D&D 5E The Multiverse is back....

[pemerton]

Man, the '90s were a good time for belief in consensual reality in RPGs, between Planescape and Mage: the Ascension.

I don't know much about Mage, but did it involve consensual evaluative reality? That is the aspect of Planescape that is the subject of controversy in this thread.

To me, it seems to have its origin in a reflexive hostility to meta-game devices and to just letting players play what they think counts, and so the sort of stuff that would be handled at the meta-level in a game like DitV or Burning Wheel is instead made part of the fiction and the setting itself.

Like, instead of a player saying, "My PC wants vengeance, and won't stop even if it means a few innocents have to suffer", s/he has to say, "My PC thinks that vengeance is good, and wants to persuade everyone else of the same thing so that when vengeance is delivered I won't end up being labelled evil."

Personally, I don't get it. It's a type of reification of a mechanic - alignment - which, if you want a sophisticated game that puts pressure on values and commitments, I think you're just better off without.

 

[pemerton]

I suppose you could just eject alignment entirely, but, then, once you do that, the Great Wheel stops making a lot of sense. Why three separate (and apparently hostile) good planes? Why not many or just one? After all, there are a multitude of beliefs on what constitutes "good", so, without the alignment framework, the Great Wheel comes off its axel.

To be fair though Pem, there's also no reason not to.

I agreed with your first post! Without alignment, the Great Wheel comes of its axle.

 

[pemerton]

You realize this doesn't address my point at all... You claimed law and chaos in AD&D were only defined as means towards good and evil... which is wrong. They are defined independently of good and evil

You're misdescribing what I said, and also what Gygax says.

As quoted by you upthread (post 882) I said that "law and chaos were presented as different means to the ends of good (or different ways of disregarding good, for evil characters)". My statement was incomplete, but the epxansion is obvious - law and chaos are also ways of disregarding good for LN, CN and True Neutral characters.

And although Gygax described law and chaos as means that are independent of good and evil, he didn't describe them as values that are independent of good and evil. A person who is LG, for instance, isn't committed to two distinct value sets - Law, and Goodness. Rather, as described by Gygax, s/he believes that a certain sort of social order is both a necessary means to, and in part a constituent element of, human wellbeing.

Yes in REGULAR AD&D/D&D 3.x etc. they might be... of course one would have to heavily weigh all of their actions so a simplistic judgement like the one you present here (based on one characteristic isn't necessarily accurate) also could you clarify as to whether you are speaking to the Planescape setting or to the base alignments/cosmology/rules as found in default AD&D/D&D you seem to jump back and forth between them but they are not the same thing... and it's making this discussion with you hard to follow and parse.

You are the one who described the motives of S&S characters as the pursuit of something that they want! If you now think that that is overly-simplistic, well I guess you can take that up with yourself!

As to whther I am speaking to the Planescape or the AD&D conception of alignment, I'm talking about the conceptin of evil as set out in the AD&D rulebooks and the 3E ones - of having no regard for the welfare of others, and even being ready to kill or debase them to get what one wants.

And at least as presented in the Planewalker's Handbook, Planescape seems to conform to the same usage. For instance, p 14 of PWHB refers to the Abyss et al as "the dark planes" and "the Lower Planes". The Abyss is described (on the same page) as "the seat of utimate chaos tainted by the darkest evil". Etc.

certain incarnations of the Eternal Champion have certainly transformed the cosmos into their concept of what would be "good" (specifically Elric)

That's not in disupte. My point is that they don't try to persuade everyone to label that outcome as "good". They are concerned with changing the world, not changing people's convitions about the world.

If you look at REH's Conan, you will see the same thing: he sets out to be a king, to do what he thinks is good for a king to do, and on that basis to win the respect of his subjects. He doesn't set out to enact a change in moral belief. The target of his action is social reality, not inner convictions!

Citation please... I am genuinely curious about where this is stated... I always thought the default was that humans were the most numerous race across the multiverse, but I readily admit I could be wrong.

I've always taken this to be understood. It's the rationale for the Blood War, isn't it - a reason why the infinitely large numbers of fiends (especially the demons of the many layers of the Abyss) haven't just conquered the rest of the world.

 

[pemerton]

The only thing you have to accept to understand this is that most believing beings (many fiends included!) have the belief that fiends are evil.

<snip>

"Call it evil if you like, I just think it's fun!", says the vrock in the middle of tearing apart an Outlands village. "Evil? I suppose so! Ah, well," says the hydroloth as she strokes the head of her mind-slave. "Yes. Evil. There is no other path to strength," says the erinyes as she takes aim with her bow.

That situation isn't permanent. If the PC's decide they want to change it, they might find the arguments of the fiends subtly changing. The amnizu lays down her whip, and raises an eyebrow. "Compassion? Friend, if life is suffering, then all compassion does is prolong that suffering, deceiving people, making them feel that life really isn't so bad. No. Better they know the truth, yes? Better they know the harsh reality than that they imagine that life can be anything but this torment. I torture people, yes, and I feel good about that, because I am reminding people of what the truth of life is. It is you delusional do-gooders who are truly the cruel, here."

<snip>

It's not inherently less desirable to be called evil in PS than to be called good, so I don't see any reason why most of the uncountable numbers of fiends would have a real problem with that label.

