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.
Yeah, I was playing DnD (back when it was called AD&D) using the Great Wheel nearly fourteen YEARS before Planescape was released in 1994. To my and my players, Planescape wasn't so much its own setting as it was a supplement to what we already had. The default Campaign setting was still Greyhawk back then, even tho the realms were drawing some interest. To my mind, using planescape 'canon' as an argument for or against succubi as demon or devil has little meaning or effect as planescape has never been the default campaign setting, its a plug-in to connect any other settings, just like Spelljammer. D&D started in Greyhawk in 1e, gradually moved to FR in 2e, then back to Greyhawk in 3e. Planescape has interesting supplement potential, like the Hordelands, Kara-Tur, Maztica and even Spelljammer.
Just my two coppers
Cheers!
Although I never was an ardent fan of the Great Wheel and never really did play planescape besides on the computer, it is a common and established background. While Planescape might "offcially" be 2E, it creeps up strongly enough in the Planar Handbook, Manual of the Planes and other titles published for v3.5.
And looking over the adventure releases of WoTC themselves, they were happy to use it and its particular setup recently enough in 'Expedition to the Demonweb Pits'.
Come to think of it, they used quite a bit of succubi and Malcanteth in promiment positions throughout that.... All of which will be going up in pink clouds of "discontinued" history in 4E. Brilliant. Might be really hard to pull that one of as a GM once the succubus club relocates to Hell
Maybe they should take a good look at WW and their "coolness" revamping (no pun intended) of the World of Darkness and how that turned out with regard to acceptance by the established player base.
And, in all honesty, to me, succubi used to be the ultimate free agent demons, causing random havoc with people's feelings and corrupting victims any which way.... not really the types who would start drawing up demonic contracts for people's souls while seductively swishing their tails. They fit into hell the same way a "lady of negotiable affection" fits into a law firm. YMMV
And as I said - shouldn't WotC's designers be slavering away at the real broken workface of v3.5 instead off on the flavoury toppings ?
Part of the problem, and they even admitted this in Podcast 14, is that they know that 3.5 is pretty well received. In the transition from 1st to 2nd, a lot of new rules were hidden in all sorts of expansion books, adventures, and settings, so people didn't mind too terribly buying a slightly new edition that say, actually had proficiencies in the same book with character creation.
Lots of people were unhappy with the monstrosity that 2nd edition became, especially with the "Complete" series pulling in a separate direction than the "Option" series and the like. Plus with TSR's financial situation, they were happy to see the game getting support at all.
But, and I'll say again that Mearls and Noonan said this themselves, they know 3.5 is pretty well received and liked and most people only have a few minor gripes about it, a few things they would like to see tweaked and clarified.
It feels to me that they are radically altering things in the game, both fluff and crunch, in order to make sure that everyone has a reason to buy a new edition. Granted, this is their job, and I get this, but its interesting to note that they realize that 3.5 isn't on the downswing in popularity, and that this is almost an artificial change for the sake of putting out a new edition.
In other words, some of their "fixes" for per encounter, adventure all day methodology could have been cleaned up without going to a 30 level casting system, CRs could be better balanced in the current system, and it wouldn't have been that hard to put the "designer's" foot down and say that Monster X or Y isn't balanced for use as a PC ever.
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.
I know, I know. I remember the 1E books well enough. But until Planescape, it was a small chapter in the DMG. There was no mention of the Blood War, there were no squads of succubus Demon Lords competing, and there was definitely no sense that there was a story going on that the players weren't allowed to alter.
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.
And whenever you did diverge even slightly from the Great Wheel, or even diverge slightly from obscure Planescape canon, the D&D gaming message boards would be filled with threads wherein people detail how you were doing it "wrong". Just like how there's an original thought about a new planar setting in the 4E previews and right now in this thread people are saying that it is "wrong".
Well, it isn't wrong to make up a new setting, even if that setting involves the planes. Planescape is a fine and lovely setting, but it doesn't have to be the only planar setting out there.
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.
I would have thought that a person who makes a living squeezing long adventures into short magazine space would be a little more sympathetic to the space plight of the Monster Manual I. Heck, you yourself have complained on threads on this very set of message boards that there are so many types of fiends around that it is almost impossible to write an adventure path without at least one of them taking center stage.
Well, dropping fiends that are fairly similar is one way to make room for high-level fey, giants, or aberrations.
