Succubi are now devils (or, stop the madness!)


4th Edition

1 to 50 of 236 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

From Rich Baker's blog:
- Devils are angels who rebelled. They rose up against the deity they served and murdered him. The crime of deicide is unimaginably perverse for angels, and hence devils were cursed and imprisoned in the Nine Hells.
- The Nine Hells are what became of the murdered deity's divine realm after his death. The Hells are the devils' prison, and it is difficult for them to get out without mortal aid.
- We've re-sorted demons and devils a bit, since we want these two categories of monsters to make a little more sense. Devils tend to be more humanoid in form, usually fight with weapons, and often wear armor. Most have horns, wings, and tails. One consequence of this: the erinyes and the succubus were holding down pretty similar territory, so we've decided that they're the same monster, called the succubus, and it's a devil.
- Ice devils don't look like other devils. We've decided that they are actually a demonic/yugoloth race... one that was entrapped by Mephistopheles long ago in an infernal contract. So ice devils hate other devils, retain their insect-like appearance, and have a special loyalty to Mephistopheles. It's one of the reasons why Asmodeus has never chosen to move against Mephistopheles. Asmodeus would of course win if he did, but that would let the ice devils out of their contract.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

<sigh>


Interesting. I wish he'd said a bit more about demons in this, and the Blood War. I have to admit that combining erinyes and succubi makes sense from the perspective given, though I'll always prefer my succubi to be chaotic evil thank-you-very-much. It also adds to the politics of the Hells, always a good thing.


Lathiira wrote:
Interesting. I wish he'd said a bit more about demons in this, and the Blood War. I have to admit that combining erinyes and succubi makes sense from the perspective given, though I'll always prefer my succubi to be chaotic evil thank-you-very-much. It also adds to the politics of the Hells, always a good thing.

I wonder if devils and demons will no longer be lawful/chaotic always.


While I think the story elements sound very cool for the reason of devils existence, it really shows how much "traditional" stuff they are changing. Are they going to completely retcon the way the planes work? I understand that they're creating a new "generic" campaign setting, and still going with good old Faerun, and the dastardly Ebberon. I'm curious though, if there is still going to be a through line to the planes in the generic setting, or if they're are going to completely throw out what came before story wise. Will there still be a Great Wheel? The City of Doors? the Outlands? If yes, how many changes will come to the beings that exsist there? Is Asmodeus the god the same guy who's Asmodeus Lord of the Nine Hells?
If they get rid of alignment restriction for the different outsider types (the idea strikes me as strange) then is the Blood War still being fought?
I know these questions are ones that I will just have to wait for the answer to, but I'm still asking them.
It might prove interesting... but then again, it might not.


Hm . . . almost completely (98%) convinced that the "flavor" of 4th edition is going to drive me out of the whole deal.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Nice. It always irritated me that succubi were demons in the first place.


I like some of the 4.0 changes.

This one...not so much.

The Exchange

DaveMage wrote:

I like some of the 4.0 changes.

This one...not so much.

Same here.


Personally I rather liked the way in which the Demonic and Devilish dichotomy was laid out in the Fiendish Codex books. It made for a good mythology.

Still, the "fluff" of the game is rather easy to override on the part of the DM. This is especially true for those of us who run campaigns in our home-brew worlds. At least this is one instance in which our current 3.x books will still be useful if flavor changes in 4th Ed prove distasteful...


I can deal with Succubi flip flopping to baator, especially if its described well as some sort of planar deep cover conspiracy thing. Succubi spies in the Abyss for eons, and they never knew!

This definitely strikes me as an attempt to bring a more fluid logic to D&Ds monsters. The whole "devils are more humanoid, demons aren't" strikes me as making it easier for new players to recognize what brand of monster they are fighting. Not a bad thing, but definitely something that can alienate Old Schoolers if not handled correctly.

Considering that the Fiendish Codex 2 gave some interesting "myths" as to the origin of the Nine Hells and the Baatezu, this could be more of the same. I love the Planescape lore, but I think that despite how much we cry for it WotC isn't going to lean on it very heavily. No yugoloth conspiracies, no baernoloths.

Then again, they made an exception for ice devils and specifically mentioned Yugoloths. Maybe... just maybe...


I think with the supposed 4e de-emphasis on alignment, they needed to differentiate the fiends in some other, "better" way. Personally, I don't really care about these changes too much.


