D&D 5E Whatever "lore" is, it isn't "rules."

[Maxperson]

We saw this primarily in 4e, but, it's hardly new. Any time anyone tries to change demons, devils, whatnot, the PS police jump out of the woodwork to tell all and sundry how wrong this new version is and how it is bad because it changes what was established in PS.

I've not seen that. Can you provide links?

See, for example, the arguments about Succubus being changed to devils. Changes to Modrons. Changes to Elementals. Changes to the cosmology. Etc.

I'd love to. You have links to these arguments?

My point is, in every setting, most of the creatures are adapted to that setting. So, elves and dwarves and orcs and giants etc. are changed/modified to fit within that setting. A Greyhawk orc and a Forgotten Realms orc and an Eberron orc is different. But, the second we step into the planes, it's 100% Planescape all the way or nothing at all.

Why is a Forgotten Realms Vrock the same as an Eberron Vrock - both soldier demons in the Blood War? If it's no problem that everything else gets modified for settings, why are planar creatures, and thus Planescape, given such a privileged position?

Setting has zero to do with vrocks. A 2e Forgotten Realms vrock is the same as a 2e Planescape Vrock, which was the same as a 2e Greyhawk vrock. The edition determines the creature, not the setting UNLESS it's a setting specific creature, which vrocks are not.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm NOT saying that lore is pointless. I'm saying that dogmatic adherence to lore is pointless.

You're saying a great deal more than that. If that was all you were saying, you'd not be getting as much push back here as you have been.

 

[Imaro]

For myself, my dislike for this had nothing to do with Planescape ( I strongly dislike Planescape). To me, it felt like an unnecessary change made for change sake and affected other settings going back to 1e. If the designers had left the default Succubus as a demon and created a setting specific variant for the 4e setting that sat alongside the demon version, the change would not have bothered me.

I think [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is misrepresenting/grossly exaggerating the extent that "Because Planescape!" was given as the reason people didn't like certain lore changes...

 

[Hussar]

Ok, [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], I've got a couple of minutes, so, I'll lay out my evidence and see what you think.

You claim that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s addition of the Wizards of High Sorcery to Greyhawk is a poor GMing decision (it's been a few pages, so, I'm not 100% sure on the quote, but, I believe that's correct in essence). Now, why do you claim that? Is it because WoHS thematically don't fit in Greyhawk? Well, that doesn't seem to be the issue, and, frankly, adding a cabal of moon worshipping wizards that draw power from the existing moons plus a moon only they can see, that hunts down other wizards to establish their dominance in the land seems a pretty decent fit to the setting AFAIC. Is it that WoHS have mechanical issues? Are they too powerful for the setting? Well, again, that doesn't seem to be the issue. The mechanics for WoHS seem pretty balanced on the whole, so, not seeing a problem here.

No, the issue is that he's made a poor GMing decision based solely on your personal preference for setting canon. It's not based on his preferences at all, because, well, obviously he's not having a problem with it. You are telling him, in no uncertain terms, that he is flat out wrong to add this to the setting, that adding this to the setting breaks the setting, based on nothing other than your personal preferences.

Now, how is this not one true wayism? How is this not trying to use canon to force other people to game the way you want to game?

Had you simply asked something like, "Hey, I never thought to do that. How did you make it work?" then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Instead, you flat out insist that he's wrong to add WoHS to Greyhawk.

When you tell someone they are playing the game wrong based on nothing other than your personal preferences, you are engaging in One True Wayism. That's the definition of One True Wayism.

To me, you're simply adding a pretty textbook example of how people try to bludgeon other gamers into falling in line using the Canon Bat.

 

[Hussar]

For myself, my dislike for this had nothing to do with Planescape ( I strongly dislike Planescape). To me, it felt like an unnecessary change made for change sake and affected other settings going back to 1e. If the designers had left the default Succubus as a demon and created a setting specific variant for the 4e setting that sat alongside the demon version, the change would not have bothered me.

So, this is why the 5e Succubus gets the pass? Succubi are no longer demons or devils, but rather just generic "fiends" that can serve anyone.

Now, here's a question. Is that an addition or a change?

 

[ccs]

Blurg? My entire reason for disliking Planescape can be pretty much covered in the whole "people trying to force others to play the one true way"

I mean, the reason we can't have fifteen different versions of vrocks, for example, is because of PS canon.

