Seeing how 4th edition might shake up the AP, check out Rich Baker's latest blog: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=906386#post13606231
Now, I am a bit concerned about what will happen to the more-or-less humanoid grazz't.
Me too. He's my favorite and definently wouldn't be as cool as a devil. Devils seem to overlap a lot and demons seem more diverse. However, they still need that betrayel, deception, hedonism aspect dealt with which leads to Grazz't.
|
Seeing how 4th edition might shake up the AP, check out Rich Baker's latest blog: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=906386#post13606231
Yeah, the effects on the STAP are one of the first things I thought of. I don't like it, because this change, and what it implies they're willing to do with outsiders and the Outer Planes in general, will make it even more difficult to adapt Planescape for 4e than for 3e (which wasn't actually that hard).
I don't care for anything I've read on that blog, If that's what I have to look forward to on 4e NO THANX!!! Just sounds like a bunch of ridiculous changes to classic monsters. Why do they have to screw with Demons and Devils? It was just fine the way It was! What do you guys think of this blog, maybe I am just freakin' out to early?
DAve
Creative Director
|
Malcanthet's still 3rd edition, so she's still a demon. Her role in Savage Tide and her relationship with the rest of everything just doesn't work if she's not in the Abyss.
I've personally no interest in rebuilding her as a devil, so as far as I'm concerned, she (and her succubi) are remaining demons in my games, no matter what edition I'm playing.
(And yes—I think that switching succubi to devils and getting rid of erinyes is a really bad idea.)
Now, I am a bit concerned about what will happen to the more-or-less humanoid grazz't.
Graz'zt has been my favorite since he first appeared. Malcanthet has become a new favorite as well. I'm wondering what will become of these two. If succubi are now all LE, and Malcanthet is the Queen of Succubi, by default then it sounds like she's LE. But in the FCII, Glasya has more or less been running the erinyes for a while. And I like the Princess of Hell just fine as well. Merging the two would be one idea, but not one I enjoy. Ah, I'm rambling. Overall I'm just wondering about this. I do note that Graz'zt has been described as having the cunning/guile/patience of a devil the last few times I've looked at him, so I'm wondering how much foreshadowing that will turn out to be.
|
This is the straw that broke the back of my "4e interest" camel. They're just making way too many changes just for the sake of making changes. I hope Paizo can stay with 3.5e and still stay profitable. I'd really hate to have to bother to learn WotC's apparently bass-ackwards system just to keep up with the latest and greatest OGL content.
|
|
The thing this blog told me that I don't want to hear about 4th ed., is they aren't respecting the history and tradition of the game. There are sacred cows in D&D. If those cows are touched, then it just isn't D&D anymore, no matter how streamlined it is or how many shiny new toys it offers. They are blowing the pooch on this. I would love to know what yutz it was that came up with the idea of making Ice Devils into Yugoloths, and then making all seductive evil female outsiders in Succubii, that are now Devils? What crack were these people smoking when they pulled this garbage out of their arses. Terrible terrible news. Why not just change the name of the game all together. They can call it "Wizards of the Coast's Lame Attempt at Making a Totally Different Game out of the Greatest RPG Ever Invented Just Because We Can and You Can't Do Anything About It". What were these guys thinking? What's next, no beholders or mind flayers or drow?
Meh. I'm just fine with Planescape *not* being the core cosmology. By the end of 2E Planescape was made a torturous mess of metaplot, PC deprotagonization, and incoherency. The distinction between demon and devil always ways essentially arbitrary, and Planescape filed down anything that you could make of it into essentially two competing football teams that fought but never accomplished anything.
Look, nothing wrong with having goofy elements in your game. Spelljammer was cool, and Planescape can be played in such a way that makes it cool. I don't think, however, that such an idiosyncratic campaign setting should be the DEFAULT setting for D&D.
If and when Planescape is released for 4E, succubi will be back to being demons again, and the setting will overrule the default Monster Manual stuff -- but ONLY when you're playing in that setting. Just like how in Eberron the various fiend subtypes don't politely line up according to football team, and that setting overruled the default 3E Monster Manual stuff, which was stealth Planescape through and through.
