|
1 year ago ::
Mar 08, 2012 - 5:43PM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Oct 28, 2008
|
I feel what fits the new edition best is what the naming conventions for 5e should be, though, I think past naming conventions should be maintained if they make sense and fit into the new D&D.
For example, I see no issue in calling a half human/half fiend a Tiefling. Dragon born seems just fine for Half dragons.
However, to call an Eldarin an Elf in 4e, or in D&D Next if the races are different both mechanically and flavor wise, is going to create confusion (as this thread proves). Otherwise, we might as well call Dwarves "Short Stocky Human" and Elves "Pretty pointy eared Human" and so on.
One thing I would like is to ditch some past naming conventions altogether. The Lamia mentioned above is a good example. For me, another one is the Deva. As they currently are, they are Angels. Call them that, or to denote their more mortal status and separate them from their heavenly cousins, call them Celestials. For me, when I see Deva I see the various types of Asuras and Vedic Devas, or I vision the other Deva--> The selfish, whiny entertainer.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 08, 2012 - 5:53PM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2007
|
But the old version of the lamia is a great example of a monster that had nothing to do with its mythological roots--both the lion-bodied and snake-bodied verson of lamias are modern interpretations. And neither of them had a very strong presence in my mind--certainly nagas and yuan-ti spring more quickly to mind as ophidian enemies.
True, the form used in D&D is at best based on some thin connection between the classical Greek lamia and snake/dragon creatures. The most widely used description from Greek literature would make it another name for vampire, so it was for the best that it was tweaked.
My point was that there was no reason to reuse the name at all. There was nothing particularly wrong with the old lamia, so recycling the name when they could have just as easily invented something just created confusion.
I don't see why not. Eladrin aren't 'barely' fey, they're noble fey. And as depicted in 4e, those native to the feywild tend to be all kinds of capricious, with varying levels of menace. The Summer Court is likely to just snag some mortals for parties and games in the feywild, but the Gloaming Court eladrin would be engaged in all kinds of strange intrigues related to romance and nightmares. And the Winter Court is home to particularly brooding and maybe violent eladrin.
The seasonal courts in the Feywild are not ruled by Eladrin. Some of the rulers may have started out as Eladrin, but by the time they reach those lofty levels they have ceased to be. Eladrin fill the lesser ranks of the courts, serving as courtiers and agents.
More over, their racial description makes clear that Eladrin straddle the line between mundane and fey, sharing a bit with both. This is what makes them a good choice for a playable race, but it also makes them among the least fey of the fey.
De gustibus non est disputandum. I like their look, and I like their image as a noble but fallen race whose disgraceful past is writ large on their skin for the world to see. You could apply those traits to another race--but they work well for this one.
Very much so. One of the reasons why you like them is exactly why I don't. One of the things that always appealed to me about the old tiefling is that most tieflings could hide it, they could pass for humans with a little work to conceal their small inhuman features.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 08, 2012 - 5:56PM
#33
|
|
|
I think people are confused far less readily than you seem to think, JayM. I've never once observed or experienced a lick of confusion over any of the things you're fretting over. "It used to be this, now it's this" is a pretty elementary concept.
Pluto was a planet, now it's not. Simple, yes?
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 08, 2012 - 5:56PM
#34
|
|
|
Deva--> The selfish, whiny entertainer.
That's a Diva, not a Deva.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 08, 2012 - 7:18PM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Dec 12, 2011
|
That's the part that we disagree with, though. Just because it existed doesn't mean that anybody cared about it enough for us to consider is "established". Like I said, I've played with many people in many different groups, and few of them even knew that Eladrin and Deva were a thing in previous editions, so it doesn't matter. They weren't in any way unique, memorable, or iconic, so that meaning to us was not "established".
That's great that that was your experience. But, given that Planescape was a very popular setting I'd be willing to bet that there are quite a bit of players to whom Eladrin and Deva are very much established--as opposed to the current incarnations that have only been around for maybe four years. Besides, Eladrin and Deva are simply examples, not the entire point of discussion.
If you're assuming both creatures will be in the next edition, then I see nothing wrong with renaming whichever is least iconic. In the case of the Eladrin and the Deva, the older versions should be renamed because the new versions are much more widely beloved.
Says you. As Salla said, citation needed.
Playtest or get off the playtest boards.
---
I want justice for the voice that can't be heard
Vindication for every suffering and hurt
Let retribution hold dominion over earth
--Nemesis, VNV Nation
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 08, 2012 - 7:20PM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Dec 12, 2011
|
I don't see any particular reason that versions of monsters from several editions can't coexist, but I take issue with your assumptions that because some incarnation of a creature had the name 'first' that it somehow has 'dibs' on the name.
And, by golly, I believe you're entitled to that.
But scrapping the new eladrin for the old really seems very reactionary-- a case of reversion just for the sake of reversion.
