D&D 4E The Blood War in 4E?

[Hussar]

The adventure path The Savage Tide published in Dungeon during it's last months is the best example I can think of that shows that the such interplanar politics can be very interesting and very involving for characters as well. There is no sideline-watching in that adventure!

With respect for Mustrum Ridcully.

Savage Tide Spoilers

Spoiler

You're right Wolfspider. Demogorgon's scheme is a very, very good example of a demon's scheming. It's simple, straightforward and incredibly destructive. Place the Shadow Pearl bombs all over the land, set off the Savage Tide, kill thousands, if not millions of beings and pretty much destroy an entire world, all so you can fix a personal problem.

That's great for a demon. Simple, nothing complicated and incredibly destructive. But, look at Malcanthet. Her plots are complicated, devious, and not destructive at all. She just wants to seduce mortals, not destroy vast tracts of land.

What makes Malcanthet a demon? When you think of Malcanthet, what about that NPC screams THIS IS A DEMON! Demogorgon? Sure, no problem. That's every bit what a demon should be all about.

Or, going to the Demonomicon articles in Dragon - Fraz-urb-luu (sp) - perfect demon. Exactly what a demon should be all about. Rage, hatred and destruction. Compare to Pazuzu though. What about Pazuzu says Chaotic Evil Paragon? His goals are corrupting mortals and ruling the skies of the Abyss. He's not erratic. He's not particularly destructive. He's not about rage or anything like that.

If you changed Pazuzu to a devil, would it make a difference? Couldn't you see Pazuzu as an arch-devil? I certainly could. His goals and methods are far too structured for a demon IMO.

 

[pemerton]

OK. I'll bite.

Sorry, I wasn't meaning to set a trap - but I do appreciate the reply.

What is the nature of evil in D&D3.5 according to the Great Wheel cosmology?

I didn't have anything terribly profound in mind here - I actually had in mind what Kamikaze Midget (I think that's who it was upthread) and others have said about the Blood War illustrating the self-destructive, self-consuming nature of evil. In Blood War play the players don't get to find out, through their roleplaying choices, whether or not this is true, because the game (by way of the Blood War) already gives them an answer.

D&D 3.5 tries to answer the question in a couple of ways (and I'm not sure they're all consistent): it's alignment descriptions in chapter 6 of the PHB, it's description of the societies of humanoids which are labelled "usually Evil", its retention of the Blood War as a gameworld element, etc.

To me it seems like the designers of 4e have already pretty much spilled the beans on the nature of evil in the new edition. I don't see much room for mystery there at all.

I'm not calling for mystery. Rather, I think it improves the game as a game if the answer to the question "what is the nature of evil" is able to emerge in play - and not by discovering something in the game texts, but by making roleplaying decisions at the gaming table. The answers that emerge might be pretty trite if the players aren't all Graham Greene (and I know in my group we're not), but it's still the players' answer and not that of the game designers. For me at least, it is the chance to develop and explore my own and my friends' (trite) answers to these thematic questions that is a big part of the fun of RPGing.

To make room for this to emerge in play, the designers have to set up antagonists who raise moral questions, but back off at the point the players want to get involved in the resolution of those questions. And W&M gives me a sense that the 4e designers are doing this (I don't know if it's deliberate, but it probably is - they're pretty clever designers): they are significantly winding back alignment, which is a small but (for D&D) very important start; and more affirmatively, they expressly discuss the possibility of a (martial but non-self-consciously evil) PC cleric of Bane coming into conflict with an NPC Hobgoblin cleric of Bane and each trading holy blows with the other.

Such a state of affairs obviously satisfies gamist desires (the player doesn't get nerfed during play for a choice of god made at character build time, before the direction play would take was fully known) but it also creates the possibility for the player to resolve as part of his or her play the moral questions to which this situation gives rise (about war, evil, conflicts between loyalty to party and solidarity with fellow communicants). That situation could give rise to really interesting roleplaying of a sort that I don't think D&D has really tried to support in the past (Eberron may be an exception - I know it did stuff to downplay alignment, but I don't know if it went so far as to allow Evil Silver Flame worshippers as sincere rather than merely corrupted but undiscovered.)