You know, I'm OK with but 1 flavor of vrock per edition.
If you want to claim that's because of some 20some year old product that I judged as "meh" & have ignored ever since? OK, whatever works for you. Me? I'm just happy that the designers aren't wasting time & page count detailing Red Vrocks, Blue Vrocks, etc etc etc.

 

[Maxperson]

Ok, @Maxperson, I've got a couple of minutes, so, I'll lay out my evidence and see what you think.

You claim that @pemerton's addition of the Wizards of High Sorcery to Greyhawk is a poor GMing decision (it's been a few pages, so, I'm not 100% sure on the quote, but, I believe that's correct in essence). Now, why do you claim that? Is it because WoHS thematically don't fit in Greyhawk? Well, that doesn't seem to be the issue, and, frankly, adding a cabal of moon worshipping wizards that draw power from the existing moons plus a moon only they can see, that hunts down other wizards to establish their dominance in the land seems a pretty decent fit to the setting AFAIC. Is it that WoHS have mechanical issues? Are they too powerful for the setting? Well, again, that doesn't seem to be the issue. The mechanics for WoHS seem pretty balanced on the whole, so, not seeing a problem here.

I've already said more than once that the name Wizards of High Sorcery evokes images and thoughts of Krynn, which when on Greyhawk can cause issues. That's the reason, not canon.

Now, does it also mess up canon? Yes. Adding something from another setting messes up canon, but it's okay to mess with canon. I've never said messing with canon is a bad thing. I've just said that if you mess with it too much, the setting ceases to be the canon setting and becomes an alternate universe, which I've also said is fine.

No, the issue is that he's made a poor GMing decision based solely on your personal preference for setting canon.

Incorrect.

You are telling him, in no uncertain terms, that he is flat out wrong to add this to the setting, that adding this to the setting breaks the setting, based on nothing other than your personal preferences.

It changes the setting. It might, depending on the player make it no longer Greyhawk, but rather an alternate Greyhawk universe.

Now, how is this not one true wayism? How is this not trying to use canon to force other people to game the way you want to game?

Because I'm not telling him to change it, or even that he should change it. Having an opinion on good or bad is not the same as trying to get someone else to change their game. It's also not "trying to use canon" at all, since canon isn't the reason I think it was likely a poor DMing decision. Canon is a separate issue.

 

[Maxperson]

So, this is why the 5e Succubus gets the pass? Succubi are no longer demons or devils, but rather just generic "fiends" that can serve anyone.

Now, here's a question. Is that an addition or a change?

It's a change from previous editions, but since canon is different from edition to edition, the change is still canon.

 

[Maxperson]

You know, I'm OK with but 1 flavor of vrock per edition.
If you want to claim that's because of some 20some year old product that I judged as "meh" & have ignored ever since? OK, whatever works for you. Me? I'm just happy that the designers aren't wasting time & page count detailing Red Vrocks, Blue Vrocks, etc etc etc.

Yeah. I'd rather have 6 types of demons, than 1 type of demon repeated 6 slightly different ways.

 

[cbwjm]

For myself, my dislike for this had nothing to do with Planescape ( I strongly dislike Planescape). To me, it felt like an unnecessary change made for change sake and affected other settings going back to 1e. If the designers had left the default Succubus as a demon and created a setting specific variant for the 4e setting that sat alongside the demon version, the change would not have bothered me.

I don't think I ever really paid attention to this, it's actually quite a change to see how the succubus and erinyes have evolved. In 2e, they used to have similar roles with the succubus serving the demons and the erinyes serving the devils. Then 3e happened, and the erinyes were described more as warriors, though they retained a charm ability, both remained the same with respect to demon/devil. I probably saw this in 4e but may not have given it any note, but they fully embraced erinyes as warriors and the succubus was moved to devil, they are described as a tempter which is often spoken of more in regard to devils instead of demons so it kind of makes sense. Now, in 5e, the erinyes is still a warrior fighting for the devils, but the succubi serve whomever they want.

Currently I haven't used either in my game. I'm tempted to revert the changes back to 2e or maybe I will keep it as is in 5e. It's likely though that neither will really get any use in my current campaign.