<snip>

There's no reason for most them to deny the label of "evil," and thus have spells and planes know that label.

I find all this a bit hard to follow.

If it makes no difference being labelled good or evil, then why would anyone set about trying to change the reference of those labels?

I also don't understand your fiend examples. For instance, I don't see why the argument run by your amnizu isn't already available to her.

Also, her argument uses the words "compassion" and "cruel". These are evaluative words, too, but they seem to be being used as if they had a fixed meaning. Are they not subject to the "rule of belief"?

I'm not here to debate Plato and Nietzsche. All I can say is that PS presents a setting in which personal belief makes truth, and reality is contingent on what other people believe to be reality.

<snip>

Planescape is for someone who wants to run D&D without cartoon morality, and it uses alignment to do this by showing how alignment isn't an objective truth, but rather a subjective belief.

Upthread (post 477) I said that "My serious reason for disliking Planescape is the one I posted upthread - its appeal seems to me primarily be to those who want the experience of play to be revelations of the cleverness or quirkiness of Planescape. To me, it's emphasis seems to be overwhelmingly on exploration as the goal of play - exploring the alignment system, enjoying the urban squalor of Sigil, being amusd by wacky portal keys, etc."

Nothing in the intervening 500-odd posts has really affected this reason. For instance, the whole emphasis on "belief entails truth" shifts the emphasis from making hard choices in play, and living with them and their consequences, to making choices easy rather than hard by making it true, by fiat, that the choice really was right. This is the wish-fulfillment issue that was raised upthread.

There is also this emphasis on exploring the alignment system - as if what matters more than doing the right thing is who has the right to use the (purely gameplay) labels of "good", "evil", "lawful" and "chaotic".

You may not want to debate Plato and Nietzsche, but to me the serious attempts over the past two-and-half thousand years to make sense of moral conviction and moral disagreement are highly relevant to any RPG that wants to make moral disagreement a focus of play. By setting up a framework that depends on labels that have no meaning outside of AD&D play, rather than trying to grapple with what I regard as the real issues (eg if value really is nothing but conviction, than how is there any form of politics other than mere assertions of power? - this is the fundamental question for contemporary post-Nietzscheans, and one that I think Simon Blackburn and his followers unduly neglect), Planescape shifts a focus from the things I care about in play to exploration of setting elements.

Nothing in your posts about "good/evil is subjective", and your seemingly casual use of "arbitrary" to describe convictions about what is right and what is wrong, is persuading me otherwise. Which also feeds back into what I described, upthread, as one of my petty concerns. The factions, as "philosophers with clubs", strike me as incredibly cartoony - they live in a world that they know to be nothing but a reflection of belief, including in its value dimensions, and yet they devote all this effort to promulgating particular values. Why?

As I've posted upthread, there are interesting responses to this question - Kierkegaard's philosophy can be seen as a response to a similar question - but to me Planescape doesn't seem to grapple with the issue but rather to squib on it, by shifting the focus from this real issue (of the nature of commitment and motivation in the absence of reasons) to a focus on a non-issue (who gets to wear the "good" ribbon rather than the "evil" ribbon).

choosing between two good things isn't introducing ambiguity about what's good and what's evil, it's just asking what good is more important. So you will have to make some sacrifice. So you are a martyr -- sacrificing something you think as good for something you think is a GREATER good (your choice is: what is the greater good?). That doesn't really match what I'd label as ambiguous morality.

I have no idea, then, what you mean by "ambiguous morality".

Normally, this would be used to describe a situation in which the right choice is uncertain, because - for instance - not all the consequences are knowable, not all the values in play are fully known, the interactions between these things are uncertain, etc.

Here's an example that could easily come up in a work of fiction: deliberate non-defensive killing would normally be murder (and hence wrong), but if I kill this man (a serial killer, let's say) then I can stop a whole lot of other suffering that he would otherwise cause - and furthermore, I know this person hates his life and, ultimately, would rather be dead (but is too cowardly, perhaps proud, to commit suicide).

What is the right choice here? I would normally regard this as morally ambiguous or "shades of grey". It's the sort of scenario that, in an RPG, might come up in a gritty investigator game.

The reason that speaks against killing is the wrongness of murder. The main reason that speaks in favour of killing is the suffering that this man's continuing life would cause to others.

An additional complexity is introduced by his desire to die (in an RPG, especially, certain players might be expected to leverage that to enable him to be killed semi-willingly rather than assassinated, thereby sidestepping the dilemma - but pursuing the path raises its own risks, namely of him escaping or winning in the confrontation, and hence isn't necessarily the best choice).

The notion of martyrdom has no work to do here. The "ambiguity" inheres in the doubt about the correct choice.

If you reach the conclusion that the right thing to do is nevertheless an evil thing (an idea that Machavelli, Weber and Michael Walzer have all explored), then perhaps there is a degree of martyrdom involved (although many commentators on this issue would regard that as an overly self-centred way of describing the situation), but that is not the main issue when we're talking about "moral ambiguity". The main issue is the one of working out that this is the correct conclusion.

(As a side-point: if, in Planescape, good and evil are arbitrary labels, then where is the moral ambiguity? I can see a possible semantic ambiguity, if one is not sure what the balance of opinion is on this particular day, but I don't see any evaluative ambiguity.)

