Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Sir Giltheas 04-26-05, 08:23 AM	Hi, Normally I don't write to messageboards, but this time I have to make an exception. The state of WotC's recent rulebooks has really disappointed me. Without re-hashing the complaints detailed in other threads, it seems that we consumers are mostly disappointed with the lack of editing and quality. I have purchased most of WotC's hardcovers since 3.0 came out. Most (but not all) of these books I've been delighted with. Recently, however, I purchased Races of Eberron and there were numerous niggling flaws that I noticed. Checking on these messageboard has only confirmed my doubts. It seems that over the last few months, more and more low-quality books were printed. Specifically I refer to: 1. Poor editing that even someone lacking professional editing qualifications could spot with ease. (Apparently RoE had three Editors -- are you SURE?). I know how difficult it is to proofread text for professional presentation. Some oversights are inevitable and excusable -- we're all human, after all. But the errors I'm talking about are so obvious they're embarrasing. It's enough to make me cringe. 2. Increased font size to take up extra space. This is an old trick I learned in high school. If you don't have much to say, just write bigger. 3. Vague, often uninspired text, with very little information about the topic in question. Parts of the racial information (especially with regards to the core races) are non-Eberron specific and would better belong in core D&D material. For example, stating that the elf should take Point Blank Shot, has nothing to do with Eberron itself. This is general elf information. I want information on their unique culture, worldview, and society. There are frequently wishy-washy statements made that are not backed with evidence. Stating that something is "exotic" or "mysterious" is not enough -- the writer must show not tell. Give us a description or example that conjures vivid imagery. 4. Text that is contradictory, misleading or confusing. For example, the ECS states that drow are not applicable for a PC race. But then RoE states that they are indeed appropriate. Make up your mind, please! 5. Lower quality paper. 6. The cover was changed from Eberron style to generic D&D style which I think is a bad choice. This seems like a Marketing Department decision to me -- a poor effort to increase sales. In the end this will simply dilute the signature elements of Eberron, and annoy the loyal fans. 7. The page count of RoE was reasonable. However, it appears that future books will have around 160 pages. With the increased font size and meagre descriptive text, rulebooks will be quickly losing their utility. Not all of the book is bad. Some of it is entertaining to read and useful in a game session, and for that I'm grateful. Thankfully, I preordered my copy at a low price, so I don't feel completely ripped off. But I still expect a quality, professionally-produced product when I hand over my cash. In future, I won't be preordering anything. Instead, I'll read a copy at the store, and check the messageboards before making a decision to buy. I see a lot of these emails around, with people concerned about WotC's products lacking substance. I want to see: 1. Better editing. There should be no spelling mistakes or poor grammar. Rules need to be checked, double-checked and triple-checked for consistency. Having a rule-related problem come up in gameplay, slows the game down considerably. I wouldn't mind paying a higher price for a better product. Editing is a high-stress, high-burnout rate profession. Maybe the current editors need a helping hand. 2. Smaller font size. 3. Evocative text which ignites the imagination. Novel ideas. 4. The page count for books back at 192. Although much of this may be interpreted as negative, please view it as constructive criticism. The only reason I'm writing this is because I'm passionate about seeing the best for the game. WotC, if you continue to churn out poor quality material, then you'll lose customer confidence like TSR did. Customers will begin to pre-judge material before it's even released and adopt a skeptical attitude. Thanks for reading.
polt 04-26-05, 09:50 AM	I agree. I mean almost the whole chapter about the Shifters (maybe except Folklore and history which i liked) told stuff one could easily figure out for yourself. "The shifter are wild and like to move around", well duh. It almost say so in the ECS. The Kalashtar stuff was great, because it was stuff we didn't know. It gave a great picture of how the Kalashtar thinks and acts. And their motives.
Vharuck 04-26-05, 09:58 AM	4. Text that is contradictory, misleading or confusing. For example, the ECS states that drow are not applicable for a PC race. But then RoE states that they are indeed appropriate. Make up your mind, please! I never got that impression. Yes, it detailed how their culture worked. Yes, it gave their names. Yes, it described the equipment they used. Yes, it had feats for them. Yes it had a section on how to roleplay a drow. But it never said that it was ok for players. Therefore, based on the precedent that drow are not ok, and the fact that this book doesn't really say they are, I came to the conclusion that the information in the book was meant for the DM, who has to design and roleplay drow if his players interact with them. Which is good for me. Since they're almost at Xen'drik.
Edymnion 04-26-05, 02:01 PM	Heh, careful there, I've already gotten people calling me an elitist snob for not thinking RoE is printed on pure gold pages. ;)
The White Sorcerer 04-26-05, 04:50 PM	Heh, careful there, I've already gotten people calling me an elitist snob for not thinking RoE is printed on pure gold pages. ;) No, you've gotten people calling you an elitist snob for dismissing all non-Keith text that doesn't fit your perception of the setting as non-canonical.