All of which will be going up in pink clouds of "discontinued" history in 4E. Brilliant. Might be really hard to pull that one of as a GM once the succubus club relocates to Hell
#1: Making a new setting and using it in the MMI of 4E does not affect previously established settings.
#2: If there is room in your previously established setting for two more-or-less identical monsters that are distinguished by ideology, then a name swap is not likely to stop you.And, in all honesty, to me, succubi used to be the ultimate free agent demons, causing random havoc with people's feelings and corrupting victims any which way.... not really the types who would start drawing up demonic contracts for people's souls while seductively swishing their tails. They fit into hell the same way a "lady of negotiable affection" fits into a law firm.
It is entirely possible that the devils of 4E are not the same as the devils of previous editions. Remember, WotC probably isn't saying that the 3E succubus is getting slapped into 3E Baator with the Blood War and whatnot still in progress as if nothing ever changed. They more likely mean that there is no Blood War, it's 'Hell' and not 'Baator', and it remains to be seen whether the new setting will be interesting or not but shuffling a few allegiances from one particular setting's canon should not be a deal breaker before we've even seen most of the material!
And as I said - shouldn't WotC's designers be slavering away at the real broken workface of v3.5 instead off on the flavoury toppings ?
#1: Why can't they do both? 4E isn't coming out for another year.
#2: Maybe the canon police is one of the problems that needs fixing.#3: If they can't manage to write a decent setting, then why would we expect them to get the rules right either?
Wow, this has digressed some.
Okay, where to begin...
Let's start with "canon."
If WoTC had come out saying that 4th Edition was going to be a whole new game, the fiend changes wouldn't make much of a dent.
Instead, they have claimed "The game remains the same. The game remains the same."
Well, in order for the game to remain the same, there can't be much change of canon, can there?
While people have a problem with the changes of fiends, like James Jacobs said, I fear that is really only a symptom. The underlying problem is more evidence that WoTC is full of excrement with their claims.
Now, there have been some good points about "streamlining" the planes. Points I don't agree with... But good points none the less.
As a DM, particularly a budding DM, it is always easier to remove than it is to add. (Granted, there might be an instilled belief that nothing should be removed.) To this end, keeping the Great Wheel as canon would actually make it easier for a new audience. It gives DMs all the complexity they could ever want.
Now, if there was an introductory chapter that explained it was acceptable, and even strongly recommended, that fiends get "shmushed" together and a more simplified planar structure used - The same thing could be accomplished without distancing themselves from their long term customers.
And this brings us back to the symptoms.
It isn't so much the changes being made, as how they are being made. I am seeing a great deal of subterfuge and sleight of hand in their presentations. I am seeing a great deal of the mechanical changes as attempts to mimic other, better systems. I am seeing things being made more complex, despite WoTC claims things are being streamlined.
Maybe all of the changes will really work for some. And to those I say great! For me, I am looking at the changes and saying to myself; "how is that going to help our DM? A guy that doesn't easily grasp rules, and yet has learned much of 3.5 because of the logic and consistency. A guy that spends hours trying to make a 10th level Fighter now. How are these changes really going to help?"
I don't see them as fixing anything. At least not with the problems we have with the game.
Bleh... Now I have digressed.
SUMMARY: Changing canon != claim that game remains the same.
Oh, and 4th Edition comes out in about 6-7 months, not a year.
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.
James Jacobs already covered my 'missed memo'. Apparently you missed the one in every edition's MM that had erinyes in Hell and succubi in the Abyss. The Great Wheel goes back to the first Manual of the Planes. Before 2e even existed. And we aren't talking about my setting being the only 'true setting'. We are talking about the metagame. You can have illithids being barbarians evolved from squid, but that doesn't change the metagame idea that they had a massive empire ruined by the Gith revolt.
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.
What on earth are you babbling about? This is 3e, not Planescape. You know, the edition where there was no official 'Planescape campaign setting'? This is stuff from the Monster Manual and to an extent, stuff from the Demonomicon articles (100% official content) and Fiendish Codex I.
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.
My bad. I meant tanar'i and I'm so used to using them interchangeably with demons I slipped. Again though...why are you stuck on this Planescape idea? This was from 3rd edition. Not Planescape.
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.
