Factions in 4e

37 posts / 0 new
Last post
Hi Everyone,

I am sure this has been discussed, but how will factions work in 4e?

I received a promo of the Spined Devil with a look at the new 4e card. On the Skirmish side it looked like there were two faction symbols. On the RPG side I did not see anything. Can anyone help?

Thanks,

Mazra
There are no Factions in 4e, and alignment is, by all acounts, optional so will not be listed in the combat card for 4e creatures. It's been removed as a mandatory mechanic, so is "fluff" and unlisted.
There are no Factions in 4e, and alignment is, by all acounts, optional so will not be listed in the combat card for 4e creatures. It's been removed as a mandatory mechanic, so is "fluff" and unlisted.

Hi NobodyRememberThis,

How about Skirmish? Can we look forward to the Solar/Lich warband? No. I don't think so. There are clearly faction symbols on the Skirmish side to the Spined Devil card. What are they? What do they mean?

It would be plain wrong for 4e to eliminate alignments all together. To create more creatures with a neutral alignment would be OK. The thought of a Paladin not being the righteous warrior would be entirely too PC for my taste, and would cause me to play 3.5 indefinitely.

You know.....I may remember this.

Thanks,

Mazra
The thought of a Paladin not being the righteous warrior would be entirely too PC for my taste, and would cause me to play 3.5 indefinitely.

Paladins of Asmodeus have been mentioned.

Finally we get to have Righteous Champions of Evil Religions!

The Assassin, the Cleric of Nerul and the Necromancer now get to whine about how preachy the Paladin is.

And how no one 'really' sacrifices their third born on the temple steps anymore, and instsisting that the more lax modern morals of the Church of Nerull are in need of correction is very not cool.
Hi NobodyRememberThis,

How about Skirmish? Can we look forward to the Solar/Lich warband? No. I don't think so. There are clearly faction symbols on the Skirmish side to the Spined Devil card. What are they? What do they mean?

It would be plain wrong for 4e to eliminate alignments all together. To create more creatures with a neutral alignment would be OK. The thought of a Paladin not being the righteous warrior would be entirely too PC for my taste, and would cause me to play 3.5 indefinitely.

You know.....I may remember this.

Thanks,

Mazra

I haven't seen the "skirmish" side of the 4e preview card, so I can't talk about that. However, I can talk about the fact that Paladins no longer require a specific alignment. It seems a Paladin is now a holy warrior designed to defend and champion the causes of the god he or she worships (possibly simply "ideal" - which could be a god or an idea ;) ). Paladin's will still be a righteous warrior; only now, who is "righteous" will likely depend on the individual, not an arbitrary and cumbersome alignment mechanic.

Which is a good thing IMO.
Paladins of Asmodeus have been mentioned.

Finally we get to have Righteous Champions of Evil Religions!

The Assassin, the Cleric of Nerul and the Necromancer now get to whine about how preachy the Paladin is.

And how no one 'really' sacrifices their third born on the temple steps anymore, and instsisting that the more lax modern morals of the Church of Nerull are in need of correction is very not cool.

Hi Dragom and NobodyRememberThis,

It used to be that an evil aligned Paladin was referred to as an anti-Paladin, with the term Paladin being the champion of that which was Good. I have no problem with the idea of a comparable champions of Evil, or Law, or of Chaos, just don't call them a Paladin.

Thanks,

Mazra
just don't call them a Paladin.

Call him something different at your table if you must.
I am sure this has been discussed, but how will factions work in 4e?

You should rephrase that question for clarity. "How will factions work in D&D Miniatures 2.0?" or something

The Greendale Campaign

 

I was there at the dawn of the Third-and-a-Halfth Age of Dungeons & Dragons. I saw action during the Crisis of Infinite Foundations, stood on the ramparts of the Citadel of Mirth, delved deep into the debauchery of the Forum of the Adult, and fought alongside the Infernal Bovine on the fields of the Eberron War. I weathered the Ponystorm. I witnessed as the orcs came for the wizos, and I wept mightily. I saw the realm crack as the Fourth Age came upon us, and I witnessed the eldritch tendrils of the dread Gleemax. Now I watch as the Meta Wars ravage the land as the Fifth Age is dawning. I have walked these Boarderlands for many a long year, and bear many scars in my soul. Yet I remain the White Sorcerer, ever in your service. TWS out.

Call him something different at your table if you must.

Hi Dragom.

