Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Charles Phipps 07-27-07, 08:01 PM	This is where you post what you've observed other people not "getting" about Eberron. It's a low level setting: We've got 60th level characters sleeping it off underneath the ground. Oddly, the irony is that they just have to be defeated more by plot device than the player characters getting their swords and spells together to kill Asmodeus. Lycanthropes are Average Joes: It's one of the fun exceptions to the rule. Lycanthropes get a lot more respect as "incredibly horrible monsters" in Eberron than they do in other settings. I think it's funny that people may react with less vehemence and fear to a vampire than a werewolf.
Alex_ 07-28-07, 04:04 AM	Alignment doesn't matter: Lots of people seem to be under the impression that alignment has no bearing whatsoever on anything. That Zombies and Vampires can be LN as easily as a soldier, and that the cleric of a deity that preaches pretty much nothing but compassion, self sacrifice, and elimination of selfishness is just as likely to be NE as the cultist who sacrifices people during midnight rituals. It's like Japanese Anime/Final Fantasy!: A lot of people, especially younger players are not familiar with the ideas of pulp, noir, hardboiled crime fiction, or swashbuckling action as very old genres in US literature or film. They're also unfamiliar with anything non-Tolkien-esque. For them, their greatest exposure to fantasy works involving themes from these genres and unique attempts at world building comes in the form of animated works and computer role playing games from Japan. So when they start playing in Eberron, they're more likely to bring all aspects of Anime over, sometimes including traits that are largely a result of Japanese culture.] The Silver Flame is the Catholic Church and is full of a bunch of intolerant fanatics who think their God is the only God and wish to convert everyone over to their faith or kill them: This thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=894115)explains it much better than I ever could. Valenar are a bunch of honor bound mounted warriors who prefer the opportunity for direct melee combat and massed assaults: Nothing could be further from the truth. Valenar are about the sneakiest, most underhanded, and patient foes you'll meet. Their method of fighting is based on fighting Giants (smarter/stronger giants than those now) and Dragons, and against those kinds of enemies, you don't stand in one spot and make full round attacks over and over. They use the terrain as best they can. They use whatever advantage they can get and always try to strike when the enemy is least prepared and avoid meeting equal/superior forces head on. They don't fight to win a war in months or years, they fight to win in decades or centuries. They're not like Roman Hoplites or French Knights. They're like Afghani Mujahadeen and Viet Cong.
ORC_Paradox 07-28-07, 06:56 AM	Alignment doesn't matter 2: Just because there CAN be good red dragons, that doesn't mean EVERY red dragon is now good. Also, that somehow "evil" is really now "good" or "Misunderstood". Vol has designs to take over the world, people. She is an EVIL LICH. Deal with it. Undead are EVIL. It may be accepted by some, but most were horrified that Karnath used Undead soldiers during the Last War. Warforged are robots: Gee, nobody called any of the other constructs in all the other editions of the game robots. Golems have existed in every edition. Never a mention that they were "robots". I suppose if players play dragons for a change of pace they should be called airplanes. Aberrations should be called aliens. Eberron is Steampunk. Lightning rail gets you from place A to place B without having to cross ever square inch of the world. It's the red line on the map in Indiana Jones. (And yes, I've had a number of DMs who insisted that the across the Realms trip meant we had to play our way across the world.)
DragoonDarkfire 07-28-07, 12:35 PM	It's like Japanese Anime/Final Fantasy!: A lot of people, especially younger players are not familiar with the ideas of pulp, noir, hardboiled crime fiction, or swashbuckling action as very old genres in US literature or film. They're also unfamiliar with anything non-Tolkien-esque. For them, their greatest exposure to fantasy works involving themes from these genres and unique attempts at world building comes in the form of animated works and computer role playing games from Japan. So when they start playing in Eberron, they're more likely to bring all aspects of Anime over, sometimes including traits that are largely a result of Japanese culture.] This can be taken in different variation depending on how you look at it. While Final Fantasy might seem like a stretch (in the view of it's over-the-top action and weirdass characters) FF does work for Eberron in the sense that it uses technology and magic in a similar fashion. Eberron literally blurs the lines between technology and magic. Making arcane magic an almost scientific force. Anime can also work if used in a proper context. Things like Full Metal Alchemist and Death Note have such deep and unfolding plots that the noir aspect of Eberron could easily fall into place here. As for the pulp aspect well... This may seem odd to you but Anime could be considered pulp if you take the right examples. I have nothing that comes to mind but the way I see it most ideas of pulp come from things like Indiana Jones, James Bond, and old monster movies where the beautiful young woman is taken away by the horrible monster and is up to a single troubled protagonist to save the lady, and subsequently the world. A lot of these are actually derived from Graphic Novels or their more common term. Comic Books. You may not know this but most anime is actually based off of comic books, manga, which is just a Japaneses term Americans use to say "Comic Book printed in Japan". So in theory, yes you COULD use anime as an inspiration if you were to use it in a proper context. Romantic comedies would be completely ridiculous in Eberron. Gothic mystery or supernatural adventure on the other hand... Oh and for the topic point. Elementals should be FREED! They're living creatures!: Yes Elementals are living. You know what was also living? That steak you had your character eat at a restaurant last night. You know what was also living? Those people you killed during the war, at least you could communicate with them and understand their feelings on a basic level. Why do you care so much for a creature made of fire that's forced to burn in a huge ring around an airship?
Alex_ 07-28-07, 01:10 PM	This can be taken in different variation depending on how you look at it. While Final Fantasy might seem like a stretch (in the view of it's over-the-top action and weirdass characters) FF does work for Eberron in the sense that it uses technology and magic in a similar fashion. Eberron literally blurs the lines between technology and magic. Making arcane magic an almost scientific force. Anime can also work if used in a proper context. Things like Full Metal Alchemist and Death Note have such deep and unfolding plots that the noir aspect of Eberron could easily fall into place here. As for the pulp aspect well... This may seem odd to you but Anime could be considered pulp if you take the right examples. I have nothing that comes to mind but the way I see it most ideas of pulp come from things like Indiana Jones, James Bond, and old monster movies where the beautiful young woman is taken away by the horrible monster and is up to a single troubled protagonist to save the lady, and subsequently the world. A lot of these are actually derived from Graphic Novels or their more common term. Comic Books. You may not know this but most anime is actually based off of comic books, manga, which is just a Japaneses term Americans use to say "Comic Book printed in Japan". So in theory, yes you COULD use anime as an inspiration if you were to use it in a proper context. Romantic comedies would be completely ridiculous in Eberron. Gothic mystery or supernatural adventure on the other hand... I've seen plenty of anime, read plenty of manga and I'm a fan of many series. I understand that anime is influenced by western works, and that many elements can be ported over to Eberron. It can do so in many settings, however. Eberron was not created to be like anime ny more than any other setting though. It was created to be like old pulp, noir, hardboiled crime, and fantasy popular in the United States during the early half of the 20th century. This included movies, short stories, and comics as well (but not animation). I'm not saying that universal themes from these genres don't have a place in Eberron. However many players make the mistake of trying to port over more of the series (particularly the Japanese cultural influences) into a setting that's not inspired by it. It's like if someone were running an anime style game, with influences of works prominent in Japanese society pre-WWII, but every PC insisted on playing a character like the latest big movie/comic/videogame character from the United States, and bringing over American cultural references and tendencies. Again, I don't have a problem with characters or games run with heavier anime/Japanese influences in any setting (not even Eberron). It's just that this wasn't Eberron's intent. It wasn't an attempt to bring more Japanese media styled elements to western fantasy. Even the use of practical technology, and magic in practical applications was a throwback to the US industrial revolution and superscience themes common during the first half of the 20th century, not an attempt to emulate Final Fantasy. However, many people believe it was, and that's where the misconception lies. Eberron isn't based off any particular Japanese game/movie/show/comic/book any more than Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun, or Iron Kingdoms. You can run anime/manga/jrpg based characters and campaigns in those settings to with few problems, but that doesn't mean they were designed with that in mind or that their existence as a great factor taking into account during their creation.
DragoonDarkfire 07-28-07, 01:21 PM	I've seen plenty of anime, read plenty of manga and I'm a fan of many series. I understand that anime is influenced by western works, and that many elements can be ported over to Eberron. It can do so in many settings, however. Eberron was not created to be like anime ny more than any other setting though. It was created to be like old pulp, noir, hardboiled crime, and fantasy popular in the United States during the early half of the 20th century. This included movies, short stories, and comics as well (but not animation). I'm not saying that universal themes from these genres don't have a place in Eberron. However many players make the mistake of trying to port over more of the series (particularly the Japanese cultural influences) into a setting that's not inspired by it. It's like if someone were running an anime style game, with influences of works prominent in Japanese society pre-WWII, but every PC insisted on playing a character like the latest big movie/comic/videogame character from the United States, and bringing over American cultural references and tendencies. Again, I don't have a problem with characters or games run with heavier anime/Japanese influences in any setting (not even Eberron). It's just that this wasn't Eberron's intent. It wasn't an attempt to bring more Japanese media styled elements to western fantasy. Even the use of practical technology, and magic in practical applications was a throwback to the US industrial revolution and superscience themes common during the first half of the 20th century, not an attempt to emulate Final Fantasy. However, many people believe it was, and that's where the misconception lies. Eberron isn't based off any particular Japanese game/movie/show/comic/book any more than Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun, or Iron Kingdoms. You can run anime/manga/jrpg based characters and campaigns in those settings to with few problems, but that doesn't mean they were designed with that in mind or that their existence as a great factor taking into account during their creation. Ah. Gotcha.
JulesCARV 07-28-07, 02:37 PM	PCs in Eberron are gritty, mercenary low-lifes, not legendary figures as in other settings -- I don't know exactly why, since official Eberron materials say the exact opposite, but this seems to be a fairly common view about the role of PCs in Eberron.
Charles Phipps 07-28-07, 02:49 PM	PCs in Eberron are gritty, mercenary low-lifes, not legendary figures as in other settings -- I don't know exactly why, since official Eberron materials say the exact opposite, but this seems to be a fairly common view about the role of PCs in Eberron. I think it's weird. People complain about Forgotten Realms being unable to support figures who can change the world because of Elemenstors of the Heirarch Saga. http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2005/20051107h.jpg However, they still make "I'm going to save the world" Luke Skywalker and Aragon figures. In Eberron, ironically, they're more inclined to make down to Earth characters.
Sir Elton 07-28-07, 02:52 PM	I think that is because everyone starts out at 1st level or lower, and that it feels "gritty." I.E. the inspiration also feel "gritty" even though Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow is the best modern example of an action serial film from the '30s. Pirates of the Carribbean is anything but "gritty." the Indiana Jones serial is anything but "gritty." The Maltese Falcon, a film I've never seen but had many opportunities to see, is one of the staples of Film Noir. I saw two knock-offs of Film Noir: His Favorite Brunnette and The Ghost Breakers; both with Bob Hope. Of the two, The Ghost Breakers is the best one I recommend for Eberron Inspiration since His Favorite Brunnette is more of a comedy. The Ghost Breakers isn't gritty; and the comedy was a nice touch. King Kong, the latest -- with Jack Black --; was faithful to the Original thirties' monster film. Another good Inspiration for Eberron. That wasn't "gritty" either. So, in this case, "gritty" probably means Hardened, without feeling. Judging by the lists for Inspiration; Eberron has more films for inspiration that thats about inspiring a feeling than those about hard-boiled detectives.
ArcTan 07-28-07, 04:57 PM	I think that is because everyone starts out at 1st level or lower, and that it feels "gritty." It's not possible to start out lower than 1st level. And Eberron never says that you *must* start at 1st level by default -- many NPCs are higher level than that, including, by default, all Warforged (who are generally 2nd-level Fighters when they finish their training). The whole "war veteran" schtick gives you a great excuse to start higher than 1st. It's just that Eberron doesn't make it easy to start out at level 10, and in Forgotten Realms anything under level 10 is fodder.
