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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Serge" data-source="post: 279914" data-attributes="member: 4049">UK... Why is it you and and I cannot have simple, short comments?  Oh, well, why am I complaining.  This is fun!Back into the breach...  No, I'm not suggesting anything of the sort.  What I am contending is that there may be "more" out there beyond what Gygax wrote for the game.  Since we never saw what he planned, and since D&D is a shared world in which concepts and ideas have changed over time, I don't see his ideas as having precedence now.  In 1ed, certainly but, for good or ill, when he was ousted and other minds became involved, his "monopoly" (probably too strong and perhaps unfair a word, but I can't think of a better one right now) ended.And I think I am using the original framework as a springboard.  Since his creation, D&D has grown from his ideas.  There are some ideas in Planescape that I think were/are better than the ideas I've read from 1ed, which likewise used the 1ed material as a springboard.Well, I personally have never much fancied the idea of an entity of Ultimate Evil.  By default, such a being would have to be Neutral Evil, and that gives one of the alignments a clear advantage...And that's one of my points.  I don't see why that must be "the Asmodeus we know and love..."  I think that there was enough room in 1ed to intensify his mytique (along with that of other entities) to make them far more threatening within the framework that they are the manifestations of certain ideals.  If a person wants to slap the name "Ahriman" as the true incarnation of Asmodeus, I'm fine with that as long as it's recognized that such a being is the personification of Lawful evil.Placing a city in which Gods cannot enter, being said to be the most powerful entities around, is not a philosophical upheaval?I think I deal with this above.  All respect due to Mr. Gygax, but he's sort of in the same boat as Bob Kane and Bill Finger, the creators of Batman.  There are many things that they did for characters in the Batman mythos that were eliminated, thrown out, reworked, and revitalized.  Heck, even the spirit of the Batman has changed time and again, sometimes for the better, other times for worse.  So long as they are recognized for their creation and afforded the proper financial and conceptual recompense, I see no problem with something like that developing and changing as new creators/designers come along.  As for concrete reasons... I think that's the problem.  I see your position as a concrete reason to the same degree I see Monte Cook's to the same degree I perceive mine.  They just don't gel because they are promoting different things, some of which are incompatible.No, it did more than change the name.  It changed the entire idea that there are spiritual monsters out there that want to see you damned and burning (metaphorically and really).  Planescape repeatedly stressed that the Tanar'ri and Baatezu weren't "demons and devils," that they weren't spirits, that they were the souls of the dead, and so on.  They did their best to make them just another "mundane" race like Elves. According to Monte Cook, the Planescape  design staff perceived her as an overpower.  If she was, she may have been limited to just the Outlands and Sigil in the same manner FR's Ao is limited to Toril.I have no problem with the Fate idea (although it doesn't quite go with my cosmology in my campaign) being official.  Where in 1ed was Fate mentioned?Oh, how you wound me!  It's not arbitrary and it's not just because.  It is different and a step beyond the 1ed ideas.  And they're not the only ones, I would raise.  I would raise Primus, the Slaadi Lords, and I would add equivalent beings in the Seven Heavens, Elysium, and so on.  It would a whole-sale adjustment based upon the idea that these beings are Archetypes of universal concepts/truths.  The do not replace the gods, but compliment them in that they exist beyond the limited Prime Material Planes and often do not require worship to survive/exist.  There would be ranks above some of these as well.?  I don't.  Never did.  That's not the impression I intended on giving.  I do see Law as having ONE supreme representative for each moral alignment.  You'd have Primus for LN, Asmodeus /Ahriman for LE, and Ahura Mazda (The Supreme Virtue in my cosmology) for LG.  They would be mirrored by similar, more plentiful beings of for Chaos and Neutrality.  When I say that Asmodeus is the Prime Evil, I am saying that he promotes an intellectual center and rationalizes Evil, rather than just committing acts for the sake of committing them (like CE) or because he wants something (NE).  Similar concepts would follow.  This does not mean that he's the Lord of Evil, though. I was referring to the "normal" Devils and Demons.  Because they are the archetypes, the manifestations of the alignments they represent.(Are we going in circles yet?  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />)Mind sharing?  I have ideas I may post in the future.  Later!</blockquote>

Verification