...then maybe we can change a Marilyth from general to something that likes to set itself up as a god to local peoples. So on and so forth.
Are you scanning my computer and reading my campaign?
...then maybe we can change a Marilyth from general to something that likes to set itself up as a god to local peoples. So on and so forth.
I agree with this - both the description and the judgement.ultimately, the 4e cosmology reflects the conflicts in the 4e implied setting (a big one being gods-vs-primordials, with its inherent good law vs. destructive chaos overtones, as Greek Myth has), and it does so much better than the Great Wheel does.
I remember complaints about too many Greyhawk references back in the pages of mid-80s Dragon magazines.The point I was getting at is that if someone didn't like Greyhawk, they nevertheless had to put up with numerous Greyhawk references and/or material right in the core rulebooks. Why is that any less onerous than having, say, a reference to the Blood Wars in the monster manual? So, if somebody hates Planescape, the books must be sanitized of any reference to such, yet Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms references are perfectly o.k.?
In what sense, though, would Grazz't remain Grazz't if you change him into something different and just keep the name?
I think Hussar's answer is a pretty good one. Personality and behaviour - which underpin the role of a monster or NPC in actual play - are more central to its identity than cosmological details.I think that's fantastic. Why does Grazz't have to be a single vision of the creature?
I guess my question is, is the defining characteristic of Grazz't that he's a demon lord that lives in such and such a plane in the Abyss, or is the defining characteristic of Grazz't his personality and behaviour. I'd argue the latter. Changing him into an Oni from the South to fit within a given setting better because the setting doesn't have an Abyss, makes the material more versatile.
I think Hussar's answer is a pretty good one. Personality and behaviour - which underpin the role of a monster or NPC in actual play - are more central to its identity than cosmological details.
I've run campaigns in which unicorns are celestial creatures, fey creatures and earthly but magical creatures. Within these different cosmological framings, a unicorn is still a unicorn, both in physical and magical abilities, and in personality and orientation (an aloof, magical creature that bestows blessings on the pure of heart).
The last time I used Graz'zt in a campaign he was the August Star of Heaven within the cosmological framework of an Oriental Adventures game. He was still a tempter with 6 fingers on each hand.
...maybe we can change a Marilyth from general to something that likes to set itself up as a god to local peoples. So on and so forth.
Are you scanning my computer and reading my campaign?
That's always the risk of a reducto ad adsurdum argument. Considering that the the word undead was invented, at least in its current concept, by Bram Stoker as he was also inventing the word vampire, at least in its current concept.But your example is rather extreme don't you think? Changing a succubus from a demon to a devil is hardly on the same level as deciding that the most iconic undead monster in the game is suddenly not undead.
See, different preferences. The tone of PS is not one of a world on fire in desperate need of heroes, it is one of an ongoing war of competing ideologies, where heroism depends on what one thinks of the flag you're waving, where no hero is pure and no villain is monolithic, where the players enact change throughout reality and where the ideas they champion become more legendary than their own names.
It is totally fair to prefer a more heroic light-vs.-darkness / civilization-vs.-chaos kind of vibe for your D&D game, and you should be able to have a cosmology that supports that first and foremost rather than having to cleave to the Great Wheel or anything.
I think it'd be a mistake to conflate PS with the Great Wheel. These things are not the same things. The development that PS gave the Great Wheel might be welcome sometimes, but other times it might not be, because the setting has its own tone and style it brings into the game.
My case is more that I think there should be no truly default cosmology.
So then what is the point of the different cosmological framing? If a unicorn is a unicorn is a unicorn regardless of it's origin, creature type, habitat, etc... what was the point of changing it?
That's always the risk of a reducto ad adsurdum argument. Considering that the the word undead was invented, at least in its current concept, by Bram Stoker as he was also inventing the word vampire, at least in its current concept.
Totally agree. Which other thread? Now I'm interested.The distinction between demons and devils is purely a D&D construct (though one I'm fine with), and has not penetrated our culture outside of the narrow genre of D&D novels whatsoever. And as mentioned in another thread, the succubus has made far more sense as a devil from the very beginnings of the game. It's a case of the creator being tone-deaf to his own imaginary material!
I forget who said it on the other thread, but it's very very true - the best proof that the Greek pantheon is not active in our world today is that the real Erinyes didn't eviscerate the author and illustrator of their Monster Manual entry and drag them screaming to Hades.