Not Planescape again, Planescape finally. This is the first point in my post that actually merits a Planescape comment. However, it is largely aimless, since I've not made any claims or hopes to a stealth Planescape book. I don't expect illithids to not be brain sucking tentacle faces, and I don't expect erinyes to be thrown out and succubi to replace them. Has nothing to do with Planescape.
allegiances from one particular setting's canon should not be a deal breaker before we've even seen most of the material!
Vikingson wrote:
And as I said - shouldn't WotC's designers be slavering away at the real broken workface of v3.5 instead off on the flavoury toppings ?
#1: Why can't they do both? 4E isn't coming out for another year.
#2: Maybe the canon police is one of the problems that needs fixing.
#3: If they can't manage to write a decent setting, then why would we expect them to get the rules right either?
#1 : They could, but their focus on what to publish leads me to the conclusion that they haven't straightened out the mechanical problems at all, while already(instead fiddling around with the flavour decisions. Seems like a very skewed set of priorities.... e.g., like Titanic's captain worrying about her paint-job after hitting the iceberg, you know ?
#2 : all the same to me, but please, let change occur where and when change is sensible and IF something is actually broken or skewed. Are we agreed that succubi as part of the demonic hordes do not present any probelem mechanically or in the setup atm ? except a lack of sexiness for the devils ? Where is the overriding need to have succubi change allegiance ?
I have nothing against cutting space in MM-I, but I would rather see dragons reduced (who take up broadsheets of printed landscape) , instead of the half a page succubi and erinyes. Or cut out stuff that noone ever uses (much) anyway... say the freaky sonic damage flyer etc. large scale advertisments for WotC products in the back of the book are another "this can go" item....
#3 precisely. They can't obviously write a decent setting. But I would still prefer them focus their efforts on the rules mechanics first rather than at ornamental points of interest like how to sort the evil outsiders. The rules for those seemed quite ok, the last I checked...
Oh, and as for setting managementand development - seeing just how effectively WotC mismanaged the "Eberron" setting with its funky format for publishing stuff for it, I can feel real dread creeping up on me.
If WoTC had come out saying that 4th Edition was going to be a whole new game, the fiend changes wouldn't make much of a dent.
Instead, they have claimed "The game remains the same. The game remains the same."
With all due cynism, thay are claiming THAT only so as to pacify the customer base.... if they were claiming anything else (regardless of their true intentions) the Hills would rise wild....
As a DM, particularly a budding DM, it is always easier to remove than it is to add. (Granted, there might be an instilled belief that nothing should be removed.) To this end, keeping the Great Wheel as canon would actually make it easier for a new audience. It gives DMs all the complexity they could ever want.
This is clearly wrong. In the particular case of the Great Wheel, there's tomes and tomes of pre-existing material. A beginner DM does not need to be hooked directly up to this hosepipe as it blasts mostly irrelevant information that cannot be easily changed.
A beginner needs simplicity. And any setting with over a decade of metaplot as required reading is not. And it isn't like the Great Wheel is particularly intuitive or mythologically evocative.
If it was really better to remove than add, we'd still be using 1E and liking it. But no, we stick with a simple core system and setting and add other options in a modular manner.
And this brings us back to the symptoms.
You and some others keep saying that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means. WotC said, "We're not supporting Planescape in 4E." If releasing fluff that does not support Planescape is symptomatic of ANYTHING, it would be symptomatic of WotC telling the truth.
James Jacobs already covered my 'missed memo'. Apparently you missed the one in every edition's MM that had erinyes in Hell and succubi in the Abyss. The Great Wheel goes back to the first Manual of the Planes.
Which was formally named 'Planescape' in 2E. The Great Wheel is dead everywhere except Greyhawk and Planescape.
There is no Great Wheel in FR.
There is no Great Wheel in Eberron.
There is no Great Wheel in Midnight.
There is no Great Wheel in Krynn.
There is no Great Wheel in Athas.
And now there is no Great Wheel in whatever the new Points of Light setting is going to be called.
I could go on, but clearly there are a great many extremely popular settings that do not use the Great Wheel. Why, then, should the entire game be slaved to assumptions that aren't even valid outside of one or two of the many popular settings?
Before 2e even existed. And we aren't talking about my setting being the only 'true setting'. We are talking about the metagame.