 

[I'm A Banana]

To me, it seems to have its origin in a reflexive hostility to meta-game devices and to just letting players play what they think counts, and so the sort of stuff that would be handled at the meta-level in a game like DitV or Burning Wheel is instead made part of the fiction and the setting itself.

Any time you're going to characterize something as "reflexive hostility," you're not giving it enough credit. It's an overly simplistic dismissal, and it reads very much like "I don't want to bother trying to understand what people like about this, it's just something I can dismiss as something overly emotional."

Like, instead of a player saying, "My PC wants vengeance, and won't stop even if it means a few innocents have to suffer", s/he has to say, "My PC thinks that vengeance is good, and wants to persuade everyone else of the same thing so that when vengeance is delivered I won't end up being labelled evil."

I don't know where you're given the impression that she "has to" make that specific claim. The player can choose whatever belief she wants her PC to believe about those actions. The PC can view it as good, or as evil, or as something restoring the balance, or as an edict of order, or as something she is doing to express her personal desires and nothing else, or whatever. What's important for PS is that, if the player wants to use this as a central character hook, the vengeance isn't just her personal vendetta, but a principle that extends beyond her circumstances, a conviction that defines how she views the multiverse, a belief about how the rest of reality should be. Her vengeance becomes a belief, not just a goal. For such a PC, I'd probably recommend the Mercykillers, who could frame her vengeance in terms of achieving a just world, and thus her personal vendetta of vengeance becomes an expression of how she thinks the world should work: that those who do wrong get punished. The Mercykillers don't speak in terms of good and evil, they speak in terms of just and unjust. Whether the rest of the multiverse dubs it good or evil is not as relevant.

And if such a character's story is a success, whatever her alignment, she will be seen as a person who exercised justice, an exemplar of that ideal that others should strive to achieve, and thus create a world that her vengeance has objectively made more just -- whatever triggered her vengeance will not be something others seek to do, as the belief in justice that permeates the multiverse after the PC's actions are complete creates a more just reality.

If it makes no difference being labelled good or evil, then why would anyone set about trying to change the reference of those labels?

I also don't understand your fiend examples. For instance, I don't see why the argument run by your amnizu isn't already available to her.

Maybe they WANT it to matter! Not everyone is content with the prevailing belief that evil is a valid life choice. Maybe it matters TO THEM. If they believe that no one should label their thirst for vengeance evil, they can change the definition of evil. Maybe they've got an issue with the current context where pure hedonism is evil and restraint is good and they don't agree with that, they'd want to flip it, because that's what they believe to be true. Just because good and evil are both valid choices according to the planes at large doesn't mean that the PC shares this philosophy necessarily. Though given the conflicts presented in the actual PS material, most of the setting is largely concerned with other debates. But, hell, I'm sure there's Mercykillers out there who believe that the principle of Forgiveness that Good creatures (as the planes currently know them) exhibit should cosign them to Hell instead, and that's fine, they can believe that, and get the multiverse to believe it, too, and thus re-define what Good means (it no longer includes forgiveness, after this PC gets her way!).

The arguments are available to anyone, PS just presents a starting-state in the setting where that amnizu's arguments about torture being the truth of existence aren't prevalent. Given that it starts from a D&D baseline, that shouldn't be too shocking -- PS wants its baseline to be broadly recognizable to D&D players, where devils are lawful evil. So PS presents a setting consistent with that, and also presents a setting in which that is something the PC's can change if they want. Why they would want to...*shrug*. Up to those PC's, really. Our Mercykiller might believe that torture, as a element of punishment, fits Justice, and further defines Justice as Good, and so might find that amnizu to be an ally for her cause! OR she might believe that torture is something that is never justified, and so perpetrators are always further from the Justice she defines as Good, and so might want to slay/convert that amnizu. One thing's for sure: it would be an interesting scene to play through!

For instance, the whole emphasis on "belief entails truth" shifts the emphasis from making hard choices in play, and living with them and their consequences, to making choices easy rather than hard by making it true, by fiat, that the choice really was right.

So by that definition, it is an easy choice to, say, offer your child up as a sacrifice to Moloch because you believe it is right to do so. Or to obey a suicidal command from your superior because you believe that this something that is right. Your definition takes for granted the concept that doing the right thing -- the thing you believe in -- is the same as doing the easy thing.

It furthermore presumes that your definition of the right thing is not challenged -- that people are not telling you that you don't need to offer up your child or obey those suicidal commands, that there aren't competing viewpoints one might embrace. That there are no such things as antagonists with competing beliefs.

I don't think I need to point out the gaping error there any further.

The factions, as "philosophers with clubs", strike me as incredibly cartoony - they live in a world that they know to be nothing but a reflection of belief, including in its value dimensions, and yet they devote all this effort to promulgating particular values. Why?

They want to define the possibility space of belief, to have the multiverse actually work according to their understanding of how it does or should work, to have no dissent or competing beliefs that threaten their own. They want power over the hearts and minds of everyone in creation, to have people believe in their faction's ideals the way people believe at the outset of play that torture is evil and that gods exist and that there is a plane of Bytopia. The PC's are the ones that accomplish some major part of this.

