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

[Wolfspider]

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.

I don't see how it is either ridiculous or an explanation for the triumph of good. In campaigns where the Blood War and the Great Wheel exist, good and evil tend to be at a stalemate. In addition, the forces of good also have their own political rivalries.

 

[Seeten]

I don't see how it is either ridiculous or an explanation for the triumph of good. In campaigns where the Blood War and the Great Wheel exist, good and evil tend to be at a stalemate. In addition, the forces of good also have their own political rivalries.

Well, again, why is that? It leaves Good with infinite time to make sure the primes are full of love and happiness and lollipops, since they aren't restricted to ever fighting evil, evil spends all its time fighting itself, because its stupid. So while evil fights itself, Good can do anything it likes, like make sure crops are well tended, harvests are good, worshippers are healthy, etc. This means good gods will always have a dramatic advantage, unless YET MORE contrivances are introduced.

Kamikaze Midget does a great job explaining why Evil ought to fight Evil, based on its nature. I simply happen to completely and utterly disagree with him in every respect. I respect his viewpoint though, but definitely not in my games, Evil acts in its best interests, lawful-Evil, in particular, is far thinking, plan oriented, detail oriented, and has morals. Yep, morals! Crazy, I know.

To some, evil is black and good is white. A lawful evil person will kill anyone, anywhere, anytime, in any manner, simply because he wears a black hat. Not in my games. Lawful Evil will Torture, murder, extort, and goes by morals and philosophies that Lawful Good may find repugnant, but that Chaotic Evil would never think to adhere to. For instance, not killing children. Not raping women. Perhaps, better yet, hunting down, torturing and filleting said child killers and rapists.

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.

 

[Gothmog]

No, it wasn't. It was introduced in the Outer Planes Monstrous Compendium Appendix, which was published in 1991, three years before the Planescape setting debuted.

It's also part of the 3e Forgotten Realms cosmology and the 3e Eberron cosmology (in the plane of Shavarath). It is mentioned Carl Sargent's pre-Planescape Greyhawk supplements, and formed a big part of the rationale of some of the more interesting plots there.

It's not in any way specific to Planescape.

You're right, my mistake. I looked in my old MC entry, and it does mention the Blood War, but in extreme generalities. What I was trying to say was that the details of the Blood War were expounded on at great length in Planescape, and carried a LOT of campaign specific info along with it. The problem is that while some Blood War stuff made it into the FR pre-3E, the Blood War isn't an integral part of any other setting (perpherally in some settings, yes), and it is campaign specific. Not everyone and every world has the same concept of fiends presented in the Blood War. Its easier and more useful to more DMs to NOT include the Blood War as an assumed occurrance, but for those that want it, its easy to add back in.

 

[pemerton]

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.

Fair enough. But it depends a bit on what the "it" denotes in the phrase "what it is". Do you (and perhaps Shemeska) really think that any major changes to the cosmology amount to making it no longer what it was?

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.

No, I'm arguing that the most important thing to a game designer (which is what WoTC employees are) is to make a game that is playable and (therefore, hopefully) popular. And I've given some reasons to explain why I think 4e will be more playable than the Blood War.

I rather have the blood war than another boring real life religion fallen angel story.

Whereas I'd rather have something which readily engages, in play, with thematic and philosophical issues which speak to my prior enculturation. This makes it less necessary to read through a whole lot of tedious backstory before I play the game.

It's a cookie-cutter approach, as I've mentioned before, and I don't like it.

I don't think this cookie-cutter accusation is quite fair. Reading W&M, a fair bit of thought has gone into this, and there is a unique cosmology. But by drawing on obviously well-known real-world tropes, I think it definitely adds to playability for the reasons given above.

If the Blood War is primarily between Fiends, and you don't have much influence in it, and the fiends influence in the world is even reduced due to this war, how am I "in between", how am I interested in it? Reading a book about it, maybe. Being a player watching on the side-lines? Not so much

Exactly. D&D is not a story, it is a game. The interest in the game elements has to emerge in play, not in reading source books. 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. I think the 4e changes to the cosmology are intended to allow the answers to cosmological questions (whether these be thematic moral questions, or simply gamist questions like "Is my dude tougher than Orcus?") to emerge in play. As befits a game.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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!

I am eager to find out - but no spoilers! I am playing in the middle of a Savage Tides campaign!

 

[Wolfspider]

I am eager to find out - but no spoilers! I am playing in the middle of a Savage Tides campaign!

Ooooh! Have fun, my friend.

 

[Wolfspider]

Exactly. D&D is not a story, it is a game. The interest in the game elements has to emerge in play, not in reading source books. 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. I think the 4e changes to the cosmology are intended to allow the answers to cosmological questions (whether these be thematic moral questions, or simply gamist questions like "Is my dude tougher than Orcus?") to emerge in play. As befits a game.

OK. I'll bite. What is the nature of evil in D&D3.5 according to the Great Wheel cosmology?

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.

 

[Wolfspider]

Well, again, why is that? It leaves Good with infinite time to make sure the primes are full of love and happiness and lollipops, since they aren't restricted to ever fighting evil, evil spends all its time fighting itself, because its stupid. So while evil fights itself, Good can do anything it likes, like make sure crops are well tended, harvests are good, worshippers are healthy, etc. This means good gods will always have a dramatic advantage, unless YET MORE contrivances are introduced.

Goodness. If this is what you think campaigns which incorporate the Blood War are like, then you don't seem to have much real experience with such settings. I've never seen anyone describe the World of Greyhawk, for example, as being "full of love and happiness and lollipops," especially considering there are at least three very evil empires at work in that setting (Iuz, the remnants of the Great Kingdom, and the Scarlet Brotherhood), as well as many "grey" countries and powers. In addition, Good has its hands full bickering with itself over ethical divisions.

 

[Wolfspider]

I don't think this cookie-cutter accusation is quite fair. Reading W&M, a fair bit of thought has gone into this, and there is a unique cosmology. But by drawing on obviously well-known real-world tropes, I think it definitely adds to playability for the reasons given above.

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?

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.

 

[The Ubbergeek]

OK. I'll bite. What is the nature of evil in D&D3.5 according to the Great Wheel cosmology?

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.

It wasperhaps the problem with Planescapey bits like this, a complaint that I heard a few times...

This take the mystery of the planes, making them an exotic backseat, cynical and wordly and all that. All too known.