Warforged_Pierce 07-28-07, 05:39 PM	I think that is because everyone starts out at 1st level or lower, and that it feels "gritty." I.E. the inspiration also feel "gritty" even though Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow is the best modern example of an action serial film from the '30s. Pirates of the Carribbean is anything but "gritty." the Indiana Jones serial is anything but "gritty." The Maltese Falcon, a film I've never seen but had many opportunities to see, is one of the staples of Film Noir. I saw two knock-offs of Film Noir: His Favorite Brunnette and The Ghost Breakers; both with Bob Hope. Of the two, The Ghost Breakers is the best one I recommend for Eberron Inspiration since His Favorite Brunnette is more of a comedy. The Ghost Breakers isn't gritty; and the comedy was a nice touch. King Kong, the latest -- with Jack Black --; was faithful to the Original thirties' monster film. Another good Inspiration for Eberron. That wasn't "gritty" either. So, in this case, "gritty" probably means Hardened, without feeling. Judging by the lists for Inspiration; Eberron has more films for inspiration that thats about inspiring a feeling than those about hard-boiled detectives. to add on to this feeling characters have. ive noticed most of the players in my eberron campaigns rarely interact with each other. they think themselves lone wolves because most of the other players fought for other countries and therefore everyone in the party cant be trusted i gotta do everything by myself so i won't talk to them and ask my own questions around town. they also have this attitude toward other npc's if they fought for the otherside i should hate em with a fury.
Hellcow 07-28-07, 11:53 PM	ive noticed most of the players in my eberron campaigns rarely interact with each other. they think themselves lone wolves because most of the other players fought for other countries and therefore everyone in the party cant be trusted... What I often do when starting a new campaign is to put it on the players to explain why they're together. Rather than say "You all meet at a tavern" and force them together, make THEM decide as a group - before any decisions about characters have been made - why these people have come together as a party. If they all fought each other during the war and hate or fear people from other countries, why would they ever decide to risk their lives with people from those countries? A simple answer is for the players to be from the same country, and possibly to have fought alongside one another during the war. As I've said before, in these situations, I like to run a few sessions set DURING the war; this allows you to establish bonds between the characters, set up a foundation for future adventures (if you WANT them to distrust Karrns, have them fight a lot of Karrns in your starting scenarios); and it typically means that the characters start true "adventuring" as second or third level characters. However, if your players have ideas that are too diverse to support this, there are still ways to make them a group with a history. Another group I ran for DID meet in a tavern - a tavern in Cyre, destroyed in the Mourning. One of them was a Ghallanda halfling, who'd owned the tavern. Another was her warforged bouncer. And the rest were long-time patrons of the tavern - a formerly drunken priest trying to redeem himself in the wake of the Mourning; a Phiarlan wizard scion, trying to establish his own network of contacts and ultimately gain power in his house; a Valenar mercenary who'd served in the region and sought glory on her own; and a Cyran soldier. On the surface, looking just to class and race, these characters have nothing in common. But by working together to create the story of how they knew each other, we established a history that proved that they COULD trust each other - or at least, that they'd known each other for some time, and celebrated victories together and suffered through the aftermath of the Mourning together. Bringing a new group of characters together is one of the hardest things in RPGs. Just remember that you can make the players part of the process - make THEM think about why they should trust each other and work together, as opposed to having to come up with an explanation on your own and hoping that they buy it. Of course, sometimes having that distrust makes for an interesting story. If that's something you WANT - if you're looking to play Paranoia in Sharn - actively encouraging players to make characters from different nations and such can make for an interesting adventure. But if you want them to trust one another from the start, have them help you come up with an explanation for that trust.
Sir Elton 07-29-07, 12:03 AM	It's not possible to start out lower than 1st level. And Eberron never says that you *must* start at 1st level by default. Well, I guess you caught me making a mistake. :D
Vharuck 07-29-07, 02:24 AM	What I often do when starting a new campaign is to put it on the players to explain why they're together. Rather than say "You all meet at a tavern" and force them together, make THEM decide as a group - before any decisions about characters have been made - why these people have come together as a party. If they all fought each other during the war and hate or fear people from other countries, why would they ever decide to risk their lives with people from those countries? I take the same approach. Not only are they more likely to come up with a scenario they all agree with and will play along with, they'll enjoy creating it and enjoy playing out those relationships more. And it means less work to me.
Alaya_of_Stormhome 07-30-07, 09:04 PM	Our DM did a good job bringing our group together, I think. My little Lyrandar came in at a later point, but at this point, they work cohesively and function as a group, valuing what each can bring. It's nice, really. We're an odd lot to begin with, though. A warforged monk, a Lyrandar heir with her sights on the patriarch's seat, a wizard's apprentice who ran after summoning something he shouldn't have, a sickly gnome with a broken celestial pet, a cleric of the Host, a half-orc barbarian, and the gadget guru. The tanks? The warforged, the half-orc, and the....swashbuckling half-elf? I'm still confused.
Hopeless 07-31-07, 12:10 PM	It's not possible to start out lower than 1st level. And Eberron never says that you *must* start at 1st level by default -- many NPCs are higher level than that, including, by default, all Warforged (who are generally 2nd-level Fighters when they finish their training). The whole "war veteran" schtick gives you a great excuse to start higher than 1st. It's just that Eberron doesn't make it easy to start out at level 10, and in Forgotten Realms anything under level 10 is fodder. How about having them start with an npc level and lead them to their decision of what pc class they're going for making them think about their background more, I've been thinking about this especially after reading a adventure specifically about this from Goodman Games it may be alittle off the thread path but everyone has to start somewhere and it would help for example the artificer who has 20 craft pts and their player has to worry about whether they go up a level before the craft pts can be used since how else would they get the money to use them?
Starman IX 08-01-07, 06:49 PM	Let's play the stereotype game! Gnomes are short X-files. Halflings are gonna eat you if you so much as step on their land. Half-orcs are Slingblade. EVERYONE OF THEM. Warforged are Data. EVERYONE OF THEM. Shifters are Wolverine. EVERY... well, you get the idea.
Revvecor 08-01-07, 08:34 PM	Let's play the stereotype game! Gnomes are short X-files. Halflings are gonna eat you if you so much as step on their land. Half-orcs are Slingblade. EVERYONE OF THEM. Warforged are Data. EVERYONE OF THEM. Shifters are Wolverine. EVERY... well, you get the idea. Kalashtar are Scientologists:plotting:
Charles Phipps 08-01-07, 08:40 PM	No, Kalashtar are Jedi. All of them. They're all Psi-blades.
Alex_ 08-01-07, 10:02 PM	Let's play the stereotype game! Gnomes are short X-files. Halflings are gonna eat you if you so much as step on their land. Half-orcs are Slingblade. EVERYONE OF THEM. Warforged are Data. EVERYONE OF THEM. Shifters are Wolverine. EVERY... well, you get the idea. Everyone in Thrane is a radical fundamentalist follower of the Silver Flame. Everyone in Karrnath is a follower of the Blood of Vol and they love Undead. Aundair and Breland are more sophisticated and culturally refined than Thrane and Karrnath. The monstrous despot in Droamm is just misunderstood. If we just appeal to his sense of reason and compassion...
Rechan 08-02-07, 12:08 AM	The monstrous despot in Droamm is just misunderstood. If we just appeal to his sense of reason and compassion... Do you mean Draguun? Because Droaam is ruled by three sisters. I got one: Every cultist worships the Daelkyr and Aberrations.
Alex_ 08-02-07, 02:07 AM	Do you mean Draguun? Because Droaam is ruled by three sisters. Droamm is made up of a bunch of smaller fiefdoms, and the leaders of those lands pay fealty to the Three Sisters. They in turn, use any manner of methods to ensure the compliance and cooperation of their subjects. The Hags have very little direct influence over what goes on from community to community, which are largely autonomous. So long as they pay their taxes/tribute and don't challenge the Hags' authority.
Rechan 08-02-07, 02:59 AM	So... I don't get what you're saying. You said the despot and HIS sensibility. Who were you referring to?
Alex_ 08-02-07, 03:17 AM	So... I don't get what you're saying. You said the despot and HIS sensibility. Who were you referring to? I was speaking in general. If one wants to get more specific, individuals like Tzaryan Rrac, Xor'chylic, or any other regional leaders not mentioned (but assumed to exist) in Droamm. This was also in general reference to Eberron's relaxed attitudes regarding the alignments of monstrous races, leading many to the mistaken conclusion that "Evil" is just misunderstood.
Rechan 08-02-07, 03:57 AM	I was speaking in general. If one wants to get more specific, individuals like Tzaryan Rrac, Xor'chylic, or any other regional leaders not mentioned (but assumed to exist) in Droamm. This was also in general reference to Eberron's relaxed attitudes regarding the alignments of monstrous races, leading many to the mistaken conclusion that "Evil" is just misunderstood. I've never seen someone reference one of Droaam's feifdom leaders in such a way. If you really want to do it like that, reference "A Good Rajah" or as it was said earlier: Alignment doesn't matter 2: Just because there CAN be good red dragons, that doesn't mean EVERY red dragon is now good. Also, that somehow "evil" is really now "good" or "Misunderstood". Vol has designs to take over the world, people. She is an EVIL LICH. Deal with it. Undead are EVIL. It may be accepted by some, but most were horrified that Karnath used Undead soldiers during the Last War. But I prefer this misconception. I hate D&D alignment. So I will happily do it this way.
Hopeless 08-02-07, 07:09 AM	[QUOTE=WizO_Paradox;13219236]Alignment doesn't matter 2: Just because there CAN be good red dragons, that doesn't mean EVERY red dragon is now good. Also, that somehow "evil" is really now "good" or "Misunderstood". Vol has designs to take over the world, people. She is an EVIL LICH. Deal with it. Undead are EVIL. QUOTE] She's worse as I read it exactly how old was she when her mother turned her into a lich? Imagine a pre teen stuck perpetually at that age but as a lich... can you say horrific?
DarkWarriorKarg 08-02-07, 10:29 AM	Imagine a pre teen stuck perpetually at that age but as a lich... can you say horrific? Shopping with Vol! Answer honestly... Does this dress make me look too decomposed? Can I get shoes that match my parchment-like skin, or do they have to match the blue fire from my eyes?
Kensan_Oni 08-02-07, 02:13 PM	Magic Duplicates Technology I want to know where this one got started. Okay, so we have things that look like blimps and trains. We get that that might have been overboard for some, even though they're neat. When did we get to using bombards and gunpowder? Why do people keep thinking that magic gadgets gotta be shiney and metal and behave like computers? In my game,the infernal machine isn't some high geewiz looking machine, it's a bloody ancient item from 500 years ago! Magic does not mean tech!
ArcTan 08-02-07, 02:18 PM	I've never seen someone reference one of Droaam's feifdom leaders in such a way. If you really want to do it like that, reference "A Good Rajah" or as it was said earlier: But I prefer this misconception. I hate D&D alignment. So I will happily do it this way. It is a bad thing when people assume this is how it works in Eberron, of course, because the reductio ad absurdum can quickly become, well, absurd (look at the happy Balor dancing with all the children and using his flaming whip to keep the peasants warm) -- and, moreover, it gives the impression that "traditional" D&D campaigns based on Good vs. Evil cannot exist in Eberron, which turns people off the setting who shouldn't be turned off by it. It also leads to the worse stereotype that not only does Eberron ignore fantasy stereotypes (it doesn't) but that it's designed to *invert* them, and to invert them *all at once*. And, to be honest, I find that really annoying and wouldn't like Eberron if that were the case. That's where people get the assumption that the Blood of Vol is a gentle, persecuted faith run by kindly old Vampires and Liches who give soup to the poor, and that the Church of the Silver Flame is a riotous mass of corruption and decadence that tortures people to death for fun, and that Paladins in Eberron are *supposed* to be corrupt zealots who trample the innocent, and that *every* Cleric is supposed to have an alignment opposite to his deity's, and so on.
Euangelion 08-02-07, 02:37 PM	Elementals should be FREED! They're living creatures!: Yes Elementals are living. You know what was also living? That steak you had your character eat at a restaurant last night. You know what was also living? Those people you killed during the war, at least you could communicate with them and understand their feelings on a basic level. Why do you care so much for a creature made of fire that's forced to burn in a huge ring around an airship? By definition, a MM golem is brought to "life" by a spirit from the Elemental Plane of Earth, so elementals have always been bound into items in D&D, in this case, constructs, and I don't remember anyone complaining.