I have no idea, then, what you mean by "ambiguous morality".

Just as I said, that it is not clear if an action is good or evil. To kill a man who wants to die and who you believe deserves to die, or not and not be a murder, is to choose between two things largely regarded as morally good: either I am not a murderer (which is a virtuous thing!), or I kill someone who deserves it and is asking for it (another virtuous thing!). I cannot have them both, but both are virtuous things, so either choice I make, I am the Good Guy. "Shades of grey" means, to me, that the choices are between two things where it is not clear if any of them are really virtuous at all. I don't kill him, so I'm not a murder, BUT he also kills a bunch of neighborhood children and I could have prevented that, and now I need to deal with explaining to the grieving parents why I made the choice I did and do I lose faith in "thou shall not kill," or do I stick to that belief in the face of the grief it is causing? Can I really be said to be a virtuous person? Or I kill him, BUT, he was some sort of cult leader and now his cult members are going around spreading terror in the streets, and I could have prevented that, and maybe there was some other way, and now I need to deal with all those poor people with the horrible burns and the orphaned children who have seen horrible things and do I lose faith in my convictions to kill those who deserve it, or do I stick to the belief, seeing the consequences of my actions on the haggard faces of the refugees from my town?

The aesthetic this trucks in isn't interested so much in my decision to kill him or not, but rather my decision to keep my convictions or not in the face of the disaster they're causing. The conflict isn't about my initial choice, it's about living with the consequences of that choice, choosing it again day after day. The question isn't "Which of these two lovely women do I marry?" but rather "Now that I am married, and we are fighting, do I stay that way? Why or why not? What is the cost of that?" (Wasn't it Kirkegaard who said something along the lines of "If you get married, you will regret it. If you don't get married, you will regret it."?) "Shades of grey" means that, murder or not, I can never really make the claim to being the Good Guy -- I made bad things happen. Maybe it was worth it?

PS isn't quite so brutal but the aesthetic is similar. That is, the interesting bit isn't to choose between two things that are desirable but in conflict, the interesting bit is in the personal struggle to live according to one's convictions, and exploring the conflicts that happen as a result of that. The choice isn't "Am I a Signer or a Sensate?", at least after character creation, it's "Can I continue to be a Signer in a world that makes that choice difficult?" Can I live with the consequences of my actions? Can I accept what negative things my belief means? Can I persuade people that they're worth believing over the competition? It's not the decision you make once, but the decisions you make every day, in your own heart.

 

[Quickleaf]

As I've posted upthread, there are interesting responses to this question - Kierkegaard's philosophy can be seen as a response to a similar question - but to me Planescape doesn't seem to grapple with the issue but rather to squib on it, by shifting the focus from this real issue (of the nature of commitment and motivation in the absence of reasons) to a focus on a non-issue (who gets to wear the "good" ribbon rather than the "evil" ribbon)...

The factions, as "philosophers with clubs", strike me as incredibly cartoony - they live in a world that they know to be nothing but a reflection of belief, including in its value dimensions, and yet they devote all this effort to promulgating particular values. Why?

First off, thank you guys for steering the conversation back to the planes, the Multiverse, and Planescape Alignment debates just don't do anything for me.

Anyhow, I thought I might field these issues you've raised with my own experiences DMing Planescape. Your second paragraph strikes me as what a member of the Bleak Cabal faction might say, but (at least as Planescape played at my table) not at all objectively true of our play experience with factions... I've never been good at theorycraft, so the best I can say is that in my games, the idea that the Outer Planes are a reflection of the belief was easy for someone to say, but a far harder thing to shape in reality. Very rarely were the Outer Planes about wish fulfillment, and when they were, you can bet my players learned to be suspicious!

Also, I never found the factions "cartoony", pointless, or simplistic. Here are some examples to clarify what I mean...

The Sensate faction (and a schism within that faction) played a big role in my game. The core faction tenet, as I presented it, was a sort of mystical materialism, that we should experience as much as we can because if we don't experience it, then it literally doesn't exist for us. This raised all kinds of questions that we explored in play, like "If the multiverse doesn't exist beyond what can be sensed, then what about extra-sensory perceptions, empathy, or sixth sense? Are those a valid way of sensing? What about synesthesia or hallucinations? Does blindness or other sensory handicap make one less able to experience the totality of the multiverse?" We had some really fun gaming sessions where the PCs explored the boundaries of sensation and self, met different faction philosophers, and got some cool belief powers like forming a sensory link with another person or temporarily taking on a blind man's blindness.

I mentioned a schism within the Sensates. Basically, there was the core faction which under the PCs' infouence had a slightly mystical view of reality, and then there were two heresies. The first was essentially Epicureanism which rejects the superstitions of the core faction, argued pain was the ultimate evil, and advocated for pursuit of wise pleasures. The second was, for lack of a better term, a pleasure-pain mystery cult which tried to push the boundaries of what people could be perceive thru rites of passage involving extreme pain or excessive pleasure. Obviously, the two heresies did NOT get along. Navigating the politics and philosophical questions became a big part of our game, especially when we had both main PCs as members of the Sensates.

