Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nivenus" data-source="post: 6397976" data-attributes="member: 71756">Again, I think you're missing my main point. You've stated that you feel the 4e alignment system and arrangement of the planes were closer to the conception promoted by 1e. My point is that, based on Gygax's own statements (in which he's said the alignment system was based on the moral philosophy of the Elric books) and the way in which D&D's cosmology was constructed over the course of 1e (from an appendix in the PHB, to frequent mentions in monster manuals and Dragon articles, to a sourcebook of its own) that this is, while not perhaps entirely wrong (as I do believe 1e promoted a more "do as you wish" mentality than 2e) not entirely correct either.I will grant you however, that before the introduction of the good/evil axis came into play the distinction between "law" and "good" or "chaos" and "evil" was somewhat muddled. But it doesn't seem to me there was no distinction (especially since later manuals stipulated specific creatures that were "lawful but evil" or "chaotic but good").I think this owes more to racial conflicts than anything else. Orcs hate elves (and vice versa) and hobgoblins hate dwarves (and vice versa). The distaste each group has for the other is hardly ideological, it's basically just pure and simple racial enmity. For the most part, alignment is just a descriptor for non-outsiders: it doesn't have as much significance as it does when we're talking about demons, devils, angels, or what not, because unlike the extra-planar creatures, natural humanoids aren't (at least not to the same degree) hard-coded to be a certain alignment. Demons are literally made of evil and chaos. Archons are literally made of good and law.The other thing is that I think the importance of the law vs. chaos axis actually was diminished over time, rather than trumped up. The distinction between fiends and celestials certainly seems more important by the time 3e roles around than the distinction between lawful and chaotic creatures, but I can certainly imagine a scenario where slaadi might ally with either demons or eladrin against an army of inevitables.Fair enough. I was under the impression you did think there was such a thing as canon for AD&D 1st edition because you'd said earlier (or at least that's what I understood you to say) that 4e built upon the lore of 1e better than the lore of 2e or 3e did. I was disputing that specific claim. If you did not make that claim, I withdraw my usage of the word "canon."That being said, 1st edition D&D did carry with it certain assumptions, which you can read into the various different books of the era. I believe the planes of the Great Wheel were one of the assumptions, especially seeing how often they're referenced throughout monster manuals and setting materials (not only does Greyhawk reference them, so does the 1st edition Realms). So again, I think 2nd edition's development of the lore was a very natural outgrowth of what was already there.It seems you're splitting hairs here. Gygax-authored articles in Dragon placed the Greyhawk deities among the Great Wheel. In 2e they were still there. In 3e (unlike the FR deities) they were still there. Whether or not the setting "turned" on the fact that the Greyhawk deities were part of the Great Wheel the fact is that, since 1e, they've canonically been a part of it. I don't see why you insist otherwise.</blockquote>

Verification