Mind you, none of this is even vaguely relevant to the Savage Tide adventure path, since the STAP is set in a version of Greyhawk that is part of the Great Wheel, and setting information overrules the defaults by definition. Of course, that means that some of us have to make our own conversions, because we consider the metaplot inherited from 2E to be a liability rather than a strength.
|
Meh. I'm just fine with Planescape *not* being the core cosmology.
As far as I understand it (and I stand to be corrected), the Great Wheel cosmology was established well before Planescape came out. Planescape changed some names, and defined (or muddied, depending on your point of view) certain things about how and why things worked, but essentially left the cosmology largely unchanged.
I'd always thought the current cosmology evolved back in the 1st edition Greyhawk days.
|
Creative Director
|
As far as I understand it (and I stand to be corrected), the Great Wheel cosmology was established well before Planescape came out. Planescape changed some names, and defined (or muddied, depending on your point of view) certain things about how and why things worked, but essentially left the cosmology largely unchanged.
I'd always thought the current cosmology evolved back in the 1st edition Greyhawk days.
Correct. The Great Wheel's been around almost as long as D&D, whereas Planescape came along near the end of 2nd edition.
Now, I am a bit concerned about what will happen to the more-or-less humanoid grazz't.
Considering that he's about to get a Demonomicon article in October, I think he's safe. :)
Pit Fiends get traded to the demons, since they are all scaly and naturally armored, and usually fight with their claws, tails, and bite. Balors get traded to the devils since they more humanoid and they are known for carrying swords and whips, plus the Abyss threw in a rookie outsider to be named later and a first round draft pick from 5th edition.
|
Pit Fiends get traded to the demons, since they are all scaly and naturally armored, and usually fight with their claws, tails, and bite. Balors get traded to the devils since they more humanoid and they are known for carrying swords and whips, plus the Abyss threw in a rookie outsider to be named later and a first round draft pick from 5th edition.
Damn! This is really going to screw up my Fantasy Fighting League.
Yeah I know . . . especially since the Slaadi just went free agent.
Personally I don't worry about this kind of thing--I take what I want from game systems and usually have my own houserules every time I do a new campaign after talking it over with my players.
My game setting currently is mostly based on mythology and I fitted in the demons and devils to that. If the game stuff suits it then fine, if not I dump it.
I guess I can understand the desire to want to 'tidy up' little bits of canon to give a more logical and over-arching framework for monster design - you know, why creatures do what they do and look like the look like. If I was making a new game this is exactly what I would do, which is one of the advantages of making a new game.
But this isn't a new game, its a game with a long and twisted history, and while it might not be as neat and tidy as a new game, it also comes with its own benefits as well. One of those benefits is that people who play the game don't care that Gelugon don't look like other Devils. They don't look for an explanation because they know that they've been around since the 1st edition MM (whith that cool little drawing by DAT).
I know this is just a blog and the changes aren't being dealt with as carefully as in a press release but if someone is going to sneak into my apartment at night and change all my coke for pepsi I want a better explanation than 'they went better with your decor'.
I'm being reactionary, but dude, they're messing with my succubi!
|
I love almost every change I've seen so far. Consolidating our evil outsiders is a good streamlining process. From what I understand, they're changing some of the things in D&D not just for the sake of change, but in order to make things better. Just because you might think it's all just changing things for the sake of change doesn't make that so. There's probably a lot of market research showing that having so many different substrata of evil outsiders/elves/dwarves/whatever is a stumbling block for new entrants into the hobby.
I'm not worried about 4e's effect on Paizo's previous APs, just like I'm not worried about 4e's effect on Return to the Keep on the Borderlands or Expedition to the Ruins of Castle Greyhawk. They're adventures from a different edition, what does it matter the current rule set?
-JLA
just how is making succubi switch their home-base to the nine hells making things better ? That is just "change for changes sake", but nothing beneficial, and not even close to an improvement.
