Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Anthtriel" data-source="post: 3886116" data-attributes="member: 13764">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&amp;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.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.&nbsp; &nbsp;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 &quot;good&quot; 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 &quot;We should donate half our money to the orphanage.&quot; &quot;No, what are you saying? We should donate all of it!&quot; &quot;Splendid idea!&quot; are not my idea of fun. Inter-Party conflict and all that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Anthtriel, post: 3886116, member: 13764"] 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. 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification