Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6390344" data-attributes="member: 42582">The repurposing of archons as elemental warriors rather than celstial servants is clearly not, and not intended to be, an evolution of the prior canon. It is taking a cool name and attaching it to a new monster that the designers - rightly or wrongly - think is more worthy of the name.But as for the notion of &quot;change&quot; vs &quot;building&quot;, I think it is very much in the eye of the beholder. I am pretty familiar with a wide range of D&amp;D lore - especially but not ony 1st ed AD&amp;D - and didn't find 4e's changes &quot;drastic&quot;. For me, they were about integration and enhancement, changing plot details to bring out thematic elements more strongly. (Which is also how WotC presented them in Worlds &amp; Monsters.)The idea that this is &quot;disprecting&quot; tradition is puzzling to me. It suggests a fixation on petty details of canon at the expense of thematic coherence. Integrating dwarves, giants, Moradin and the elemental planes into a story of slavery and liberation with the possibility of future fall or redemption doesn't strike me as disrepectful at all. It is respectful - displaying sensitive attention to the best in what has come before, and re-presenting it in a way that brings out that best.You may as well say that the X-Men movies are disrepectful to the comic canon because they focus on theme and broad-brush elements rather than every bit of accreted detail of mutiple decades of serial publication.And for clarity: If someone doesn't like 4e, that's his/her prerogative - I'm not arguing with that. I'm arguing with this notion of &quot;change&quot; vs &quot;building&quot;, of &quot;disprespect&quot;. I am strongly of the view that 4e built on past D&amp;D in a deeply respectful way.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6390344, member: 42582"] The repurposing of archons as elemental warriors rather than celstial servants is clearly not, and not intended to be, an evolution of the prior canon. It is taking a cool name and attaching it to a new monster that the designers - rightly or wrongly - think is more worthy of the name. But as for the notion of "change" vs "building", I think it is very much in the eye of the beholder. I am pretty familiar with a wide range of D&D lore - especially but not ony 1st ed AD&D - and didn't find 4e's changes "drastic". For me, they were about integration and enhancement, changing plot details to bring out thematic elements more strongly. (Which is also how WotC presented them in Worlds & Monsters.) The idea that this is "disprecting" tradition is puzzling to me. It suggests a fixation on petty details of canon at the expense of thematic coherence. Integrating dwarves, giants, Moradin and the elemental planes into a story of slavery and liberation with the possibility of future fall or redemption doesn't strike me as disrepectful at all. It is respectful - displaying sensitive attention to the best in what has come before, and re-presenting it in a way that brings out that best. You may as well say that the X-Men movies are disrepectful to the comic canon because they focus on theme and broad-brush elements rather than every bit of accreted detail of mutiple decades of serial publication. And for clarity: If someone doesn't like 4e, that's his/her prerogative - I'm not arguing with that. I'm arguing with this notion of "change" vs "building", of "disprespect". I am strongly of the view that 4e built on past D&D in a deeply respectful way. [/QUOTE]

Verification