I do, but at the same time, I honestly think that their market research has already factored me out. They could still do well without me, so I'm not going to try and say that its wrong of them, but its a little sad and frustrating.

Liberty's Edge

I am of two minds here.

On one hand I don't care about the change that much. If Greyhawk is no longer the default setting it might stand to reason the Great Wheel is changing as well. Of course, it also stands to reason the Great Wheel doesn't exist at all.

On the other hand I rather liked the baseline assumptions of the Great Wheel and I thought Planescape (and products that came before) did a nice job creating a reason why everything worked the way it did. Sometimes it was artificial but sometimes it worked like a charm. I also don't particularly like the idea that the designers *appear* to have just rejected a good deal of the "canon" that was recently released in Fiendish Codex II.

And, as my mind swings back to the other position, I never put much stock in canon anyway. I am up on it and all that but my games rarely follow it.

Besides my cosmology of choice for the last few years has been a variation on Malhavoc's Beyond Countless Doorways so distinctions like demon and devil have meant very little to me. Even less so since I have been running a regular Ptolus game.

I guess am trying to balance impending change with years of tradition. Perhaps it is simply nostalgia. I don't know.

Of course, this is not an impending toll of doom for the new edition or the "assumed setting". This is not the death knell of the Great Wheel. In the end, I will use the fluff I find is most appropriate for my setting of choice.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

I hope this means that the planes in general will get a *cough* de-suckification. There's a lot of janky, old-school crap (ysgard, ghenna, beastlands, outlands) in the outer planes, a few gems (e.g., the abyss, the nine hells, mechanus, limbo, seven heavens), and a few fixer up-ers (acheron, pandemonium).

Of course, I really wouldn't mind if they tinkered with the inner planes and brought back the inner/quasi planes, but I'm willing to bet that those are unnecessarily complicated to be worth the time...


Oh *hell* no. Oh *all nine of the hells* no.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Personally? I really hate this. It's disrespectful of the past 30 years of D&D devil/demon tradition, for one thing. For another, it invalidates a lot of the Fiendish Codex I and the Demonomicon and a lot of other stuff I've worked on. It's hard for me not to feel insulted a little by this decision.

Plus, I suspect it's going to create a barrier for established D&D players that didn't need to exist.


I'll add that, I don't mind succubus and eninyes having nearly or identical stats, and just putting "variant succubi: erinyes are the devil equivalents to succubi, and have identical stats except..."

And I have no problem with "sages have theorized that the nine hells started by..." but the origin of the multiverse is supposed to be a mystery. Honestly, my opinion of fourth edition just shifted from "cautiously optimistic" to "Dejected"


James Jacobs wrote:
Personally? I really hate this. It's disrespectful of the past 30 years of D&D devil/demon tradition, for one thing.

I agree completely. There may be room to improve the mechanics of the game, but they shouldn't be changing flavor like this.


James Jacobs wrote:

Personally? I really hate this. It's disrespectful of the past 30 years of D&D devil/demon tradition, for one thing. For another, it invalidates a lot of the Fiendish Codex I and the Demonomicon and a lot of other stuff I've worked on. It's hard for me not to feel insulted a little by this decision.

Plus, I suspect it's going to create a barrier for established D&D players that didn't need to exist.

Thanks James . . . I needed to hear that I'm not just some old cranky pants that doesn't "get" it.


James Jacobs wrote:
For another, it invalidates a lot of the Fiendish Codex I and the Demonomicon and a lot of other stuff I've worked on. It's hard for me not to feel insulted a little by this decision.

You should feel proud of the work you did on Fiendish Codex I, James. It's the best fluff book WotC published in the 3.0/3.5 era.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

James Jacobs wrote:

Personally? I really hate this. It's disrespectful of the past 30 years of D&D devil/demon tradition, for one thing. For another, it invalidates a lot of the Fiendish Codex I and the Demonomicon and a lot of other stuff I've worked on. It's hard for me not to feel insulted a little by this decision.

Plus, I suspect it's going to create a barrier for established D&D players that didn't need to exist.

With no disrespect to your excellent fiend-related work, is this that big of a deal? IIRC, goblins or orcs or one of the humanoid races got an alignment change from 2e to 3e (from LE to CE). It seems like everyone was very upset at the time but now it just seems natural. Why is having the succubi be chaotic so central to its identity? Or is it the larger issue of having the devils be former angels that causes the heartburn?

