&nbsp; But, that's not what I'm talking about.&nbsp; I don't really care one way or the other.&nbsp; My point is that any change is automatically rejected if it doesn't follow the lore of one single, specific setting.&nbsp; Note, I'm not contradicting anything established in core.&nbsp; Nothing.&nbsp; The only thing I'm even talking about contradicting only appears in Planescape.&nbsp; And, if it's a bad idea, fair enough.&nbsp; But, that wasn't why it was rejected out of hand.&nbsp; It was rejected because it countered lore of a single setting.I do not feel that any single setting should ever get to define lore for the whole game simply because it happens to be true in that setting.&nbsp; If your only justification for the element is that it happens to be true in Setting X, then that is never good enough.I mean, the Eladrin discussion was exactly the same.&nbsp; Eladrin are bad because they are different from what came in Planescape.&nbsp; They're not bad because the idea of bamf elves are bad.&nbsp; They're not bad because they're mechanically flawed or the idea is stupid.&nbsp; They only bad because they counter the lore of a single setting.Why should I care?&nbsp; If you play Planescape, you can have your Eladrin, no problem.&nbsp; We both win.&nbsp; But, for some reason, we MUST NOT do anything contrary to Planescape lore.&nbsp; I just don't understand why Planescape gets to dictate to everyone else what D&amp;D must look like.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 6132636, member: 22779"] Brand new? Really? Adding a single line, "Sometimes works with gods" is a totally new monster that resembles the old in no way, shape or form? Particularly considering that the old version NEVER INCLUDED YOUR LORE in core? Heck, I didn't even know about the "hates gods" thing until this thread. Never heard of that before. Why? Because no write up of Yugoloths, outside of Planescape actually includes that lore. Like I said in the other thread, "hates gods" could actually be a perfectly interesting hook. But, that's not what I'm talking about. I don't really care one way or the other. My point is that any change is automatically rejected if it doesn't follow the lore of one single, specific setting. Note, I'm not contradicting anything established in core. Nothing. The only thing I'm even talking about contradicting only appears in Planescape. And, if it's a bad idea, fair enough. But, that wasn't why it was rejected out of hand. It was rejected because it countered lore of a single setting. I do not feel that any single setting should ever get to define lore for the whole game simply because it happens to be true in that setting. If your only justification for the element is that it happens to be true in Setting X, then that is never good enough. I mean, the Eladrin discussion was exactly the same. Eladrin are bad because they are different from what came in Planescape. They're not bad because the idea of bamf elves are bad. They're not bad because they're mechanically flawed or the idea is stupid. They only bad because they counter the lore of a single setting. Why should I care? If you play Planescape, you can have your Eladrin, no problem. We both win. But, for some reason, we MUST NOT do anything contrary to Planescape lore. I just don't understand why Planescape gets to dictate to everyone else what D&D must look like. [/QUOTE]

Verification