Aust Diamondew
First Post
Perhaps they want to generate press or incite a reaction against themselves, it could attract more people to the game.
There's Powerful Deviltry at Work Here...
- Thread starter Robert Ranting
- Start date
Charwoman Gene
Adventurer
I have my concerns. I find an overemphasis on fiendish fluff in the PC realm to be not to my taste. I'm annoyed by the shift in tone in that direction but not terribly upset or anything.
Wormwood said:
It's true; Allan Holdsworth is big in Japan.
masshysteria
Explorer
Show me the flip side of the coin and I'll be happy. I have to admit, I am a bit concerned with all the information we've seen on evil, devils, and demons. Good should get equal attention in the core books.
In the end, we all want good to overcome the odds and triumph. I we can't create shining examples of what is good - like the iconic knight in shining armor - then where is the point of light in the darkness?
We need a number of "good" options to balance out the "evil" options. With all the talk of devils, demons, and teiflings give me angles, celestials, and assimar.
In the end, we all want good to overcome the odds and triumph. I we can't create shining examples of what is good - like the iconic knight in shining armor - then where is the point of light in the darkness?
We need a number of "good" options to balance out the "evil" options. With all the talk of devils, demons, and teiflings give me angles, celestials, and assimar.
There is a reason why in large parts of fantasy, demons and devils are actively concerned with the world, whereas angels are either powerless, corrupted, or mysterious. Celestials are rarely antagonists in D&D, and they shouldn't steal the spotlight from the heroes, so they are usually relegated to support roles, and those don't need as much space as heroes or villians.masshysteria said:
Plus, compare the popularity of Pit Fiends to Planetars and of the Nine Hells to Bytopia. Also note how villians are often better crafted and more interesting than heroes.
The iconic knight was always there and will continue to be. Just because the Paladin is now apparently open to evil as well doesn't mean the class is not associated with good, just as the Warlock is associated with evil. The dark knight/blackguard/sith/Anti-Paladin is popular and apparently playable with 4E, but it mostly works as the contrast to the Paladin, the archetype is strongly dependant on the shining knight.
Plus, shining examples of good are nice and all, but if you take it to the extreme of the group of saints, then I don't see how it is anymore exciting than the opposite evil extreme, i.e. not at all. Though of course your mileage can and apparently does vary.
edit: Oh, and while we are at it: No, I don't always want the heroes to win, and certainly not always to triumph.
Curiously, those who said Wizards is out to get the younger players seem more and more correct to me. Speaking as a 21-year old, thus way below the EnWorld average, groups that had "good" written on all their character sheets have turned out very, very boring for me.
And I never understood why morally unquestionable heroes (like Superman, Captain America or what have you) can possibly be popular.
Apparently it is a matter of age to some degree, though another reason might be that my groups tend to be more time out of combat, and the characters less of an avatar for the player than the EnWorld average. Conversations like "We should donate half our money to the orphanage." "No, what are you saying? We should donate all of it!" "Splendid idea!" are not my idea of fun. Inter-Party conflict and all that.
Last edited:
Mercule
Adventurer
Yes and no. If evil PCs or PCs who have pacts with evil are promoted in such a way that they are either easy to play or commonplace, then there is an issue.
In opposition to that, it is good to have some unambiguously evil foes. Orcs and goblinoids are intelligent humanoids very similar to humans and are portrayed primarily as products of their society ("there, but for the grace of God...") and questions can be posited about whether indiscriminately culling them isn't an evil act in itself.
Fiends, on the other hand, are evil made flesh. Their very existence is an evidence of peril to one's soul. Thus, eliminating them is always Good and heroic. As such, they can be used as clear opponents and allow tactical gameplay (emphasis on game) without requiring that every adventure involve a discussion of morality or leaving any appearance that the players may be participating in an activity that encourages thoughtless killing and looting.
On the other hand, the addition of fiendish blood can, if the players choose, allow a game proxy for working through the normal human thoughts of sin or rational thought vs. natural impulses. Handled correctly, the playing of a tiefling should be seen as a good opportunity by a Christian because it is a way to evaluate concepts like original sin or the imperfection of humanity (exaggerated by the game construct of fiendish heritage) within a framework that provides context and consequence while remaining safe and entertaining. That last is a big one, IMO -- go look at some of the bizarre religious themed games out there and tell me that they are engaging enough for kids to actually learn anything other that "God is boring".
Of course, you'll always have some people who can turn just about anything into a narcissistic power trip, a way to thumb their noses at convention, or just antisocial sadism. Some will use D&D. Others will use one of the other 17,892 mediums for doing so.
In the end, I expect that 90%+ of the people who play D&D 4E will simply play a game that involves some power-ups, some tactics, and a bit of role-playing. Most of them will occasionally engage in some wish-fulfillment or poke at different moral frameworks, but it won't be a major focus.
In opposition to that, it is good to have some unambiguously evil foes. Orcs and goblinoids are intelligent humanoids very similar to humans and are portrayed primarily as products of their society ("there, but for the grace of God...") and questions can be posited about whether indiscriminately culling them isn't an evil act in itself.
Fiends, on the other hand, are evil made flesh. Their very existence is an evidence of peril to one's soul. Thus, eliminating them is always Good and heroic. As such, they can be used as clear opponents and allow tactical gameplay (emphasis on game) without requiring that every adventure involve a discussion of morality or leaving any appearance that the players may be participating in an activity that encourages thoughtless killing and looting.
On the other hand, the addition of fiendish blood can, if the players choose, allow a game proxy for working through the normal human thoughts of sin or rational thought vs. natural impulses. Handled correctly, the playing of a tiefling should be seen as a good opportunity by a Christian because it is a way to evaluate concepts like original sin or the imperfection of humanity (exaggerated by the game construct of fiendish heritage) within a framework that provides context and consequence while remaining safe and entertaining. That last is a big one, IMO -- go look at some of the bizarre religious themed games out there and tell me that they are engaging enough for kids to actually learn anything other that "God is boring".
Of course, you'll always have some people who can turn just about anything into a narcissistic power trip, a way to thumb their noses at convention, or just antisocial sadism. Some will use D&D. Others will use one of the other 17,892 mediums for doing so.
In the end, I expect that 90%+ of the people who play D&D 4E will simply play a game that involves some power-ups, some tactics, and a bit of role-playing. Most of them will occasionally engage in some wish-fulfillment or poke at different moral frameworks, but it won't be a major focus.
Similar Threads