Back at you! The Paladin since first edition through 3.5 was required to be Lawful Good. If you want to change it at your gaming table go ahead, but IMHO WOTC should not alter this.

Thanks,

Mazra
You should rephrase that question for clarity. "How will factions work in D&D Miniatures 2.0?" or something

Hi The White Sorcerer,

Are you sure there will be NO factions or alignments in 4e? Have you received some assurance of this? It is a valid question in 4e or 2.0 or wherever?

I would welcome something from a WOTC employee to post here for confirmation. It is their site aferall, and one would hope they are monitoring these message boards.

Please understand I am all for a loosening of the alignment restrictions, but I am against eliminating them all together.

Thanks,

Mazra
There were guild like factions in PHB II... or was it DMG II? ah i cant remember. anyway they had all these special rules that didn't make logical sense, and in practice didn't work very will. if this is what you are talking about, its my opinion that such things are better left as purely role played organizations.
Currently rewriting everything. If anyone knows of a Dragonmech campaign writeup or session recording, PM me. Words to Live By
Back at you! The Paladin since first edition through 3.5 was required to be Lawful Good. If you want to change it at your gaming table go ahead, but IMHO WOTC should not alter this.

Druids had to be true neutral, bards partially neutral, rogues couldn't be lawful good, and rangers had to be good. I hope WotC won't be changing these in 4e.

The Greendale Campaign

 

I was there at the dawn of the Third-and-a-Halfth Age of Dungeons & Dragons. I saw action during the Crisis of Infinite Foundations, stood on the ramparts of the Citadel of Mirth, delved deep into the debauchery of the Forum of the Adult, and fought alongside the Infernal Bovine on the fields of the Eberron War. I weathered the Ponystorm. I witnessed as the orcs came for the wizos, and I wept mightily. I saw the realm crack as the Fourth Age came upon us, and I witnessed the eldritch tendrils of the dread Gleemax. Now I watch as the Meta Wars ravage the land as the Fifth Age is dawning. I have walked these Boarderlands for many a long year, and bear many scars in my soul. Yet I remain the White Sorcerer, ever in your service. TWS out.

Are you sure there will be NO factions or alignments in 4e? Have you received some assurance of this? It is a valid question in 4e or 2.0 or wherever?

I know that there will be alignments in the game, that much has been confirmed. But factions are a skirmish game concept, so I have absolutely no reason to believe for one split second that they'd be implemented into 4e.

The Greendale Campaign

 

I was there at the dawn of the Third-and-a-Halfth Age of Dungeons & Dragons. I saw action during the Crisis of Infinite Foundations, stood on the ramparts of the Citadel of Mirth, delved deep into the debauchery of the Forum of the Adult, and fought alongside the Infernal Bovine on the fields of the Eberron War. I weathered the Ponystorm. I witnessed as the orcs came for the wizos, and I wept mightily. I saw the realm crack as the Fourth Age came upon us, and I witnessed the eldritch tendrils of the dread Gleemax. Now I watch as the Meta Wars ravage the land as the Fifth Age is dawning. I have walked these Boarderlands for many a long year, and bear many scars in my soul. Yet I remain the White Sorcerer, ever in your service. TWS out.

Agreed. Mazra, I think you're referring to a D&D Minis concept that was never part of the rules structure for the roleplaying game and then asking why it won't be there in the 4th edition roleplaying game. That makes no sense to most of us.

Alignments were in the 3rd edition RPG and similarly aligned creatures tended toward alliances, but they certainly didn't make up any sort of faction.

There very well may be a 'factions' system in D&D Minis for 4th edition. This isn't the right thread for it though.
It has been confirmed, as of Gameday, that Alignment is story element only. AFAIK, It will have no impact whatsoever on the rules or implementation of the classes, races, monsters, or any other rule. Likely, the "Paladin's Code" will actually be presented as a set of guidelines that they cannot violate without losing access to their powers.
There were guild like factions in PHB II... or was it DMG II? ah i cant remember. anyway they had all these special rules that didn't make logical sense, and in practice didn't work very will. if this is what you are talking about, its my opinion that such things are better left as purely role played organizations.

Hi Anodai,

I don't know. This is why I am asking the question. There is no alignment of the RPG side of the Spine Devil's 4e card. It says, "Medium Immortal Humanoid (Devil)." There is no Lawful Evil. So I am asking if anyone knows what WOTC has in mind for 4e.