Edymnion 04-26-05, 05:32 PM	No, you've gotten people calling you an elitist snob for dismissing all non-Keith text that doesn't fit your perception of the setting as non-canonical.No, I've got people calling me an elitist snob for asking what others though, and giving my opinion that a non-Eberron line book of medium quality with contradictory information to what has already been presented should not be treated with the same level of official respect as the other material. I don't care who writes it, as long as its up to snuff with the core material quality wise, and that it actually meshes with the setting.
The White Sorcerer 04-27-05, 01:24 AM	There's something I don't get about all the RoE rants: The claim that the material is contradictory. How so?
Manshara 04-27-05, 02:15 AM	There's something I don't get about all the RoE rants: The claim that the material is contradictory. How so?We'd tell you, but we'd have to contradict you. ;)
Kalanth 04-27-05, 02:29 AM	Here is the sad thing, I am not dissapointed by the bad edditing in RoE. Instead, I have grown to expect it. WoTC does an excellent job pouring out book after book and doing all they can to make the fans happy, but they let a whole lot more slip through the cracks these days than ever before.
Edymnion 04-27-05, 02:57 AM	There's something I don't get about all the RoE rants: The claim that the material is contradictory. How so?Warforged come out as blank slates, contradicts what Keith has been saying about being made for a purpose (of course what Keith says isn't official, but I would consider him to know what they're supposed to be better than anyone else). Says they can't stand concentrating on the same task for more than a few hours at a time, yet it then goes on to say they take endless enjoyment from doing the same repetative tasks. Also says on the same page that a Warforged smith would work from dawn to dusk. It says that the only form of magic taught to the WF was Artificing, and then only to highly select groups. Yet the ECS lists starting ages for spellcasters of all kinds that are more than high enough to mean they were crafted during the war. RoE says that Warforged MUST choose a gender personality, while the ECS says they don't consider themselves gendered at all, and its the interpretation of their speech and actions that has other people imposing gender on them. The oft mentioned WF scent component, which STRONGLY implies that warforged are incapable of smelling things without it. It does not, after all, say that it allows them to smell things BETTER than normal, but that it is highly prized because it lets them smell things in general. Drow are specifically said to be unsuitable for play in Eberron, along with things like Dragons and the Sahuagin. Eberron Drow are supposed to be mainly at the savage level, barely above throwing their poo at each other after the fall of the Giant empire, with only very few groups that actually retained what we'd call civilization, and even fewer still that kept magic alive. Yet RoE gives us 3 pages on how to play Drow, and surprise surprise, they're all highly civilized and Faerun-ish. Valenar Elves embody the spirit of one of their ancestors, and try to emulate that ancestor. RoE talks about them not only going out for personal glory, but actually going to the Undying Courts and being devoted to that form of ancestor worship. Half-Elf characters are encouraged to take the Mark of Storms so they can pilot their own airships. Half-Orcs get one passing referance to being descended from the Gatekeeper Orcs, and then the rest of it is essentially standard half-orc brute fare. What happened to them leaning towards being Druids and keepers of nature? Full Orcs also only get passing referance to the Gatekeepers, and nothing about being Druids. They are, once again, nomadic hunter-gatherer barbarians for the most part. It seems they wanted to turn Shifters into the Druids, and didn't want that word to come up with any other race. It seems to try and make the Soulknife a more playable class (which is good) by making it seem every psionic character in the setting has levels in it (which is bad). Artificers are specifically said to ONLY be able to infuse items and constructs, yet they have an entire series of Infusions that are specifically said to be infused into a character's natural weapon, such as a shifter's claws, and it says its infused directly. Artificers CANNOT infuse living beings, or their parts directly. Thats what I find just flipping through it real quick here before I get into my Guild Wars game that I've been waiting on to launch.
ekomega 04-27-05, 03:58 AM	Yeah, my girlfriend and I were talking about the editing problems with the last... every book. I can't believe the editors still have jobs. And with three editors on a book? I don't think Microsoft Word grammar check counts as "editing". That's the only way I can even understand what has happened to all these books. Example: In the Draconomicon, and every other book, sometimes a page will refer to "Chapter XX" or "Chapter ??". It's okay to not know the chapter while writing, that's expected. But how hard is it to use the search function of the program you're writing in and search for "XX" or "??". They should've set a standard for typing that allows the editors to do jobs for this easily, like always putting missing chapter numbers as "XX" so that they would be easy find. I can't understand how editing simple things like this could be so hard. I don't expect all sentences to have perfect grammar, or anything close, as long as they make sense. But typos are big no-nos, along with the example mentioned above. That's just poor quality and laziness. The other issue is the people who check the monster stats. In Monster Manual 3 (as you may know), 60ish monsters were errata'ed. That's like 30% of the book, and I find that to be completely unacceptable. I haven't bought it because of that, and never will. I refuse to buy books with such horrible quality, and only buy a few. I have a large budget for this junk, and I spend it elsewhere because I pay for quality. $30 or $40 for a book demands quality. I wish more people spoke with their pocketbooks, but nobody does. I'd almost download the books for free if that weren't a worse idea to me. Nothing worse than not paying for hard work. Now, whether or not the hard work deserves being paid for... doesn't justify stealing but it does justify not buying. DnD books aren't a survival necessity.