 

[pemerton]

Do you think, then, that not a lot of thought went into v3.5 and earlier editions of the game that incorporated the Blood War and such? That these editions were not as creative as 4e?

Not at all. I was just attempting to refute the suggestion that 4e is replacing creativity with non-creativity.

As my first reply to you tries to explain, I do think that 4e is better, not because of creativity but because of playability. If I was aked to rank 4e and Planescape as literary creations rather than as game worlds, by way of contrast, I would have no well-developed argument for ranking one over the other.

As far as "real-world" tropes, there are plenty of examples of evil fighting evil. There is no honor among thieves, remember? In fantasy, the best example I can think of is the conflict that arose between Saruman and his former master Sauron in The Lord of the Rings.

This theme seems pretty universal and familiar to me.

What you say is true, but the tropes I had in mind were the two I called out in my earlier post, of the Greek creation myths and the Northern and Western European faerie myths. I think these give an easier entry into gameplay than the moral tropes you identify, because (1) they mean that the players (who in many cases probably want to engage in fantasy RPGing because they have encountered those mythological tropes and enjoy them) can get a handle on the world elements straight away as they arise in play, without needing to be familiar with a whole lot of backstory, and (2) they suggest conflict but don't tell the players how it should be resolved, leaving the resolution to unfold in play (as I discussed in my first reply to you).

 

[Ripzerai]

Heck, why is Malcanthet a demon? A scheming seductress bent on corrupting mortals. If that's what demons do, what do devils do?

Both demons and devils, traditionally, recruit from mortal souls. Since they both (in 1e-3e) dwell in the Outer Planes, which is where mortal souls go, this shouldn't be surprising, nor can this fact reasonably be taken to mean they are therefore particularly similar.

Devils don't, by and large, seduce. They use more orderly tactics, such as Faustian bargains. They offer carefully constructed contracts to lure mortals into evil along the paths of law.

Demons recruit mortals by preying on their passions and vices. They exploit the chaos within their prey. They whisper in mortal ears, drawing out their wrath, their greed, their gluttony, and their lust. They make no promises they intend to keep.

Succubi make far better demons than devils, and attempts at creating "erotic" devils (like the Passion Devil in the Fiendish Codex II) are perhaps misguided. However, even in eros there is order (for example, they can exploit the fear of the erotic to inspire puritans to crack down on sensual pursuits, or they can inspire mortals to enter into marriage contracts with them in exchange for a terrible dowry), so devils of lust aren't off the table altogether.

Abyssal creatures shouldn't be about tempting mortals IMO. They should be terrifyingly destructive.

If you begin from the premise that demons gain many of their numbers from mortal souls, their motivation for tempting mortals should be obvious. They do so in order to gain new recruits in the Abyss, and to spread their ideology and therefore the power of their plane. There's no reason why demons shouldn't use any tools available, from the subtle to the brutal. All Abyssal creatures as engines of destruction would be dull and unimaginative, and quite unreasonable if these creatures are supposed to be intelligent.

 

[Wolfspider]

What you say is true, but the tropes I had in mind were the two I called out in my earlier post, of the Greek creation myths and the Northern and Western European faerie myths. I think these give an easier entry into gameplay than the moral tropes you identify, because (1) they mean that the players (who in many cases probably want to engage in fantasy RPGing because they have encountered those mythological tropes and enjoy them) can get a handle on the world elements straight away as they arise in play, without needing to be familiar with a whole lot of backstory

I daresay that most players new to gaming who might pick up D&D4e would be more familiar with Lord of the Rings by way of the films than the Greek creation myths and European faerie myths. Also, the idea of evil fighting itself is prevalent in many popular movies.

As far as backstory goes, players didn't need the entire backstory of the Blood War or the Great Wheel in order to be involved in adventures dealing with them (unless you were playing a Planescape campaign, and even then you could always throw characters from the prime into Sigil and let them hash it out on their own).

