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

[FourthBear]

Moving away from the Blood War and onto the new cosmology that 4e is proposing, I approve of the attempts to better distinguish the devils from the demons. Devils as trapped fallen angels, classical tempters in obedience to Asmodeus, who has claimed the mantle of the god they all betrayed seems to me to be a reasonable new status quo. Constantly seeking to escape their cosmic prison through summonings and finding a way to release their dark god. And demons as destructive and corrupt creatures teeming and fighting amongst the Elemental Chaos, loyal to none and striking out against each other. Conflicts between the two could certainly occur for a particular adventure or campaign, but need not be a core focus. In each case, I believe it places focus right back where the fiends should be.

 

[Antonlowe]

Why the blood war should stay

For me the DnD world needs the Blood War for the following reasons.

1. It makes sense. I really don't like a limited number of demons and devils, because that implies that all you need to stop them is to kill them all off, and presto no more evil. But if they really do have unlimited numbers why have they not taken over every plane? The answer is the blood war.

2. It makes the world seem really dark. The forces of evil are destined to win as soon as the blood war is over evil will be unleashed in an unanswerable crusade.

3. it does not stop the fiends from sending forces against the PCs and the world. It just helps to keep it at a manageable level.

 

[Shemeska]

Moving away from the Blood War and onto the new cosmology that 4e is proposing, I approve of the attempts to better distinguish the devils from the demons.

4e's claims that demons, devils, 'loths and other fiends weren't distinguished from each other in appearance, motivations, methods of actions, etc before 4e rode in on its white stallion are seriously flawed.

If you only played 3e, which was generally poor in terms of detailed fluff (with the exception of FC:I and FC:II), I might be able to see the 4e marketing claims as having some substance, but taken within the broad context of 1e, and especially 2e material as well, it comes off as either ignorant or fallacious when a designer makes the claim.

They were -plenty- distinguished in the 1e/2e/3e spectrum of sources. 4e is really just substituting its own different fluff, with less depth and detail to provide a distinction, and removing the overt CE/NE/LE tags from the various fiends. At their core they're really no different, it's just that the tags used for metaphysical catagorization are no longer held in favor.

So which is it? Are certain 4e designers* honestly ignorant of the previous material to various extents, or are they playing fast and loose with facts to promote their own changes to justify the need for a new edition with some after the fact rationalization. I'm strongly inclined to think the latter, but with one or two folks I'm tempted to say otherwise.

*I'm trying to be polite here and not naming names, but I have some specific incidents in mind over the recent few months, and over the past two or three years. It just strikes me as unprofessional when you're paid to be aware of this stuff. It's not Baker or Cordell I have in mind however, as they know their stuff, and their writing credits generally speak for themselves (even when they intentionally deviate from earlier material, they know the sources they're moving away from).

 

[Antonlowe]

Ok, I went back and read a little more of the thread and I would like to correct something that is being said.

The blood war is not in any way inhibiting evil from defeating good. It is delaying it. Either the devils or demons have enough forces to take over all of the other planes. They have already beaten good. They won before they even began. The blood war is about who gets the honor of leading the assault.

In most PS cannon. The only angels who go and actually try to fight the fiends on their home turf are the fallen and the stupid. None of the forces of heaven would even have a chance of setting back the plans of either side. They might stop a small incursion on the prime, but the fiends don't really care. They know they will win eventually.

The blood war is like two people fighting over who gets to stomp/rule an anthill.

 

[FourthBear]

4e's claims that demons, devils, 'loths and other fiends weren't distinguished from each other in appearance, motivations, methods of actions, etc before 4e rode in on its white stallion are seriously flawed.

There's no need to bring the proposed beliefs of the designers into this. I have been a player and DM since before the publication of the first Monster Manual. I am quite familiar with the portrayal of the fiends in all editions of the game to date. As I stated before, these changes increase and make more clear the distinguishing characteristics of demons and devils. I did not claim that they previously had *no* points that distinguished them previously.