Sir Giltheas 04-27-05, 05:36 AM	One of the worst books for errors was the Expanded Psionics Handbook. The fact that it was a revision of a 3.0 product should mean that a revision would be relatively free of errors. Not so. Almost all of the important examples in the books are totally wrong. They make no sense. Examples are there to CLARIFY the text. Instead these examples actually add to the onfusion and mislead the reader! (We would have been better off with a book containing no examples, than one containing wrong ones). Of course, these weren't the only errors. Oh no. There are heaps of mistakes in the book. Errata has been released which covers only some of these holes, and this is like sticking a Band-Aid on a broken leg. WotC: You NEED a Quality Assurance process! You know, wouldn't it be nice if WotC made a public statement at some stage, stating their stance on the issue? (Hint, hint)
scwolf 04-27-05, 02:45 PM	There's something I don't get about all the RoE rants: The claim that the material is contradictory. How so? Siran Dunmorgan had one good example in this post from another thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6041721&postcount=73).
Mula 04-27-05, 07:03 PM	I call your attention to the dragonshard core described on pages 176-177, to its backstory, and particularly to the effects of the embedded Siberys shard. We know from various sources that the warforged are not wholly new creations, that they have their origin in similar living constructs pioneered by the artificers of the Age of Giants. However, I find myself troubled—and this may simply be weakness of intellect on my part—by the thought that some giant artificer went to the trouble of developing a component one-third of the capabilities of which are useful only in hunting down the dragonmarked, dozens of millenia before the dragonmarks appeared. Well, first of all, the description of the item doesn’t say it was created by a giant artificer; it only says the item was found in giant ruins. Who or what created the item doesn’t really matter, of course, because the problem is that the Dragonshard Core was created long before dragonmarks first manifested. But what if the creator was somehow divinely inspired or foresaw something in the draconic prophecy, which lead the maker to craft the item? Eberron myth offers tons of different reasons for creating this kind of an artifact. Also, the Dragonshard Core offers two dragonmark related abilities, both of which are due its Siberys dragonshard. And Siberys dragonshards are directly linked to dragonmarks. Makes sense. I don’t see a direct contradiction between ECS and RoE.
Sarlax 04-27-05, 07:06 PM	Warforged come out as blank slates, contradicts what Keith has been saying about being made for a purpose (of course what Keith says isn't official, but I would consider him to know what they're supposed to be better than anyone else). As you say, this doesn't contradict anything official, and Hellcow apparently has an idea in mind that will reconcile this without forcing change. Says they can't stand concentrating on the same task for more than a few hours at a time, yet it then goes on to say they take endless enjoyment from doing the same repetative tasks. Also says on the same page that a Warforged smith would work from dawn to dusk. No, it doesn't say that. It says that a warforged grows bored if they don't have some task to do. It says that warforged "are limited to working no more than 8 hours per day in creating or repairing a given object," not working in general. A warforged can repair himself for 8 hours, sharpen swords for 8 hours, then built toy boats for 8 hours. The careful reading reveals that warforged like to keep busy, but they get bored if they're doing exactly the same thing for 24 hours a day, so they change it up at least every 8 hours. See page 13 for a review. It says that the only form of magic taught to the WF was Artificing, and then only to highly select groups. No, it doesn't say that. It says that the only magical practice artificers were taught in the House Cannith training halls was artifice. Nothing says that House Cannith was the only source of instruction for warforged or that warforged couldn't have learned spellcasting after they left house Cannith. See page 14. RoE says that Warforged MUST choose a gender personality, while the ECS says they don't consider themselves gendered at all, and its the interpretation of their speech and actions that has other people imposing gender on them. Yeah. That bugged me, too. This is a genuine contradiction. The oft mentioned WF scent component, which STRONGLY implies that warforged are incapable of smelling things without it. It does not, after all, say that it allows them to smell things BETTER than normal, but that it is highly prized because it lets them smell things in general. No contradiction. The text is read differently be different people. To say that it strongly implies that warforged completely lack scent is unfair. It simply says that it gives them