|
1 year ago ::
Mar 07, 2012 - 9:11PM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Oct 28, 2008
|
Personally, I would like to move away from alignment defining a race. Humans don't have one, so why should any other?
Sure, devils and demons are evil, especially on their own, alignment based planes, but that doesn't mean a Tiefling has to be evil. On the "Prime" plane, where the bulk of most D&D campaigns occur, anything goes: Lawful Fey, good Tieflings, smart Orcs, dumb Kalashtar, evil Deva and so on.
To expand further, I think the idea of tying planes solely to alignment should be re-examined. For the classic Seven Heavens it works to a point, but for the realms of fairy, spiritual lands, otherworldly sites, and most pantheons it makes no sense.
As far as culture goes, that really should be defined by the world and the campaign. The core books can make a suggestion for ease of example and play, but the idea that "All fey are chaotic and wild" because a description says so is something I find very limiting and often makes no sense. Why can't there be lawful, civilized fey? Isn't that what the Seelie Court was about, for example?
I think DMs should be encouraged to move away from the, "All members of this race are *Insert Alignment here*" mentality and create racial cultures that actually fit their campaigns.
Of course, as far the OP goes, my suggestion hinges on ditching or diluting two Iconic D&D mainstays: Alignment and the idea of planes based mostly upon alignment.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 07, 2012 - 10:43PM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Feb 16, 2012
|
i'd be the first to point out that it didn't make sense to have Mechanus and the Jade Emperor in the same place, it didn't make sense to put Elves in Thor's World Tree, and it didn't make sense to have Hades and Aasmodeus in planes side by side. It didn't make sense to take the 666 layers of the abyss and change them to infinite because saying 666 was taboo. But it was interesting to wander these exotic dimensions and as a theme, sort of worked in tying things together in unexpected ways.
I think putting Devas in the same box as Angels is ridiculous, mythologically. Devas were gods. Boddhisattvas would have been better analogies to Devas, or Tenshi, or even Valkyrie, or the goddess Nike. What's really weird is how many Monsters in Mythologies sound just like monsters from other mythologies, yet D&D just makes all of them different, and also makes them nothing like their mythologies.
If you just go digging into Flood stories, and stories of ancient, giant monsters, you'll find a heck of a lot of similarities. Instead of being 10 monsters in 10 planes, you could have 1 monster with 10 times in 1 plane with 10 names. Here's some easier examples:
Santa Clause
Grim Reaper
Evil Incarnate
Angel
Demon
now digging around you should get at least 10 different characters behind each of those. Alignment with Faeries is a mess because in th 16th century they used to burn witches and some would get away from execution by claiming they were being assisted by good natured faeries - though some others would be executed anyway. This is briefly mentioned in the Book of Daemonologie circa 1597.
If you start there, and end with something like Fern Gully, then chaotic, but good isn't a bad alignment choice.
Options are Liberating
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 07, 2012 - 11:48PM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2005
|
Eladrin are terrible exemplars of Chaotic Good, if Chaotic part is to mean anything at all.
I definately get the feeling that a lot of players of this game look at alignments as nothing more than factions. Chaotic Good would not be an alignment that would spawn individuals of super powerful magic that would build constracts of far longer lasting value than human constructs and rule over a land to maintain peace and order within it.
A better champion of Chaotic Good would be a race that spawns many, many weak individuals who have different minds and experiences, but together they would be extremely formidable.
The enforcement of a single will is inherantly Lawful, the semi-enforcement of the general direction of the majority is Chaotic.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 08, 2012 - 12:55AM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Feb 11, 2009
|
I would always go with the more powerful version of any very cool, very large, or very legendary creature, and tone down the rest. I've heard of Faeries, including ones so powerful they can grant wishes and turn pumpkins into Carriages, or turn into a ball of light and zip about like energy beings. The Eladrin in the 4e don't resemble Faeries to me, they resemble teleporting elves.
Oh boy, faerie myths. Get ready....
now digging around you should get at least 10 different characters behind each of those. Alignment with Faeries is a mess because in th 16th century they used to burn witches and some would get away from execution by claiming they were being assisted by good natured faeries - though some others would be executed anyway. This is briefly mentioned in the Book of Daemonologie circa 1597.
Have you heard of the faeries who zap cows with their fairy shots, until the poor animals die of exhaustion? Or trap people in forests to use as their play things? What about the ones that steal children and leave their elderly in the child's place, to shortly die? Or how they send their hounds out to capture new mothers to get milk for their children?