If they rework the way magic and saves work (especially at high levels ) , or revamp the classes (to make them ore or less attractive ), that is something else...
This is just "pimp my game"....
Oh, and what makes you assume that WotC is actually doing market research ? And since when has market research actually imrpoved a product, in contrast to making it more sellable (which is anything but "better", whatever advertisments to try to tell you )
And asking who ? You speculation is just..... whistling in the woods ?
Look, there's no good reason to have two evil porn queens in the 4.0 MMI. The only reason we've EVER had both the succubus and the erinyes in the same monster manual in any edition is because the cheesecake sells books. Succubus is a better name for a seduction fiend since "erinyes" actually describes a radically different sort of mythological creature, and the devils with their "Faustian corruptor" theme are thematically more in need of a seduction fiend to tempt mortals into lust than the demons with their "primeval id" theme. So unless you want to be completely subservient to the intrusive Planescape metaplot, renaming the seduction devil as a succubus is really the best way to go.
There'll undoubtedly be a new erinyes in the MMII or MMIII, and the demons and the yugoloths will undoubtedly get their own cheesecake fiends at some point too. As long as gamers like staring at skimpily clothed and suggestively posed females, you can be absolutely certain of this. It'll just take a little longer and the name might be slightly different. If you want to use your old 1E-3E fluff, literally all you have to do is mentally replace references to erinyes with the 4E succubus and mentally replace references to succubus to the 4E Tentacle Rape Demon (with the Steal Mortal Skin feat so it can pass as human). Trivially accomplished.
As long as gamers like staring at skimpily clothed and suggestively posed females
I'm doing my part.
Mike McArtor is doing his part, too.
...so, now when someone spills blood of his own family, he gets chased by a succubus instead of erinye? That is a bit odd...
Oh, and what makes you assume that WotC is actually doing market research ?
Has anyone ever answered survey questions for WotC?
Haven't you ever heard the saying, "Everyone lies on a survey?"
No, I really do make about 500 grand a year....
Has anyone ever answered survey questions for WotC?
Oh, and what makes you assume that WotC is actually doing market research ?
I have, several times, but I must not be indicative of the people they polled, or they did do their research and decided to do the things they wanted to anyway (then again, I don't remember ever answering a question about getting rid of erinyes or making succubi into devils).
|
|
...so, now when someone spills blood of his own family, he gets chased by a succubus instead of erinye? That is a bit odd...
After checking every Monster Manual I could find with an entry for Erinyes (that's singular and plural, like sheep), I couldn't find a reference to that particular mythological imperative.
I'm also pretty sure that devils wouldn't give two shakes if you spilled the blood of your own family; unless you had some sort of Faustian Pact with that as a clause.
-JLA
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
After checking every Monster Manual I could find with an entry for Erinyes (that's singular and plural, like sheep), I couldn't find a reference to that particular mythological imperative.I'm also pretty sure that devils wouldn't give two shakes if you spilled the blood of your own family; unless you had some sort of Faustian Pact with that as a clause.
-JLA
Broaden your horizons and pick up a book on Greek/Roman Mythology. Not only will you get some great adventure ideas, but you'll learn about the origins of quite a few monsters from the MMs.
Here's an entry about the Erinyes (or Furies):
Furies or Erinyes (çrĭn´ç-çz) , in Greek and Roman religion and mythology, are three daughters of Mother Earth, conceived from the blood of Uranus when Kronos castrated him. They were powerful divinities that personified conscience and punished crimes against kindred blood, especially matricide. They were usually represented as winged women with serpent hair. Their names were Megaera [jealous], Tisiphone [blood avenger], and Alecto [unceasing in pursuit]. When called upon to act, they hounded their victims until they died in a "furor" of madness or torment. In the myth of Orestes they appear as Clytemnestra's agents of revenge. After Athena absolved Orestes of guilt in the murder of his mother, she gave the Furies a grotto at Athens where they received sacrifices and libations, and became euphemistically known as the Eumenides [kindly ones].