the ability to smell "all smells." See page 176. Drow are specifically said to be unsuitable for play in Eberron, along with things like Dragons and the Sahuagin <SNIP> Yet RoE gives us 3 pages on how to play Drow This information is just as useful for the PC as it is for the DM. Read the section on Inspired: it gives the same kind of information as the drow entry, but this doesn't mean Inspired are okay for PCs. Eberron Drow are supposed to be mainly at the savage level, barely above throwing their poo at each other after the fall of the Giant empire, with only very few groups that actually retained what we'd call civilization, and even fewer still that kept magic alive Where is all this information coming from? There's almost no information on the drow in the ECS available at all. More importantly, where do you get the idea that's in your next quoted remark? and surprise surprise, they're all highly civilized and Faerun-ish. No, they aren't. Read carefully. The closest that Races of Eberron gets to that is in saying that they are "the most civilized," not that they have a true civilization. Look at the rest of the text: "The drow carve out a deadly existence..." "The continent houses too many dangers for the drow to be able to establish large and stable cities..." "Drow have few of the political struggles and rivalries other races have." Faerun-ish? Haha "They fight daily for their existence amid dangerous jungles and ruined cities..." Nothing in Races of Eberron suggests drow have a real civilization at all, nor does it advocate that drow make a PC race suitable for Eberron. It merely gives the option. Valenar Elves embody the spirit of one of their ancestors, and try to emulate that ancestor. RoE talks about them not only going out for personal glory, but actually going to the Undying Courts and being devoted to that form of ancestor worship. This isn't a contradiction. Valenar can take Right of Counsel, for instance. It's less common for a Valenar elf to head off to Aerenal to pay respect to their ancestors, but nothing in the ECS rules it out. Races of Eberron only says that "many travel to ... speak directly to the most honored ancestors." See p.81. And why wouldn't they? This doesn't contradict anything. This could easily be something like Mecca for Islam - they make the trip at least once. For a race with centuries to live, this is perfectly reasonable and should even be expected. Half-Elf characters are encouraged to take the Mark of Storms so they can pilot their own airships. Hm. I don't see where you're seeing a contradiction. Half-elves are the ones who take the feat, and you do need the feat to most effectively pilot the airships. I think this recommendation struck you as lame because it advocates taking a roleplaying-heavy feat to get a cool magic item (I feel the same), but this isn't a contradiction. Half-Orcs get one passing referance to being descended from the Gatekeeper Orcs, and then the rest of it is essentially standard half-orc brute fare. What happened to them leaning towards being Druids and keepers of nature? Actually, the half-orc entry doesn't describe them as brutes at all. It says they "tend to be accepted among other races ... Their hard work and brave hearts are valued by many." "Half-orcs socialize in much the same manner as humans..." The entry even talks about how cool it could be to play a half-orc diplomat. Regarding their druidic traditions, nothing is contradicted, but this should probably have been emphasized in the text. Full Orcs also only get passing referance to the Gatekeepers, and nothing about being Druids. They are, once again, nomadic hunter-gatherer barbarians for the most part. Races of Eberron does talk about orc civilizations have been in peaceful existence for 1600 years in addition to the nomadic tribes. Nothing about being druids? Come on. "The main power groups among the orcs are the Gatekeepers, the cult of the Dragon Below, and House Tharashk. The Gatekeepers follow the druid traditions passed onto them by the green dragon Vvaraak." "Only the nature worship and honor paid to the Gatekeepers remains stable ... This is due in no small part to the orc druids ..." The character development section says most orc spellcasters are druids. I have to ask: how much of this did you really read? It seems to try and make the Soulknife a more playable class (which is good) by making it seem every psionic character in the setting has levels in it (which is bad). This isn't a contradiction. However, it is annoying, mostly because the soulknife is underpowered and so much of the kalashtar psionics content revolves around this subpar class. Artificers are specifically said to ONLY be able to infuse items and constructs, yet they have an entire series of Infusions that are specifically said to be infused into a character's natural weapon, such as a shifter's claws, and it says its infused directly. Artificers CANNOT infuse living beings, or their parts directly. This is the best example of a true contradiction.