I see this as part of a revision of the Great Wheel, which is something that has been wonky and old school for too long. I've seen on other threads you and Erik posting in defense of the Great Wheel and, though this is somewhat off the current topic, I'd be interested knowing what the appeal is to you other than tradition. The GW doesn't map very well to alignments (there are multiple planes for some alignments and not others), there is a lot of redundancy between planes, and they fail in their primary task of being the place from which gods hail (why would a lawful neutral god like (IIRC) Boccob be on the machine plane of Mechanus? What's Loki doing in pandemonium? How does a lawful evil god do anything without stepping on the toes of 16 devil lords).


James Jacobs wrote:
Plus, I suspect it's going to create a barrier for established D&D players that didn't need to exist.

I agree with the barrier being thrown up for established players. While I think it's an interesting take on devils, it just doesn't seem like the D&D cosmology at all to me.

The Fiendish Codex's I & II had a nice flavor, great mythology, and fit in very well with what came before their release.
This feels like a third party publisher releasing material for their own campaign setting (don't get me wrong, I love third party publishers) but not something canon D&D.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

James Jacobs wrote:

Personally? I really hate this. It's disrespectful of the past 30 years of D&D devil/demon tradition, for one thing. For another, it invalidates a lot of the Fiendish Codex I and the Demonomicon and a lot of other stuff I've worked on. It's hard for me not to feel insulted a little by this decision.

Plus, I suspect it's going to create a barrier for established D&D players that didn't need to exist.

It does seem to lend itself to this joke.

Spoiler:
Just to add insult to injury, the title to the cartoon is 207 Now If Only We Could Organize the Fiends Somehow.

And I agree. Tolkienesque Trolls, Horny Dragons and now lawful succubi/sex machines. Why the flavour change?


Having thought about it a bit, I guess the change with succubi comes to this. Succubi go out and seduce people. Fine. Do they do it for pure pleasure? Do they do it because they enjoy twisting the souls of their victims? Is it part of a bigger plan, a plan to use those corrupted souls? If the revised succubus is out there doing her thing to gather souls for some nefarious purpose, then I can understand a change to a lawful alignment: they become part of the system in the Hells. But if they're corrupting mens' souls just because they can and like to show their power over puny little mortals, then they seem more chaotic. Of course, without knowing how alignment will be affected by 4E, it's hard to say if the change will make much difference or not. And I can always start handing out ropes of entanglement to my succubi anyway.

My question is this: Where does this leave the Blood War? What about the Demon Princes? I guess time will tell. I agree with Sebastian that some of the Great Wheel could use a bit of cleanup, but now I admit I'm a little intrigued by what they're doing over there at WOTC. Then again, I loved Planescape and have enjoyed wandering the outer planes since before the release of Tales of the Outer Planes. Come to think of it, I've still got my old Manual of the Planes around her somewhere . . .


James Jacobs wrote:

Personally? I really hate this. It's disrespectful of the past 30 years of D&D devil/demon tradition, for one thing. For another, it invalidates a lot of the Fiendish Codex I and the Demonomicon and a lot of other stuff I've worked on. It's hard for me not to feel insulted a little by this decision.

Plus, I suspect it's going to create a barrier for established D&D players that didn't need to exist.

You shall now be forgotten in the sands of time. But until we all die, your evil shall burn brightly.

Hey, maybe you'll get some more work out of it.

Contributor

::sigh::
My wife just bought me Fiendish Codex II to finish the set for my birthday last month. Great. Another one of my books invalidated...


James Jacobs wrote:

Personally? I really hate this. It's disrespectful of the past 30 years of D&D devil/demon tradition, for one thing. For another, it invalidates a lot of the Fiendish Codex I and the Demonomicon and a lot of other stuff I've worked on. It's hard for me not to feel insulted a little by this decision.

Plus, I suspect it's going to create a barrier for established D&D players that didn't need to exist.

What he said. In spades.

It seems to me that WotC is on the warpath against all things related to old school D&D. I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but they've already gotten rid of Greyhawk, Vancian magic, and tons of other things that those of us who have been around for years have always counted on. Now they're even screwing with the Great Wheel. Sure, there have always been elements of the game that needed work, but why not just put out alternate material? Why is it necessary to do away with the old stuff?