If you want to use *actual mythology* for your stories, then you have even more reason to support the new succubus. The D&D monster known as the erinyes in previous editions is nothing like the erinyes in actual mythology.
With the 4E succubus no longer camping the erinyes name, maybe we'll get another monster more mythologically appropriate. Although still with maximum cheesecake.
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
If you want to use *actual mythology* for your stories, then you have even more reason to support the new succubus. The D&D monster known as the erinyes in previous editions is nothing like the erinyes in actual mythology.
With the 4E succubus no longer camping the erinyes name, maybe we'll get another monster more mythologically appropriate. Although still with maximum cheesecake.
I do enjoy my cheesecake...
Ugh, this is ridiculous. The more I hear about 4E, the more I hate it. WotC is really trying to kill the tabletop game as we know. It's turned into a half-MMORPG/half-butchered sacred cow game with just the D&D label slapped on it.
So, do you guys at Paizo have any clue as to how many more sacred cows Nazi...I mean...WotC are planning to slaughter?
Paladins aren't lawful good anymore, demons and devils are being toned down, gnomes getting the boot, four classes getting the boot, beholders have 9 eyestalks, spell levels go from 1st to 25th, combat takes 1, maybe 2, rounds to finish, the entire multiverse is being re-structured (again!), the editions of the game aren't compatible and impossible to convert...the roots of the game are being pulled out now.
I mean, come on people. Are you seriously going to eat up everything WotC says and throws at you? Haven't you had enough of their shenannigans already? Even the veteran D&D designers that have long been laid off or quit the company have been saying these are all very bad moves. Trying to make tabletop gaming compete with World of Warcraft is plain stupid, it's never going to happen and they need to stop trying...and to stop destroying D&D's roots in the process.
And then what are you gonna say when they announce 5th Edition in 5 years?
D&D is not a CCG
D&D is not software program to patch and change editions
D&D is not just theirs to mess with
Stop bowing down to these morons at WotC and giving in to their demands.
/rant
I love almost every change I've seen so far. Consolidating our evil outsiders is a good streamlining process. From what I understand, they're changing some of the things in D&D not just for the sake of change, but in order to make things better. Just because you might think it's all just changing things for the sake of change doesn't make that so. There's probably a lot of market research showing that having so many different substrata of evil outsiders/elves/dwarves/whatever is a stumbling block for new entrants into the hobby.
I'm not worried about 4e's effect on Paizo's previous APs, just like I'm not worried about 4e's effect on Return to the Keep on the Borderlands or Expedition to the Ruins of Castle Greyhawk. They're adventures from a different edition, what does it matter the current rule set?
-JLA
There are ways to make a game better without destroying its core and elements. Maybe they need to stop "dumbing" the game down for those too unfocused or possess the lack of intelligence to know the rules and different idioms in D&D for the sake of profit. It's a known fact tabletop will never compete with things like WoW or FFXI...unless you turn the game itself into an MMORPG also...which is what they're almost doing.
Grazt would do well as a devil that jumped ship, betrayed hell, and moved into the Abyss. Technically, a devil. In all the ways that matter, a demon.
You could treat the major player succubi the same way.
Here's an entry about the Erinyes (or Furies):
The Erynies of D&D are from Dante, not Greek myth. Sure, Dante drew on Greek myths, but his Erynies were definitely devils, and I think that's why they are devils in D&D.
If you used the Greek Erynies, then they'd be demons, and not sexy at all. Which is how I'd do. So succubi/incubi are seductive devils, erynies are ugly demon hags. But then, we already have night hags. The planar population really could use some straightening out.
I wish they'd do something similar with the evil humanoids; there are just too many types. Its more like tribes than species.
There are ways to make a game better without destroying its core and elements.
I for one like most of what I hear about 4E, and I DEFINITELY like that they lower the complexity. And 3.5 will still be there for hardcore complexity fans, it just won't have any official support. In the olden days we had D&D and AD&D, but I can see why WOTC don't want to split the customer base like that.