In their portayals and actions in published D&D campaigns and adventures, I do not believe there has been a consistent and clear difference between the two groups of fiends. Demon lords such as Graz'zt were often portrayed as behaving functionally identically to devils such as Mephistopholes, both in appearance and actions. We were told the Nalfeshnee were a group of demons that acted as cruel judges, surely more associated with lawful behavior (later even explained in Planescape with a rather lame fig leaf, IMO). Glabrezu were noted as clear tempters, complete with complicated contracts and rules. The devils were frequently portrayed as betraying each other so frequently and consistently that their supposed devotion to Law was little more than a joke. Succubi and erinyes were so infamously similar that writers frequently wrote erinyes as succubi with an LE tag. While I have no problems with fiends not obeying stereotypes, there was no sense that these were a subversion of their supposedly central Chaotic and Lawful natures. In appearance, there was so little difference or organization in visuals that I would defy anyone without prior D&D experience to be able to identify a selection of devils from demons without coaching.

Was this how they were always written? No, but certainly enough so that I felt that if the writers could not consistently keep the two sets of fiends straight, there could be definite improvements made. Certainly in the absence of the alignment wheel, I support a more definite niche for each beside LE fiend and CE fiend.

 

[glass]

4e's claims that demons, devils, 'loths and other fiends weren't distinguished from each other in appearance, motivations, methods of actions, etc before 4e rode in on its white stallion are seriously flawed.

There is a difference between distinctions that a renowned planar gamer such as yourself can see, and distinctions that are obvious to Joe-average-gamer (or especially Joe-new-gamer).


glass.

 

[pemerton]

Pemerton. I think you're completely missing the point. I for one like planar adventuring for what it is. Not how popular it is.

I think you might be missing part of my point, which was (i) that Shemeska was (IMO) unfairly characterising 4e as a junking of complex and dynamic cosmology - it is not relevant to the truth of this claim that planar adventuring is popular or unpopular - and (ii) that someone who wants planar adventuring to be more popular has a reason to support changes that achieve this - maybe Shemeska is not such a person, in which case I've got a mistaken impression.

A little bit more about dynamism: I think a lightly-sketched cosmology that draws on real world myth and tropes (Greek creation myths, European faerie legends) is more dynamic for game playing than one which rests entirely on a (often obscure) backstory written primarily by some 2nd Ed game designers. Instead of telling players that have to read a whole lot of out-of-print game supplements to learn what is really going on in the gameworld, it invites them to engage with the gameworld drawing on their love of real-world myth and legend, which is probably what got them interested in fantasy RPGing in the first place.

Are certain 4e designers* honestly ignorant of the previous material to various extents, or are they playing fast and loose with facts to promote their own changes to justify the need for a new edition with some after the fact rationalization.

I find this implied attribution of malice to the 4e designers a bit bizarre. Maybe they just don't agree with you that the earlier material drew the relevant distinctions in an interesting and playable way. Maybe they agree with me that those distinctions will be more accesible in the course of game play, as opposed to when reading a whole lot of backstory, if they draw on more commonly recognised mythological and fantasy tropes.

I like the people here who are bad mouthing the Blood War and vocalizing how they would be glad to see it gone....as if that change in 4e will effect their campaign when they never used the war in the first place.

Well, it might render certain planes and monsters useable for them, which weren't useable before (because they brought in undesired Blood War considerations).

And calling the war uninteresting and bland cracks me up. If the Blood War is uninteresting, you guys must have some amazing wars going on in your campaigns!

I think the thought is that it is uninteresting for play, because (i) it is motivated independently of the PCs and goes on and on regardless of their actions; (ii) it prejudges a philosphical issue which players and GMs might want to explore and resolve for themselves. These claims are perhaps false (though as it happens I think them true), but they're not nonsense.

Man, for a game that is all about imagination and creativeness; a lot of people sure do have a narrow view about how the game works. Sigil is not the only way for low level people to end up on the planes.