Rechan 08-02-07, 06:17 PM	It is a bad thing when people assume this is how it works in Eberron, of course, because the reductio ad absurdum can quickly become, well, absurd (look at the happy Balor dancing with all the children and using his flaming whip to keep the peasants warm) -- and, moreover, it gives the impression that "traditional" D&D campaigns based on Good vs. Evil cannot exist in Eberron, which turns people off the setting who shouldn't be turned off by it. You mean like the Succubus paladin running around the D&D home site? ;) And, Good and Evil can function in Eberron - but part of the point is that Eberron is also lots of Shades of Gray where there are few very distinct Good Good Guys. A simple Good vs. Evil can exist, just like you can run practically anything in Eberron from Cthulu to Cyberpunk, with the right tweaks. It also leads to the worse stereotype that not only does Eberron ignore fantasy stereotypes (it doesn't) but that it's designed to *invert* them, and to invert them *all at once*. I disagree. Maybe you mean invert to the extreme, but I feel that the changes to the standard races was intentionally to re-invent them from tired old Tolkien stereotypes that are used in nearly every other setting. I mean, it's ORCS who are the hippy nature lovers, not elves. That isn't an inversion? And to incorporate "monsters" into the setting, flesh them out, and provide a more cohesive, dynamic world, rather than "Elves are hippies, dwarves are drunken Norsemen, and anything that doesn't look human and pretty needs to be put to the sword by brave adventurers, bastions of good."
Charles Phipps 08-02-07, 06:33 PM	I love the setting to death. But Dwarves are still Drunken Norsemen Who live in Caves and Love Gold. ;-)
(Psi)SeveredHead 08-02-07, 07:24 PM	This is where you post what you've observed other people not "getting" about Eberron. It's a low level setting: We've got 60th level characters sleeping it off underneath the ground. Oddly, the irony is that they just have to be defeated more by plot device than the player characters getting their swords and spells together to kill Asmodeus. Sounds low level to me. Those guys don't just wake up anytime they want, and there aren't any 20th to 60th level Chosen of Mystra types to deal with them. I doubt they'll appear in most Eberron campaigns, even those that reach high levels.
Rechan 08-02-07, 08:04 PM	Sounds low level to me. Those guys don't just wake up anytime they want, and there aren't any 20th to 60th level Chosen of Mystra types to deal with them. I doubt they'll appear in most Eberron campaigns, even those that reach high levels. I'd say Eberron is more a Low to Mid-level (7-13) setting. Low levels you introduce the villains, but it's the mid-levels that you really start to get in deep with the Big Bad guys of the setting. The LoB or Erandis being the best mid-level villains. To deal with the Daelkyr/LoD/DD, you're going to need higher level play to put them down worse than they currently are.
Charles Phipps 08-02-07, 08:21 PM	Sounds low level to me. Those guys don't just wake up anytime they want, and there aren't any 20th to 60th level Chosen of Mystra types to deal with them. I doubt they'll appear in most Eberron campaigns, even those that reach high levels. "Those guys" wake up whenever you reach the level needed to fight them.
(Psi)SeveredHead 08-02-07, 09:55 PM	"Those guys" wake up whenever you reach the level needed to fight them. That doesn't make it a high level setting. You have to reach that level, and probably never will.
Charles Phipps 08-02-07, 11:09 PM	That doesn't make it a high level setting. You have to reach that level, and probably never will. High level setting 1. A setting where high levels are expected to play. OR 2. A setting that supports High Level Gameplay without altering facts about the game. Eberron is fun for all levels.
ArcTan 08-03-07, 03:38 AM	You mean like the Succubus paladin running around the D&D home site? ;) And, Good and Evil can function in Eberron - but part of the point is that Eberron is also lots of Shades of Gray where there are few very distinct Good Good Guys. A simple Good vs. Evil can exist, just like you can run practically anything in Eberron from Cthulu to Cyberpunk, with the right tweaks. But that's just it. There isn't a single Good *side* -- we have no indication that the Five Nations are the "good guys" of the whole world -- but there are unambiguously Good people. D&D alignment still exists. The Church of the Silver Flame, though it contains corrupt members, is still a Lawful Good organization and its leader, Jaela Daran, is objectively Good (in exactly the same way that her subordinate Cardinal Krozen is objectively Evil). King Boranel is Good; King Kaius is Evil; Queen Aurala is Good. We have shades of gray in that Good people work at cross-purposes to each other, make mistakes, aren't perfect. Evil people have redeeming qualities, are needed in the fight against greater Evils, etc. But there's still *Good* and there's still *Evil*. And there are very great Evils that need fighting that are unambiguously Evil. (There is no "gray" about the Daelkyr or the Lords of Dust.) I disagree. Maybe you mean invert to the extreme, but I feel that the changes to the standard races was intentionally to re-invent them from tired old Tolkien stereotypes that are used in nearly every other setting. I mean, it's ORCS who are the hippy nature lovers, not elves. That isn't an inversion? At the same time, Orcs were not made pacifists or builders of great, wondrous cities filled with art. And Elves were not made into dirty savages who like being savages and hate culture and civilization and say "Me smash!" all the time. Elves are warlike and dangerous, but are still beautiful, noble and have an ancient civilization in which they take great pride (by Human standards). Orcs are now the "hippie" nature-lovers, but they're still a tribal, primitive culture that lives on the outskirts of civilization (again, by Human standards). Some things were kept the same and other things were changed. That's what's interesting. Dealing with the stereotype is interesting. Simply inverting the stereotype is crude and dumb. A Vampire who retains the basic idea of a Vampire -- being creepy and parasitic and amoral -- while occupying a very different *position* from the usual Vampire King is interesting. Making King Kaius into a lovey-dovey puppy-petting bunny-hugging family man would not have been. You see what I mean? And to incorporate "monsters" into the setting, flesh them out, and provide a more cohesive, dynamic world, rather than "Elves are hippies, dwarves are drunken Norsemen, and anything that doesn't look human and pretty needs to be put to the sword by brave adventurers, bastions of good." Sure. That's complexifying and deepening stereotypes, while still keeping aspects of them. That's more interesting than simply flipping stereotypes on their head, or snapping your fingers and dissipating them in a puff of smoke. Eberron made the conscious intention to have Droaamite monsters *remain monsters*, feared and hated by the ordinary races of the world, rather than create a cosmopolitan universe where Medusae hang out with Minotaurs who hang out with Elves who hang out with Liches who hang out with Angels and everyone gets along. That would, in my eyes, be lame.
Charles Phipps 08-03-07, 03:53 AM	Eberron made the conscious intention to have Droaamite monsters *remain monsters*, feared and hated by the ordinary races of the world, rather than create a cosmopolitan universe where Medusae hang out with Minotaurs who hang out with Elves who hang out with Liches who hang out with Angels and everyone gets along. That would, in my eyes, be lame Sigil is not lame! :P :-)
ArcTan 08-03-07, 04:30 AM	Sigil is not lame! :P :-) If the only interesting thing about Sigil were the cosmopolitanism, yes, it would be lame. If Sigil were reimagined for a setting where "monster races" didn't exist and everyone was a human, the essential coolness of the Factions and the Lady and the idea of planar travel and the Outer Planes would not be affected.
Rechan 08-03-07, 04:51 AM	At the same time, Orcs were not made pacifists or builders of great, wondrous cities filled with art. And Elves were not made into dirty savages who like being savages and hate culture and civilization and say "Me smash!" all the time. Drow? And don't say that they're a different species. They're just the elves that stayed around in Xen'Drik rather than leaving for Aerenal. There are no Drow cities, they have no ancient civilization beyond their tribes, and they are not noble - they're xenophobic. They are very barbaric and primitive, and I wouldn't be surprised to see raids on Xen'Drik settlements. Hell, Drow were inverted. You go from a metropolitan, powerful evil force that subjugates and enslaves races beneath the ground in the veneration of a matriarchal megalomaniacal goddess, to pockets of primitive tribes stuck on an island fending for themselves against all takers. Aside from the alignment, that's a radical shift. Dealing with the stereotype is interesting. Simply inverting the stereotype is crude and dumb. A Vampire who retains the basic idea of a Vampire -- being creepy and parasitic and amoral -- while occupying a very different *position* from the usual Vampire King is interesting. Making King Kaius into a lovey-dovey puppy-petting bunny-hugging family man would not have been. And I've... never seen anyone ever do this. So why the whole railing against inverting things? Eberron made the conscious intention to have Droaamite monsters *remain monsters*, feared and hated by the ordinary races of the world, rather than create a cosmopolitan universe where Medusae hang out with Minotaurs who hang out with Elves who hang out with Liches who hang out with Angels and everyone gets along. That would, in my eyes, be lame. What about Daask? According to Sharn:CoT, Daask has many human members. So you have humans and gnolls and ogres and medusa and a few minotaurs and an ogre mage in the same organization. And if all the D&D monsters lived in harmony with the core races, it would be lame because there would be no conflict. The core of D&D is "Go slay the monster, get its XP and GP". If said monsters are your friends, well you sit around and drink tea.
ORC_Paradox 08-03-07, 06:36 AM	But I prefer this misconception. I hate D&D alignment. So I will happily do it this way. But why? Alignment doesn't dictate how your character is played. How your character is played dictates the alignment. Do evil things, and people will start pointing to your character and calling you Evil. The point of Alignment is that Lawful Good characters don't touch a book of Vile Darkness. Evil characters stay away from holy avengers. :)
Rechan 08-03-07, 10:00 AM	WizO_Paradox, this is not the thread to get into a debate on alignment. But simply put, I think it's too confining, limiting, weak and stereotypical. And as a moral relativist I just can't stand it.
Edymnion 08-03-07, 01:10 PM	It's a low level setting: We've got 60th level characters sleeping it off underneath the ground. Oddly, the irony is that they just have to be defeated more by plot device than the player characters getting their swords and spells together to kill Asmodeus.Its not a low level setting because it isn't totally devoid of any and all high level threats: Just because there are high level opponents to use doesn't make the setting high level, when 90% of all the rest of the setting put together never makes it past lvl 2.
The White Sorcerer 08-03-07, 02:09 PM	Its not a low level setting because it isn't totally devoid of any and all high level threats: Just because there are high level opponents to use doesn't make the setting high level, when 90% of all the rest of the setting put together never makes it past lvl 2. Sure, Eberron isn't a high-level setting. It's not a low-level setting, either. It's one of those all-level settings. It's a low-level setting because it isn't a high level setting is a terrible misconception.
Hopeless 08-03-07, 02:41 PM	But that's just it. There isn't a single Good *side* -- we have no indication that the Five Nations are the "good guys" of the whole world -- but there are unambiguously Good people. D&D alignment still exists. The Church of the Silver Flame, though it contains corrupt members, is still a Lawful Good organization and its leader, Jaela Daran, is objectively Good (in exactly the same way that her subordinate Cardinal Krozen is objectively Evil). King Boranel is Good; King Kaius is Evil; Queen Aurala is Good. Ahem, neutral. Most definitely neutral, of course if they made her to be the Margaret Thatcher of Eberron then you understand why Kaius remains a vampire, not that he had any choice mind you, but then have they ever stated how old the Lich Queen was when her mother turned her into a lich?
eehamburg 08-03-07, 03:48 PM	Ahem, neutral. Most definitely neutral, of course if they made her to be the Margaret Thatcher of Eberron then you understand why Kaius remains a vampire, not that he had any choice mind you, but then have they ever stated how old the Lich Queen was when her mother turned her into a lich? I could have sworn that they said that she was a teenager in elf years. Can you imagine a teenage female stuck in lichdom??? ACH!!!
Rerecros 08-03-07, 04:00 PM	Drow? And don't say that they're a different species. They're just the elves that stayed around in Xen'Drik rather than leaving for Aerenal. There are no Drow cities, they have no ancient civilization beyond their tribes, and they are not noble - they're xenophobic. They are very barbaric and primitive, and I wouldn't be surprised to see raids on Xen'Drik settlements. Hell, Drow were inverted. You go from a metropolitan, powerful evil force that subjugates and enslaves races beneath the ground in the veneration of a matriarchal megalomaniacal goddess, to pockets of primitive tribes stuck on an island fending for themselves against all takers. Aside from the alignment, that's a radical shift. True for the Qaltiar, though the Umbragen are somewhat closer to "classic drow".