Thanks,

Mazra
I know that there will be alignments in the game, that much has been confirmed. But factions are a skirmish game concept, so I have absolutely no reason to believe for one split second that they'd be implemented into 4e.

Hi The White Sorcerer,

Interesting! Are you saying that the current LG, CG, LE, and CE is a Skirmish game concept? These alignments existed in RPG long before Skirmish. Do you know that 4e and 2.0 will be vastly different from one another in the area of factions or alignments? They are not that different now. Skirmish is just simplified 3.5 battle system. An Angel is LG in both RPG and Skirmish.

Why is there no alignment on the RPG side of the Spined Devil card? If the (Devil) notation incorporates the idea of alignment, then 4e is moving toward a faction like system.

If you know more about this, please by all means let us know.

Thanks,

Mazra
Agreed. Mazra, I think you're referring to a D&D Minis concept that was never part of the rules structure for the roleplaying game and then asking why it won't be there in the 4th edition roleplaying game. That makes no sense to most of us.

Alignments were in the 3rd edition RPG and similarly aligned creatures tended toward alliances, but they certainly didn't make up any sort of faction.

There very well may be a 'factions' system in D&D Minis for 4th edition. This isn't the right thread for it though.

Hi TWG_Prometheus,

Maybe my use of the word faction is causing some degree of ire. It is not meant. The current Skirmish game uses the 3.5 RPG alignment system. These alignments form a kind of faction, which is nothing more than individuals of a like mindset. "NobodyRememberThis" said that alignments will be story based only. "The White Sorcerers" says that there will be alignments in the game system. So which is it, and how will 4e be handling say the Paladin or a devil or an Angel?

I am sorry you don't think this is the right thread. I think it to be the correct one. You do not have to respond to it.

Thanks,

Mazra
What I mean by story element only is that alignment has so far been shown to have absolutely no effect in the mechancis (both class, monster, and otherwise) for 4th edition. If Baker's blog is anything to go by, creatures can have an alignment. However, they won't have the alignment descriptors of 3e. The only alignments I have actually seen bandied about are good and evil.

So, while most Devils will undoubtedly be Evil, it will likely not be listed in the statblock - most probably in the small flavor text blurb befor the combat section.
What I mean by story element only is that alignment has so far been shown to have absolutely no effect in the mechancis (both class, monster, and otherwise) for 4th edition. If Baker's blog is anything to go by, creatures can have an alignment. However, they won't have the alignment descriptors of 3e. The only alignments I have actually seen bandied about are good and evil.

So, while most Devils will undoubtedly be Evil, it will likely not be listed in the statblock - most probably in the small flavor text blurb befor the combat section.

Hi NobodyRememberThis,

Thanks for that clarification. Then this is closer to the concept of faction. The devil faction, like noted on the Spined Devil RPG card, would have a descriptor that would within it include an idea about their evil alignment. Angels would be a faction. The fey may be a faction. There may be differing factions of Giants or Drow or even the Undead. This is where I was going with the idea. And if this is the case, then the Skirmish factions are just a simplification of this idea, not unlike how alignments are treated in Skirmish now.

Later,

Mazra
Interesting! Are you saying that the current LG, CG, LE, and CE is a Skirmish game concept? These alignments existed in RPG long before Skirmish.

The factions LG, CG, LE, and CE are a Skirmish game concept, yes. Please don't use the terms "alignment" and "faction" interchangeably, unless you think that lawful good heroes won't be able to adventure with chaotic good ones in 4e or something silly like that.

The Greendale Campaign

 

I was there at the dawn of the Third-and-a-Halfth Age of Dungeons & Dragons. I saw action during the Crisis of Infinite Foundations, stood on the ramparts of the Citadel of Mirth, delved deep into the debauchery of the Forum of the Adult, and fought alongside the Infernal Bovine on the fields of the Eberron War. I weathered the Ponystorm. I witnessed as the orcs came for the wizos, and I wept mightily. I saw the realm crack as the Fourth Age came upon us, and I witnessed the eldritch tendrils of the dread Gleemax. Now I watch as the Meta Wars ravage the land as the Fifth Age is dawning. I have walked these Boarderlands for many a long year, and bear many scars in my soul. Yet I remain the White Sorcerer, ever in your service. TWS out.

The factions LG, CG, LE, and CE are a Skirmish game concept, yes. Please don't use the terms "alignment" and "faction" interchangeably, unless you think that lawful good heroes won't be able to adventure with chaotic good ones in 4e or something silly like that.

