Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nivenus" data-source="post: 6395172" data-attributes="member: 71756">My players find it confusing (I know I've asked them). Editors I've worked with on the FR Wiki find it confusing (I know, I had to fight to work a lot of said confusing lore into the wiki). Random people I've encountered online have found it confusing. Need I continue?Most people in this thread know a fairly significant amount about the lore of D&D, both pre- and post-4e. Hence the discussion. That isn't true of most players.And I have. Shall we weigh your anecdotal evidence against mine? Seems pointless to me. The truth is that no on would have been confused if they hadn't used the same name. What happens if WotC decides they want to use both pre-4e and 4e archons in 5e? Do they call them both archons or do they rename one of them? It seems to me much more likely they'll rename one than keep the name for both. Which indicates the possibility of confusion.I think the problem is that you're not recognizing the fact that - in pre-existing campaign settings like the Forgotten Realms - both types of archons now exist. And they're both called archons.That's not at all the same thing. First Class is an adaptation of the comics, not a continuation of them. If you want to make an argument using the film a much more sensible argument would be that First Class unnecessarily complicates the backstory of the first three films - by indicating a familial relationship between Xavier and Mystique never hinted at before, showing Xavier and Magneto meeting much later in their lives than the first film stated, and showing Hank turn blue well before his easter egg appearance in the second film, where he looked human. And those are, all arguments that have been made, but they're not the one you're making, which is, frankly, a stretch.(For the record I actually like First Class more than the original trilogy and almost wish it was a reboot, but that's neither here nor there. The point is that adaptation =/= continuation.)I can see where you're coming from, but I disagree. These aren't just "encyclopedia-entry details." They're actually fundamental to a number of themes and metaplots that have been a part of D&D for decades. Whether or not you dislike such elements is a matter of opinion, but they aren't just obscure details: the concept of celestials, fiends, the Blood War, and the Outer Planes are all part of a cosmological story that was a large part of 2e and 3e's worldbuilding. Just as the Dawn War, the World Axis, and the contrast between immortals and elementals was part of 4e's metaplot.I don't understand where you get the impression that I'm talking about Sigil, Gate Towns, or portals? I haven't mentioned them at all. We've been talking about the Outer Planes, devils, demons, and celestials, which all date back to 1st edition.And that may be a reasonable argument. But the changes from 1e to 2e continued and evolved over a period of a decade before they were incorporated into 3e. Yes, 4e might not be a major alteration of 1e (I actually think it's a bigger alteration than you're crediting) but it was a huge change to the lore that had existed throughout 2e and 3e, which were themselves built upon a foundation laid out by 1e. So it's kind of disingenuous to say that the change between 3e and 4e is equivalent to the change between 1e and 2e... because it's not.I have to question your judgment there. The Fiend Folio, where daemons/yugoloths first made their appearance, explicitly states that daemons can enter the Nine Hells and the Abyss with equal amount of ease and that they will freely associate with either kind of fiend. Specifically:andThat certainly doesn't sound all that far off from the "Machiavellian masterminds" you describe. Indeed, while 2e's treatment of yugoloths may be a change from 1e's, it's most definitely an evolution rather than a 4e-style rebranding.Actually, I do understand that. I'm just not certain why. You seem to be holding D&D to a very particular standard, which is your interpretation of 1e's assumptions. Disregarding the fact that I don't think your interpretation of those assumptions are as accurate as you think, that doesn't even begin to account for 2e and 3e's assumptions, which were a firm part of D&D's legacy by the time 4e came along. By the time 4e was released, the themes and assumptions of D&D were not limited to those of the original Red Box. They'd grown and evolved.I have no problem adding what 4e added into that box. Indeed, I hope 5e does incorporate some of 4e's lore into it. But 4e didn't add on to 1e-3e. It disregarded or rewrote large portions of 1e-3e, rendering a lot of previous information invalid. And that how the transition from 1e to 2e or 2e to 3e went (for the most part; there were exceptions).I'm not quite sure why we're fixating on Planescape. Again, the Outer Planes, the Great Wheel, and the enmity between demons and devils is from before Planescape and it remained in 3e even though Planescape was dropped (for the record, I never D&D played until 3e, so I've never actually played a Planescape game outside of Torment). The Blood War itself was first mentioned by name in the Monstrous Compendium, Volume One for 2nd edition, four years before Planescape's debut, and is featured as an important component to 3e's cosmology especially if you look towards books dealing specifically with fiends or the planes more generally (both volumes of the Fiendish Codex mention it prominently).The Great Wheel, as others have mentioned, is first detailed in the original Dungeon Master's Guide and is presumed whenever the Monster Manual mentions the home plane of a monster. It was finally elaborated on in more detail in the Manual of the Planes, again a 1st edition book, and at that point closely resembles its 2e/Planescape version:It also goes on to explain that each of the planes (and their layers) are infinite in size and shape, that there exists an additional outer plane "that does not fit into the wheel concept, but has strong connections with four mutually opposing planes," and that the outer planes are "roughly aligned according to good versus evil and Law versus Chaos," with the additional plane (Concordant Opposition) as a place of balance. That all sounds very similar to the 2e/3e set-up for the outer planes.As I've stated earlier in the thread, I think WotC's best approach to take would be to try and A) incorporate as much of 4e and pre-4e lore as possible into 5e wherever they can and B) explicitly leave things open for DMs to change. I agree that the Great Wheel - like the World Axis - shouldn't be forced on anyone who doesn't want to use it. Eberron should get to keep the Orrery. The Realms should be able to go back to the World Tree if the writers like (though I expect it's getting the Wheel, which is fine because there's pretty good evidence it's what Greenwood prefers anyway). And if Nentir Vale ever resurfaces its head it should get the Great Wheel.My own personal inclination is to look at all three of the major models - the Wheel, the Tree, and the Axis - as three different interpretations of a multidimensional system that even the most learned mages can't truly fathom on their own. So it doesn't really bother me overly much which system you prefer. The point I'm trying to make is that 4e forced its changes onto the existing lore, often in a lot of ways which were very jarring and upset a lot of people. And I think that could have easily been avoided.Elves and eladrin are listed as separate races, and that's what most people pay attention to. That and the fact that the name was used by an angelic race prior. And while elves explicitly hang out in the Prime, eladrin primarily come from the Feywild and come with a lot of extra fluff that doesn't bear all that much resemblance to what existed for high elves prior.When the change was originally made I thought it might be interesting. Separating drow, high elves, and wood elves does make a certain amount of sense. But really, it mostly ended up causing (at least within the FR fandom) a lot of grief and arguments for very little reason.</blockquote>

Verification