Liane the Wayfarer 04-27-05, 09:47 PM	Well, first of all, the description of the item doesn’t say it was created by a giant artificer; it only says the item was found in giant ruins. Who or what created the item doesn’t really matter, of course, because the problem is that the Dragonshard Core was created long before dragonmarks first manifested. But what if the creator was somehow divinely inspired or foresaw something in the draconic prophecy, which lead the maker to craft the item? Eberron myth offers tons of different reasons for creating this kind of an artifact. Also, the Dragonshard Core offers two dragonmark related abilities, both of which are due its Siberys dragonshard. And Siberys dragonshards are directly linked to dragonmarks. Makes sense. I don’t see a direct contradiction between ECS and RoE. My comment on the same thread: Before the first dragonmarks ever appeared on living beings, they appeared on the land itself. A mark could be carved into a cavern wall, a coral pattern shaped as a mark could form on the ocean floor, or the path of a twisting river could form a mark. These marks appear only at certain times and become visible only under the light of a certain conjunction of moons; a mark might even appear in a lava flow that lasts for only a few hours. These landmarks are complex patterns that resemble the dragonmarks found on living creatures. Interpreting the general meaning of such a mark requires knowledge of Draconic and a successful DC 30 Knowledge (arcana) check. However, the deeper meaning can be understood only when it is placed in context with the geographic location of the mark, its relationship to the moons and the Ring of Siberys, and the lore collected by the seers of Argonnessen over the course of eons. When an adventure involves a landmark, the goal is rarely to translate it. Instead, the challenge will be finding the mark, duplicating it or moving it, and quite possibly destroying it before it can fall into enemy hands. I find it an interesting idea to consider that the dragonshard core allows the warforged to locate these landmarks. It leads to intriguing speculation regarding the role of constructs among the giants. What did they make them for, to help them with the eons-long task of one-upping the dragons and deciphering the landmarks? In any case, dragonmarks have been around forever. It's only recently that living beings began manifesting them on their bodies and displaying powers associated with them. Perhaps the Khyber shard has a more important purpose but that was the only one immediately evident to the members of the expedition. The device is given a simple and brief description of powers in RoE. We should all know by now that artifacts are rarely simple...
Edymnion 04-29-05, 01:45 AM	This is the best example of a true contradiction.That is most likely the differance in where we are coming from. You are looking at it very literally. There isn't much at all in RoE that directly and blatantly contradicts anything in the ECS. However, there is a great deal that contradicts with the flavor of the setting. Mechanical contradictions I don't mind, thats crunch, and this setting isn't about the crunch. Its the flavor contradictions that bother me the most. As for the information on Eberron Drow, I believe much of it came from the Ask Keith threads.
The White Sorcerer 04-29-05, 03:12 AM	As for the information on Eberron Drow, I believe much of it came from the Ask Keith threads. Which is, by the way, (drumroll please)... unofficial! Besides, not once have I seen mention of drow being mostly on the level of poop-flinging primitives. Savage? Sure. Poop-flinging? Never.
Bubba333 04-29-05, 05:52 AM	I too noticed that the paper sucked. So much in fact that I had pages stuck together! When I peeled them apart they almost ripped. I was close to raging! As far as crappy editing, I can't complain too much. I buy White Wolf books, namely Exalted. While the fluff is fantastic, the system is wonky. Want to see editing to make a preschooler cringe? Buy a White Wolf book. Anyhoo, I'll put my 2 cents in about WotC needing QA. I'll also get on the bandwagon concering the purity of the Eberron line. Keep it consistent and we'll be happy. I for one would like to see fewer books with better, cleaner and more worthwhile content, than haphazardly made products. That's not to say that the books are crap, but as the makers of the premier RPG in the world, please take it up a notch. And please, please, PLEASE back down the attention on the minis! They're cool and all, but it seems they're getting pimped EVERYWHERE now! That last part was more of a joke. Kinda'. :D BTW Edymnion, your RoE wasn't printed on gold pages?
Liane the Wayfarer 04-29-05, 12:06 PM	Besides, not once have I seen mention of drow being mostly on the level of poop-flinging primitives. Savage? Sure. Poop-flinging? Never. You haven't seen the teaser material for Races of Eberron II, where they have the Poop Flinger and Dual-Scimitar Wielder/Ass Kicker PrCs just for drow. Along with the dromite, gypsy, and boggle stuff. ;)
Sarlax 04-29-05, 07:25 PM	You are looking at it very literally. There isn't much at all in RoE that directly and blatantly contradicts anything in the ECS. I think it's a very important distinction to make. A literal contradiction and an implied contradiction of flavor are very different things. However, there is a great deal that contradicts with the flavor of the setting. Mechanical contradictions I don't mind, thats crunch, and this setting isn't about the crunch. Its the flavor contradictions that bother me the most. Many of the contradictions in flavor you perceived a way off, though. I have the impression that your objections are the product of a cursory reading through Races of Eberron rather than a thoughtful reading. You remarks about orcs not having any mention of being druidic, for instance, is completely off the mark. Likewise with your claim that RoE posits a Faerun-like drow civilization.
