NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nivenus" data-source="post: 6397066" data-attributes="member: 71756">Actually, I'm going to have to disagree with some of the other Planescape fans here and say that I actually don't think the jaded and casual attitude of planar inhabitants clash with the idea of the planes as awe-inspiring and wondrous.To me, there's nothing that says that a setting can't simultaneously be mundane and wondrous, depending on the context. Explaining something or repeated exposure to it does, to some degree produce a casualness in one's attitude to it, but that doesn't necessarily make it any less wondrous in of itself. Indeed, sometimes knowing the explanation makes things seem even stranger. Take real-life physics. The idea of the star as a massive globe of burning hydrogen whose structural integrity is maintained by a delicate balance the outward push of its own heat and the inward pull of its gravity is (in my eyes at least) a lot more wondrous than a flaming chariot that crosses the sky. Quantum physics is a lot weirder than probably anyone imagined the sub-molecular world would turn out to be. And so on.Likewise, while some people in Planescape (namely, the urban inhabitants of Sigil) are fairly jaded about the world they live in that doesn't actually mean that the world they live in isn't actually wondrous, anymore than the existence of cynics in our world means the same thing. There's also plenty of people - best represented by the Factions - who have a much more mystical view of the world and the multiverse is filled with its own plentiful share of mystery. Planescape is still at it's core about a multiverse filled with infinite planes with strange geographies shaped by the collective beliefs of countless beings on innumerable worlds, some of which are inhabited by the souls of the dead, gods, and physical embodiments of good, evil, law, and chaos. The contradictions and paradoxes of Planescape - including the fact that some of the multiverse's inhabitants are jaded to the wonder around them - are part of what makes it wondrous, in my eye, more so than the comparatively simple structure of the World Axis.Of course this is all very subjective and depends a lot on one's personal preference, so I'm not really trying to convince anyone else. But in my opinion, the fact that some people (namely those most exposed to the nature of the multiverse) are somewhat jaded about the planes doesn't subtract from their intrinsic wonder.I'll admit that Sigil's specialness can be a little off-putting but (and I'll admit this is my own personal head canon) the way I look at it, Sigil's inhabitants as are like to overestimate their own cosmic importance as the various Primes of the multiverse are. Sigil is only special because it's at the center of the Great Wheel in the Outlands... and the Great Wheel itself (as even official Planescape canon has it) is just a model - a very useful model, but a model nonetheless (and one the politics of Sigil likely favors).I think you're probably right. And I don't really have a problem with your perspective; I just disagree with some aspects of it.And tieflings and dragonborn are "optional" in the 5th edition Player's Handbook. That doesn't mean they aren't core though.Fair enough; I may have overstated my position (and I will admit I know far less of Greyhawk than either the Realms or Planescape or probably even Eberron). By 3rd edition though it was definitely canonical to Greyhawk in a way that it was no longer for FR (which instead played around with the details of the Great Wheel to make the World Tree). But insofar as 1st edition is concerned you are probably at least somewhat correct, though reading the actual text of the 1e PHB the Wheel seems just as optional or core as in the 5e PHB (where, again, it's in appendix).I'll have to disagree with that; the text of the MotP sells itself as the "essential" guide for explaining the various planes mentioned in prior supplements. While the option is of course left to use it or not use it, it's certainly canon to 1st edition's lore, at least insofar as any supplement is.Only insofar as the Great Wheel was supported, with a few details from Planescape thrown in as part of the "generic" D&D setting (by that point Greyhawk). Planescape the setting was by and large unsupported in 3e, as many disgruntled Planescape fans will attest.How about the original pre-AD&D rules, where alignment was defined solely as "law vs. chaos" and neither good nor evil came into it? Chaos was arguably the worse of the two, considering most monsters were either neutral or chaotic, but that doesn't change the fact that it was the definitive axis, before good and evil were added on AD&D. Not to mention the fact that Gary Gygax himself has attributed inspiration for D&D's alignment system to the works of Michael Moorcock, which among their central themes is a cosmic conflict between law and chaos... in which balance is the optimum status quo.The balance of law and chaos is literally as old as D&D itself. It's one of its oldest tropes; far older than the balance between good and evil.Right, I get that. The problem is that again, this was a gradual evolution. Lee and Ditko's Parker may not be the same as McFarlane's, but it is fairly close to Lee