DragoonDarkfire 08-03-07, 04:14 PM	Drow? And don't say that they're a different species. They're just the elves that stayed around in Xen'Drik rather than leaving for Aerenal. There are no Drow cities, they have no ancient civilization beyond their tribes, and they are not noble - they're xenophobic. They are very barbaric and primitive, and I wouldn't be surprised to see raids on Xen'Drik settlements. Drow in Eberron DO have settlements you realize? In fact the ONLY drow I've read that live as barbarians or wanderers are the scorpion wraiths of the broken oaths. There are also the fire binders, the Umbragedon and who knows how many more drow living in Xendrik with powerful cities and fortresses behind them. Oh and FYI: Drow in Forgotten Realms are also Xenophobic, that's why most don't come up from the Underdark. Hell, Drow were inverted. You go from a metropolitan, powerful evil force that subjugates and enslaves races beneath the ground in the veneration of a matriarchal megalomaniacal goddess, to pockets of primitive tribes stuck on an island fending for themselves against all takers. Aside from the alignment, that's a radical shift. Again. The only radical shift I see were with the scorpion wraiths. If I WERE to invert drow I would have them living in sky cities and worshiping angel gods while producing a large number of Paladins. Since I don't see that, I actually don't think drow in Eberron are completely inverted from FR drow. What about Daask? According to Sharn:CoT, Daask has many human members. So you have humans and gnolls and ogres and medusa and a few minotaurs and an ogre mage in the same organization. Yea but they aren't all hugging and rubbing shoulders up another while commenting on what good friends they all are. I don't have CoT but from my guess humans who pair themselves with Medusa's, minotaurs and ogers aren't gonna be the most stalwart allies. Let alone the closest of friends. If you look at fantasy literature you see that there are multiple times when humans have paired themselves with monsters. In most instances however these monsters are generally EVIL and so are the humans they work with. And if all the D&D monsters lived in harmony with the core races, it would be lame because there would be no conflict. The core of D&D is "Go slay the monster, get its XP and GP". If said monsters are your friends, well you sit around and drink tea. So what are you saying? Evil is still evil, Good is still good. If you want to make a morally ambiguous character then make him neutral. What's so hard about that? Keep in mind that IGNORANCE also plays an important role in this. If the Lawful Good paladin is being sent on a mission by a cleric, but this cleric is a Rakshasa in disguise then the paladin hasn't done anything evil and he might even attack the PC's because he believes what he was doing is right. If this Paladin were to be shown that his "boss" was actually an incarnation of evil then it'd be likely that he would fight it, even assist the PC's, in order to defeat it. If the Rakshasa had sent a Neutral Evil fighter to attack the PC's and it were to discover that it's "boss" was an incarnation of evil. He would probably care more whether or not he'd still get payed (or rewarded, what have you) for his efforts than any moral complication.
ArcTan 08-03-07, 04:25 PM	Drow? And don't say that they're a different species. They're just the elves that stayed around in Xen'Drik rather than leaving for Aerenal. There are no Drow cities, they have no ancient civilization beyond their tribes, and they are not noble - they're xenophobic. They are very barbaric and primitive, and I wouldn't be surprised to see raids on Xen'Drik settlements. Hell, Drow were inverted. You go from a metropolitan, powerful evil force that subjugates and enslaves races beneath the ground in the veneration of a matriarchal megalomaniacal goddess, to pockets of primitive tribes stuck on an island fending for themselves against all takers. Aside from the alignment, that's a radical shift. Sulatar? Umbragen? If it were a total inversion, the Drow would now be pacifistic, altruistic and nice. Adventurers wouldn't make a habit out of raiding their lands, killing them and taking their stuff, because they wouldn't be the enemy of all civilized people. And I've... never seen anyone ever do this. So why the whole railing against inverting things? Because this is a "Common Misconception About Eberron". People on the FR boards and main D&D boards who dislike Eberron claim that Eberron is "alignment-neutral" and is a place where Balors and Angels, Vampires and Aasimar, Trolls and Werebears all hold hands and sing, where Blackguards are Good and Paladins are Evil and up is down and a lower AC is better and so on. It's not. What about Daask? According to Sharn:CoT, Daask has many human members. So you have humans and gnolls and ogres and medusa and a few minotaurs and an ogre mage in the same organization. Which is, of course, a bad criminal organization that is hated and hunted by the "civilized" human majority. It's never actually been the case that D&D made a rule that Humans can't work with monsters. They just have to be *bad* Humans (the one evil Human Wizard who's traveling with his Minotaur and Ogre bodyguards, for instance). And if all the D&D monsters lived in harmony with the core races, it would be lame because there would be no conflict. The core of D&D is "Go slay the monster, get its XP and GP". If said monsters are your friends, well you sit around and drink tea. Yeah, exactly.
ArcTan 08-03-07, 04:26 PM	Ahem, neutral. Er, no. Queen Aurala is Neutral Good.
Charles Phipps 08-03-07, 04:29 PM	Er, no. Queen Aurala is Neutral Good. Yeah, Queen Aurala is Glinda the Good Witch of the North. She's kind, sweet, loves children, builds hospitals for veterans.... And will gut you like a fish if you step out of line, peasant!
Kensan_Oni 08-03-07, 04:31 PM	... that Eberron is "alignment-neutral" and is a place where Balors and Angels, Vampires and Aasimar, Trolls and Werebears all hold hands and sing... ... Wasn't that like the whole idea behind Sigel and Planescape, though? :eek:
ArcTan 08-03-07, 04:34 PM	... Wasn't that like the whole idea behind Sigel and Planescape, though? :eek: I already answered this question.
ArcTan 08-03-07, 04:35 PM	Yeah, Queen Aurala is Glinda the Good Witch of the North. She's kind, sweet, loves children, builds hospitals for veterans.... And will gut you like a fish if you step out of line, peasant! That doesn't make you not Neutral Good. People don't seem to have a problem with King Boranel being Chaotic Good, despite the fact that he has a powerful shadowy intelligence agency watching his subjects' every move.
Kensan_Oni 08-03-07, 04:50 PM	Charles, I'm sorry. I think we've lost focus here, due to alignment wars again. Sterotype I hate the most: If it happens in Korrvare, it Happens in Sharn My bald Kobold, this is my number one pet peeve. Everyone is in love with this city. I'm going to start my new campaign here. My Novel Starts here. Half of the starts in this game come and end in this port city as far away from the politics of the world as anything. It's a freaking port! It's not the only one that goes to Xen'drix. It's got that New York feel mixed with San Fransisco Transportation sensibilities, but geeze. If I see one more adventure/novel start with Sharn, I'm going to puke. Khorvarre is more then Sharn!
Charles Phipps 08-03-07, 05:15 PM	That doesn't make you not Neutral Good. People don't seem to have a problem with King Boranel being Chaotic Good, despite the fact that he has a powerful shadowy intelligence agency watching his subjects' every move. Uhhh yeah, ArcTan that was my point. I was backing you up. Eberron shows that you can be an authoritarian despot and still good. Just like the "everyone should be equal" people are Chaotic Evil terrorists.
Rechan 08-03-07, 05:19 PM	Drow in Eberron DO have settlements you realize? In fact the ONLY drow I've read that live as barbarians or wanderers are the scorpion wraiths of the broken oaths. There are also the fire binders, the Umbragedon The Umbragedon don't strike me as having huge settlements and rich civilization. And the fire binders are who? who knows how many more drow living in Xendrik with powerful cities and fortresses behind them. That's just guessing and assumption. Oh and FYI: Drow in Forgotten Realms are also Xenophobic, that's why most don't come up from the Underdark. No, they don't come up to the surface because of this thing called THE SUN. ;) Also, their magic stops working if they're on the surface for any extended period of time. Yea but they aren't all hugging and rubbing shoulders up another while commenting on what good friends they all are. I don't have CoT but from my guess humans who pair themselves with Medusa's, minotaurs and ogers aren't gonna be the most stalwart allies. Let alone the closest of friends. They're not going to be friends any more than the mafia don is friends with the guys breaking knee caps. Allies? As far as the humans listen to authority, just like any hierarchy. If you look at fantasy literature you see that there are multiple times when humans have paired themselves with monsters. In most instances however these monsters are generally EVIL and so are the humans they work with. Because always monsters = evil because monsters = not people. And clearly any person who would associate with monsters would be evil because monsters are evil. So what are you saying? I'm saying it'd only be boring because no one's killing eachother. If you want to make a morally ambiguous character then make him neutral. What's so hard about that? Because that's not good enough. I said I hate D&D alignment. What's so hard about that? [Sulatar? Umbragen? 1) Sulatar are who? 2) I addressed the Umbragen above. If it were a total inversion, the Drow would now be pacifistic, altruistic and nice. That's why I said this: Aside from the alignment, that's a radical shift. Adventurers wouldn't make a habit out of raiding their lands, killing them and taking their stuff, because they wouldn't be the enemy of all civilized people. So we have elves that hate civilization. Check. Because this is a "Common Misconception About Eberron". People on the FR boards and main D&D boards who dislike Eberron claim that Eberron is "alignment-neutral" and is a place where Balors and Angels, Vampires and Aasimar, Trolls and Werebears all hold hands and sing, where Blackguards are Good and Paladins are Evil and up is down and a lower AC is better and so on. It's not. For it to be a common misconception, wouldn't it have to be common in the first place? And for it to be common, wouldn't it have to be... well, said commonly? And if it's said commonly, couldn't you... show me where these things are being said? Because I was under the impression these were misconceptions that Eberron-fans have, given how many of the things in this thread have come up on the Eberron boards themselves, like Magic=Tech. It's never actually been the case that D&D made a rule that Humans can't work with monsters. They just have to be *bad* Humans (the one evil Human Wizard who's traveling with his Minotaur and Ogre bodyguards, for instance). Which is my problem with it.
Rerecros 08-03-07, 06:00 PM	Sulatar are who? The drow from whom elemental binding was stolen, they have thier own airships too.
Rechan 08-03-07, 06:04 PM	The drow from whom elemental binding was stolen, they have thier own airships too. Which book are they in? (DAMN YOU WOTC and your lack of INDEXES)
Syltorian 08-03-07, 06:09 PM	Which book are they in? (DAMN YOU WOTC and your lack of INDEXES) Secrets of Xen'drik (as well as the Shattered Land novel, though that's of course not official). SoX has various parts on them, including magic items that are tied to their elemental-binding, special metallurgical techniques, and the like. Player's Guide to Eberron has a small paragraph on one of their cities, under the Xen'drik section. Magic of Eberron (p.11) mentions how the Gnomes stole the secret of elemental binding from the drow.
DragoonDarkfire 08-03-07, 07:42 PM	The Umbragedon don't strike me as having huge settlements and rich civilization. That's just guessing and assumption. Yea bravo. *Claps* No, they don't come up to the surface because of this thing called THE SUN. ;) Also, their magic stops working if they're on the surface for any extended period of time. No actually. They could very easily take over a good portion of the surface world and adapt to the sun if they wanted to. The reason they don't is because Llolth has essentially told them that the underdark is their domain and that they have complete dominance of it. They only raid the surface out of mutual hatred of surface elves. Drow fear anything that is non-drow, they're xenophobic, just like surface elves. They're not going to be friends any more than the mafia don is friends with the guys breaking knee caps. Allies? As far as the humans listen to authority, just like any hierarchy. Exactly. Evil people don't hold allegiance to anyone. As such evil humans pair with evil monsters. That's happened quite a lot. Because always monsters = evil because monsters = not people. And clearly any person who would associate with monsters would be evil because monsters are evil. Yes because usually when you're born with a lack of intelligence, a brutal nature or the ability to turn people to stone with a gaze then you tend to grow up with a bad disposition. Of course you're not LIMITED to this. But that's just the common. Because that's not good enough. I said I hate D&D alignment. What's so hard about that? Well what do you hate about it? It's designed to fill all spectrum's. How hard is it to take a monster classified as usually evil and make it neutral? That's not too hard stat wise and it allows you to have morally ambiguous NPC's.