Majorafire77 04-29-05, 08:19 PM	All of these "let's bash ROE" threads are starting to annoy me. I have not read ROE, but from what I see the main argument is over contradictions both within the book itself, and between the book and what Hellcow says/ECS. Hellcow's rulings aren't official. Everyone knows that. While I agree that he probably knows best, it's not official. No arguments here. If what he says and ROE contradict each other, then choose whichever one you think sounds better in you opinion. No need to completely bash the book at all. The ECS is official, I agree 100% with you there. It is fine to use things that contradict the ECS and tailor them to be "Eberron-esque". A while ago there was someone on these boards who posted something about the idea he/she had about halfling cities constructed on the backs of colossal dinosaurs. IIRC, the ECS says that the halflings only interact with dinosaurs they can ride. Does that mean that the poster's idea was horrible and should be bashed just like you're bashing ROE now? Certainly not. If the things about Warforged personality contradictions are bugging you, just say "some Warforged are like this, and others are like that". No problem. Last I checked, Warforged could've come out of one of many creation forges. It's easy to say that one creator preferred mindless slaves, while the other preferred more free-willed Warforged. No problem. Says they can't stand concentrating on the same task for more than a few hours at a time, yet it then goes on to say they take endless enjoyment from doing the same repetative tasks. Also says on the same page that a Warforged smith would work from dawn to dusk. Many books have internal contradictions. The Bible has internal contradictions, and there's a huge religion based around it. Quit your whining.
Edymnion 04-29-05, 11:59 PM	Quit your whining.I'm sorry if you see expressing an opinion other than the one held by the majority as whining. And you know, it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. It is my opinion. It doesn't have to be logical, and as an opinion, it cannot be right nor wrong. I also don't think Purple is a color that should ever be used on cars, furniture, or anything else bigger than a piece of clothing. But again, thats my opinion. You don't have to agree with it, you don't even have to understand it, but you do have to respect my right to have it.
Gez 04-30-05, 04:11 AM	One perfect example of poor editing and, in fact, redacting, of RoE. As I don't have the book itself yet, I go through the web previews: Drow beliefs: Beliefs: The drow in Eberron differ from those in other D&D campaigns in that they worship a scorpion-god named Vulkoor instead of the spider-goddess Lolth. Vulkoor is often envisioned as a giant scorpion or as a hybrid with the head, arms, and upper torso of a strong male drow and the lower body of a scorpion. Many drow believe that Vulkoor and the Mockery (one of the group of evil deities known as the Dark Six) are one in the same. The drow also revere scorpions, considering other arachnids to be lesser servitors of Vulkoor. Xen'drik drow ritually scar themselves using scorpion venom, leaving white tattoos on their black skin. This was a big let down. At least, if it had been worded a bit differently... For example, something a bit like this would have been made Vulkoor more palatable: Beliefs: The drow in Eberron differ from those in other D&D campaigns in that worship the Mockery (one of the group of evil deities known as the Dark Six), whom they call Vulkoor, instead of the spider-goddess Lolth. Xen'drik drow are also fascinated by scorpions and other arachnids. They ritually scar themselves using scorpion venom, leaving white tattoos on their black skin. Many drow mix both faiths together by envisionning Vulkoor as a giant scorpion or as a centaur-like drow-scorpion hybrid. The information is exactly the same, but the implied setting differs. In the way I proposed above, it's clear that Vulkoor is not one extra brand new deity, and he looks less like Lolth's little brother. In the way it's been written in the book, it basically says: “Look, Eberron drow are just GH/FR drow with the '6' replaced by '9' in the serial number!!! We're so clever!!! It's a male scorpion instead of a female spider, this changes everything!!!!” I know what I should have included in my submission to the setting search: drow worshipping a hermaphroditic tick deity. So original! So new! So different! :rolleyes:
Liane the Wayfarer 04-30-05, 09:57 AM	Beliefs: The drow in Eberron differ from those in other D&D campaigns in that worship the Mockery (one of the group of evil deities known as the Dark Six), whom they call Vulkoor, instead of the spider-goddess Lolth. Xen'drik drow are also fascinated by scorpions and other arachnids. They ritually scar themselves using scorpion venom, leaving white tattoos on their black skin. Many drow mix both faiths together by envisionning Vulkoor as a giant scorpion or as a centaur-like drow-scorpion hybrid. Okay, I can't agree with this one. One thing that always, always, cheeses me off in these campaign settings is the way that everyone in the setting seems to worship the same ten gods from the same pantheon. In those settings where there's an extra pantheon, it's usually obvious to the reader that the gods are actually the same, just renamed and refocussed. One thing I really like in Eberron is the way Keith Baker made the religions seem much more "real" - different cultures have entirely different focusses of worship, and there's plenty of room for expansion or clarification (i.e., the DM has plenty of room to fit anything he might want to come up with). When I read the above, I thought, "Fantastic!" The way they put it in RoE leaves so much room for DM extrapolation: Vulkoor is the Mockery. Unlikely, due to the isolation of the drow, but somehow it happens. Vulkoor is actually one of the rakshasa rajahs. Perhaps the machinations of the Lords of Dust are one primary reason for drow to venture to Khorvaire. Vulkoor is an ancestral hero. He could be worshipped as a spirit or he could be worshipped as an actual incarnate ancestor; perhaps he still exists in a ruin of Khorvaire, where an Irian manifest zone maintains him in deathless state. Maybe's in opposition to the Undying Court; maybe he's their ally in part of a long-range scheme. Or maybe he's a vampire instead. Vulkoor is a dragon of the Chamber, who impersonated a god in order to further some part of the prophecy. Other dragons periodically impersonate Vulkoor in order to drive the drow towards some indefinite goal. Vulkoor is a quori spirit who has been planting mind seeds among the drow for generations. Deep in the jungles, the players stumble across some structures the drow've been building for thousands of years - they look remarkably similar to the monoliths of Riedra. Can the players escape with this knowledge, or will the Dreaming Dark suck them deep into Dal Quor when they trespass in a manifest zone. Now, I could use any one of these things in my game anyway. But the fact that Vulkoor is left open-ended in the book is great - it means Wizards won't be publishing anything to contradict my vision! In short, I disagree with your statement in the strongliest possible terms.