and Romita's. And when Roy Thomas took over from Stan Lee it's not as if the character radically changed either. What you're glossing over is that, yes, there's a big difference between then and now... but it's a difference that occurred in steps over a long period of time, as new writers came on board and added their own touch to the character. That's quite a bit different (in my mind at least) from an adaptation, which, from the get go, is a new work.Sure it is, at least within the context of existing settings. Succubi? Devils now, not demons (a minor example I don't care that much about, but it's there). Kossuth? Primordial now, not a god. Moon elves and (celestial) eladrin? Same race now. Tieflings? Scions of an ancient empire, not outcasts and misfits. And so on.Insofar as an original setting created by the DM is concerned, yes, you're right. But as far as actual canon goes you're wrong. The 4e lore in many cases did override and discard older lore.I'd argue that changing the alignment of orcs from lawful evil to chaotic evil - while hardly a small change - is relatively minor compared to restructuring the multiverse. But your point is made and as I said much earlier in the thread, a lot of what counts as a "major" or "minor" change is subjective. The difference between kobolds as they originally debuted and as they are today is fairly large, but few people objected because (as I said earlier) the changes were A) mostly gradual and B) were made to a creature few people really cared about. The second criterion also applies to orcs' alignment switch from 2e to 3e: few people cared what alignment orcs were because their primary purpose in D&D (and most campaign settings) was to provide expendable hordes of low to mid-level enemies. On the other hand, a lot of people cared very much about the structure of the planes and what kind of creatures inhabited it.I think that's mostly it really. I mean, I don't 100% agree because I do think allowances should be made (as in the 3e MotP) who'd rather not use the default version of the planes. But that's really what it's about when it comes down to it: whether or not you view the planes as a place to tell stories or elements to plug into (or not) your game.I'd still argue that a lot of what is considered "generic" in D&D really isn't - orcs and elves in D&D actually differ in some pretty crucial ways from Tolkien's orcs and elves and a lot of other lore in the game's original iteration was made up whole-cloth - but it's true that some things are meant to be more interchangeable than others.Again, that isn't completely true but it isn't completely wrong either. A lot of settings - Eberron in particular - play very fast and loose with the usual assumptions about D&D's cosmology. But at the same time a lot of the old ideas do hold true, more so than perhaps with other elements of "generic D&D." Devils and demons may not inhabit the Hells or the Abyss and there may be no Blood War, but they're still by definition lawful evil and chaotic evil respectively and celestials are still divided into most of the familiar races. And other settings like the Forgotten Realms play much closer to the default, even when using their own cosmology (such as the World Tree).That's a very good point. Again though, I'd say the dividing line here is a bit subjective. The main reason drow are so untouchable (at least in core, again, Eberron plays with things) has a lot to do (or at least so it seems) with the popularity of Drizzt Do'Urden. If Drizzt books weren't as popular as they are (or R.A. Salvatore never invented the character) we may well have seen drow undergo a major 4e revision the same as duergar did (to name another subterranean race). As it was, they mostly just got shifted off into a separate race (probably because high elves did too).Right, but the name "archon" in the context of both celestial archons and elemental archons has little do with the ancient title. It's just what the creatures are called - they have no other name (at least none that's mentioned in any of the lore I've read). It's sort of how tyrannosaur means "tyrant lizard." That doesn't mean tyrannosaurs were literally tyrants or that it would be unreasonable to be confused if you heard of some entirely different creature with the same name.As for celestial archons being angels, that's not entirely incorrect. But in 1e-3e lore angels and archons were actually separate kinds of celestials (which is, to a certain extent, calling a rose by any other name). The lore here was actually somewhat inelegant - angels could be of any good alignment whereas most celestials (like devils, demons, and daemons/yugoloths) corresponded to a particular type of good alignment (archons were lawful good, guardinals were neutral good, eladrin were chaotic good).Not really. Most creatures that share names in real-life biology are related or at least seem similar or connected in some way (there are exceptions, but that's the rule). A fox bat looks like a fox. A tiger shark has stripes like a tiger (and is also a swift and deadly predator). An osprey is sometimes called a fish hawk... because it eats fish. On the other hand, pre-4e and 4e archons share little except their name (and the fact that they live outside of the Prime).</blockquote>

Verification