Sure. There are also Wells of Many Worlds and Amulets of the Planes (both typically high level items), the intervention of high level NPCs, other random portals that are not Sigil, or being born into one of the Planescape-y outer planar towns or fortresses.

4e won't take away any of the above for those who like them. It will also introduce low level rituals to help do the job. It will put the players more in control of their planar adventuring, and divorce it to a greater extent from specific Planescape-y tropes, and GM mediation through items/NPCs.

I've been running planar campaigns starting out at level 1 for 11 years now. They've never needed to make any changes for this to be accomplished. I guess if a DM thinks that the only adventuring on the planes is when you have to fight a Pit Fiend, then I guess I could see why WotC would need to develop fluff to help hold his hand. But the planes are much more complex than simply being an environment filled with high level demons & devils. It's not hard at all to make it work.

If all the above is true, you might like 4e, which seems to agree with most of the above.

To me, the whole 4E planar stuff goes away even further from "cosmology" as in "system that describes how the outer planes work", and a lot closer to "setting extension" as in "part of the default campaign world of 4E that is made for adventurers to have encounters in".

Agreed. And surely, in a fantasy RP adventure game, it is desirable that world elements be potential settings for adventures.

In addition, but perhaps more idiosynchratically, I like the idea that the game designers provide the setting, but give the players more scope to impose the philosophy/moral evaluation. This speaks to my own priorities as an RPGer.

Many of my campaigns include planar adventuring, but IF the party is smart, it was very easy, even at fairly lower levels before. My players did research, etc (in game) before adventuring somewhere (there are places in Sigil where you can do this for example).

But as I said above, Sigil is a very specific trope which a lot of players (including myself, but I think not only myself) would not want in a fantasy RPG.

What 4E does, is make the planes easier for just the 'standard' hack and slash style adventure to be written for any given plane (ie. let's drop this 20 x 20 room into the abyss...done).

It also makes it easier to have thematically interesting adventures there without buying into certain very specific tropes (like Sigil) and without having the designers already tell you how the moral and philosophical issues of the campaign are to be resolved (which I find Planescape does too much of).

the 4E method is better for faster run, more hack n slash gameplay (or even hardcore roleplaying campaigns) but where extra minor details that take up time (ie. research at a library), isn't wanted).

Given that (per W&M) access to other planes is via rituals, I'd be surprised if the rules don't support library research as a route to the planes for those that want it.

Fiendish Codex II: Tyrants of the Nine Hells defined the baatezu as beings created by the "gods of law" to exterminate the forces of the Abyss, an origin myth that if accepted would make it natural for the Blood War to be their primary goal.

<snip>

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

<snip>

It's a matter of personal taste, in other words, and those who would attempt to fabricate "rational" justifications for their taste are forced to say some very stupid things.

For you or me, as individual players of the game, it is a matter of personal taste. But for commercial game publishers hoping to sell lots of books, there is a real issue at stake: what sort of gameworld do more people want to play in and develop in the course of play: one in which the backstory is about the Gods of Law creating Devils to eliminate the Abyss, or one in which the Devils are fallen Angels and the Abyss is corrupted elemental matter?

The answer to this question is not a matter of personal taste, and provides a perfectly good rationale for the changes. It's not that the 4e designers are incapable of writing the Blood War into 4e. It's that THEY DON'T WANT TO, because they don't think that (on the whole) it makes for good play for the bulk of their audience. For the reasons I have given above, I think they're probably right.

Which is, maybe, because the 2E stuff was written to be interesting and inspiring, while the 3E stuff was 80% written to be descriptive instead, which simply makes it read like a textbook with a few half-catchy sentences inbetween.

many (all?) of the major 4e designers not only aren't interested in the Planescape stuff, but actively don't like it (despite knowing even less than me, which isn't that much). I made the assumption that this was part of the problem with the 3.x stuff, but you're right, the writing style did have a lot to do with it.