Majorafire77 04-30-05, 01:10 PM	I'm sorry if you see expressing an opinion other than the one held by the majority as whining. And you know, it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. It is my opinion. It doesn't have to be logical, and as an opinion, it cannot be right nor wrong. I also don't think Purple is a color that should ever be used on cars, furniture, or anything else bigger than a piece of clothing. But again, thats my opinion. You don't have to agree with it, you don't even have to understand it, but you do have to respect my right to have it. I would be more respectful if it weren't for the fact that there are at least 3 flamewars on the Eberron general board devoted to ROE. I never said that expressing an opinion other than the one held by the majority is whining. I'm saying that people who go to 3 seperate threads to express their views on (what is apparantly) the few things wrong with the ROE book are whiners. If something is THAT bad, why don't you go to the future releases thread and make suggestions instead of cluttering up this board? The problems with the book seem very minor anyway, as I pointed out in my previous post. Seeing as how you are one of the more respected people on the RPG threads as a whole, I'm quite surprised that you are one of the main people driving this flamewar forward. I understand what's going on, but it has been blown out of proportion. A few minor errors in the book doesn't justify the trash floating around this board.
Taigis 04-30-05, 02:39 PM	It is my opinion. It doesn't have to be logical, and as an opinion, it cannot be right nor wrong. Opinions most certainly can be right or wrong. Some people hold the opinion that certain historical events did not happen. Factual evidence indicates that those people's opinions are wrong. The difference is when opinions are based on value judgements, such as (as an example) I value Loyalty over Truth. So that would result in an opinion where it would be more important to lie to maintain loyalty than to tell the truth and be disloyal. Opinions such as these are difficult if not impossible to evaluate as "right" or "wrong." This discussion is clearly a case of the latter, however. Your point, that people should respect your opinion, stands. Taigis
The White Sorcerer 04-30-05, 03:22 PM	Eberron Drow are supposed to be mainly at the savage level, barely above throwing their poo at each other after the fall of the Giant empire, with only very few groups that actually retained what we'd call civilization, and even fewer still that kept magic alive. Yet RoE gives us 3 pages on how to play Drow, and surprise surprise, they're all highly civilized and Faerun-ish. Okay, this is just plain wrong. Opinion doesn't enter this. Some drow are feral. Some are magically advanced. Most fall somewhere in between. I'd quote Keith, but I'm too tired to search the FAQ again. Highly civilized and Faerûn-ish? Your RoE must have a completely different text than mine. They're described as unpolitical nomads who fight for their survival in the jungles. What's "highly civilized" or "Faerûn-ish" about that?
Restless 04-30-05, 04:31 PM	You know what the really cool thing about RoE is? I just ignore the stuff I don't like. I mean, some people seem upset, because the drow seem to get alot of attention in the book (Several pictures and a page and a half or so.), and some people don't like the way they did them. I, personally, was sort of unimpressed by the drow section, but regardless of how they were presented in RoE, or how big of a place it seems like they might have in the world after RoE, they're still going to play a relativly minute role in my game. Because ultimatly, who cares about the drow? I mean, I think we can all agree, Eberron isn't about Drow, and they play a relativly small role in the setting as a whole.