DragoonDarkfire 08-03-07, 07:43 PM	Secrets of Xen'drik (as well as the Shattered Land novel, though that's of course not official). SoX has various parts on them, including magic items that are tied to their elemental-binding, special metallurgical techniques, and the like. Player's Guide to Eberron has a small paragraph on one of their cities, under the Xen'drik section. Magic of Eberron (p.11) mentions how the Gnomes stole the secret of elemental binding from the drow. And if you read Shattered Land you'd know that they have a society and hierarchy.
Ryuu_Tenshi 08-03-07, 08:00 PM	Every cultist worships the Daelkyr and Aberrations. Some day, I'm going to have a cultist who's trying desperately prove the existence of Crumple-Horned Snorklacks. Yeah, I went there.
Rechan 08-03-07, 09:30 PM	To avoid spamming the thread, I'm going to start putting my posts behind spoiler blocks. While I'll still be making comments, it does relieve some of the off-topic debate. Yea bravo. *Claps* Maybe we read different articles, but I didn't see anything in the Umbragen article in Dragon that suggested they had a rich civilization. And there may be nothing that says there are fortresses and cities undiscovered in Xen'drik - but does it say that there are? The issue is what the books say, not what they don't. No actually. They could very easily take over a good portion of the surface world and adapt to the sun if they wanted to. The reason they don't is because Llolth has essentially told them that the underdark is their domain and that they have complete dominance of it. They only raid the surface out of mutual hatred of surface elves. Drow fear anything that is non-drow, they're xenophobic, just like surface elves. That doesn't address the whole "Their magic runs out if they go onto the surface due to the nature of FR's Underdark". And I see little about the Drow that suggest that they fear anything except Lolth - it's hatred, not terror. Also, just invading and conquering a part of the surface would be a bad move, since they would be required to hold it, and the nearby countries would seriously come down on their heads. Exactly. Evil people don't hold allegiance to anyone. That is seriously bull. Being "evil" does not limit one's ability to have allies and to come to their defense. It may not be out of the kindness of their heart, but realizing you are better off with that ally than without them is a reason enough to hold allegiance. Being evil does not limit your ability to work as a team, or to owe fealty to. Yes because usually when you're born with a lack of intelligence, a brutal nature or the ability to turn people to stone with a gaze then you tend to grow up with a bad disposition. Please. That's a dismissal. I'm sorry, I just don't buy "they're too stupid to know" or "all of these monsters had bad childhoods". In addition, orcs and goblins are evil in other settings. According to the SRD, Goblins are NE and Orcs are CE. In standard D&D they are monsters. And yet everyone accepts that in Eberron they're not. Orcs certainly aren't behaving CE for the setting. It's not caused any problems. But ogres and minotaurs? They're just evil. Let me put it to you another way: I see nothing inherently evil about liches. I don't think undead are fundamentally evil. I don't agree with the notion. So we're not going to agree on monsters "evil" nature. Well what do you hate about it? It's designed to fill all spectrum's. How hard is it to take a monster classified as usually evil and make it neutral? That's not too hard stat wise and it allows you to have morally ambiguous NPC's. As I said on the last page: This is not the place for a thorough debate on the merits of the alignment rules. One reason I hate D&D alignments is because I hate arguments on alignment. Accept that I do not accept the alignment rules and the currently defined notions of good and evil - that is as far I'm going to go.
Kensan_Oni 08-03-07, 09:41 PM	In addition, orcs and goblins are evil in other settings. In standard D&D the yare monsters. And yet everyone accepts that in Eberron they're not. I don't know. I definatly make the distinction that Goblins are evil. They have a nation, they constantly raid the smaller race nations for slaves. They attack diplomatic parties on sight. Oh, Goblins are definatly not nice people. However, that doesn't completely make them brutes, either. They can behave civilized. However, they're still a tribal culture, and like the Velenar, fighting is a way of life. I know, I know, I'm agreeing with you. I'm just saying that Goblins are actually monsters that mean something for once in a game, instead of a menace that just evaporates as soon as the party hits mid-levels.
Hellcow 08-03-07, 09:45 PM	The drow from whom elemental binding was stolen, they have thier own airships too. I don't have Magic of Eberron in front of me, and it's not a book I worked on, so I can't speak to it. But as the person who originally created both Zilargo and the Sulatar, I would say the situation is more complex than simple theft. The Zil of the present day produce a far wider range of elemental tools than the Sulatar ever have, including binding a wider range of elementals; the Sulatar are firebinders, after all, and don't truck with no water elementals. So there's no question that the gnomes wouldn't have elemental binding if they hadn't encountered the Sulatar (and undoubtedly stolen some of their equipment and/or captured and tortured some of the Sulatar binders)... but it's not as simple as the modern creations of the gnomes being exact knock-offs of Sulatar tools. The gnomes stole the idea - but since then, they've developed their own techniques from that foundation. The gnomes have created galleons, airships, railed transport, and siege weapons in the space of a few centuries; while it may have taken theft to START things off, the gnomes have developed it in innovative ways. And just to be fair to the Sulatar, I'd argue that while they're seemingly stuck with fire, they do have techniques with fire that the gnomes haven't been able to duplicate. The Last War might have been quite different if Zilargo had been able to mass-produce airsleds (small, fast airships with mounted staff weapons), and the fire labyrinth seen in The Shattered Land is another example of a level of elemental binding that the gnomes haven't developed. So the Sulatar have mastered fire, but have little talent or interest in other forms of elemental binding. The Zil stole the fundamental principles from the Sulatar, but then developed them in new and different ways, making remarkable progress in comparison to the Sulatar... though never equally the Sulatar skill with fire. So yes, it began with an act of theft - but it's not as simple as "Everything we have is a knock-off of Sulatar goods." It's also an open question if the Sulatar do have large-scale airships. We've seen the airsleds... but at least for now, it's up to the DM to decide if they've also developed large vessels or if they've only created the small combat craft.
Hellcow 08-04-07, 12:57 AM	Clarifying what I said earlier: Yes, the Zil did steal elemental binding from the Sulatar. But it took a tremendous amount of mystical reverse-engineering to figure out how to actually bind things themselves - and since then, they have developed techniques that are quite different from the Sulatar. So the idea was based on theft, but it still took a great deal of skill and ingenuity on the part of the Zil to actually do anything with what they stole; someone else couldn't just undermine the entire Zil elemental trade by stealing an airsled.
Rerecros 08-04-07, 01:09 AM	So Hellcow, what you are saying is that the gnomes did something after stealing those ideas, in otherwords; Step 1: Steal the secrets of elemental binding. Step 2: Step 3: Profit :D
Hellcow 08-04-07, 01:17 AM	Step 1: Steal the secrets of elemental binding. My point is that "Stealing the secrets of elemental binding" isn't a simple act. We're talking about decades of reverse-engineering, finally successful only because of the skill of those involved. Essentially, Breland couldn't just grab an airsled and suddenly have its own elemental industry. So yes, they stole an idea, reverse engineered it and profited from it - but they were only able to do so because of their own skill and talent. Furthermore, they have developed their own innovations, so they can do things with elemental binding that the Sulatar can't... though the Sulatar can in turn do things that the Zil can't. (Though I realize you might have just been making a joke. ;))
The White Sorcerer 08-04-07, 10:02 AM	Step 1: Steal the secrets of elemental binding. Step 2: Step 3: Profit :D "We are the elemental binding gnomes!"
DragoonDarkfire 08-04-07, 11:41 AM	Maybe we read different articles, but I didn't see anything in the Umbragen article in Dragon that suggested they had a rich civilization. And there may be nothing that says there are fortresses and cities undiscovered in Xen'drik - but does it say that there are? The issue is what the books say, not what they don't. didn't see anything in the Umbragen article in Dragon that suggested they had a rich civilization The issue is what the books say, not what they don't. HAHA OH WOW. In case you don't get it. You're saying you saw nothing in the article to disprove your claim that the Umbragen don't have a huge civilization then went on to say that we should focus on what the books say rather than filling in the gaps. Oh the irony. Now I've read SoX but I don't have Hellcows article of the Umbragon on hand so if you can point me to a direct quote then I'd be much appreciated. That doesn't address the whole "Their magic runs out if they go onto the surface due to the nature of FR's Underdark". Sorry, don't have FR setting but from the novels I've read (well more like borrowed from a friend) I thought a good majority of those were superstition. And I see little about the Drow that suggest that they fear anything except Lolth - it's hatred, not terror. Also, just invading and conquering a part of the surface would be a bad move, since they would be required to hold it, and the nearby countries would seriously come down on their heads. And you honestly don't think they'd be able to hold off? With the thousands of orc/goblin/monster slaves that they can garner from surrounding mountains, not to mention black ops that elite drow themselves can perform by assassinating kings and other political figures? The FR drow can easily take over a kingdom on the surface. They just don't want to. That is seriously bull. Being "evil" does not limit one's ability to have allies and to come to their defense. No but it limits trust when you're worried only about yourself. It may not be out of the kindness of their heart, but realizing you are better off with that ally than without them is a reason enough to hold allegiance. Being evil does not limit your ability to work as a team, or to owe fealty to. Again. This is a matter of TRUST. An evil person isn't going to worry about his lord when a group of rebels break in and try to kill him. If he sees that the rebels are winning he's most likely going to aid/assist the rebels to protect his own hide. That's what being evil is about, concerning more for yourself than other people. If that evil person WERE to save his lord at the risk of his own life, I would consider that an act of good and perhaps change that mans alignment to neutral or good. How this would work in Eberron is that if one of my PC's were evil (which, coincidently has happened, and he's played the part of the evil wizard bent on vengeance quite well) I wouldn't have him in the party because of his ties to them or because he feels obligated to assist them. He sees mutual benefit in assisting them and that's it. If the party starts to die off then he's the first to escape, if he goes back to save them despite the risk to his own life then I consider that an act of good and offer to change his alignment to match accordingly. This doesn't mean an evil person CAN'T help you. It means that if your party encounters an evil minotaur who offers assistance then it's best to keep your head up and not to trust him because you know that he has the capacity for betrayal. It's like in real life how you would think twice before trusting a known murderer with your life. Please. That's a dismissal. I'm sorry, I just don't buy "they're too stupid to know" or "all of these monsters had bad childhoods". Well not ALL of them. But it's a rather bad cycle for these things I'm afraid. You need to think about what would happen if minotaurs were to actually exist and if humans were to actually encounter one. Now you have an omnivorous, bipedal creature that lives out in the wild for most of it's life. It knows only the members of it's clan and it has been taught how to hunt and fight since it was young. It has intellect and reason but it's instincts still guide it far more than a traditional human. Now imagine this thing seeing humans for the first time. They're small, they walk upright like itself but aside from that they look relatively defenseless. IT'S not gonna think "Hey look. I'll go make friends with them" unless it were a child or a baby. It's gonna think "Small and defenseless prey has entered my territory. Time for lunch." and it's going to attack. How do the humans respond? Probably how humans have always responded when something attacks us. We either run away or we go to fight it. So an angry mob runs to the minotaurs lair, burns it down, kills it's family and leaves it with nothing. Now this minotaur has enough intellect to know that humans have done this and it'll probably be looking for vengeance. Thus begins the cycle a new. This doesn't mean that the minotaur or the humans are evil in any way. Rather I think they'd both be neutral in this regard, because the minotaur isn't evil for attacking the humans. It was acting on hunter and prey instincts. And the humans aren't evil either because they were just defending themselves. If that minotaur had captured humans, tortured them and took pleasure in every scream they made as he ripped off their fingers then I'd start to think that the minotaur was a bit MORE then just a primitive humanoid who's bent on anger to what man kind has done to it. The same could be applied to many monsters in Eberron. There are exceptions for all and it's usually easier for them to fall into evil than into good but overall the cultures of each would most likely depict them as being neutral or evil and possibly good if they were to grow up in the presence of a llamasu or other good creature to guide them. In addition, orcs and goblins are evil in other settings. According to the SRD, Goblins are NE and Orcs are CE. In standard D&D they are monsters. And yet everyone accepts that in Eberron they're not. Orcs certainly aren't behaving CE for the setting. It's not caused any problems. But ogres and minotaurs? They're just evil. I didn't say they were. I said that they TEND To be evil, and Orcs and Goblins do as well. Many Goblins grow up in the lowest communities or as slaves, this would lend them to be self serving neutral or evil. In fact I see the goblinoids of Darrgun as being neutral or evil as well, they're a new nation that has lived in the shadows of man kind for centuries and many probably have hostile intentions for humans and other races. Orcs on the other hand I find interesting. On one hand we have the Shadow Marches orcs who go from Neutral Good gatekeepers to Neutral Evil worshipers of the daelkyr or the dragon below. Then we have Orcs of the Demon Wastes who range from Paladins to Chaotic evil barbarians (I am, of course, assuming that some of the Carrion tribes count Orcs among their members) and then we have the Orcs of the Mror Holds that are mostly neutral (as Hellcow himself said) so yes, I too would see Orcs as being neutral. What does this mean frankly? Simply put I accept that there are monsters that do not deserve destruction simply because they're "evil" but many monsters DO have hostile intentions toward man kind and other races and as such they must be fought just the same. As to whether it's right or wrong. Well I'd let the PC's worry about that. Let me put it to you another way: I see nothing inherently evil about liches. I don't think undead are fundamentally evil. I don't agree with the notion. So we're not going to agree on monsters "evil" nature. Surrendering your soul to become immortal is usually evil. Undead are typically evil because they require the nourishment of the living to sustain themselves. This goes from zombies easting flesh, vampires drinking blood and liches necromatic existence. Necromancy is usually considered "evil" because of a more ethical bent. You are essentially tampering with life, the forces that grant and destroy life. This is considered an evil act simply by the huge problem of is it right to tamper with life and death in such a manner? Would you like it of someone had the power to tamper with your life and trap you in eternity as an undead craving flesh? Typically the answer would be no. As I said on the last page: This is not the place for a thorough debate on the merits of the alignment rules. One reason I hate D&D alignments is because I hate arguments on alignment. Accept that I do not accept the alignment rules and the currently defined notions of good and evil - that is as far I'm going to go. *raises eyebrow* *slowly claps* Yea whoopdie dingle doo. You've given up on this argument in lieu of being criticized for your opinions. You want some realistic alighment settings? Just make 80-90% of everyone neutral. Trust me, the majority of people in this world are neutral, another good majority are evil. There are very few truely good people in this world.