Whatever happened to that "the game remains the same" crap from their promo video? Obviously, the game does NOT remain the same.

And all this before they've even finished writing 4e. Get bent, WotC.

Dark Archive

James Jacobs wrote:

Personally? I really hate this. It's disrespectful of the past 30 years of D&D devil/demon tradition, for one thing. For another, it invalidates a lot of the Fiendish Codex I and the Demonomicon and a lot of other stuff I've worked on. It's hard for me not to feel insulted a little by this decision.

Plus, I suspect it's going to create a barrier for established D&D players that didn't need to exist.

I have yet to hear anything about this new edition that makes me want to go out and buy it. THIS is definitely the straw that broke the camel's back.

I really do wonder what they (WOTC)are doing.
Monte Cook, Ray Vallese, Wolfgang Baur....I wonder what they think about this?


Sebastian wrote:
IIRC, goblins or orcs or one of the humanoid races got an alignment change from 2e to 3e (from LE to CE).

Wait, one of the humanoid races got an alignment change?

I can't think of any one who cared enough to point that out for the switch to 3rd. I am guessing it wasn't that important.

Changing the cosmology however holds a bit more importance though. Icons of Good, Evil, Law and Chaos being switched around holds a certain amount of power.

One of the Evil humanoid races deciding they don't play well with others anymore doesn't even compare.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Sebastian wrote:

With no disrespect to your excellent fiend-related work, is this that big of a deal? IIRC, goblins or orcs or one of the humanoid races got an alignment change from 2e to 3e (from LE to CE). It seems like everyone was very upset at the time but now it just seems natural. Why is having the succubi be chaotic so central to its identity? Or is it the larger issue of having the devils be former angels that causes the heartburn?

I see this as part of a revision of the Great Wheel, which is something that has been wonky and old school for too long. I've seen on other threads you and Erik posting in defense of the Great Wheel and, though this is somewhat off the current topic, I'd be interested knowing what the appeal is to you other than tradition. The GW doesn't map very well to alignments (there are multiple planes for some alignments and not others), there is a lot of redundancy between planes, and they fail in their primary task of being the place from which gods hail (why would a lawful neutral god like (IIRC) Boccob be on the machine plane of Mechanus? What's Loki doing in pandemonium? How does a lawful evil god do anything without stepping on the toes of 16 devil lords).

Yes, it is indeed a big deal. At least to me it is. I like the Great Wheel. A lot.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

James Jacobs wrote:


Yes, it is indeed a big deal. At least to me it is. I like the Great Wheel. A lot.

What do you like about the Great Wheel? Like I said, I can see liking the abyss and the nine hells, but do you really have a soft spot for ysgard? I've never seen a good defense of the Great Wheel and would really like to know what you find so appealing about it.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Sebastian wrote:
What do you like about the Great Wheel? Like I said, I can see liking the abyss and the nine hells, but do you really have a soft spot for ysgard? I've never seen a good defense of the Great Wheel and would really like to know what you find so appealing about it.

It's been part of D&D as long as I have, and I just like all the flavor that's been written about it over the past 30 years. I like Planescape a lot. I like how the 9 planes map to the 9 alignments. I like how it incorperates such a huge range of fantastic mythology with real-world mythology. I just like it. I like how it's built its own set of tradition over the years, while at the same point is infinitely expandable and had plenty of room for every DM's personal touch. I like how it (used to) connects all the D&D worlds, published and home-brewed alike, together, so you can have people from one world visiting other regions. I do, in fact, like Ysgard; I love the idea of Ragnarok and a way to incorperate real-world Nordic myths into D&D. I love how Mechanus/Nirvana is a set of interlocking geers. I love the fact that Gehenna's tilted on its side. I love the fact that animals can talk in the Beastlands/Happy Hunting Grounds. I love the fact that there's room for Egyptian gods, Finnish gods, Mesoamerican gods, Greek gods, Japanese gods, and D&D gods to interact.

I like how it's all inclusive. It allows you to have any kind of D&D stuff you want in your game, but doesn't force you to have stuff you don't like.

And that just scratches the surface.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Thank you. Just one minor quibble.

James Jacobs wrote:


I like how the 9 planes map to the 9 alignments.