Hi The White Sorcerer,

I would never propose that LG adventurers could not travel with CG adventurers. That would be silly. In fact, I am not proposing anything at this time. But it does look like there will be a vast alteration in the current alignment system. My whole purpose here is to find out what that will be, and understand how it will work.

Remember in fantasy lore, there were wars between Dwarves (LG) and Elves (CG). And though both may gather to fight evil, there was great mistrust between them. Just because a faction exist, it does not mean that cross-faction cooperation can not exist. In fact, this is the case with the average adventuring party.

And forgive me for this, but if I choose to use "factions" and "alignments" interchangably, then that is up to me and not you, for I believe they are interchangable in this overall general discussion. Alignment is a broad mindset and factions are a gathering of those of like interest within that broader mindset. You may believe as you please.

Thanks,

Mazra
The problem is, factions and alignments are completely different. Factions are groupings of like minded individuals. Alignments are the 9 arbitrary archetypes imposed on everything on an individual level.

This is what you are, in essence, saying when you use the incorrect terminology:

Everyone in X faction is Chaotic Evil. Everyone that is Chaotic Evil is in X faction. If I am Chaotic Evil, I must be in X faction

That is a logical fallacy.

In DDM, Alignments are an absolute, and determine which faction you belong to . In D&D 3.x, Alignments are an absolute, and determine which spells you are affected by, which abilities you can use, and which classes you can belong to. It is two separate uses for the same mechanic.
The problem is, factions and alignments are completely different. Factions are groupings of like minded individuals. Alignments are the 9 arbitrary archetypes imposed on everything on an individual level.

This is what you are, in essence, saying when you use the incorrect terminology:

Everyone in X faction is Chaotic Evil. Everyone that is Chaotic Evil is in X faction. If I am Chaotic Evil, I must be in X faction

That is a logical fallacy.

In DDM, Alignments are an absolute, and determine which faction you belong to . In D&D 3.x, Alignments are an absolute, and determine which spells you are affected by, which abilities you can use, and which classes you can belong to. It is two separate uses for the same mechanic.

Hi NobodyRememberThis,

You have a point, but I do believe that factions and alignments are more related than you make it sound. You say they are completely different. They are not. A faction of Assassins would not be Lawful or Good. Elves by their nature would not be Lawful. Devils would not be good, etc. If 4e does not use alignment in the same way as 3.5 and earlier, then what are they using? You can have many factions within an alignment, you can even have factions that crosses many alignments. You could have a Slaad faction that have representatives both good and evil. You can have a faction of Angels that are Lawful Good and Dwarves that are Lawful Good. It looks to me that WOTC may be moving more toward a faction system where their TYPE determines more their alignment and attitude than a combination of TYPE and ALIGNMENT that presently exist. Possibly more like the faction system used in Planescape.

I am really just curious about what WOTC is planning. I really would like it if someone at WOTC would give us a more definitive statement of what is planned.

BTW- I do not beleive I made the statement that everyone that was a certain alignment would be in a certain faction. It would be more the other way around. All the members of a certain faction would be of a certain alignment. Example: The Drow are Chaoctic and Evil. Drzzt found that he could not accept the Drow way. He was good, and as result had to leave the Drow because of his alignment. He would always remain a Drow by race, but he ceased to be a part of their faction and follow their ways. Drzzt was not typical of the Drow. How will WOTC handle the Drow in 4e?

Thanks,

Mazra
Drow are elves with fiendish fey ties in 4e. ;)

I am guessing most of D&D is going to be "factionless", as you would put it (for whatever reason, you are either not understanding the difference or deliberately miscontstruing). The DDM game will have factions. My guess is that the five factions for DDM are going to be Order, Chaos, Good, Evil, Any.
My guess is more factions.

Like the Goblin faction and the Undead faction.
Not everyone in a D&DM faction has the corresponding alignment. The Human Commoner, from way back in Harbinger, was in the LG faction but was himself lawful neutral. So no, faction and alignment aren't the same. Related, yes, but not the same.

The Greendale Campaign

 

I was there at the dawn of the Third-and-a-Halfth Age of Dungeons & Dragons. I saw action during the Crisis of Infinite Foundations, stood on the ramparts of the Citadel of Mirth, delved deep into the debauchery of the Forum of the Adult, and fought alongside the Infernal Bovine on the fields of the Eberron War. I weathered the Ponystorm. I witnessed as the orcs came for the wizos, and I wept mightily. I saw the realm crack as the Fourth Age came upon us, and I witnessed the eldritch tendrils of the dread Gleemax. Now I watch as the Meta Wars ravage the land as the Fifth Age is dawning. I have walked these Boarderlands for many a long year, and bear many scars in my soul. Yet I remain the White Sorcerer, ever in your service. TWS out.