Hellcow 08-04-07, 01:47 PM	Speaking first to the Umbragen: In my opinion, the Umbragen don't have a VAST civilization, but nonetheless they are certainly civilized people with a well-developed system of magic. Per SoX, they have successfully defended their citadels against monsters for thousands of years. So they do have more than one city. PERSONALLY, I would say that sure, they have more than one city... they have three or four. They don't have a vast empire that stretches across the underdark of Khyber. And they are facing a very real threat of destruction from the forces that are attacking them. However, if one looks to the description of the Sulatar in SoX, "the DM must decide how many Sulatar live in Xend'rik and the significance of their presence." I'd say the same holds true for the Umbragen. I would limit their numbers because the idea that they are a culture under siege is very important to my vision of them. Essentially, they were forced to bind their souls to the Umbra to survive, and today, even that power may not be enough. If they DO have a vast empire, it removes some of that sense of urgency and tragedy which is what makes them interesting for me. Sadly, the Umbragen campaign got pulled from Dragonshard (the computer game), because that was the one that showed that they weren't just cardboard villains - that despite their fearsome appearance, they were working with the darkness because it was their best hope for survival.
Arcane Guyver 08-04-07, 02:00 PM	If I see one more adventure/novel start with Sharn, I'm going to puke. Khorvarre is more then Sharn! I too got annoyed with the over-reliance on this one city, so I made a point to start my current campaign in Fairhaven, Aundair. Worked out pretty well, especially with the details in Five Nations. :) If it's in D&D, it's belongs in Eberron: Just...no. Wish people would try playing with what's available before just randomly inserting game pieces that may or may not really enhance the flavor of the world in any meaningful way.
Hellcow 08-04-07, 02:30 PM	Looking to the question of monsters and evil... Now imagine this thing seeing humans for the first time... IT'S not gonna think "Hey look. I'll go make friends with them" unless it were a child or a baby. It's gonna think "Small and defenseless prey has entered my territory. Time for lunch." and it's going to attack. How do the humans respond? Now, bear in mind that when you say "Minotaur", I think "Droaam". That's where we have minotaur tribes in the present day. Most powerful monsters in central Khorvaire WERE eliminated over the thousand-year rule of Galifar, precisely because humans had the numbers and superior tools and magic. Galifar sought to create a peaceful, safe kingdom, and the forces of the kingdom would hunt down and eliminate dangerous creatures. They couldn't find EVERYTHING, surely. The King's Forest is vast and treacherous, and there are huge stretches of barren lands and hidden caves. But you don't have big tribes of minotaurs camped out in the center of Breland, because you'd start off with the situation just as you describe... and then eventually the Brels would show up in force and slaughter them to the last minotaur, just as we've always done. This is what makes the Mourning a big deal - because it is a new source of monsters in an area that has been largely pacified for centuries. So where you get real trouble is the frontiers. And the issue there is that it may not be a cycle, because if the minotaurs choose to raid the human settlement, the humans quite simply don't have the force to chase after the monsters and burn their settlement. If you were a typical hamlet and some minotaurs attacked, would you really go after them with a handful of 1st-2nd level warriors, or would you try to find a way to defend yourself from the next attack? You could send a desperate plea to Galifar for aid, and in time they might send knights or champions of the Silver Flame... but it's not a sure thing. It's a danger of living so far from the heart of Galifar, and the reason Boranel called settlers back from the west. Likewise, it's why we have the Eldeen Reaches; Aundair couldn't spare the forces to defend the people of the west, and the Wardens picked up the slack. Now, if you are a monster living among monsters, there's another issue in that first contact situation. The minotaur lives in a world of magic. It's seen medusas - creatures smaller and weaker, yet capable of killing with a glance. It's encountered sorcerers and warlocks (again, largely medusas or ogre mages, but there are other creatures who could develop spontaneous magic). The minotaur isn't the brightest bulb in the box in terms of Intelligence, but his Wisdom is just fine - and Wisdom is common sense. So he's going to be aware that "defenseless creatures" can be more than they appear. If he's NEVER encountered them before, how does he know they aren't disguised hags or ogre mages, creatures capable of breathing fire, etc? He's in a world where these things CAN happen. Humans mainly deal with humans, elves, etc. But the inhabitants of Droaam do deal with monsters with all manner of strange powers - so some caution when dealing with unknown creatures is justified. He absolutely won't think "Hey, we should be buddies!" - but he may want to watch them before he simply charges in and attacks. The next question is whether he has anything to gain from the fight. Do the humans have anything he wants? Are they imposing on his territory? If not - knowing that even creatures that seem helpless may have unexpected surprises - why fight? Certainly, the monsters of Droaam did and do raid hamlets that come too close to the mountains, but they do usually have a goal in mind; it's not just "Hey, weak creatures, I think I'll kill them." Then there's another issue. Setting aside that Wisdom is common sense, and even dumb ogres are OK with Wisdom, there are "monsters" that are quite intelligent. Take a look at medusas: the average medusa is actually superior to a human in every mental characteristic (Int +2, Wis +2, Cha +4). They're not only as intelligent as humans, they're more intelligent than humans. They aren't savages; they live in cities, study the ways of magic and warfare, have skilled architects and artisans, and so on. There aren't very many of them; their rate of reproduction and fertility is quite low, among other things. So as a medusa, I encounter a human. While yes, at some point there would be a first contact situation, the odds are good that I've heard of these creatures before I encounter one; I'm educated and my people trade with the other communities of Droaam, so I'll have heard about OTHER people's encounters with humans. I know he's small and weak, and I could petrify him with one glance. But what does that get me? I AM smart enough to recognize the cycle, to know that he may have more powerful friends and killing him may invite retaliation. So again, is he a threat to me? If so, is killing him the only option, or will a threat suffice? Might he have something to offer me - magical knowledge or items? Just because I have the power to kill him doesn't mean I'm incapable of recognizing that he might be more valuable to me alive. I may have no interest in becoming his FRIEND - but I may be willing to communicate to see if he's any use or threat. Personally, I see the medusas as being one of the least violent groups in Droaam; their power is sufficent to ward off attacks from the more aggressive warlords, and they'll act only when it does actually serve their purposes. So: I certainly agree that "Let's be friends" isn't the first thought on the mind of the average monster. In my opinion, it's going to be "Is this creature a threat? Do I have something to gain from fighting, or should I just leave it be?" With the more intelligent creatures, you'd add "Do I have something to gain from talking to it?" - not becoming its buddy, but looking for personal gain. Over time, the soldiers of the Silver Flame HAVE built up the sort of emnity you describe, and yes, if the minotaur encounters a knight of the Silver Flame there IS a good chance he'll think "Your kind killed by grandfather - you will pay." But that doesn't necessarily extend to all of humankind, as shown by the fact that monsters and humans do coexist in Graywall and, under the auspices of House Tharashk, in an increasing number of major cities across Khorvaire. Simply put I accept that there are monsters that do not deserve destruction simply because they're "evil" but many monsters DO have hostile intentions toward man kind and other races and as such they must be fought just the same. But what about that minotaur bodyguard in Sharn? He may even BE evil; he likes taking his enemies alive and eating their toes while they're still awake. But as a mercenary serving under House Tharashk, he won't do that unless it becomes an option in the course of his duties. He's actually PROTECTING humans - for gold, of course, but nonetheless, he's not only no threat, he's defending someone. Should he be fought? Thanks to House Tharashk, this situation is becoming increasingly common. Looking to the goblinoids, the goblins of the Dhakaani clans aren't slaves. They are essentially a worker caste, denied opportunity but nonetheless celebrated for the fact that they do support the soldiers with their work. Yes, the goblin in the Marguul clans may be a bitter slave, but the Dhakaani goblin is a simple farmer, no more or less likely to be evil than a human farmer. Likewise, he has no particular interest in killing humans... he's a farmer. Does he deserve to die? Looking beyond him to the Dhakaani, for the moment the Heirs of Dhakaan spend more time fighting each other than they do humans. They may present a threat to humans at some point in the future, but for the moment they're concerned about their own politics. Certainly, they may not expecially LIKE humans, but you're largely irrelevant to them. And if you're a Thrane and I'm a Karrn, I don't like you either. Looking to Darguun as a whole, assuming you don't have the capability to recognize the difference between a Dhakaani hobgoblin and a Ghaal'dar, yes, I may distrust your kind because you seized part of Cyre during the war, and simply because you look different. But as a Karrn, who do I hate more? You, who seized territory belonging to my enemy, but have otherwise been largely irrelevant for the last thousand years? Or the Thranes, who my family fought for decades, and who I personally fought against just two years ago? One of the key points in Eberron is that humans may consider other humans to be a far worse threat than monsters; they're certainly encounter more frequently, and over the past century, they've certainly posed more of a threat than the creatures of Droaam - or to the Five Nations at large, the goblinoids of Darguun. Most people's experience with orcs comes from the orcs of House Tharashk, who are by and large laborers or traders - not murderers. As a citizen of Sharn, I might be surprised by the Mror Dwarf's tales of the savage orcs of his homeland, or the traveler's tales of the noble Ghaash'kala. As far as I'm concerned, orcs are people like anyone else; the merchants of Sharn have been dealing with them for centuries, and they've never launched some big attack against the city. At the worst, they might try to cheat me on the price of a dragonshard shipment.
Hellcow 08-04-07, 02:33 PM	If it's in D&D, it's belongs in Eberron: Just...no. And one of the most common misconceptions. It's not "it belongs" in Eberron, it's "it has a place in". The key difference is that it doesn't mean it IS there - it means that if you WANT it to be there, you can find a way to fit it in. And by the ECS, this statement only promises to be true for the core three books. I feel it is generally true for anything - but that's not actually what the ECS says.