I for one like most of what I hear about 4E, and I DEFINITELY like that they lower the complexity. And 3.5 will still be there for hardcore complexity fans, it just won't have any official support. In the olden days we had D&D and AD&D, but I can see why WOTC don't want to split the customer base like that.
If a large number of long-time gamers decide to "sit out" 4e and wait for 5e, haven't they split the customer base anyway?
I for one like most of what I hear about 4E, and I DEFINITELY like that they lower the complexity. And 3.5 will still be there for hardcore complexity fans, it just won't have any official support. In the olden days we had D&D and AD&D, but I can see why WOTC don't want to split the customer base like that.If a large number of long-time gamers decide to "sit out" 4e and wait for 5e, haven't they split the customer base anyway?
No, that's pretty ridiculous. '3.5 for the hardcore complexity fans'?
3.5 was a massive simplification of the rules complexity of earlier editions.
And you can simplify without being destructive of older editions' story. For instance, removing the succubus from the MM and keeping the erinyes a devil based in seduction would have the exact same effect as this move, except that people would only wonder where succubi went.
And still be mad, btw, because the reasoning for any of this boneheaded move is lame and tenuous. But they'd only be mad that succubi were gone, not that they'd suddenly switched sides in contradiction to everything from the past. And that the erinyes are gone.
|
Creative Director
|
And you can simplify without being destructive of older editions' story. For instance, removing the succubus from the MM and keeping the erinyes a devil based in seduction would have the exact same effect as this move, except that people would only wonder where succubi went.
And still be mad, btw, because the reasoning for any of this boneheaded move is lame and tenuous. But they'd only be mad that succubi were gone, not that they'd suddenly switched sides in contradiction to everything from the past. And that the erinyes are gone.
And most importantly, this option wouldn't have burnt any bridges. If, 3 years or so down the line, they decide that it wasn't a good idea after all, they could just bring back the succubus in a new Monster Manual. But by switching her role and dumping the erinyes, they can't do that as easilly.
This Succubus Devil thing is just a bad idea. I don't know what Rich was thinking since he's old school but that concept is just wrong.
I for one like most of what I hear about 4E, and I DEFINITELY like that they lower the complexity. And 3.5 will still be there for hardcore complexity fans, it just won't have any official support. In the olden days we had D&D and AD&D, but I can see why WOTC don't want to split the customer base like that.If a large number of long-time gamers decide to "sit out" 4e and wait for 5e, haven't they split the customer base anyway?
I don't believe hardcore 3.5 fans represent "large numbers" in WotC's reconing. There might be enough to keep the game alive on forums and such, mainly because a large part of them will be activists, but from a sales point of view they are still few. If WotC kept 3.5 alive as the Advanced dungeons and dragons, that is another matter entirely.
3.5 was a massive simplification of the rules complexity of earlier editions.
3.0 and 3.5 being less complex (or better structured if you like) is IMHO why so many people returned to Dungeons and Dragons. It is definitely why I returned. But it coul have gone further, and it appears 4.0 will go further.
The biggest single surprise to me about 3.0 was its complexity; it made me wonder how they planned to get mass-market appeal.
3.5 was a massive simplification of the rules complexity of earlier editions.3.0 and 3.5 being less complex (or better structured if you like) is IMHO why so many people returned to Dungeons and Dragons. It is definitely why I returned. But it coul have gone further, and it appears 4.0 will go further.
The biggest single surprise to me about 3.0 was its complexity; it made me wonder how they planned to get mass-market appeal.
That may or may not be generally true, even if it is personally true for you. But what is true is that just because mechanics are simple doesn't mean flavor has to be simple-minded. I'm all about smoother and simpler mechanics to do the same things. No one (and by no one I mean very few people) is gleeful about adding the modifiers to the die roll. A 32 means nothing aside from the context. It might be that a 32 lets you hogtie the goblin securely. It might mean you see the raven familiar of your archenemy wheeling in the sky. It might mean that your sword clunks dully against the tarrasque's hard shell. So mechanics that allow me to more quickly determine the in-game effects are a good thing.