For what it's worth, MoP is one of my favourite 3E books (I like it better than the 1st ed version) because it has a lot of interesting ideas in it (both mechanical and world element) which I can pick and choose from. Some of the stuff in the Appendix (Mirrors, Dreams, Time) is especially good, and fits well with a lot of Monte Cooke's interesting 3E planar stuff (Eldritch Might, Countless Doorways).

 

[Wolfspider]

I have no problem with demons and devils having overlapping goals and abilities.

Do the roles dwarves and elves play ever overlap? Yes. You can have dwarven warriors and elven warriors, for example. Does the fact that these two races can occupy similar roles indicate some flaw with the game? No, I don't think it does.

Then again, D&D 4e seems to be taking a more cookie-cutter approach to things. Humans are from the plains, halflings from the rivers, and so forth. Everything will have its clear, unambiguous part to play.

I prefer a bit more mystery and uncertaintly. Everything occupying its own little slot with no overlap doesn't appeal to me at all.

 

[Incenjucar]

I think they're using it as a baseline more than anything else, especially considering how creatures sharing the exact same niche tend to edge each other out.

Humans are FROM the plains, dwarves are FROM the mountains, elves are FROM the woods.

But in time, they may spread, and eventually come into conflict.

 

[Dire Lemming]

Meh, either they waste their time killing each other (more so than good) which is a "metaphor" or a "incorrect cliche" as you decide, or they don't, in which case it doesn't really mean anything, you can't really have it both ways.

The problem is, a disproportionate amount of time and effort has gone into describing the blood war, because it's unique to D&D, until on some level it defined D&D fiends more than anything else, it's the part of planescape everyone knows about, more than sigil, more than the malleable nature of the planes, everyone knows about the blood war, as soon as people got some previews of demons and devils, people were like "but what about the blood war?", and that's wrong. Fiends should be about tempting mortals, about killing fleshbags, about making horrible deals, cursing the world and bringing about armageddon, yet the first thing people say when they see some previews of the 4e fiends is "They better still be in an unending war with those other fiends just like them over of philosophical differences". If that's the thing that sticks in peoples minds about D&D fiends, then they needed a redo.

Who said anything about having it both ways? You completely misread my statement. Devils, do not spend more time killing each other than they do harassing mortals. Devils aren't fighting the blood war with each other though, they're fighting it with Demons who they do not agree with. Thus, your statement does nothing to challenge my statement about the self destructive nature of evil.

I can see how folks would ask about the Bloodwar before asking whether or not Demons and Devils would still be evil. That kind of goes without saying.

The Bloodwar is the most creative and interesting thing about them, so of course some people are going to want to know it's still there.

I think you might be missing part of my point, which was (i) that Shemeska was (IMO) unfairly characterising 4e as a junking of complex and dynamic cosmology - it is not relevant to the truth of this claim that planar adventuring is popular or unpopular - and (ii) that someone who wants planar adventuring to be more popular has a reason to support changes that achieve this - maybe Shemeska is not such a person, in which case I've got a mistaken impression.

A little bit more about dynamism: I think a lightly-sketched cosmology that draws on real world myth and tropes (Greek creation myths, European faerie legends) is more dynamic for game playing than one which rests entirely on a (often obscure) backstory written primarily by some 2nd Ed game designers. Instead of telling players that have to read a whole lot of out-of-print game supplements to learn what is really going on in the gameworld, it invites them to engage with the gameworld drawing on their love of real-world myth and legend, which is probably what got them interested in fantasy RPGing in the first place.

Someone who wants planar adventuring to be more popular, not because they will make lots of money off of it, but instead because of what it is, will not want it changed into something totally different. That's the point I'm trying to make.

It seems like you're arguing that the most important thing to a gamer should not be the content of the game that they love, but how much many it makes their owners. The problem is, I don't care how popular the game is if I don't like it any more.