Hellcow 08-04-07, 02:56 PM	You want some realistic alighment settings? Just make 80-90% of everyone neutral. Trust me, the majority of people in this world are neutral, another good majority are evil. There are very few truely good people in this world. In Eberron, I'd never make 80%-90% of the world neutral. My answer to alignment is to broaden the spectrum of "good" and "evil" so that it includes people who would in the past have been considered neutral... and as a result, makes "being evil" considerably less extreme. Once you say that the only people who are evil are baby-killers, than yes, you might as well kill all the evil folks. (Continuing discussion of alignment, spoiler blocked to avoid threadjacking...) In my campaign, at its heart alignment is about altruism. Good people are willing to put the needs of others before their own. Evil people always put their own needs ahead of those of others. And neutrals will do what's best at the moment. Say you find a wallet on the street. If you're a good person, you'll go to some effort to get it back to the owner, and won't ask anything in exchange. If you're neutral, you may mail it back if there's a drivers license with an address, but you may keep the money as a reward for your efforts. Or you may just toss it in a lost and found bin; it's not really your problem. If you're evil, you'll take the money and won't even try to get it back; if you're REALLY evil, you'll try to use the credit cards before they get cancelled, and stuff like that. But all that does is tell you the most basic aspect of personality. It doesn't make the evil person a murderer; even if he had the opportunity to kill someone, he might be too frightened to do it, or see the risk as outweighing the reward. It includes the serial killer, but it also includes the cashier who skims the tip jar and doesn't give a damn that she's screwing over her fellow workers. Yes, by typical D&D something as minor as the tip-stealer cashier would be neutral. For me, if she doesn't consistently, she's evil - and that's why detect evil isn't a foolproof tool. Even looking to violence: the good person puts the needs of others ahead of his own, but among SOME good people this can lead to "the good of the many outweighs the needs of the few" rationale for violence. Meanwhile, the evil person can say "Killing is going to place me in danger of long-term retaliation; it's not worth it." Likewise, the evil person can run an orphanage for crippled war orphans. He may even like or love the crippled war orphans. But he's still scamming the government on the cost of the orphanage, and he'll still murder the inspector - not for the good of the children (which would be the good guy), but because it serves his own needs. So personally, I make neutral a fairly narrow alignment, because I consider good and evil on a far broader spectrum. It's an unfortunate fact that there are, in my opinion, considerably more evil people than good people out there, and even more neutral people than good people out there - the cashier may not steal her tips, but if she makes a little more than she needs, does she donate it to the local soup kitchen or just by a CD? She's not harming anyone by buying the CD (hence, not evil) - but she's not trying to help anyone either. So, tying this all back to monsters: living in a harsh environment can often breed self-interest; you need to look after your own needs if you're going to survive. But there will be those who see the tribe as their family - who may not make terrible sacrifices, but won't turn on a tribesmate for personal gain, nor seek to profit at the cost of one of their companions. And there may be a few who DO make sacrifices for the good of the tribe. ANY of these minotaurs may fight humans, especially humans who are killing minotaurs. The good minotaur will seek to avoid excessive cruelty in dealing with his enemies, having a little more general empathy than his companions; give them a quick death. He may even place himself at risk in an attempt to negotiate with the humans, not because he's sweet on humans but because he believes it's the only way to protect his tribe. But he will fight and kill humans, because while he's good, this means he will make sacrifices to protect his own. This ties to the good-aligned templars of the Silver Flame killing good lycanthropes. Just because you're good doesn't mean you can't kill good people; it happened all the time in the Last War. It means you should avoid excessive cruelty; consider alternatives if there are any; and be prepared to make personal sacrifices to protect your own. The templars considered all lycanthropes to be a threat to humanity. They placed themselves at great personal risk fighting these powerful creatures. Given the choice, a good templar would make a kill as swift and clean as possible. But they'd still kill a lycanthrope without saying "Was he good too?" - because their job is to sacrifice to protect their own. (Paladins are an entirely different story, falling on the farthest end of the spectrum, but I've already discussed that elsewhere...) So a monster doesn't have to be evil to pose a threat... and for that matter, a HUMAN doesn't have to be evil to pose a threat, as shown by the Last War.
Rechan 08-04-07, 04:33 PM	In case you don't get it. You're saying you saw nothing in the article to disprove your claim that the Umbragen don't have a huge civilization then went on to say that we should focus on what the books say rather than filling in the gaps. Oh the irony. Now I've read SoX but I don't have Hellcows article of the Umbragon on hand so if you can point me to a direct quote then I'd be much appreciated. Yes, that's what I'm saying and no, I don't get it. I don't own SoX - does it say that they have a rich history and civilization? Sorry, don't have FR setting but from the novels I've read (well more like borrowed from a friend) I thought a good majority of those were superstition. (Note: the following are direct cut-and-paste from Faraer, on this (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=13306070#post13306070) thread) In the first appearance of the drow, in G3 Hall of the Fire Giant King -- G1-2-3 Against the Giants (1978) p. 30: Special note regarding Drow Cloaks, Armor and Weapons: All of these items have special properties, although none of them radiate any magic. The items are made under the conditions particular to the strange homeland of the Drow, for this place has unknown radiations which impart special properties to these cloaks, armor and weapons. When such items are exposed to direct sunlight a rotting process sets in. The process is absolutely irreversible and within 2 weeks cloaks will fall to shreds, while armor and weapons become pitted and unusable. If items are not exposed to direct sunlight, they will retain their magical properties for 31-50 days before losing them, and if they are expose to the radiation of the Drow homeland 30 or so days, they will remain potent. Items not spoiled by sunlight will eventually lose their special properties if not exposed to the special radiation, but they will remain serviceable as normal cloaks, armor, shield, swords, maces, etc. Since drow were introduced into the Realms (replacing/merging with its own original dark elves) when it was published as a setting in 1987, the same applied until 3E: for instance, FOR2 The Drow of the Underdark (1991) p. 88: Direct sunlight destroys most drow cloth, footwear, armor and weapons . . . When most (90%) of the items listed above are exposed to the light of the sun for more than 2 rounds at a time (and any exposure totaling 5 rounds in a 5-day period, even if composed of brief instants), irreversible decay begins. Within 2d6 days, the items lose their magical properties, and crumble to worthless powder. I'm not aware of any limitation on casting spells, but I believe (am not sure) the limitation on spell-like abilities was introduced in Unearthed Arcana (1985), when the drow were presented as a PC race. Certainly in the Realms, FOR2 p. 8 says: The presence of strong light hampers drow concentration. Common and untrained drow typically lose the ability cast any spells or use any base powers though they can maintain already-active ones) in any light equal to or greater than normal sunlight. 'this place has unknown radiations which impart special properties to these cloaks, armor and weapons'. FOR2 ('radiation-permeated drow handiwork') and almost every other drow source discuss it too. Underdark, page 68: "Drowcraft" is a special property that weapons may have, and speak to their former incarnation: "Drowcraft weapons were once quite common, but they have fallen out of favor in some drow cities. A drowcraft weapon is energized by local earth nodes and the surrounding aura of faerzress. As long as it remains within an earth node or zone of faerzress, it grants its wielder a +2 luck bonus on attack and damage rolls, in addition to its normal enhancement bonus. Outside a faerzress zone (for example, aboveground), the weapon does not grant the luck bonus, but it otherwise works normally. A drowcraft weapon exposed to sunlight must make a DC 8 Fort save or dissolve utterly. A new save at the same DC is required for each day of exposure. Sheathed weapons or weapons exposed to indirect light (such as indoors) are still vulnerable to this effect, but a drowcraft weapon can be kept safe indefinitely inside a lead-lined case. And you honestly don't think they'd be able to hold off? With the thousands of orc/goblin/monster slaves that they can garner from surrounding mountains, not to mention black ops that elite drow themselves can perform by assassinating kings and other political figures? The FR drow can easily take over a kingdom on the surface. They just don't want to. No, I honestly don't think they could. It's a matter of an occupation. Besides, the amount of slaves they have generally is 1) Enough to sustain themselves, and 2) carry out what they need currently. It would take a long time to breed up enough slaves to wage a full on war, and then enough to enforce an occupation and protect the borders. No but it limits trust when you're worried only about yourself. Except that evil people aren't only worried about themselves. This is a matter of TRUST. An evil person isn't going to worry about his lord when a group of rebels break in and try to kill him. If he sees that the rebels are winning he's most likely going to aid/assist the rebels to protect his own hide. That's what being evil is about, concerning more for yourself than other people. If that evil person WERE to save his lord at the risk of his own life, I would consider that an act of good and perhaps change that mans alignment to neutral or good. No, that's not how every evil creature behaves. That's potentially CN, or NE. Evil isn't soulless and solely selfish. Evil is capable of trust. Well not ALL of them. But it's a rather bad cycle for these things I'm afraid. You need to think about what would happen if minotaurs were to actually exist and if humans were to actually encounter one. Not even most of them. I just don't see it happening, sorry. Now you have an omnivorous, bipedal creature that lives out in the wild for most of it's life. It knows only the members of it's clan and it has been taught how to hunt and fight since it was young. It has intellect and reason but it's instincts still guide it far more than a traditional human. Now imagine this thing seeing humans for the first time. They're small, they walk upright like itself but aside from that they look relatively defenseless. Except that you have minotaur who live and work in Sharn. Given that Minotaur can't get lost, it would make sense that House Orien would employ them to deliver things in the Cogs, where not only they cannot be lost, but they can defend themselves. You have minotaur that can be hired through House Thuraskh as bodyguards, or manual labor if you really want to. Despite your long drawn out explanation on how you see things, I just don't see it that way. Surrendering your soul to become immortal is usually evil. Undead are typically evil because they require the nourishment of the living to sustain themselves. This goes from zombies easting flesh, vampires drinking blood and liches necromatic existence. Please, find me a quote that says zombies are sustained on flesh. I'm curious, because in all my years, I've never seen that. It's one of the odder things about D&D in that their zombies aren't Night of the Living Dead zombies, but more like juju zombies, or corpses that are animated either via spirits or just infusion of negative energy. The same way that Skeletons are animated. I'd also like a quote that says a lich's soul is surrendered or consumed. I'm looking at the 3e manual (not the 3.5 - don't have that on me right now), and the only thing it says at all is that "the process to becoming a lich is unspeakably evil" (real detailed there) and that the phylactery stores their life energy. And I see nothing "evil" inherent in requiring sustenance from the living to sustain oneself - that's what every other living thing does. Necromancy is usually considered "evil" because of a more ethical bent. You are essentially tampering with life, the forces that grant and destroy life. This is considered an evil act simply by the huge problem of is it right to tamper with life and death in such a manner? Would you like it of someone had the power to tamper with your life and trap you in eternity as an undead craving flesh? Typically the answer would be no. Sort of like how tampering with the nature of a creature's form should be evil. So let's stamp "Evil" on Transmutation. Also, bending the will of other creatures and manipulating them should be evil, so let's stamp it on "Enchantment". I just don't agree that necromancy is evil. *raises eyebrow* *slowly claps* Yea whoopdie dingle doo. You've given up on this argument in lieu of being criticized for your opinions. You want some realistic alighment settings? Just make 80-90% of everyone neutral. Trust me, the majority of people in this world are neutral, another good majority are evil. There are very few truely good people in this world. Okay, what the hell. I am not being sarcastic, I am not clapping and going "Yeehaw you're such a good arguer". Please remove your condescending tone. Secondly, if I don't agree that necromancy and monsters are evil, how the hell can I buy into the alignment system? The rules say "That's evil", I say "It's not", there's conflict. Instead of going with it, I tear it out. Simple as that. I do not believe that the system should designate good and evil and set rules by it. I don't like the alignment system at all. I don't use it in my games. You tell me how moral relativism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism) works in D&D alignment. Here, I'll do it for you: it doesn't. D&D alignment is cut and dry. "This is good, that's evil." You're right, I've given up on this argument because you're telling me "Use it, just make everyone neutral, just make your characters neutral, just do this." Why do you keep insisting I abide by it? Why is it so hard to accept the fact that I don't like and won't use alignment rules? I am not telling you how to make your characters or run your games, so please do not presume to do the same for me. I have said several times I do Not want to debate alignment, and you just criticize me for not wanting criticism of my opinions. The respectful thing to do when someone says "I don't want to talk about it" is to not talk about it. In alignment debates, you can't bring up RL examples because 1) RL is not D&D, it's not cut and dry, and does not operate under the same conditions as D&D, 2) you run the risk of seriously insulting someone by attributing an alignment to their heritage or religion or whatever, 3) no matter what, no one is going to agree; you're going to spend endless hours going back and forth over what's evil and what's not, and nothing gets accomplished. It's pointless. After spending a day and a half arguing on these boards on if James Bond was evil or not, I swore them off. I've heard all the criticism before, I didn't buy them then, and I'm not going to change my opinion. My notions of good and evil are radically different than yours, we are not going to agree on them, so why can't you respect my wishes to not argue over it? Do you really want to fight that badly about it?