That's mechanics though. Making flavor simpler is not the same good thing. Unlike mechanics, there are pros and cons to making flavor simpler. Some people like elaborate story. Some people like quick and to the point story. When you provide flavor for the game, you should provide something that goes either way. A flavor that can be enjoyed by those who are casually into the game and by those who are fanatics for every single little detail. And those in between.
And both of those have nothing to do with why people don't like the succubi/erinyes merger. For three editions we've had succubi in the Abyss. For three editions we've had erinyes in Hell. In some editions their roles changed, for example 3.5 really made erinyes less temptresses and more warriors. 3e also introduced us to important Abyssal Lords who were succubi. A War of Ripe Flesh was fought for dominance of this demon caste. Succubi were the first demons to arise naturally from the Abyss, fueled by mortal lusts. Older editions also featured important succubi. A risen succubus known as Fall-from-grace is an important character. The succubus Red Shroud rules Broken Reach, a city on the Abyss' first layer. Alu-fiends are half-demons born from succubi/mortal relations. Unique because most half-fiends are born to mortal mothers, not from mortal fathers.
I could go on, but the basic point is this. Succubi have a history in the Abyss. They are only 'chaotic Erinyes' in the most convoluted superficial way possible. The idea of merging them 'because they are both hot fiends' is one devised by a simpleton. There are hot humans and hot elves, we don't merge them. There are hot archons and hot eladrin, we don't merge them. Pit fiends and glabrezu are also known for temptation, we haven't merged them.
The merger destroys the previous canon, without even allowing it a place to sit in the current cosmology. Something that is not mentioned can be easily added to the game. (Case in point, Modrons weren't mentioned much in 3e. However, they were pretty easy to add in, as the excellent Dragon article showed.) Something that is flat out removed from the game cannot be as easily added. How do you add Abyssal succubi to a game where succubi are devils? Without causing stupid amounts of confusion, that is. Do you just dump the history? Do you dump the characters? Notice the destruction involved.
If WotC had left this issue alone, no one would complain. No one has
been holding out on playing DnD because they thought that it was silly to have a hot female devil and a hot female demon. "DnD, now with less female fiends!" is not a slogan that appeals to any possible target demographic. It is a change that does not produce a better game, it is only removing something that was NOT superfluous in anyway.
And both of those have nothing to do with why people don't like the succubi/erinyes merger. For three editions we've had succubi in the Abyss. For three editions we've had erinyes in Hell.
This is a good argument.
We have two entirely separate issues here. One is complexity, and there I have a very clear opinion. The other is background canon, where my opinion is much less clear. They got mixed up in this thread.
Well, it's so heart-warming to know that WotC is striving to iron out the major foibles of v3.5 !
Which utterly convinces me beyond any reasonable doubt that all the other stuff worthy of critique (like the save-DCs system, logical paradoxi of reflex saves -possible when asleep, paralyzed, unconscious or even down and out, dying - imbalance an front loading of classes..... to mention just a few ) , not to mention the oh-so-few loopholes are all solely a figment of my own twisted imagination !
Obviously they do not require attention or re-callibration. Where is my medicine ?
/sarcasm off
Glad to see that the game-designers sorted out the central question of just who the succubi work for. About time... Could they now stop smoking weed and get back to the serious work ?
And both of those have nothing to do with why people don't like the succubi/erinyes merger. For three editions we've had succubi in the Abyss. For three editions we've had erinyes in Hell.
That's Planescape. The Great Wheel. In case you didn't get the memo, Planescape hasn't been the default setting of D&D since 2E. Planescape has in fact been retconned out Forgotten Realms, averted in Eberron, and sidelined in Greyhawk during 3E, and there is nothing inherently wrong with the fact that WotC isn't making 4E a big Planescape revival.
Planescape is not the only D&D that exists. Please do not pretend your setting is the one and only true setting.