I am well aware that Planescape tried to eat all the other settings. Some of us are still just a little bit bitter about how Athas went to pot after it was forced by TSR to add spelljammer ports and portals to Sigil in all its cities. Some of us are still just a little bit bitter how the 2E Planescape books explicitly and unambiguously labeled every character in all of the Dragonlance novels as total retards because they couldn't differentiate between "The Abyss" and the bottom of the Great Wheel. Some of us are still just a little bit suspicious about the enthusiastic threads on the WotC forums regarding how best to force Eberron into the Great Wheel, no matter how detrimental it would be to the setting.
So please, take your metagame and leave me alone. The 2E D&D metaplot that weaved all the different campaign settings together was a crudely mercenary attempt to ensure the D&D brand was elevated over the brands of its campaign settings, and in the end it was rejected because it damaged the sub-settings while still leaving the customer base fractured.
You can have illithids being barbarians evolved from squid, but that doesn't change the metagame idea that they had a massive empire ruined by the Gith revolt.
The illithid empire is only relevant if you, as DM, want them to be. For instance, illithids never had an empire in Eberron. Ever. They have entirely different fluff, and it is every bit as good. This does not make one story "true" and the other "false" because illithids are fictional constructs and their backstory is whatever is convenient at the time.
What on earth are you babbling about? This is 3e, not Planescape. You know, the edition where there was no official 'Planescape campaign setting'? This is stuff from the Monster Manual and to an extent, stuff from the Demonomicon articles (100% official content) and Fiendish Codex I.
The Fiendish Codeces were stealth Planescape supplements; the Demonomicon articles were fairly explicit. They didn't have the Planescape logo, but they sure as heck weren't talking about the FR or Eberron cosmologies.
#1 : They could, but their focus on what to publish leads me to the conclusion that they haven't straightened out the mechanical problems at all, while already(instead fiddling around with the flavour decisions. Seems like a very skewed set of priorities.... e.g., like Titanic's captain worrying about her paint-job after hitting the iceberg, you know ?
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a detailed explanation of all the 4E rules. They want to sell the books later on, so they're intentionally not telling you what you want to know. Yeah, they probably have something in mind for at least some of those mechanical problems. Unfortunately, if they tell you what it is now before they have books to sell you, you'll just houserule your 3E campaign, and that's not good business sense.
Talking about fluff, however, is pretty safe. There's nothing proprietary about devils that rebelled against their god and are now trapped in hell. They couldn't make that proprietary even if they wanted to.
#2 : all the same to me, but please, let change occur where and when change is sensible and IF something is actually broken or skewed. Are we agreed that succubi as part of the demonic hordes do not present any probelem mechanically or in the setup atm ? except a lack of sexiness for the devils ? Where is the overriding need to have succubi change allegiance ?
Hold up. There is no change of allegiance. They speak of a new setting. The 4E succubi have always been with the 4E devils. If you want to convert Great Wheel succubi from the 4E succubi, you'll have to split them into the Erinyes-succubi (loyal to the baatezu) and the Succubi-succubi (loyal to the tannar'ri), but that's not really different than what you'd have to do with any other setting's unique monsters.
Now, as far as 'need' goes, then no, there is no need to make this change. However, there was never any 'need' to go beyond the Basic OD&D, or even to invent D&D in the first place. The creative process works because it does, and it is better to let it run its course than to try to stamp out heresy. Maybe the new Points of Light setting will fail, in which case we'll have our Great Wheel back and updated in a year or two. But maybe the Points of Light cosmology will be really cool, and if we curb-stomp anybody who dares think up a new way for the planes to be arranged, we'll never know.
I have nothing against cutting space in MM-I, but I would rather see dragons reduced (who take up broadsheets of printed landscape)
According to the gleemax article on dragons, they will be reduced. I'm not sure how much I believe them, but I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Or cut out stuff that noone ever uses (much) anyway... say the freaky sonic damage flyer etc.
If they restrict themselves to reprinted monsters, they'll be brutalized in the forums. They have to try some new monsters, and that means that some of them will suck. I dare say that the Ythrak is nowhere near as retarded as some of the old-school monsters. Like the Nilbog or the Thoul, for instance.
#3 precisely. They can't obviously write a decent setting.
This is pointlessly inflammatory and clearly untrue. Most of the individuals working on 4E have written good setting material in 3E, and I don't expect the quality of their work to suddenly drop into the sewers just because the number 4 (shi) is cursed with death.