None of that was explicitly in the boxed set, but the boxed set and Factol's Manifesto both inspired me with those ideas, which then were fleshed out thru play. Anyhow, hope my experience sheds some light on the potential of the setting

 

[avin]

And the origin given for Yugoloths blatently contradicts Planescape canon; whereas in Planescape Yugoloths are said to be the creations of the mysterious Baernaloths, the MM says that a covey of Night Hags created them, possibly at the behest of Asmodeus

I just read this today. Man, somebody at Wotc really hates Yugoloths... Ultroloths again are weaker than Pit Fiends and Balors... pushing Asmodeus smells like 4E lore...

 

[TarionzCousin]

The Sensate faction (and a schism within that faction) played a big role in my game.

In my Planescape campaigns and mini-campaigns, the Sensates were always the most popular with the PC's. They occasionally played Godsmen, Ciphers, or Indeps, but usually over half were Sensates.

 

[Elderbrain]

I just read this today. Man, somebody at Wotc really hates Yugoloths... Ultroloths again are weaker than Pit Fiends and Balors... pushing Asmodeus smells like 4E lore...

- Probably James Wyatt, he likes to mess with creature origins/appearances. Did it in 4e a lot (i.e Dryad). He's probably to blame for the new origin story for Harpies, too... glad WOTC transfered him to M:TG... He killed the Great Wheel in 4e, too (and bragged about it), but thankfully didn't get to in 5e. No offense, probably a nice guy, but I don't want him working on D&D if he's gonna do stuff like that. (LOL, in the 4e preview book "Worlds and Monsters" his stated reason for changing the cosmology was "Down with needless symmetry!" - whereupon he proceed to introduce a series of elementals "Archons" who all looked alike except one was made of fire, one of mud, one of water, etc... THIS is "avoiding needless symmetry"?!?)

 

[Remathilis]

I suppose you could just eject alignment entirely, but, then, once you do that, the Great Wheel stops making a lot of sense. Why three separate (and apparently hostile) good planes? Why not many or just one? After all, there are a multitude of beliefs on what constitutes "good", so, without the alignment framework, the Great Wheel comes off its axel. But, within the alignment framework, the premise of subjective alignment doesn't make any sense to me. Not within the context of D&D alignment anyway.

Why are there multiple species of dragons with different outlooks on life? Why not just have one species and call it "Dragon"?

Why are there multiple species of goblinoids with different outlooks on life? Why not just have one species and call it "Goblin"?

Why are there multiple kingdoms full of humans with different outlooks on life? Why not have all humans live in the same kingdom?

Perhaps because there is more to the planes than even alignment. Sure, they are defined in the abstract by their alignment tendencies, but saying that the only difference between Heaven and Asgard is Law/Chaos is short-sighted bordering on willfully ignorant. The Great Wheel CAN survive sans alignment; it just requires more words to explain the differences in outlook.

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=50658]Rem[/MENTION]althalis - I'd much, much prefer that we pared down things like dragons. Good grief, the 5e MM is about 10-15% dragons. Why? Why not have one entry for Dragon and give a method for building a dragon from a basic chassis considering that pretty much all dragons are virtually identical? Do we really need separate entries for five different kinds of colour coded dragon when the only difference between one and another is breath weapon type and terrain?

As far as humanoids go, I'd be all for paring that list down to Humanoid - Medium and going from there. Mechanically, there's virtually no difference between a goblin and an orc. Everything from a kobold to a bugbear could be done in a single monster manual entry.

D&D has never been a generic game, I'll agree. But, it's always been a setting light game. There is no single setting for D&D. That has always been the biggest strength of D&D over virtually every other game out there - you can use the setting light elements of D&D to create campaigns that are very different, despite starting from a fairly similar starting point.

But, The Planes have always been outside that. They are not setting light, they're setting heavy. And they've done nothing but get heavier and heavier as time has gone on. Imagine for a second that they changed a Vrock as much as kobolds or halflings have changed across editions. Good grief, changing a Succubus from demon to devil, but leaving virtually everything else the same caused people to lose their minds. All because The Planes are not setting light. The Planes is a fully fleshed out setting in its own right and, as such, can't be changed.

Which would be fine except that that single setting, along with all the baggage of that single setting, is then rammed into every other setting whether it fits or not.

You talk about humans living in different kingdoms. Really? Where does it specify what kinds of places humans live in in core D&D? What single place do humans come from? What single viewpoint do all humans share? What single culture do all humans conform to?

If humans have no single culture, or place of origin or viewpoint, why do all outer planar creatures need one single, solitary point of origin? Why are all demons born of the abyss, all are CE and all fight in the Blood War? Why are all devils from Hell and must belong in the hierarchy of Hell? No other creatures in D&D are forced to conform to a single vision in the way that extra planar creatures are. And it absolutely baffles me why this is so acceptable to gamers when any attempt to the exact same thing to any other creature or game element would get crucified.

 

[Nivenus]

Which would be fine except that that single setting, along with all the baggage of that single setting, is then rammed into every other setting whether it fits or not.

You talk about humans living in different kingdoms. Really? Where does it specify what kinds of places humans live in in core D&D? What single place do humans come from? What single viewpoint do all humans share? What single culture do all humans conform to?