There are 17 outer planes. They don't really map to the alignments unless you use a 1e style "neutral with evil tendancies" system.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Sebastian wrote:
There are 17 outer planes. They don't really map to the alignments unless you use a 1e style "neutral with evil tendancies" system.

Correct. What I meant to say (but didn't cause I was typing in a growing fit of self-defense and righteous wrath) was that I like how the 17 planes match up to the 9 alignments.

There's 9 planes that personify the 9 alignments. And there's 8 that sit between those nine and make for really interesting and fun "bleeds" between each alignment that sits next to each other. So you have, say, the Abyss being CHAOTIC EVIL, but then you also have Pandemonium between the Abyss and Limbo, which is a cool Evil plane where chaos is more dominant, and you also have Carceri which is a cool chaotic plane where evil is more dominant.

Scarab Sages

Sebastian wrote:


I've seen on other threads you and Erik posting in defense of the Great Wheel and, though this is somewhat off the current topic, I'd be interested knowing what the appeal is to you other than tradition.

While I know you weren't posting for me here, I felt it needed to be said that your question should be reversed. Not what appeal there is to keep something the way it is, but rather what pressing needs are being addressed by the change.

Sebastion, while this may surprise you, not everyone would agree with you regarding the outer planes - in fact I think many folks would land in the opposite camp. Before you dismiss me as a 4ed hater, I would point out that I have been trying to take a wait and see attitude when it comes to mechanics (regardless of how I hate their business decisions).

However, this strikes me (and apparently, many others) as change for change's sake. Change is not inherently good. I think this one is a poor decision, as this change "breaks" continuity for many of the established players of the game in a not inconsequential way. This is not simply the change of an alignment, its the move of an iconic outsider from their home to the camp of their adversaries for what seems to be paltry cause. If this is indicative of the type of flavor changes they are making, I for one, would be very disappointed.


Come on, welcome this change. How can I be expected to have to deal with two things that look similar, have similar roles but are different. I hope they get rid of either Orcs or Hobgoblins, or either Tigers or Lions I mean really- lame.

Besides there is no way Demons should look like people, I mean come on they are all demony and monstery and stuff. See ya later Grazzt!

Plus anything 4e I love cos it's new and probably shiny.


James Jacobs wrote:


(but didn't cause I was typing in a growing fit of self-defense and righteous wrath)

Is there any other way to type? Seriously.

;)

I am going to say only this: I greatly enjoy the Demonicon articles, and the general backstory on D&D Demons and Devils . . .there is a lore there, a touchstone that threads throughout all the editions of this great game; that being said, I am oddly for the change. I am an experienced gamer as is my group, I can say that this change will have very little effect on our gaming experience, and if done right will make the devil and demon situation a little less convulted, which in my mind is a good thing. I only speak for myself and my experiences, and I am sure (as evidenced by this thread) a great number of people will disagree, but I will stick to my guns that this is not a bad thing. A good thing . . .we will see how they alter it.


This is interesting. So we now know that the implied setting will look favorably on real-world mythological gods like Thor, and that devils will be fallen angels. Oh, and that civilization is mere "points of light in the darkness,"but that there are many ruins in the wilderness from pearlier, more civilized times. This "implied setting" is starting to look more and more like an alternate-world version of the Dark Ages. (And a bit like Golarion.)

Assessed purely on its own merits, I like this. It's easy for newbies to "get," without so much elaborate baggage from 30 years of gaming. It's also a lot like a fantasy "Dark Ages Balkans" I was contemplating recently - one that would draw heavily on fairy tales and the like. The Paizo adventures thus far (D0, D1, and W1) would also fit in very nicely in such a world.

Unfortunately, the Great Wheel is a nearly integral part of the history of D&D. That's a lot of heritage to ask old-timers to abandon. Where does the Wheel fit in their publishing schedule? I thought that the Forgotten Realms used the Wheel, but I gather that recent products have changed that. Is there even a Blood War in Forgotten Realms?


They've been developed over three (and one half) editions, and have been fine tuned to be a cohesive set of realms, fleshed out and ready for adventure. They're letting little ideas quash a successful whole.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Not that there's an objective element to this debate, but, don't you think 17 outer planes is a little much? I'd venture that 75% of campaigns use the abyss and nine hells, 90% add limbo, mechanus, mount celestia, elysium (is that the CG plane?) and the beastlands and call it a day. Very few campaigns do use (or really, could accomodate) all 17 planes. Pandemonium could just as easily be a layer of the abyss. Acheron could just as well be a layer of the nine hells. Etc.