The way that 4e is set up, however, seems to indicate that a lot more backstory will have to be digested. In order to understand eladrin and elves, players will have to comprehend the Feywild. In order to understand tieflings, players will have to be familiar with the new devils. In order to understand warlocks, players will have to be familiar with the new devils, the Feywild, and the Space Between the Stars where Things with Tentacles and Big Nasty Teeth Live. In order to understand basic core elements of D&D4e, players will have to be familiar with the backstory of the game before picking up dice or even creating a character.

, and (2) they suggest conflict but don't tell the players how it should be resolved, leaving the resolution to unfold in play (as I discussed in my first reply to you).

I read your very thoughtful reply to me below. Thank you for taking the time to address my questions so thoroughly.

I never got the sense from how the Blood War and the Great Wheel cosmology were set up that I was being told how I should resolve it in my games, either in terms of plot or theme. There were still plenty of possibilities in my campaigns for players to discover and explore evil and good and neutrality and law and have exciting adventures. Even if alignment is clunky at times, it was interesting for them to be able to interact with creatures who represented abstract concepts. There is a rich tradition in literature for heroes to meet and interact with such entities: A Christmas Carol, The Faerie Queene, The Chronicles of Narnia, the Eternal Champion series, the Lovecraft mythos, and others.

D&D4e is replacing the Great Wheel and the Blood War with something that will be more traditional according to Christian mythology (interestingly enough), and I'm sure the setup will be fun to play in. I'm not arguing that the new developers are trying to make the new game less fun.

But I do so hate to hear people say that the old way of doing things somehow had less potential for fun. There were and are plenty of opportunities there.

 

[Dausuul]

If you begin from the premise that demons gain many of their numbers from mortal souls, their motivation for tempting mortals should be obvious. They do so in order to gain new recruits in the Abyss, and to spread their ideology and therefore the power of their plane. There's no reason why demons shouldn't use any tools available, from the subtle to the brutal. All Abyssal creatures as engines of destruction would be dull and unimaginative, and quite unreasonable if these creatures are supposed to be intelligent.

Why would demons want recruits? Remember, demons are the ultimate individualists. They have no good reason to want more demons around, quite the opposite in fact. Other demons are competition. Unless you're absolutely confident in your ability to control the new-made demons, you're better off not making them.

Because of this, tempting mortals to evil in order to "recruit" their souls is silly. You're not going to get control of the new demons--the odds are tremendously against those souls even ending up on the same layer as you. Even granting that more demons make the Abyss as a whole stronger, the amount of that benefit which accrues to you personally is infinitesimal, and the labor you have to invest is considerable. The whole system quickly falls prey to the free-rider problem.

The attitude you're describing is a social one, and makes sense only in the context of a social species like devils. Again, recruiting new devils increases the amount of competition the recruiter faces; however, this is compensated for by the existence of the infernal hierarchy, which rewards those who bring in lots of souls and punishes those who fall short.

Now, I could see succubi as demons, but only with a shift in emphasis. Instead of making them temptresses luring mortals into evil deeds, focus on their nature as sexual vampires. They feed on the life force of their lovers and have no interest in anything beyond the satisfaction of that primal hunger.

 

[Wolfspider]

Why would demons want recruits? Remember, demons are the ultimate individualists. They have no good reason to want more demons around, quite the opposite in fact. Other demons are competition. Unless you're absolutely confident in your ability to control the new-made demons, you're better off not making them.

One word I would use to define a balor is absolutely confident. I'm sure demon lords are even more so.

 

[I'm A Banana]

About Evil
[sblock]

Alignment in D&D is black and white. Moral complexity doesn't work when good and evil are tangible forces.

This is an unfortunate misconception. Moral complexity DOES work when good and evil are tangible forces, and it works quite well. Indeed, one of my favorite aspects of the alignment system is that it ADDS complexity to otherwise irrelevant philosophy. It makes belief concrete rather than purely speculative. Systems without alignment loose that sort of cosmological "proof."

With regards to the Blood War, this means that these creatures are created out of the things that are Evil -- they exist as living embodiments of hate, cruelty, anger, manipulation...and because "Evil Is Self-Destructive" is a fantasy archetype, having different flavors of evil fighting each other is a very potent metaphor for that.