If humans have no single culture, or place of origin or viewpoint, why do all outer planar creatures need one single, solitary point of origin? Why are all demons born of the abyss, all are CE and all fight in the Blood War? Why are all devils from Hell and must belong in the hierarchy of Hell? No other creatures in D&D are forced to conform to a single vision in the way that extra planar creatures are. And it absolutely baffles me why this is so acceptable to gamers when any attempt to the exact same thing to any other creature or game element would get crucified.

Except that's not actually true. The Great Wheel isn't forced on every setting (or hasn't been since 2e anyway). It's just the assumed cosmology. Eberron doesn't use it at all (indeed, 4e forced its cosmology more on Eberron more than 3e did) and unless WotC intends to cause as big of an uproar in the Eberron fandom as the 4e changes to Toril stoked among FR fans they're unlikely to change that policy.

Devils aren't from Hell in Eberron; they're from Khyber (originally) and also inhabit Fernia and Shavarath. Demons aren't from the Abyss; they're (also) from Khyber and can be found as well in Dolurrh, Fernia, Mabar, Risia, and Shavarath. The Blood War as such doesn't exist in Eberron, although devils and demons commonly do oppose one another (most frequently in Shavarath, where they also each battle celestials).

The enmity between devils and demons and the structure of the Great Wheel are assumed defaults in D&D, but they aren't necessarily forced on anyone. Other settings are free to make use of, modify, or discard such assumptions, the same way they can make use of, modify, or discard the assumptions the core books make about drow culture, orcs' worship of Gruumsh, and the various natures of chromatic and metallic dragons. A lot of settings - like the Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk - make relatively few alterations to what the core rulebooks have to say. Others, like Eberron (or Dark Sun), make a lot of changes and even omit a fair amount that doesn't jive with their themes.

 

[Elderbrain]

@<em><strong><u><a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=50658" target="_blank">Rem</a></u></strong></em>althalis - I'd much, much prefer that we pared down things like dragons. Good grief, the 5e MM is about 10-15% dragons. Why? Why not have one entry for Dragon and give a method for building a dragon from a basic chassis considering that pretty much all dragons are virtually identical? Do we really need separate entries for five different kinds of colour coded dragon when the only difference between one and another is breath weapon type and terrain?

As far as humanoids go, I'd be all for paring that list down to Humanoid - Medium and going from there. Mechanically, there's virtually no difference between a goblin and an orc. Everything from a kobold to a bugbear could be done in a single monster manual entry.

- I'm actually gonna agree with you on this one, Hussar... provided that they include mods for that single Stat block that would let different humanoids have some mechanical difference (and allowing for different gear, weapons, etc.) They HAVE cut down Dragon stats to Wyrmling, Young, Adult and Ancient, but they could go further and thereby allow more room for Dragon variants (I.e Gem Dragons, etc.) As long as different color Dragons behave differently and have their special breath attacks, I'd be fine seeing them built on the same "frame". Same with humanoids, because then they could fit more types in one book.

Just to be clear, I'm not talking about killing off, say, the Goblin sub-races and having only one type of Goblin; I'm talking about having one entry and Stat block with modifications to make different types of Goblins, or whatever. The entry should still describe the differences between, say, Hobgoblins and Bugbears.

 

[Hussar]

Except that's not actually true. The Great Wheel isn't forced on every setting (or hasn't been since 2e anyway). It's just the assumed cosmology. Eberron doesn't use it at all (indeed, 4e forced its cosmology more on Eberron more than 3e did) and unless WotC intends to cause as big of an uproar in the Eberron fandom as the 4e changes to Toril stoked among FR fans they're unlikely to change that policy.

Devils aren't from Hell in Eberron; they're from Khyber (originally) and also inhabit Fernia and Shavarath. Demons aren't from the Abyss; they're (also) from Khyber and can be found as well in Dolurrh, Fernia, Mabar, Risia, and Shavarath. The Blood War as such doesn't exist in Eberron, although devils and demons commonly do oppose one another (most frequently in Shavarath, where they also each battle celestials).

The enmity between devils and demons and the structure of the Great Wheel are assumed defaults in D&D, but they aren't necessarily forced on anyone. Other settings are free to make use of, modify, or discard such assumptions, the same way they can make use of, modify, or discard the assumptions the core books make about drow culture, orcs' worship of Gruumsh, and the various natures of chromatic and metallic dragons. A lot of settings - like the Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk - make relatively few alterations to what the core rulebooks have to say. Others, like Eberron (or Dark Sun), make a lot of changes and even omit a fair amount that doesn't jive with their themes.

The presumed defaults of The Planes go far beyond the presumed defaults of any other creatures or settings. The presumed defaults include a shopping list of proper nouns, many of which have lengthy, detailed write-ups. Every planar creature lives in a specific kingdom, and that kingdom is written in fairly lengthy detail. The relationships between all the major players are detailed. How is this not a complete setting? What would have to be added to the default to make this a complete setting?

Nothing else in the game gets this treatment. Not since 1e have the relationships between the races been given much detail. Sure, dwarves live in the mountains, digging mines, but, which mountains? What are they mining? Are they rich or poor? What is their political structure? How do they feel about the elves in general? And, where do the elves live besides, "in a forest"? Sure, 4e Tieflings came from Bael Turath (sp) but, even then, that's set in the distant past and pretty easily ignorable. If I ignore the idea that Yugoloth are mercenaries, they stop being Yuguloth according to some.