Which is something that I don't wish for. However, something needs to be done so that I can have my eladrin and you can have yours and everybody else doesn't get hopelessly confused.
Playtest or get off the playtest boards.
---
I want justice for the voice that can't be heard
Vindication for every suffering and hurt
Let retribution hold dominion over earth
--Nemesis, VNV Nation
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 08, 2012 - 9:16PM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Feb 21, 2012
|
I wouldn't mind an Eladran playable race (the ones in Warriors of Heaven were not playable in a regular game) that used the 2e/3e fluff, but the 4e Eladrin are clearly the High/Moon/Grey Elves of 4e. The FR Campaign Guide calls them Moon Elves, and the PHB says that Elves are Eladrin from the material plane, so Eladrin are explicitly Elves of the Feywild in 4e fluff. Heroes of the Feywild reinforces this.
Eladrin as their own thing are cool. Eladrin as yet another name for yet another Elven subrace is unecessary. We've already got both enough Elven subraces enough names for each one to last the next 20 editions of the game. We already had High/Moon/Grey Elves so really nothing was added to the game. On the contrary we lost an interesting group of Outsiders.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 09, 2012 - 12:53AM
#38
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2007
|
I wouldn't mind an Eladran playable race (the ones in Warriors of Heaven were not playable in a regular game) that used the 2e/3e fluff, but the 4e Eladrin are clearly the High/Moon/Grey Elves of 4e. The FR Campaign Guide calls them Moon Elves, and the PHB says that Elves are Eladrin from the material plane, so Eladrin are explicitly Elves of the Feywild in 4e fluff. Heroes of the Feywild reinforces this.
Eladrin as their own thing are cool. Eladrin as yet another name for yet another Elven subrace is unecessary. We've already got both enough Elven subraces enough names for each one to last the next 20 editions of the game. We already had High/Moon/Grey Elves so really nothing was added to the game. On the contrary we lost an interesting group of Outsiders.
I got the impression that using the "eladrin" name was not to add another elf subrace, but to cut all the silly ones, thus making sure that "elf" always means the same thing mechanically.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 09, 2012 - 5:01AM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Feb 11, 2009
|
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.
Come up with a darker world, or heck, even a more human orientated one, and "Everything is out to ruin your day somehow" is a totally valid thing. Mind, I have a sinister bent towards stories were things aren't the usual and liked 4E a bit for that. Who's to say you can't have some old red dragon somewhere who just wants to keep his museum nice and safe rather than fly around pillaging?
They did have good sides as well, mythological faeries, but most of the time you just planned to stay out of their way, keep your head down, and not attract attention
I wouldn't mind an Eladran playable race (the ones in Warriors of Heaven were not playable in a regular game) that used the 2e/3e fluff, but the 4e Eladrin are clearly the High/Moon/Grey Elves of 4e. The FR Campaign Guide calls them Moon Elves, and the PHB says that Elves are Eladrin from the material plane, so Eladrin are explicitly Elves of the Feywild in 4e fluff. Heroes of the Feywild reinforces this.
Eladrin as their own thing are cool. Eladrin as yet another name for yet another Elven subrace is unecessary. We've already got both enough Elven subraces enough names for each one to last the next 20 editions of the game. We already had High/Moon/Grey Elves so really nothing was added to the game. On the contrary we lost an interesting group of Outsiders.
I got the impression that using the "eladrin" name was not to add another elf subrace, but to cut all the silly ones, thus making sure that "elf" always means the same thing mechanically.
More than likely. Everyone knows that elven subraces needed a fair bit of the chafe cut, and giving them a name other than "X Elf" helps this, giving them their own idenity
Personally I would have gone for Sidhe or the like, or at least maybe tried to put something in about how oldschool Eladrin were actually proto-elves or planetouched elves or whatever, and the whole rearrangement mess basically shafted them and their realm off into the Feywild through Reasons, but that's just me
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 09, 2012 - 6:13AM
#40
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2007
|
I think people are confused far less readily than you seem to think, JayM. I've never once observed or experienced a lick of confusion over any of the things you're fretting over. "It used to be this, now it's this" is a pretty elementary concept.
Lamia was the only case where it messed up the game and that probably is the extreme. The 4e group I play with had never encountered a 4e lamia till this year, so they had long since forgotten reading it from the MM several years ago. When they made the skill check to recognize the creature and I told them it was a lamia, several people where quite confused because there where several monsters on the battle field, but none of them had been described in a way that matched what they thought of when I said lamia.
More usually it is people commenting on 4e being a non-euclidean geometry. That actually comes up once a month or so when somebody gets the closest target wrong because of that. Not that I would actually want to go back to the 1/2 rule, it is far more accurate but I don't know how many 3e players I saw who had trouble figuring movement when it included both straight and diagonals in the same move.
The whole issue is probably compounded for this group because we also play Pathfinder, so we bounce back and forth between the 4e and a 3e style game.
|
|
|
