Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The Multiverse is back....
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Nivenus" data-source="post: 6394615" data-attributes="member: 71756"><p>The confusion props up anytime you want to use pre-4e archons in a 4e game or anytime you'd like to use 4e archons in Pathfinder or a 5e game (assuming 5e reverts to the pre-4e definition). The confusion, essentially, happens whenever you try to mix pre-4e and 4e material which (if you're using a preexisting setting like I often do) is not at all an impossible or even very improbable scenario.</p><p></p><p>I actually like a lot of the 4e lore. As I've stated elsewhere in the thread I think there is thematic room for both elemental and celestial archons and I <em>like</em> the concept of the Dawn War (just as I like the concept of the Blood War). The problem, insofar as I see it, is not the existence of elemental archons but rather the fact that WotC unnecessarily muddled the issue by using the name of a preexisting creature to describe their new creation. Which was wholly avoidable.</p><p></p><p>The issue with eladrin in 4e is pretty much the same. Yes, in a lot of ways 4e eladrin are very similar to their pre-4e version. Except that they're also high elves, which means they're actually a combination of two separate (and distinct) races from before 4th edition. Again, it's unnecessarily complicated.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>There's two things that are really at work here.</p><p></p><p>1) What you consider "minor details" are not considered minor details by a lot of other people, mainly because they considered them defining details. Again, this comes back to the cosmology, which was the default for three editions (and later Pathfinder) until 4e changed it. To a lot of players, the label "celestial" carries its own assumptions and lore, separate from that for "fey." As a result, changing eladrin to fey does mean something.</p><p></p><p>2) More importantly though, you're missing what I've observed as the main complaint about eladrin which is that they trample on the territory of elves. Specifically, a lot of players saw no reason to separate high elves and wood elves into two distinct races, with different origins and racial traits, and the idea that high elves weren't elves any longer is something a lot of people were never really comfortable with (which has since been retconned in 5e). I honestly think it's less "eladrin are fey now and not celestials" and more "eladrin are high elves now and not angelic outsiders" or even "high elves aren't elves anymore."</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That's true to a certain extent, but the popularity of certain settings (e.g. Forgotten Realms, Eberron) does, I think, warrant consideration of consistency in the lore, because the way D&D is currently designed, changes in the "core" story affect the campaign settings as well. There is a certain assumption written into most editions of D&D that what applies to core will - except when specifically stated otherwise - apply to campaign settings as well. This is, for example, the reason why TSR implemented the Time of Troubles and WotC the Spellplague (and now Sundering): because core applies to all.</p><p></p><p>Furthermore, even people who don't play in published settings (or read setting-specific material) still can be attached to specific aspects of the lore. Just look at Pathfinder. A very, very large portion of the lore in Pathfinder, whether it's specific to Golarion or not, is based on the assumptions of pre-4e D&D. It has a Great Wheel (though it doesn't call it that). It has fiends and celestials, and divides them into different camps by alignment (including devils vs. demons and celestial archons). It has planetouched. It has drow, who live in a subterranean realm and worship a spider-themed god. And so on. All of these things are not specific to any campaign setting but nonetheless inspired a fairly large degree of popular attachment.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Except it's not about having old versions of the books to read or keeping everything exactly the same. It's about having a sense of continuity.</p><p></p><p>I think what you may be touching on - perhaps without realizing it - is a tension that has been discussed in this thread and elsewhere, which is whether D&D is intended to be a generic fantasy game or whether it brings with it its own assumptions. The crux of the issue is that it's kind of both: the game is designed with the intent that you can change things and swap things in or out for your own game, but there also are certain assumptions written into the game's design. And 4e, for better or worse, changed a lot of those assumptions, which is part of why (along with the rules changes) a lot of people felt that it wasn't really D&D.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Nivenus, post: 6394615, member: 71756"] The confusion props up anytime you want to use pre-4e archons in a 4e game or anytime you'd like to use 4e archons in Pathfinder or a 5e game (assuming 5e reverts to the pre-4e definition). The confusion, essentially, happens whenever you try to mix pre-4e and 4e material which (if you're using a preexisting setting like I often do) is not at all an impossible or even very improbable scenario. I actually like a lot of the 4e lore. As I've stated elsewhere in the thread I think there is thematic room for both elemental and celestial archons and I [I]like[/I] the concept of the Dawn War (just as I like the concept of the Blood War). The problem, insofar as I see it, is not the existence of elemental archons but rather the fact that WotC unnecessarily muddled the issue by using the name of a preexisting creature to describe their new creation. Which was wholly avoidable. The issue with eladrin in 4e is pretty much the same. Yes, in a lot of ways 4e eladrin are very similar to their pre-4e version. Except that they're also high elves, which means they're actually a combination of two separate (and distinct) races from before 4th edition. Again, it's unnecessarily complicated. There's two things that are really at work here. 1) What you consider "minor details" are not considered minor details by a lot of other people, mainly because they considered them defining details. Again, this comes back to the cosmology, which was the default for three editions (and later Pathfinder) until 4e changed it. To a lot of players, the label "celestial" carries its own assumptions and lore, separate from that for "fey." As a result, changing eladrin to fey does mean something. 2) More importantly though, you're missing what I've observed as the main complaint about eladrin which is that they trample on the territory of elves. Specifically, a lot of players saw no reason to separate high elves and wood elves into two distinct races, with different origins and racial traits, and the idea that high elves weren't elves any longer is something a lot of people were never really comfortable with (which has since been retconned in 5e). I honestly think it's less "eladrin are fey now and not celestials" and more "eladrin are high elves now and not angelic outsiders" or even "high elves aren't elves anymore." That's true to a certain extent, but the popularity of certain settings (e.g. Forgotten Realms, Eberron) does, I think, warrant consideration of consistency in the lore, because the way D&D is currently designed, changes in the "core" story affect the campaign settings as well. There is a certain assumption written into most editions of D&D that what applies to core will - except when specifically stated otherwise - apply to campaign settings as well. This is, for example, the reason why TSR implemented the Time of Troubles and WotC the Spellplague (and now Sundering): because core applies to all. Furthermore, even people who don't play in published settings (or read setting-specific material) still can be attached to specific aspects of the lore. Just look at Pathfinder. A very, very large portion of the lore in Pathfinder, whether it's specific to Golarion or not, is based on the assumptions of pre-4e D&D. It has a Great Wheel (though it doesn't call it that). It has fiends and celestials, and divides them into different camps by alignment (including devils vs. demons and celestial archons). It has planetouched. It has drow, who live in a subterranean realm and worship a spider-themed god. And so on. All of these things are not specific to any campaign setting but nonetheless inspired a fairly large degree of popular attachment. Except it's not about having old versions of the books to read or keeping everything exactly the same. It's about having a sense of continuity. I think what you may be touching on - perhaps without realizing it - is a tension that has been discussed in this thread and elsewhere, which is whether D&D is intended to be a generic fantasy game or whether it brings with it its own assumptions. The crux of the issue is that it's kind of both: the game is designed with the intent that you can change things and swap things in or out for your own game, but there also are certain assumptions written into the game's design. And 4e, for better or worse, changed a lot of those assumptions, which is part of why (along with the rules changes) a lot of people felt that it wasn't really D&D. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The Multiverse is back....
Top