Note, I'm not talking about what I do at my table, I'm talking about published material.

Sure, specific settings might change The Planes. But that only helps me if I want to play in that setting. Like I've repeatedly said where's my environmental setting source book for the Planes? Why do every planar monster in the Monster Manual have to conform to The Planes? Etc.

 

[Nivenus]

Every planar creature lives in a specific kingdom, and that kingdom is written in fairly lengthy detail. The relationships between all the major players are detailed.

I guess that depends on what you mean by "specific kingdom." To me, the Abyss and Gehenna aren't really kingdoms; their structure as described in most rulebooks that aren't specifically plane-focused is usually pretty loosely defined. What's the geography of the Abyss? Neither the Player's Handbook nor the Monster Manual really have much to say about that. Who are the dominant ultroloths? Well there's the General of Gehenna, but he's basically a mythic figure whose existence is kind of up to the player/DM's discretion but other than that the MM doesn't say.

I'll grant you that the Hells are a bit more clearly defined; there's a pretty consistent list of archdevils from 1e on with a few minor changes (usually near the bottom of the hierarchy) from one edition to another. But that's kind of the exception; most of the relationships between planar creatures are actually kind of loosely defined. Yeah devils don't get along with demons but neither do hobgoblins and orcs (or drow and anybody). Yeah, Graz'zt's a prominent demon lord who pops up all over the place, but Lolth is generally pretty popular as well (showing up in Greyhawk, FR, and Nentir Vale separately).

I also find it a bit odd that you seem to focus specifically on fiends. What about the celestial races? Angels are almost always defined as the servants of good gods; what if you want to have evil angels? That seems to me as much of a change to the basic lore as getting demons and devils to work together (which, despite the Blood War, does happen on occasion even in "generic" settings). What about dwarves? The 5e PHB and 3e MM (among other sources) define them as three distinct sub-races and describe their sentiments towards other races, such an enmity for goblins and a distrust of elves. Doesn't seem that different from describing the rivalries between different varieties of fiends to me.

Note, I'm not talking about what I do at my table, I'm talking about published material.

Sure, specific settings might change The Planes. But that only helps me if I want to play in that setting. Like I've repeatedly said where's my environmental setting source book for the Planes? Why do every planar monster in the Monster Manual have to conform to The Planes? Etc.

Except that's not what you said:

Which would be fine except that that single setting, along with all the baggage of that single setting, is then rammed into every other setting whether it fits or not.

My point about Eberron was in specific response to that.

In any case, I think (ATM) 5e's lore is loosely defined enough that you can take it or leave it as you like. I agree that in general WotC should support a diversity of world-styles rather than pressing everyone to use the Great Wheel / World Axis / etc., but I don't see how having an assumed default cosmology contradicts that, particularly when the rules explicitly give you permission to use or dispose of it as you like.

 

[Hussar]

Well, to be completely honest, since the celestial races are all good, they don't feature as antagonists in my games, so, quite honestly, I don't know much about them. If they were ejected from the game, it would make zero difference to me. I can't think of a single time I have actually added one into a game as an antagonist, although, I have tossed them in as an NPC once in a very long while. And, to be fair, describing which team a critter plays for doesn't overly bother me. There's a bajillion evil critters out there to choose from, so, having some Team Good critters isn't too much to ask for.

The difference I would see between, say, dwarves and planar creatures is that dwarves get painted with a very light brush. And, while there might be three sub-races in the Monster Manual, there are a bajillion different dwarves in even generic books. I can find dwarves living in towns, cities, forests, deserts, and dwarves of every alignment serving any master, or being masters themselves. If I pick up a dwarf source book, or a module featuring dwarves, it's not like it will only talk about dwarves that live under mountains digging for gold. That might be the baseline, but, in the source books, there's a huge amount of variance.

Same goes for elves. You might find elves pretty much anywhere in any role. The stereotypical tree hugging hippy elf is just that - one stereotype. You get all sorts of elves ranging from wild elves to high elves. Forests and deserts to cities and castles.

Put it this way. If I pick up a module and tell you that there is a Glabrezu as the primary antagonist, you can pretty much guess what that module is going to be about. Setting might vary, but, you know what's going to be in that module. If I pick up a module and tell you that a Dwarf is the primary antagonist, you have no idea what that module is about.

 

[Remathilis]

Put it this way. If I pick up a module and tell you that there is a Glabrezu as the primary antagonist, you can pretty much guess what that module is going to be about. Setting might vary, but, you know what's going to be in that module. If I pick up a module and tell you that a Dwarf is the primary antagonist, you have no idea what that module is about.

Dwarf is primary antagonist tells me.

* Underground dungeon, probably in the side of a mountain
* Lots of stonework traps
* A Magical axe probably as treasure somewhere.
* Something to do with either goblins, orcs, or giants.
* A Very good chance of Duergar
* In a word: Moria.

Now sure, you could switch it up on me by going against the tropes, but then again, I've seen some great examples of glaberzu used in non-traditional settings (the one who set up shop on the Infinite Staircase is a good example). In fact, I can think of a few examples of fiends in non-traditional roles (there is a demon and a devil living together, not necessarily peacefully, in Strahd's castle; Akin the Arcanoloth owns a shop in Sigil), probably a site more than I can think of non-traditional dwarven settings, regardless the name of the kingdom.