In some editions their roles changed, for example 3.5 really made erinyes less temptresses and more warriors. 3e also introduced us to important Abyssal Lords who were succubi. A War of Ripe Flesh was fought for dominance of this demon caste.
Planescape is but one setting in D&D. It is not all of D&D.
Succubi were the first demons to arise naturally from the Abyss, fueled by mortal lusts.
That's not even true in Planescape. The obyriths were around before there were mortals in the first place.
Older editions also featured important succubi. A risen succubus known as Fall-from-grace is an important character. The succubus Red Shroud rules Broken Reach, a city on the Abyss' first layer.
Planescape again. Maybe if you're lucky WotC will re-release Planescape later on. Don't expect the very first Monster Manual to be a stealth Planescape book, though. It's unreasonable.
Alu-fiends are half-demons born from succubi/mortal relations. Unique because most half-fiends are born to mortal mothers, not from mortal fathers.
Pretty nitpicky. Why couldn't you get an Alu-Fiend from a succubus devil, which may or may not be lawful since 4E devils may or may not all be lawful? Why couldn't you get an Alu-Fiend from another pairing, or from corruption after normal conception?
I could go on, but the basic point is this. Succubi have a history in the Abyss. They are only 'chaotic Erinyes' in the most convoluted superficial way possible.
Fiend has sex with mortals to steal their souls. This is a succubus. The rest is just setting material, and the Great Wheel has been stifling innovation for too long. It is a great relief to see that WotC is not slaved to the reams of Planescape metaplot. True, it gave us a lot of good things, but it also gave us Die, Vecna, Die and other abominations too horrible to be named aloud.
The idea of merging them 'because they are both hot fiends' is one devised by a simpleton.
Or perhaps be have no NEED for two completely identical fiends, and the succubus/erinyes dichotomy never really had any meaning in the first place? I mean, if they didn't need more boobs in the early monster books, the succubus in 3E would just be "always evil(any)" and it would be left at that. Most of the Planescape material is just attempts to justify a dichotomy that never really made sense anyway.
The merger destroys the previous canon,
Maybe it was past time for that sacred cow to be slaughtered.
How do you add Abyssal succubi to a game where succubi are devils?
Scratch out 'LE' and write in 'CE'. Done.
Without causing stupid amounts of confusion, that is. Do you just dump the history? Do you dump the characters? Notice the destruction involved.
Odds are that if your players are Planescape continuity buffs of the magnitude that would be required to care, then they already know what changes you'd want to make, and you probably don't have to explain anything at all.
|
Creative Director
|
Actually... the Great Wheel goes far beyond Planescape. Planescape used the great wheel, sure, but that organization of the multiverse had already been in place for many, many years before Planescape came along. And truth be told, since the Great Wheel is in the 3.5 DMG, it IS the core D&D multiverse. It's the one the most players know about; worlds like Faerun and Eberron have smaller customer bases, while more or less EVERYONE who buys the DMG can utilize the Great Wheel. It's certainly the model we used for every non FR, non Eberron adventure showed up in Dungeon whenever we needed anything from the planes.
Changing succubi to LE and getting rid of the erinyes may not be a "big deal" to some, but it certainly is to me. Especially since I view it as a symptom; what else might change? If enough changes away from the D&D that I know and am interested in working on and paying writers to create, is it even still D&D?
And succubi and erinyes are no more "identical fiends" than balors and pit fiends. In fact, balors and pit fiends seem to me to be much MORE alike than succubi and erinyes. Does that mean we should get rid of one of them? I'd rather keep all four, personally.
And succubi and erinyes are no more "identical fiends" than balors and pit fiends. In fact, balors and pit fiends seem to me to be much MORE alike than succubi and erinyes. Does that mean we should get rid of one of them? I'd rather keep all four, personally.
Didn't they have a Balor vs a Pit Fiend match in one of those "Vote for your favorite monster" contests on WoTC's site a year or two ago? Maybe that's how they'll decide it.