Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sergius]

Couldn't they have brought the planes from Planescape anyway? I mean, you can have Mechanus without calling it the "lawful neutral" plane. And even if you want to call it that way, you can just separate the whole cosmic "alignment" thing from actual character alignment, as something that is very specific to the planes themselves (i.e. something that noone except maybe an astrologer would care about).

Even in the "butchered" Lore, I don't remember any part of it explicitly saying "by the way, there are no planes anymore and Sigil was erased from existance"... but well, maybe they did and I just don't have that book.

EDIT: I guess it messes with that "petitioner" idea. But the whole deal IMO is stupid... you're lawful evil so your soul goes to this plane? Bleh.

EDIT2: By "planes" I mean Outer Planes... things like elemental or positive/energy planes aren't places people visit often anyway...

FAKEDIT2: Oh well, apparently they did. So there's a new plane-ology in 4th. Can't say I'm too familiar with either of them, I never got to the Outer planes in Torment

SUPER-SAIYAN-3-EDIT: Well, this is an interesting read about how to interpret the new cosmology. Or just ignore the new one altogether and use the old one

[scriver]

Yes, you could, but they restructured parts the extraverse (or whatever you're supposed to call the Universe of Universes... Hmm.. Khaganiverse?) so that's no longer possible.

[Sergius]

Well, either way, if we separate the System from the Setting, we can. So I guess it's up to people if they want to use 4th ed. rules and (player) alignments with 2nd edition FR+planes.

[Bauglir]

How strongly is the linear alignment concept built into the mechanics? Based on reading 4E's core back when it was first released it looked like it would be possible to just cut it out and replace it with the 3.5 2D grid with little trouble.

[scriver]

Well, either way, if we separate the System from the Setting, we can. So I guess it's up to people if they want to use 4th ed. rules and (player) alignments with 2nd edition FR+planes.

Of course. Still doesn't make it any less sad that the setting is dead and will never be continued again.

[Sergius]

How strongly is the linear alignment concept built into the mechanics? Based on reading 4E's core back when it was first released it looked like it would be possible to just cut it out and replace it with the 3.5 2D grid with little trouble.

I think some artifacts have alignment requirements? Not sure.

Well, either way, if we separate the System from the Setting, we can. So I guess it's up to people if they want to use 4th ed. rules and (player) alignments with 2nd edition FR+planes.

Of course. Still doesn't make it any less sad that the setting is dead and will never be continued again.

Oh, THAT is what you meant. Well, yeah, can't really stop a publisher for discontinuing something, if they decide tomorrow that D&D is about flying ponies. Just saying that there's nothing inherent in the system against it (meaning, there's nothing in character alignment that dictates cosmology, except that silly petitioner thing). Who knows, maybe they'll bring it back for 5E ("next" or whatever).

[scriver]

Well, no, the problem is not only discontinuation - it was already pretty discontinued, after all. The big thing is how, when the setting is changed, it kills the possibility of continuation of the setting even if it is no longer being distributed or actively updated, and no longer continues as the rest of the settings continue. It is a double death, in a way, and from my perspective as someone who mainly looks at it from a lore-wise position, that is what is the most bothersome.

[Sergius]

Only if you assume that the Forgotten Realms setting is inexorably connected to Planescape.

You can always think of Planescape as its own setting. I guess it depends on how you played: did you frequently bring your FR or Ravenloft or whatever characters from their campaigns for a visit to Planescape, only to return to their original homes and continue the status quo? Or did you roll Planescape-specific characters, and used it as a hub to hop from setting to setting, and then go back to Sigil for another tour later?

In the first case, I agree it could be a problem, although Sigil still exists in the new Cosmology BTW, you just now have different planes to visit. In the second case, you'd have to think, who cares if you visit Greyhawk or Dragonlance or whatever? And if the point of Planescape was to connect other settings, it was kinda doomed from the start, since it depends on every one of those universes remain unchanged and interconnected.

Now that I think about it, I don't see exactly why Planescape can't exist in the new setting with all the changes. It just also needs to change (think something else to replace stuff like "the Big Devil vs Demon Superbowl").

In fact, by its very own nature, Planescape joins several otherwise completely different settings, and if any change in any of them is going to break Planescape, then it was doomed from the start.

[Neonivek]

think something else to replace stuff like "the Big Devil vs Demon Superbowl").

Oddly enough the Blood Wars have become a lot more common in dungeons and dragons ever since Planescape.

I think it has become a common event in settings with all of them having their own version.

[Sergius]

I found this is a very interesting discussion about Eberron alignments and morality, and ultimately the "evil/good" alignment vs the "greater good" and how they aren't necessarily compatible. It involves one of the (or "the"?) designers of Eberron and he explains how he (they?) views traditional D&D's alignment axis as cumbersome and unwanted, but how they had no choice but to use it for Eberron and managed to turn it on its head completely.

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?625939-5E-Status-of-Alignment-in-D-amp-D-Next/page23

[Sensei]

Could be worse- didn't 1st Edition just have one axis? And if you're thinking it was Good and Evil, you're wrong. It was Law vs Chaos. That's right, the entire alignment of everything based on Lawful things being good and Chaotic things being bad. Imagine the debates THAT could bring up.

[Neonivek]

Could be worse- didn't 1st Edition just have one axis? And if you're thinking it was Good and Evil, you're wrong. It was Law vs Chaos. That's right, the entire alignment of everything based on Lawful things being good and Chaotic things being bad. Imagine the debates THAT could bring up.

Yeah but as I said things were a lot more simple back then. Heck many campaigns (and heck a few settings) took place entirely in dungeons.

Actually having roleplay focused gameplay as standard came later.

[kaijyuu]

D&D, at its heart, is a wargame. No rule will be made for roleplaying purposes only; it must have an effect in combat (or affect your combat stats somehow, even if tangentially like the case of classes changing upon breaking alignment) or it won't exist.

One of the reasons I don't really like the system.

[Sergius]

I'd rather have Aspects, such as in FATE.

One of these days I'll run a game with that. One of these days...

[Neonivek]

I'd rather have Aspects, such as in FATE.

One of these days I'll run a game with that. One of these days...

Ohh Fate... you were too far ahead of your time.