Oh, and as for setting managementand development - seeing just how effectively WotC mismanaged the "Eberron" setting with its funky format for publishing stuff for it, I can feel real dread creeping up on me.
I happen to like Eberron, and overall I also like how WotC has handled it.
well, I happened to love Eberron - I have always been partial to Steampunk and Renaissance type settings. But what is WotC doing to it ? They are not detailing areas to any useful degree, but rather present lots and lots of "D-rate" plot hooks ( "Secrets of Xendrik", "Secrets of Sarlona" "Explorer's Guide"..... not to mention the inane "Forge of War"). Major zones of the core continent have been left virtually unexplained and -featured three years after the initial launch (like droam or the other monster states, the Eldeen Reaches,the Shadowmarches... but they are adding half-baked continents left and right, none of them with any degree of detail of accuracy.
Yes, I can/do fill out the spaces, BUT, if I buy and invest (several dozen quid upwards ) into a setting, I expect professionaly sturctured support, a reasonable gazeteer or at least some online info (this is the internet age, after all) as to the general whereabouts of things and lay of the lands. I want some Idea what is happening on a political scale, what the nations are striving for (after all, there is less then a dozen of them, so no insurmountable problem).... What one gets is pretty to look at fluff !
Oh, and somehow the coincidence that "Eberron" was first developed as a competition-entry, basically independent of the usual inhouse channels, and then later integrated into the WotC main products line sets an oddly inverse parallel to the quality of the work. Great start, innovative thoughts and a followed by less and less inspired concepts and steady decline ever since. The best thing nowadays about Eberron products is definitely the Wayne Reynolds covers. YMMV
And this might feel a bit like brown-nosing, considering who's forum we are writing in, but paizo's first issue of Pathfinder gives a premium blueprint at how to present a setting, adding flesh but still leaving enough gaps for a GM to fill with his own detail. I don't think that skill of the trade was discovered this summer somewhere in the backyard of paizo... Its just a way of doing things that WotC is atm not employing.
neither on its settings, nor on its upcoming rules, the way the official website is presenting itself.
For a comparison in quality world support - check Privateer press. These guys are a gnome in comparison to WotC, but their Iron Kingdoms setting, launched at almost the same time, is covered in far more detail than Eberron, has more texture, a more unique and distinct feel and less klichees and half-baked continets etc.. With THREE books, not the odd dozen out for Eberron.... Shoddy work, on the part of WotC.
Not to mention the fact, that Eberron sourcebooks are the least accessible and most confusingly arranged ones in the field I know. It is almost fells like a a designer fetish not to bundle relevant information such as players info or rule additions into one section these day , but spread them out over dozen of pages. Flipping shinickies, that s&$§&&s ! Put important meta-plot information right into the for general consumption material.... Waste 6+ pages in each book on comic strips while at the same time present watered down, diluted content.... I own all of the books, but there are basically only three I consider refrence material, that being Races, magic and the core setting book. Others are just too diffuse, too unfocused, too much oriented to integrating artwork over lending depth to the subjects covered. Since when has that become "good quality" ?
Looking at your statement, I do wonder though if you subscribe to a different measure of quality, since you happen to like it. I guess I am not going to take fashion advice from you then *grin*
And now, please tell me which other setting WotC has launched and supported in a reasonable way, with well written and consistent support off lately, so as to invalidate my claim of them being currently unable to write and professionally support a decent setting?
Midnight ? That's Fantasy Flights kid...
Freeport ? That would be Green Ronin's brainchild...
Ghostwalk ? 3E and above all, left unsupported ( a real shame )
Forgotten Realms ? yes, definitely support for that, even quality one, even if not to everyone's tastes. But FR has been around since the mid-eighties ?
Dragonlance ? Out-house project, and license revoked as of now...
Greyhawk ? Support ? Rofl....
Ptolus ? Anything but WotC's project.
Sorry, I see no evidence for a well designed and supported setting by WotC these days, just production from old, pre-Hasbro-takeover wells.
as for the "change of allegiance" figure of speech, that was meant in an entirely meta-gaming way.
Although it will really reduce backward compatability on many adventures.... Gotta run Expedition to the demonwebs before going 4E, I guess. Then again that might not be anytime soon in this infinity, hehe
With all due cynism, thay are claiming THAT only so as to pacify the customer base.... if they were claiming anything else (regardless of their true intentions) the Hills would rise wild....