(for whatever reason, you are either not understanding the difference or deliberately miscontstruing).

Hi NobodyRememberThis,

It could be that you and I have different understandings of the terms, and may have to agree to disagree in some areas.

My reason for combining alignment with the idea of faction is simple. There is no alignment noted on the RPG side of the Spined Devil's 4e card. This has been a part of the D&D gaming system since I started playing it in 1979. So what alignment is the Spined Devil? Could it be that alignment may be a part of being a (DEVIL)? If this is the case, then this is more of a FACTION system.

Thanks,

Mazra

BTW- I guess that means that the Drow would be a Fiendish Fey faction. ;)
My guess is more factions.

Like the Goblin faction and the Undead faction.

Hi Dragom,

I agree! That would be my guess as well, and the reason for this thread.

If this is the case, then I would like to see a list of the differing factions.

This could be a much more interesting system.

Thanks,

Mazra
Mazra - am I correct in thinking you are no longer applying the term 'faction' in its DDM sense? Perhaps 'organisation' and 'subtype' are better words to use.

The spined devil is listed as a 'devil', which likely determines its abilities, or how certain mechanics affect it (just like in 3.5). 'Devil' would not simply be a listing of the creature's faction in terms of organisation/grouping, because that's irrelevant to the stat block.
Similiarly, since alignment in 4e does not have any mechanics attached to it, it is pointless to include it in the stat block. So, while it does exist, it doesn't need to be known while running the monster in a battle. The creature's aligment, if it has one, will likely be listed in flavour text, which is always missing on DDM cards.
The Dragon Above - Eberron news and new content for both 3E and 4E. Home of the Eberron Bestiary.
Mazra - am I correct in thinking you are no longer applying the term 'faction' in its DDM sense? Perhaps 'organisation' and 'subtype' are better words to use.

The spined devil is listed as a 'devil', which likely determines its abilities, or how certain mechanics affect it (just like in 3.5). 'Devil' would not simply be a listing of the creature's faction in terms of organisation/grouping, because that's irrelevant to the stat block.
Similiarly, since alignment in 4e does not have any mechanics attached to it, it is pointless to include it in the stat block. So, while it does exist, it doesn't need to be known while running the monster in a battle. The creature's aligment, if it has one, will likely be listed in flavour text, which is always missing on DDM cards.

Hi ieattrollsforbreakfast,

First of all, very well said. And what you say makes sense.

However, alignment is listed on the RPG side of ALL the DDM stat cards. Doing away with alignment as a reference is a big change. For me as a DM, seeing whether the monster is CE, LE, CN, LN, or True N may determine how I play it, especially if it is a newer monster, of which I may not be as familiar. However, if alignment is a part of the SUBTYPE then knowing these subtypes would suffice. I would be curious to know all the planned subtypes, and wonder if they will include such subtypes as Aasimars or Mercykillers.

The term FACTION seems to be the sore spot with people. However there has always been a relationship between the Skirmish factions and the RPG alignment. It is not an accident that a CN creature in RPG would be able to join either CG or CE warbands. On the Skirmish side of the Spined Devil card there are symbols. I am guessing they are FACTION symbols. My curiousity, and nothing more, is that like there is a corelation with alignment and factions in the current game system, will there be a similar corelation in 4e?

Thanks,

Mazra
However, alignment is listed on the RPG side of ALL the DDM stat cards. Doing away with alignment as a reference is a big change. For me as a DM, seeing whether the monster is CE, LE, CN, LN, or True N may determine how I play it, especially if it is a newer monster, of which I may not be as familiar. However, if alignment is a part of the SUBTYPE then knowing these subtypes would suffice. I would be curious to know all the planned subtypes, and wonder if they will include such subtypes as Aasimars or Mercykillers.

That's true, the removal of alignment will make it take longer to find a properly opposed monster to face your PCs, but I think in 4e the point is that alignment isn't an important factor for opposition. You should be picking monsters based on their personality/goals (as listed in their flavour text), rather than the 'CE' or 'LE' stamp. Sure, it'll take longer, but it's better for the game I think.