Edymnion 04-30-05, 05:13 PM	I would be more respectful if it weren't for the fact that there are at least 3 flamewars on the Eberron general board devoted to ROE.There are no flame wars on Ebberon General. There are several conversations, but none of them are anywhere close to being flame wars. A debate where people have opposing opinions is not a flame war. It isn't a flame war until they start calling each other names and insulting each other, which hasn't happened. I'm saying that people who go to 3 seperate threads to express their views on (what is apparantly) the few things wrong with the ROE book are whiners.So, you're a whiner if you see three seperate threads on a topic you are interested in, and you get in on them? There's 2-3 threads on the new Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy movie over in the Rec Room, is everyone thats posted in them a whiner? Seeing as how you are one of the more respected people on the RPG threads as a whole, I'm quite surprised that you are one of the main people driving this flamewar forward.Again, you don't seem to understand the words you are using. There has not been anything I would call an actual flame war on these boards in years that wasn't clamped down and locked by the WizO's in hours. You show me the post where somebody is insulting another poster's intelligence, their family structure, or anything else that would be construed as a flame, and perhaps you'll have a case. And if you do see a flame, its your responcibility as a poster on these boards to report it to the WizO's via the Report Bad Post button (the red triangle thingy). If you don't, you are saying that the post is acceptable, and hence you wave your right to say that it was a flame. I understand what's going on, but it has been blown out of proportion.How so? Nobody has been saying "Never ever buy this book under any circumstances!" There is one thread for errors so that the errata guys know what to fix. There's one about the paper quality, which is a real issue. There's one about generally not thinking it lives up to the quality of the other Eberron books, and one about if it should be treated as the gospel truth for the races or not. All are legitimate threads and concerns, which generally come up with every book that comes out. There are similar threads over in Future Releases about paper quality already. And really, Future Releases is the board for talking about things that are COMING UP. Once a book has been released, its technically off-topic for that board. The posts then belong in whatever forum is appropriate, which for Eberron, is right here in Eberron General.
Sturm Jaeger 04-30-05, 06:57 PM	I know what I should have included in my submission to the setting search: drow worshipping a hermaphroditic tick deity. So original! So new! So different! :rolleyes: And the clerics chant: "SPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON!!!!"
Bubba333 04-30-05, 07:58 PM	The fact remains that unless wwe give feedback, WotC will never know how we feel. Period.
MavrickWeirdo 04-30-05, 10:52 PM	RoE says that Warforged MUST choose a gender personality. I believe the statement you are refering to is on page 10 "When you create a warforgedcharacter, decide at the time of creation whether the character will have a male or a female personality. This decision cannot be changed later." The emphasis is mine It doesn't say you have to choose a gender, it says you have to choose if you have a male or female gender (or not) when you create the character. "Or Not" is often left out as an implied choice when the word "whether" is used, example from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary "He wondered whether to stay." By the way my favorite typo so far is on page 52. "A reality reeker group..." I guess warforged could smell them even without a tracker mask. :D On the other hand, on page 53 RoEwhere it says: "Sorcerers emphasize a tie to draconic blood. Changelings generally focus on their doppelganger heritage, so few become sorcerers." Would seem to contradict page 42 of the ECS where the "draconic blood" angle is downplayed.
Gez 05-01-05, 03:35 AM	Okay, I can't agree with this one. One thing that always, always, cheeses me off in these campaign settings is the way that everyone in the setting seems to worship the same ten gods from the same pantheon. That's because they are, you know, gods. What cheeses me off is when you can start the cult of Banjo the Clown and a new god named Banjo the Clown just appear out of nowhere... It seems more logical than a pre-existing god with a close portfolio will step in and adopt Banjo the Clown as one of his aliases rather than the spontaneous generation of a new deity.
Gristooth 05-01-05, 09:23 PM	That's because they are, you know, gods. What cheeses me off is when you can start the cult of Banjo the Clown and a new god named Banjo the Clown just appear out of nowhere... It seems more logical than a pre-existing god with a close portfolio will step in and adopt Banjo the Clown as one of his aliases rather than the spontaneous generation of a new deity. Heresy. Everyone knows Banjulhu is the one, true Banjo! Banjulhu forever!
fizzbang 05-02-05, 09:08 AM	Okay, I can't agree with this one. One thing that always, always, cheeses me off in these campaign settings is the way that everyone in the setting seems to worship the same ten gods from the same pantheon. In those settings where there's an extra pantheon, it's usually obvious to the reader that the gods are actually the same, just renamed and refocussed. One thing I really like in Eberron is the way Keith Baker made the religions seem much more "real" - different cultures have entirely different focusses of worship, and there's plenty of room for expansion or clarification (i.e., the DM has plenty of room to fit anything he might want to come up with). Actually, I asked Keith a question along these lines a while ago in one of the threads (I'd provide a link, but the search function is down, sadly). In essence, I mentioned that it seemed as though all divine sources in any part of Eberron correlated to one of the presented dieties in the ECSB, and asked if this was an intentional decision with implications to the setting's design. His response, in short, was "Yes, that's deliberate." So, while it's obviously unofficial and you can still run your game as you see fit, the decision to make Vulkoor worship the same as worship of the Mockery was definitely a deliberate decision, and one that fits with the setting's overall theme. Now, Keith never went into detail about whether this meant the gods were real, or if this just meant that those were the easiest ways to channel belief into manipulation of magic, whether they were all manifestations of more simple meta-divine powers (such as Siberys, Eberron and Khyber), or even if they were simply the most common ways that people conceived of divine figures... All of that is still up to you, and can make for some excellent in-character debates (or crusades!) about the nature of the divine.