Well, I do have to concede that point.
But that gets to the heart of the problem.
Had WoTC said something like "4th Edition is coming, and we are taking a clean slate approach. We are going to try and keep as many familiar elements as possible, but we are going to be cutting hard and deep to try and streamline and improve the game." Then yes, there would be a huge uproar. But that happened anyway.
And then later, when it was clear that they were cutting and "butchering" fiends, any one that could get upset over that would have to look back and say; "well. WoTC did tell us they were cutting things up. I wonder how it will turn out?"
(((Side Track: Kind of like when Jean-Paul Gaultier showed Chris Tucker the wildest and most outrageous costume for Fifth Element first, so that Tucker would be more open to the other (outlandish) outfits later.)))
Instead they are trying to play down everything, and watching several smaller riots continue all the way up to launch, and probably beyond.
(((Side Track: That is what infuriates me the most. Just tell me exactly how much of 4th Edition I think will suck now, and by launch you just may win me over. But every time I recover from a previous peek, they hit me with another. At this rate, I am going to give up long before the preview module is even released.)))
Just to add another angle...
Does anyone else think that the whole succabus/eryines merge smells of sexism?
How many other demons and devils can be compared as being alike???
If WoTC had come out saying that 4th Edition was going to be a whole new game, the fiend changes wouldn't make much of a dent.
Instead, they have claimed "The game remains the same. The game remains the same."
I have felt this since I first read about 4E. This is not an evolutionary change, it is more or less a new game.
Not that I mind, as long as it is well done.
Just to add another angle...
Does anyone else think that the whole succabus/eryines merge smells of sexism?
How many other demons and devils can be compared as being alike???
It no more smells of sexism than the very concept of the fiend smells of sexism. The succubus-as-monster was born in sexism, sleeps in sexism, eats and drinks sexism, and dies in sexism. It's a female monster that tries to suck your life energy, and on a certain level suggests that all females just want you to suck your life energy. The very concept of this particular fiend is sexist.
Merging two sexist monsters into one does not increase the ambient sexism of the piece. The succubus is cheesecake, used to sell books. Because most buyers are male, and many of these buyers are particularly vulnerable to this aspect of sexism.
It no more smells of sexism than the very concept of the fiend smells of sexism. The succubus-as-monster was born in sexism, sleeps in sexism, eats and drinks sexism, and dies in sexism. It's a female monster that tries to suck your life energy, and on a certain level suggests that all females just want you to suck your life energy. The very concept of this particular fiend is sexist.
Wait, you claiming that because there is a fiend that takes advantage of the fact that most men are naturally attracted to females, that that in turn means that the subtext of the monster is that all women are life leeching fiends on some level?
So I guess then that it follows that because the main vampire stereotype is that of a male that seeks to enthrall a helpless female and drain her blood, then that means that what vampires are really all about is males being dominant manipulative rapists?
I guess I do have enough ranks in jump to conclusion to follow you here.
I think what 4th edition is trying to do is to start everything from scratch. Thus, everything in the first three and a half editions are GONE and thus have no bearing whatsoever in 4th edition.
How many other demons and devils can be compared as being alike???
I think the pit fiend/balor seem just as interchangeable--titanic meat maulers on top of the heap of lackeys.
i agree. They aren't being merged. i wonder if whathisname isn't able to get beyond the T&A factor.
i agree. They aren't being merged. i wonder if whathisname isn't able to get beyond the T&A factor.
I don't want to lay this squarely on anyone's lap. Just because Rich mentioned this in his blog doesn't mean it was his idea. Its possible that it was, or that he agreed with it, or what have you, but that isn't the point. He was revealing what the "story team" had come up with for fiends, which is the point.
Wait, you claiming that because there is a fiend that takes advantage of the fact that most men are naturally attracted to females, that that in turn means that the subtext of the monster is that all women are life leeching fiends on some level?
So I guess then that it follows that because the main vampire stereotype is that of a male that seeks to enthrall a helpless female and drain her blood, then that means that what vampires are really all about is males being dominant manipulative rapists?
I guess I do have enough ranks in jump to conclusion to follow you here.