Got an examples of non-traditional dwarven adventures not ultilzing my list above?

 

[I'm A Banana]

[MENTION=50658]Rem[/MENTION]althalis - I'd much, much prefer that we pared down things like dragons. Good grief, the 5e MM is about 10-15% dragons. Why? Why not have one entry for Dragon and give a method for building a dragon from a basic chassis considering that pretty much all dragons are virtually identical? Do we really need separate entries for five different kinds of colour coded dragon when the only difference between one and another is breath weapon type and terrain?

As far as humanoids go, I'd be all for paring that list down to Humanoid - Medium and going from there. Mechanically, there's virtually no difference between a goblin and an orc. Everything from a kobold to a bugbear could be done in a single monster manual entry.

Well, this is another convo, but the reason we have goblins and orcs and red dragons and brass dragons is the same reason we have nine levels of spells, four classes, ranged and melee attacks, elves and dwarves, d6's and d10's: they make interesting variety. They're all unnecessary, but if we were interested in a minimalistic game where only the necessary rules existed, we'd all just be playing make-believe. Clearly there are things other than necessity we are interested in as players.

Without alignments, PS is still interested in having places to explore how peace, altruism, justice, hard work, and idyllic splendor can be corrupt, dangerous, wrong-headed and simply untrue. The Upper Planes serve that purpose in PS, regardless of if one has characters and NPCs with explicit mechanical alignment. A variety of them still serves to demonstrate that the multiverse is very multifaceted -- that there are many ways to conceive of paradise (as many as there are ways to conceive of disaster!) and that they all have flaws. It creates a diversity of locations to explore the themes of utopia, perfection, and the desirability of things in. PS enjoys this because there might be a lot of time spent exploring that -- one tier of my PS structure is in exploring how getting what you want is not always what you want for a substantially similar reason.

Put it this way. If I pick up a module and tell you that there is a Glabrezu as the primary antagonist, you can pretty much guess what that module is going to be about. Setting might vary, but, you know what's going to be in that module. If I pick up a module and tell you that a Dwarf is the primary antagonist, you have no idea what that module is about.

Personally, I think this is a bit of a weakness in the D&D idea of a dwarf. But I'm a fan of iconic stories -- I should use a dwarf as an antagonist only when being a dwarf adds something specific to the antagonist that other races would not as easily add.

As an aside, I picked up the MM over the weekend, and I had much less problem with it than I thought I might. It seems like they present a story that you are free to take and leave, and the story has no real bearing on the stats or actions of the creature in play. There is a fence between the mechanics and the fiction in the MM. While it might not be how I would've done it, I'm hard pressed to say it's a mistake -- as long as WotC can follow their own advice here and not be overly married to the stories presented therein, there's a lot of optimism going forward. Some of the stories are quite good. I don't know that I'll use any of them (I've got my own stories to tell), but they're perfect for a newbie DM looking for inspiration, and they'll probably even influence my own.

No, my yugoloths will not be using their MM story. Hopefully, when they get around to publishing something Planescape, those yugoloths will also not need to use their MM story. That story is not the PS yugoloth story. But it's not a bad story, necessarily. It's just not right for every setting. And if they want to chuck those 'loths into Eberron, maybe they'll have their own unique story there, too.

As long as WotC treats the planes as just as modular as any other element of the game, it'll probably be just fine.

 

[Remathilis]

[MENTION=50658]Remathilis[/MENTION] - I'd much, much prefer that we pared down things like dragons. Good grief, the 5e MM is about 10-15% dragons. Why? Why not have one entry for Dragon and give a method for building a dragon from a basic chassis considering that pretty much all dragons are virtually identical? Do we really need separate entries for five different kinds of colour coded dragon when the only difference between one and another is breath weapon type and terrain?

As far as humanoids go, I'd be all for paring that list down to Humanoid - Medium and going from there. Mechanically, there's virtually no difference between a goblin and an orc. Everything from a kobold to a bugbear could be done in a single monster manual entry.

Then, (quite frankly) it wouldn't be D&D.

You could probably pair down a bunch of monsters: do we need dozens of demons, devils, AND daemons (lets just make one superbad fiend monster). How about clay, stone, and Iron golems (just one construct would do fine). We could merge shadows, ghosts, poltergeists, wraiths and specters into one also (call them haunts). How about pixies/sprites/grigs/leprechauns as one fey? nymphs, dryads, nereids, fauns and sylphs as another? Ghouls, ghasts, wights, mummies AND liches? Fire, frost, stone, mountain, AND hill giants? Do we NEED two types of sphinx, three different types of beholders, etc, etc.

I'm sure with enough redaction, I could get the 5e Monster Manual to under a hundred pages, art included.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm sure with enough redaction, I could get the 5e Monster Manual to under a hundred pages, art included.

I mean, the logical endpoint of this is a D&D Lite consisting of one sentence: "Make Up Fun Stuff With Friends."

All the variety we have in the game is unnecessary. Really, our ENTIRE HOBBY is unnecessary. But it does serve a purpose.