Except of course, that's not so much a "metaphor" as a "fantasy cliche", since the majority of "evil" people in real life get along fairly well, (at least with their buddies and people who agree with them) and don't actually spend more time killing each other off than annoying normal people.

The problem with this is that there are no "Evil" people (as D&D defines the term) in real life. It's a fantasy construct for a game, not a reflection of real moral philosophy. People don't have alignments in real life, and using real life to try and figure out how demons and devils in D&D should behave is rather a backwards way of thinking about it. Some evil creatures in D&D can get along fairly well. Some can't. Real people don't enter into it.

A lawful evil person will kill anyone, anywhere, anytime, in any manner, simply because he wears a black hat. Not in my games.

You are completely disregarding a lot of the subtlety of alignment here. Lawful Evil and Chaotic Evil are really just different ways to kill "guys with black hats." Lawful Evil people make it an offense punishable by permenant incarceration in a gulag. Chaotic Evil people rip the head off (though not without making sure that all of his friends have their heads ripped off, too).

Rather, I think it improves the game as a game if the answer to the question "what is the nature of evil" is able to emerge in play - and not by discovering something in the game texts, but by making roleplaying decisions at the gaming table.

With the way that alignment worked Pre-4e, it was important to have kind of a working definition before you sat down to play because it directly affected your character. The nature of evil was listed in the PHB. Your character already knew it before they embarked upon their path in life.

Roleplaying descisions were made with a definition of Evil in mind.

I don't think 4e is going to be drastically different in this regard. We know the Necromancer King is Evil. Our job is to stop him. It's not going to be much of a question of what they are, merely why, in what way, and with what consequences they are that way.

This is the depth in an absolute alignment, after all. Knowing something is 'evil' doesn't tell you a whole lot about it, really.

Such a state of affairs obviously satisfies gamist desires (the player doesn't get nerfed during play for a choice of god made at character build time, before the direction play would take was fully known) but it also creates the possibility for the player to resolve as part of his or her play the moral questions to which this situation gives rise (about war, evil, conflicts between loyalty to party and solidarity with fellow communicants). That situation could give rise to really interesting roleplaying of a sort that I don't think D&D has really tried to support in the past (Eberron may be an exception - I know it did stuff to downplay alignment, but I don't know if it went so far as to allow Evil Silver Flame worshippers as sincere rather than merely corrupted but undiscovered.)

The thing is, I see this in 2e and 3e, too. I see it in all the PS material, I see it in the absolute alignments, and I see it as *especially* interesting with those absolute alignments. Because you know the hobgoblin is Evil. But you aren't. You worship the same god, have some of the same goals...exploring that difference, determining why you aren't evil, but he is...and dedicating yourself to the things that make you different from him.

This happened all the time in 2e and 3e for me, and will likely continue to happen in 4e, but it didn't need to open up the alignments to achieve that. Not that I think it's bad to have a broader 'unaligned' category, just that absolute alignments do give these questions a cosmological weight that they would lack in a world without tangible Evil and Good and Law and Chaos.
[/sblock]

More Generally
[sblock]

In Planescape the blood war emphasizes things like Evil's violent treacherous nature, the fact that Evil can never truly be defeated, the fact that Law and Chaos are Very Important, and a bunch of other things that matter to that setting. Shoving it into Greyhawk Lite or other post 2e setting is just pointless.

I agree witih this. The Blood War is flavorful and interesting and a good metaphor, but it's not essential to the conceptions of what these extraplanar evils are.

What I object to most is the lack of imagination in WotC's rationales for the change.

While possibly true, I don't object because the blood war isn't an essential part of what these creatuers are. It's cool, but you can add it back in easily and I won't miss it not being there in campaigns I don't want it in.

Its a ridiculous excuse to explain why good always triumphs, due to evil being utterly retarded.

I have no interest in the big bad villains being retarded.

It doesn't actually do any of that. It is strongly implied in most Blood War stuff that Good WON'T triumph because the blood war makes Evil stronger, and that this is perhaps why both sides of Evil enjoy the blood war.