Well, yeah. Some monsters are clearly metaphorical in nature. Pointing out the sexual nature of most vampire stories is pretty darn obvious, and pretty darn unarguable. Although narrowing down vampires to male-on-female rape is overly simplistic; there are a lot of homophobic or misogynistic vampire stories, too.
My point was more about how it was pretty ridiculous to accuse the WotC writers of sexism because they dropped the erinyes. Worrying about the speck of dust in your friend's eye when you have a log in your own, as it were. I'm not saying that you can't have fun with your succubi minions; I'm just saying that you shouldn't accuse others of being sexist at the same time.
Backing up a little bit, since I missed it earlier...
well, I happened to love Eberron - I have always been partial to Steampunk and Renaissance type settings. But what is WotC doing to it ? They are not detailing areas to any useful degree, but rather present lots and lots of "D-rate" plot hooks ( "Secrets of Xendrik", "Secrets of Sarlona" "Explorer's Guide"..... not to mention the inane "Forge of War"). Major zones of the core continent have been left virtually unexplained and -featured three years after the initial launch (like droam or the other monster states, the Eldeen Reaches,the Shadowmarches... but they are adding half-baked continents left and right, none of them with any degree of detail of accuracy.
Funny... Everything you say you don't like, I do like. The tedious detail you claim to want I abhor, and indeed that's the reason I don't bother with FR products. Almost as if they're making different products for different consumers.
I loved Secrets of Sarlona, for instance; it made me want to run a Riedran campaign. I wouldn't like it if it detailed six NPCs for every community in Riedra, and I wouldn't like it if it forced through a metaplot that I had to follow if I wanted to be able to use the rest of the book or any later releases.
So yeah, the moment Eberron gets the detail you're requesting, I'm dropping it and abandoning support of the line, just like I did with FR, and just like I did with Planescape.
As for Succubi and vampires being sexist, I see nothing wrong with that. Evil is the dark mirror of ourselves, and sexism is a bad thing. We are after all supposed to fight these guys.
What I think SorcererWithoutACause is protesting is something else entirely; the lack of female fiends. We have the Succubi, Erinyes, and Marilith on the top of my head. Three against a legion of (implicitly) male fiends. But a lot of fiends are sexless or can be of either gender; what does the sex of a Vrock or Bone devil matter, and how would it show?
Living creatures are about natural functions, such as reproduction. We all need a gender in order to reproduce, just as we all need a mouth and lungs. Fiends are about evil, and only need a gender when it helps them to express their evil. Thus, they only need an explicit gender when it helps them express their particular vice.
Still, more expressively female fiends might not be bad. The child-eating midwife, the mother of monsters, the spurned lover, the nurse that brings disease, the evil stepmother to bring up a few evil mirror-images of female stereotypes. The cheesecake factor would depend on their function and vary widely.
At the same time, we could get evil male stereotypes as fiends, but I'm not sure the wife-beater, rapist, child-molester, reckless driver and other primarily male evils would really fit the game. More acceptable male stereotypes, such as the warlord, evil adviser etc are also less definitely male.
In other words, most fiends can be either gender, and perhaps even change gender to suit the occasion. Male succubi are called incubi, and in the original myth they are sex-changers. Female balor are just female balor.
@koboldlord
Hmm strange that. While I don't need the stated NPCs for a place ( I ill change those anyway - and strangely, that is always one thing that I found distinctive about Eberron books, the extensive, if unfocused character presentations in them... just checked SoS, and for Adar, you have almost as much as space used for a handful of characters as spend on describing the country, its people, history, way of life and internal setup.... And you have even more space devoted to a highly specialised organisation, yet one gets to know zip about the cities, regions, tribal groups or people of the land.... and that is what I do miss ), I would like information of how a region/nation ticks.
And make no mistake - Eberron has a lot of metaplot ( "Mark of Death" anyone ? Read any Eberron novel and you get steeped in metaplot... unfortunately never witha ny rekevant precision, just the basic outlines ), and having a region not detailed yet, does not mean one is free to add to or detail it, because it will just turn up in a later supplement with few details and lots of lipp-gloss, and usually dressed totally different from what was initially presented.
Interestingly, you said nothing about the Eberron series layout, information presentation, internal consistency etc..... But whatever, in a way, I am happy that Eberron has at least soeone who actually still loves it.
But that doesn't make it a well written or well-supported setting in the least.