Don't get me wrong, I like acheron and pandemonium quite a lot. I loved the planescape setting. But 17 is just too much of a good thing - there comes to be a lack of focus when you have that many planes.

I'll throw this out there so you can make me look stupid, but I challenge you to sit down and rattle off all the planes and what their basic motif is. I'm not sure I can do it, and to the extent I can, it would take me a while and I'll have to use the alignments to fill in the blanks. I guarantee my players can't do it. They have trouble differentiating the abyss from the nine hells.

Anyway, my feeling is that the planare structure has a whole lot of complexity with very little value. The outer planes have been simplifeid before (e.g., the loss of bonuses for weapons away from their home planes, clerics reaching their gods, etc) and I think they could be simplified further.

I vastly prefer the Eberron planes: broad enough to have the basic themes as the Great Wheel, but interactive with the prime and modeled on planetary motions.


What happens to Malcanthet?


Michael James wrote:
What happens to Malcanthet?

It's on another post. JJ said something to the effect that she is 3.5 and nothing is changed.

But hey, lets wait and see now that she has returned to the Wizards.

And my 2 cents: the planes have always been a mess. Someone needs to clean them up.

Scarab Sages

Sebastian wrote:


I vastly prefer the Eberron planes: broad enough to have the basic themes as the Great Wheel, but interactive with the prime and modeled on planetary motions.

That's fine, and you are completely entitled to your opinions. But that's what homebrew or house rules are for.

And for the record, I often integrate the infinite stairway model into my prime campaigns and have my player knowingly (or not) take short jaunts onto the planes from a very early level. I think that if a DM is just using the Hells and the Abyss because nothing else seems cool to him, he either hasn't taken a good look at the options or lacks in imagination.


~
A solution in search of a problem.

Why mess with something that does not need fixing. You invalidate tons of great source material and backstory on the slim hope of the dubious virtue of something that "fits in" better.

There is a lot of great foundation work in the D&D cosmos on which to build, why not go in this direction? Certainly at the outset, this seems more of a unnecessary/detrimental change to me.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

underling wrote:
Sebastian wrote:


I vastly prefer the Eberron planes: broad enough to have the basic themes as the Great Wheel, but interactive with the prime and modeled on planetary motions.

That's fine, and you are completely entitled to your opinions. But that's what homebrew or house rules are for.

This smug little quote is going to come back to haunt you when 4e comes out and the great wheel is a house rule...


Sebastian wrote:
Not that there's an objective element to this debate, but, don't you think 17 outer planes is a little much?

WORD. I have been gaming for 11 years. I admit that is not as long as many of you 'old-timers', but I have seen my fair share of games, each one varied and fun and predominantly homebrew. We (my regular group and I, played with them since the beginning) have used outer planes twice at most, and even then barely. One was a dungeon that was connected to the elemental plane of water, one was the standard, your buddy died go to hell and save him.

Once again, this is just my style of game, but I am not a big fan of plane-hopping.

Scarab Sages

Sebastian wrote:
underling wrote:


That's fine, and you are completely entitled to your opinions. But that's what homebrew or house rules are for.
This smug little quote is going to come back to haunt you when 4e comes out and the great wheel is a house rule...

That implies I will care what they do with 4ed. That comment wasn't meant to be smug - I was simply aiming for concise. I really do believe that D&D canon has been established to a large extent. Sure, each edition can juggle things around, but if you change too much, at what threshold is it no longer D&D?

EDIT: and your statement also implies that I will regret my statement when the wheel is gone in 4ed. That's silly. I don't regret my words now, and as the changes pile up i'll feel them more. Rather, I'll regret that shortsighted game designers in love with their own cleverness arbitrarily altered a well known product so much that the original is lost in translation.


Sure, 4th Ed is a while away, but if the line of thinking behind "re-releasing D&D" is to slap a different coat of paint on it, then WotC is going to find themselves with either an entirely new audience, or--more likely--no audience at all.

I say "more likely" because D&D is a game that has been more than just a bookshelf product for years. More people I know who play D&D today wanted--and learned how--to play because their friends did. Kind of like one buddy showing another how to play basketball.