Faeries are not nice. Faeries are not good. Faeries were called "The Fair Folk" not because they were beautiful, but because calling them "The jerks who live in the forest" was going to attract their attention and cause them to do horrible things to you
it didn't make sense to put Elves in Thor's World Tree
Elves are actually from Nordic mythology to begin with. Alfheimr was one of the 9 worlds that lead off from the World Tree, along with Jotunheim, Muspellheim, Ysgard, Midgarr, Niffleheim and... Whatever the other ones were called
While I don't know much about the whole Planescape thing, wasn't that domain basically Nordic mythology? I remember they even had classic Nordic style trolls rather than the regular DnD ones
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 08, 2012 - 9:02AM
#15
|
|
|
I don't really care about fidelity to past D&D traditions, and I realy don't care about fidelity to historical myth (myths are hopelessly malleable and often contradictory anyway). I mostly care whether it works. When I think of faeries, I don't think that they are what you get if a Guardinal and a Slaad have babies*. The old Eladrin were never interesting to me, and they're not at all useful for using as the kind of faeries who wander into the world and cause mischief. That problem was highlighted by the fact that old editions often had TWO faerie planes--the Eladrin courts as well as some "demiplane of Faerie." But with the new Eladrin and the Feywild--problem solved! They work great for doing what I want faeries to do.
Likewise, I don't really feel any lack for not having yet another type of angel called a Deva. I've got all the angel I need. But the new Deva is something I didn't have before, and is fun. Tieflings at least I can respect that there was something lost--the wayward offspring of demons and devils. But the new Tiefling is neat too, and is the more unified concept. I think the 'old' tiefling can be reintroduced as a theme without any real problem. There is a Demon-Spawn theme in the Heroes of the Elemental Chaos book that acts a lot like an old tiefling for example.
*Kidding
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 08, 2012 - 9:48AM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Feb 16, 2012
|
I would always go with the more powerful version of any very cool, very large, or very legendary creature, and tone down the rest. I've heard of Faeries, including ones so powerful they can grant wishes and turn pumpkins into Carriages, or turn into a ball of light and zip about like energy beings. The Eladrin in the 4e don't resemble Faeries to me, they resemble teleporting elves.
Oh boy, faerie myths. Get ready....
now digging around you should get at least 10 different characters behind each of those. Alignment with Faeries is a mess because in th 16th century they used to burn witches and some would get away from execution by claiming they were being assisted by good natured faeries - though some others would be executed anyway. This is briefly mentioned in the Book of Daemonologie circa 1597.
Have you heard of the faeries who zap cows with their fairy shots, until the poor animals die of exhaustion? Or trap people in forests to use as their play things? What about the ones that steal children and leave their elderly in the child's place, to shortly die? Or how they send their hounds out to capture new mothers to get milk for their children?
Faeries are not nice. Faeries are not good. Faeries were called "The Fair Folk" not because they were beautiful, but because calling them "The jerks who live in the forest" was going to attract their attention and cause them to do horrible things to you
it didn't make sense to put Elves in Thor's World Tree
Elves are actually from Nordic mythology to begin with. Alfheimr was one of the 9 worlds that lead off from the World Tree, along with Jotunheim, Muspellheim, Ysgard, Midgarr, Niffleheim and... Whatever the other ones were called
While I don't know much about the whole Planescape thing, wasn't that domain basically Nordic mythology? I remember they even had classic Nordic style trolls rather than the regular DnD ones
so you agree with king james when he said "burn the witch!"?
that's the ethical problem. If faeries were as twisted as you describe, and that wasn't just a bunch of bad publicity created by the Inquisition for people like you to find, then burning faery loving witches would be a good thing - quite the dilemma.
Options are Liberating
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 08, 2012 - 10:05AM
#17
|
|
|
well the fact that faeries aren't real kind of solves the ethical dilemma nicely.
But for a fantasy universe, tricksy faeries that are likely to be dangerous obstacles to player characters are more interesting than a bunch of peace-loving faeries who just want to hang out and get high (given the fairly basic narrative assumption that conflict is important to interesting stories.)
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 08, 2012 - 10:17AM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Feb 16, 2012
|
well the fact that faeries aren't real kind of solves the ethical dilemma nicely.
But for a fantasy universe, tricksy faeries that are likely to be dangerous obstacles to player characters are more interesting than a bunch of peace-loving faeries who just want to hang out and get high (given the fairly basic narrative assumption that conflict is important to interesting stories.)
prankster faeries who are fundamentally good, but have a disdain for certain other races, and have a sense of humor are what I had in mind, but if you take it too far, they fall into the domain of gremlins, imps, and demons. Dropping a bucket of water on someone's head isn't the same as setting their house on fire while they sleep.
Options are Liberating
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 08, 2012 - 10:26AM
#19
|
|
|
I don't particularly want to see faeries as bugs bunny either. They should be legitimately frightening and capricious--which isn't necessarily the same thing as wicked or cruel. But could be of course; hags and redcaps for example.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 08, 2012 - 11:05AM
#20
|
|
|
So your sollution to the problem is to throw out all the 4E terms and concepts if favor of the old ones yes this is sure a fair solution which will reunite the scattered fanbases 
|
|
|