The term FACTION seems to be the sore spot with people. However there has always been a relationship between the Skirmish factions and the RPG alignment. It is not an accident that a CN creature in RPG would be able to join either CG or CE warbands. On the Skirmish side of the Spined Devil card there are symbols. I am guessing they are FACTION symbols. My curiousity, and nothing more, is that like there is a corelation with alignment and factions in the current game system, will there be a similar corelation in 4e?

Thanks,

Mazra

There may be, but its too hard to say at this point. With the removal of alignment in 4e, it may be that the correlation will remain with 3.5e rather than 4e. In other words, the designers might look at alignment in 3.5 to help determine the appropriate faction in DDM2.
The Dragon Above - Eberron news and new content for both 3E and 4E. Home of the Eberron Bestiary.
With the removal of alignment in 4e

What removal? Alignment is a confirmed element of 4e.

The Greendale Campaign

 

I was there at the dawn of the Third-and-a-Halfth Age of Dungeons & Dragons. I saw action during the Crisis of Infinite Foundations, stood on the ramparts of the Citadel of Mirth, delved deep into the debauchery of the Forum of the Adult, and fought alongside the Infernal Bovine on the fields of the Eberron War. I weathered the Ponystorm. I witnessed as the orcs came for the wizos, and I wept mightily. I saw the realm crack as the Fourth Age came upon us, and I witnessed the eldritch tendrils of the dread Gleemax. Now I watch as the Meta Wars ravage the land as the Fifth Age is dawning. I have walked these Boarderlands for many a long year, and bear many scars in my soul. Yet I remain the White Sorcerer, ever in your service. TWS out.

What removal? Alignment is a confirmed element of 4e.

He meant Removal of Alignment as a mechanic in 4e. ;)
That's true, the removal of alignment will make it take longer to find a properly opposed monster to face your PCs,

Hi ieattrollsforbreakfast,

It is more than just being properly opposed. I really like using the DDMs in my campaign; and I use the stat card. I have had encounters with monsters from manuals I do not own. I use the knowledge of aligment with intelligent scores to develope tactic for the monster. A low intelligent CE monster would come in charging without regard to tactics. A high intelligent LE would not only use tactics, but position allies, make ambushes, etc. Alignment is more than some esoteric point-of-view, it dictates actions.

I am all for broadening the alignment of monsters. Really what lore dictates that the Copper Dragon has to be good. The Capricious Copper Dragon in the Desert of Desolation set makes for a fantastic encounter scenario. You quest the party after some item, say a magic sword. You let them know that it is under the protection of a Copper Dragon. The long time adventuring party thinks, Copper Dragon. No problem! We will barter with it. They approach the Copper Dragon and say, "Good Dragon we are interested in using that sword you protect to destroy this evil terrorizing the land." The Dragon pauses and thinks, "Wow! My lunch just walked up." :D

You see "ieattrollsforbreakfast" my main purpose here is just to understand what's up. I am so sorry that it turned into some debate on terminologies. I know that it is my fault, in that I do see a corelation between the factions of Skirmish and the alignments in RPG; and for no other reason than because they currently exist.

BTW-Don't you hate it when you get Troll stuck in your teeth.

Later,

Mazra
I know that it is my fault, in that I do see a corelation between the factions of Skirmish and the alignments in RPG; and for no other reason than because they currently exist.

Even if the two are related, they're not the same thing, and thus shouldn't be used interchangeably. It's like using LA and ECL as synonyms, it's just not right.

The Greendale Campaign

 

I was there at the dawn of the Third-and-a-Halfth Age of Dungeons & Dragons. I saw action during the Crisis of Infinite Foundations, stood on the ramparts of the Citadel of Mirth, delved deep into the debauchery of the Forum of the Adult, and fought alongside the Infernal Bovine on the fields of the Eberron War. I weathered the Ponystorm. I witnessed as the orcs came for the wizos, and I wept mightily. I saw the realm crack as the Fourth Age came upon us, and I witnessed the eldritch tendrils of the dread Gleemax. Now I watch as the Meta Wars ravage the land as the Fifth Age is dawning. I have walked these Boarderlands for many a long year, and bear many scars in my soul. Yet I remain the White Sorcerer, ever in your service. TWS out.

Even if the two are related, they're not the same thing, and thus shouldn't be used interchangeably. It's like using LA and ECL as synonyms, it's just not right.

Hi The White Sorcerer,

You are right. They are not the same thing. But they are very much related in the current game system. I am curious to understand their relationship, if any, in the new game system.

Thanks,

Mazra