But what happens when the company that owns "basketball" decides that the new uniform will include...I don't know, short shorts and suspenders. No real reason is given, and it alters the way that established players view the game. Those players--rightly--chafe at the idea of having to change the way they enjoy their favorite pastime, just because some directive came down the pipe, and, as James Jacobs said (roughly), invalidates over 30 years of tradition and mythology that has developed--or to use the 4E D&D ad-speak "evolved"--into an enjoyable and entertaining realm of fantasy the likes of which no published opus can truly match up to. (Okay, I added a bit of my own opinion at the end.)

Point is, Wizards of the Coast (can this post be forwarded to Mr. Baker?), if it ain't broke, don't fix it! And please show some deference to your demographic/fan base in future D&D-related discussion.


But Sebastian, just how much simplification is good?

You have a point about the complexity of the Great Wheel. One that I, and many others posting, do not agree with - but a point none the less.

But simplification, simply for simplification isn't good.

Maybe this change doesn't qualify and simplification for simplifications sake... But it does start to come close.

I mean your same argument can be used to justify reducing the game to one PC class, and one monster. (Might I suggest Golarion's Goblins?)
There needs to be a good rationale for the change. And so far, as usual, WoTC isn't showing us that.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Sebastian wrote:
Not that there's an objective element to this debate, but, don't you think 17 outer planes is a little much?

I obviously don't. A campaign doesn't NEED to have all of its outer planes interact with any particular adventure or campaign, after all. 17 is not an arbitrary number. As I said in my last post, it breaks down pretty well and pretty elegantly, in a way that all 17 are justified. I happen to really like the way they do that.

In my own view, here's the role those 17 play in D&D games I run, or when I'm developing/editing an adventrue and the outer planes get referenced:

1) Seven Heavens: Pinacle of law and good; where archons come from, and a realm where everything is "perfect" and without flaw.
2) Bytopia (aka the Twin Paradises): Cool realm where up is down and down is up; look up to see the other realm above; it's the home turf of gnomes.
3) Arcadia: Place for lots of dwarves to hang out, realm of the einheriar.
4) Mechanus: Clockwork plane of ultimate law; realm of the modrons
5) Elysium: Realm of ultimate good, the ultimate "do what feels good" realm, where most of the angels are most at home (since their good spans Law through Chaos); where guardinals come from.
6) Arborea: The pinacle of chaos and good; eladrins and elves, debauchery and beauty, passion and happiness
7) Beastlands: Realm of nature and purity of the wilds; a good version of a world without civilization
8) Ysgard: Closest to the material plane in content, but everything here is BIGGER and MORE POWERFUL; although nominally good, chaos gets in the way, vikings and giants for the win
9) Nine Hells: Dante's inerno; where the devils come from
10) Acheron: An eternal battlefield where the breakdown of law begets evil, a realm of constant war
11) Gehenna: The most classically "hellish" of the lower planes, a realm of constant toil an ddanger, a realm for the yugoloths to stage their tinkerings with Hell
12) Limbo: The primal chaos, the big bang, the place where it all begins and ends, and a place for slaadi to live (although why Frog People are the chaotic neutral exemplar race I'm not sure... but I still like them nonetheless)
13) Hades: Purest evil; the classic underworld where the dead go; and the source of the yugoloths
14) The Abyss: The paragon of chaos and evil, a place that is overwhelming in both its scope and the variety of its denizens; the place where demons come from
15) Carceri) A prison plane; a place to send the crimnals and exiles and losers of wars in the outer planes to keep them set aside; the homeland of the demodands.
16) Pandemonium: Ruinous eternal underground, place of madness and insanity and extreeme conditions, what happens when pure chaos of Limbo goes bad
17) Concordant Opposition: the realm where the previous sixteen blend together, a melting pot of everything, and the hub of the entire multiverse on which is balanced the city of Sigil.

Players certainly can't keep them straight. In my experience, most players have touble keeping the current adventure's plot straight. Players play D&D for different reasons than GMs do, though, so it doesn't matter if most players can't or don't care about the planes.

I really don't like the Eberron planes, (SHOCK!), but I wouldn't advocate changing how they work in the next version of the campaign setting, because that'd just annoy fans of that setting.

1 to 50 of 236 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Succubi are now devils (or, stop the madness!) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.