It's not stupid to prepare for true war (against Good) by engaging in minor war (against other Evils).

The Blood War cheapens it all into some cosmic comedy act where the villains all where black hats and fight each other with Jeremy Irons style bad guy faces, because they are caricatures of evil, and caricatures of reality. They have no real substance, no real motivation.

And it frees Good from needing to take part in the welfare of the universe, since evil is fixing the problem alone, by suiciding.

Evil is self-destructive, but another cliche is that evil is never truly extinguished. These work in concert to create a permenant evil that fights itself, but that grows stronger in doing so, because fighting itself deepens it's own evil.

I don't think the Blood War satisfies this demand, as too many of the answers (such as, for example, the nature of evil) are answered before play even commences....In Blood War play the players don't get to find out, through their roleplaying choices, whether or not this is true, because the game (by way of the Blood War) already gives them an answer.

But there are many and sundry ways that the Blood War actually does influence play itself in a positive and creative manner. I can list a few more if you want.

The question of motive might already be 'known' (in a broad sense), but the cause (or, at least, the STATED cause) of many wars is known, and that doesn't preclude secondary desires, hidden causes, and the actual consequences of the war. The Players already know, the Characters either know or discover it quickly, but that knowledge isn't doing anything to save the village caught in the path of the war unless the PC's DO something.
[/sblock]

 

[Dausuul]

One word I would use to define a balor is absolutely confident. I'm sure demon lords are even more so.

Sure, balors and demon lords may have reason to try and corrupt souls--they can probably work things out so they gain a noticeable benefit from it. But we were talking about succubi, and lesser demons generally.

The only reason a succubus would try to seduce a mortal to evil is if her demonic overlord made her. But forcing the succubus to do that, giving appropriate rewards for success and/or penalties for failure, would require an organization; otherwise there's just no way to monitor her and make sure she's doing her job. And an organization can only be built by organized creatures.

The strength of any organization depends on the willingness of its members to do their jobs, even when not being directly monitored by their superiors. Devils are willing to do that. Demons aren't. Sure, a balor can whip a lesser demon into line, but as soon as the balor leaves, the lesser demon will scamper off into the chaos of the Abyss and return to doing its own thing.

 

[Wolfspider]

Sure, balors and demon lords may have reason to try and corrupt souls--they can probably work things out so they gain a noticeable benefit from it. But we were talking about succubi, and lesser demons generally.

The only reason a succubus would try to seduce a mortal to evil is if her demonic overlord made her.

What? She might want someone to worship her...or a pawn to play with...or someone to protect her...or a million other motivations to seduce someone to evil.

But forcing the succubus to do that, giving appropriate rewards for success and/or penalties for failure, would require an organization; otherwise there's just no way to monitor her and make sure she's doing her job. And an organization can only be built by organized creatures.

Why in the world would you claim that demons aren't organized?

That would be as nonsensical as claiming that all elves, because they are generally Chaotic Good in alignment, have no organization at all and no respect for anything else but their own immediate desires and goals. The problem is that I seem to recall a lot of elven kings and queens and lords and knights and such in various campaigns, just as I recall that demons have lords and princess and other such titles which definitely indicate some kind of organization, even if it is based on personal power.

The strength of any organization depends on the willingness of its members to do their jobs, even when not being directly monitored by their superiors. Devils are willing to do that. Demons aren't. Sure, a balor can whip a lesser demon into line, but as soon as the balor leaves, the lesser demon will scamper off into the chaos of the Abyss and return to doing its own thing.

So devils would never backstab each other if given a chance, or do something for selfish reasons that don't benefit their masters?

Oh, I forget. Devils are the epitome of loyalty now, with that entire "fallen angel thing" and killing off their old god and all.

Ahh, so cookie-cutter now! Demons are attention-deficit raging engines of destruction, and devils are all goose-stepping tempters, and never shall the two stereotypes overlap at all in fear of confusing some new player who might not be able to understand that a world--even a fantasy one--can be a complex place.