Hellcow 08-04-07, 05:39 PM	Evil isn't soulless and solely selfish. Evil is capable of trust. To clarify my previous statement on this: What I said is that in my campaign, selfishness is one of the major defining factors of evil. So as such, I'm obviously on the opposite side of the fence. With that said, I don't believe that evil people are incapable of trust or friendship. What defines evil to me is that when push comes to shove, the evil person will choose his own well-being over that of his friend. Push may never COME to shove; he's not going to screw his friends over all the time. Let's take my example of the cashier robbing the tip jar. If one of the other people she works with is a friend, she might even share the take with him. But she doesn't care that she's hurting the other people; she has no empathy for them. And if it came dow to it, she WOULD choose herself over her friend. A good example would be Doctor Doom and Kristoff, from the John Byrne era of Fantastic Four (IIRC). As I recall, Doom seemed to truly love the boy, and wanted to give him a better life. But in the end, he sacrificed Kristoff in one of his schemes. Doom is in many ways a noble man. He cares about the people of Latveria. But in the end, he will sacrifice anyone and anything to achieve his own personal goals. Looking back to Eberron, another example would be King Kaius. Kaius has much in common with Doom. He cares about his people and strives to be a good ruler. He has pursued peace. So why is he evil? Because of how far he'll go to pursue his own ends. He may have killed Kaius III, or at the least imprisoned him in Dreadhold. He's pursuing peace NOW, because he believes it's best for Karrnath. But he'd also sacrifice every man, woman, and child in Korth if he decided it was the right thing to do. He's willing to massacre civilians, to torture innocents, and to do whatever it takes to accomplish his goals. He has friends. He has a wife he loves. But he would sacrifice any of them if he decided it was necessary. Aurala might send her consort away, but she doesn't have it in her to have him killed. She might be prepared to go to war, but that's because she's fooled herself into believing that war can be just and fair, that her rule over Galifar would be best for everyone, that it's possible to fight a war with minimal suffering. Naive, dangerous, but well intentioned. Kaius knows exactly how horrible war is, and he's prepared to unleash those horrors. He will kill whoever he has to to accomplish his goals. His goals may BE noble. He may be a man of honor... like Doctor Doom. But at the end of the day, he's still evil - a man who will put his own desires above everything else. His concern for his people makes him sympathetic as compared to a true pulp villain; but he is still utterly ruthless and capable of great cruelty. I certainly agree that evil people can work together, and can do so quite effectively. Aside from the fact that evil people can have friends and allies, evil certainly looks out for its own interests - and working with other people is often far more useful than constantly stabbing others in the back. You may be willing to stab your buddy in the back if it comes down to you or him; but you can certainly hope it never comes to that, and possibly even feel a touch of remorse for doing it. no matter what, no one is going to agree; you're going to spend endless hours going back and forth over what's evil and what's not, and nothing gets accomplished. It's pointless. Yeah, honestly you're right. I've been through this debate at least a dozen times before, and few people ever change their minds; even I'm just saying what I do in my campaign. Furthermore, even if it was a conversation that would have an end, it's threadjacking. So I'll drop it here and spoilerblock my previous posts on the topic.
Charles Phipps 08-04-07, 05:53 PM	Actually, Hellcow. It's entirely appropriate because you're sharing elements of Eberron and how it applies to the world with Alignment. Not that we're just saying ALIGNMENT GOOD and ALIGNMENT SUCKS! Which is what is bad. If you'd be willing to look over another part, here's my response to what you said above to the excellent examples of Queen Aurala and King Kaius. I tend to view alignment alittle differently Hellcow. Specifically, I tend to view Alignment is now "Why you act" but a description of "How" you act. I find that people have far less trouble grasping that than the complexities of the alignment system. I think a good example to counterpoint Doctor Doom is his off-shoot Darth Vader. Darth Vader is certainly one of the quintessential evil characters in film. The Fallen Samurai that serves his evil master. Since alignment is largely a matter of interpretation for each individual DM, let's for the sake of argument suggest that Darth Vader is Lawful Evil. He's an ordered and structured individual whom will do anything to achieve his ends....or so he thinks. And just so we're balanced here, let's counterpoint him with Anakin Skywalker in AOTC. Anakin Skywalker is moody, restless, and a bit disrespectful. However, pre-the events of the films I'm going to put Anakin Skywalker's alignment at Neutral Good. Anakin rebels at anything that prevents him from carrying out his own views on how to make the galaxy a better place. What is the twist though? Specifically, its that Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader is loyal to his family pretty much over everything else. No one could possibly dispute that Darth Vader is a monster that stands by and lets Tarkin destroy Alderaan, tortures Princess Leia, attacks a diplomatic vessel, strangles his own commanders, and otherwise behaves in a thoroughly unpleasant manner. However, in the end, Darth Vader will turn against all of his wickedness along with his own self-interest in order to protect Luke. Likewise, we see Anakin Skywalker destroy himself out of rage over the torture/rapine (you know it was implied) of his mother. Plus, we also see the absurd lengths the man is willing to go to prevent it happening again to his wife. He sacrifices his honor, his morality, his self-respect, and his health to save a woman that he ends up killing anyway. I think what most people are saying is that Evil characters might just have that "shatterpoint" on their personalities that lends them to behave in a generally evil manner but has that one area where they will turn away from their current behavior because of it. Despayro the Assassin may kill women, children, and priests for money but there's nothing wrong that under no circumstances will he ever betray his few friends in the world. I think that fits Eberron very well. Evil and Good both have a little of each other without becoming neutral.
Hellcow 08-04-07, 06:22 PM	Despayro the Assassin may kill women, children, and priests for money but there's nothing wrong that under no circumstances will he ever betray his few friends in the world. Fair enough. Doesn't change my BASIC assumptions of alignment, but certainly, I feel no need to argue against this; as I've always said, one of the founding principles of Eberron is that evil can do good and good can do evil. You need to make a choice based on the character's core values and typical behavior, but yes, there should always be exceptions to every rule, especially when it comes to alignment. I gave an example in another thread of an evil... let's say sorceress. She captures soldiers and tortures them to death. If the players go after her, they discover a few things. First off, she's not just torturing soldiers, she's torturing bandits (many of whom are former soldiers and/or deserters). Furthermore, she's seeking out and caring for children orphaned or crippled in the war. The fact of the matter is that she herself was orphaned in the war, and this has instilled a pathological hatred of all soldiers and military institutions in her mind. She doesn't care about the deeds of the individual; she believes that anyone who picks up a sword should be prepared to reap what they sow, which in this case means being tortured to death. While she's at it, she'll also blast anyone she sees as threatening her children, which could include things we'd see as threats, but could also include trying to take them away or teaching them about their old nations. In the view of the sorceress, the nations are responsible for the war; she will protect them from that, and from the bigotry that leads to war. Her children aren't Brelish any more, and if you try to infect them with your nationalism, she will destroy you. So. She's not just killing innocent people who may have put on a uniform to defend their own families, she's torturing them to death. She'll kill you just for saying the wrong thing to her kids. So sure, I'm going to go ahead and make her evil. But she is also caring for children in need and dealing with bandits... and she will die to protect her children, just as Despayro will never surrender his friends. So she's evil, but she is doing a good thing. And if you fight her and kill her, will YOU take care of her kids? Even if you try to find homes for them, will you do anything about the other orphans out there - searching for those in need, as she was doing? This is certainly an unusual example, not the common evil guy, who I do feel falls into that "simply selfish" category. But I would treat such a character as evil because her attitude towards the majority of the people she encounters fits evil - she's just got that piece of good in her life. So yes, there are always exceptions. And with that being said: Good can do evil, evil can do good, there are exceptions to every rule, and alignment should be unpredictable - I really am going to let it drop.
Rechan 08-04-07, 09:13 PM	Charles and Hellcow: I should note that this is the first time I'm addressing anything you two have said thus far. So far it's just been between Me, ArcTan and DragoonDarkfire, so no need to feel that I've been trying to counter your points. :) I tend to view alignment alittle differently Hellcow. Specifically, I tend to view Alignment is now "Why you act" but a description of "How" you act. I find that people have far less trouble grasping that than the complexities of the alignment system. This, I feel, is a better reflection of D&D rules. How you view things really doesn't effect your alignment - your action does. You could be the happiest fuzziest fellow you could be to 99% of the people you meet, and have a nice opinion ABOUT 99% of the people you meet. But if you cast enough spells with the [Evil] descriptor on that 1% - even if that 1% is the evil monsters you're fighting - it's going to move your alignment. Even if you're a Lawful Good paladin and you do all the righteous good things, if you take the sword to the ogre babies, I say your alignment should move, no matter how convinced you are that the ogres will grow up evil. It's really easy to say "Selfishness is the defining characteristic of evil" or "evil is incapable of trust", but I just can't ascribe to that. There are many instances where selfishness or lack of trust is necessary - purely survival. An undercover cop or operative cannot trust anyone, simply because betrayal can come from anyone, at any time. He can't even trust his true superiors, simply because they may have to cut him loose, or they may not be able to follow through with something, because it would damage the entire operation. The operative accepts that he is on his own, and any assistance should not be expected. The immediate response to the above scenario then is "But he's not evil because he is putting himself on the line for a greater purpose." Yes, he is, but he could just as easily be Evil and be dedicated to the goal, putting himself on the line for that purpose, as he could be Good and doing it. And I'm certain that an evil soldier can be comfortable in the fact that his comrad in arms has his back. Because he has that comrad's back. Even if the two aren't friends, Soldier A will save soldier B from an Enemy; Soldier A could let the Enemy kill soldier B and then take the shot, but he can also save his fellow soldier. Simply because his fellow soldier, like he, is fighting For the Cause, and they are Morally Justified in killing these barbaric heathens, even if those soldiers' cause is evil, and they themselves are evil. Evil is perfectly capable of loving and trusting. Human beings are capable of dehumanizing the enemy to the point where they believe that the enemy does not deserve to live, and thus they are justified in destroying them. But that same commander who could put the dehumanized Enemy to the sword can then go home and play catch with his son and snuggle up with his wife by the fire with the utmost of sincerity, because he feels justified in his actions. Marv from Sin City is another good example - I think it would be hard to say that Marv is a Good, or even Neutral character, given his level of brutal ruthlessness. And yet the only reason he did it is because something that he admired and loved and felt was innocent was despoiled, and to bring vengeance to those responsible (or even in association with) was worth the sacrifice of his life. And thus once one begins to grade alignment not by intention or belief but by action, then you get into the quandary of deciding what are evil acts, and what are justified acts, and if the options presented offer no Good-action alternative. I have come across quite a few DMs who relish in engineering situations to trick their paladin player into Falling. Or they are so harsh (or so lax) in their interpretations of LG actions and the Paladin code that either the paladin's hands are tied, or he can get away with anything. And you can seriously get into conflicts with players when everyone at the table feels differently about the justification of the actions and the DM has to make a judgment on the morality of action, which could cost the player their class abilities. And this is just the tip of the iceberg as to what makes me sick about alignment. (Yes, I'm aware that I'm bringing in the other argument into this one, sorry for the spill-over). I feel that Evil and Good and Neutral and Lawful and Chaotic are very complex things, and that D&D itself makes broad strokes, putting everything, outlooks and actions into simplistic little boxes, and it chafes me the wrong way. If I wanted to I could probably give you a treatise on why Necromancy isn't inherently evil by nature, and still we come back to one thing: the rules say it's evil, so deal with it. And I just despise the alignment restrictions to the classes. They don't make sense to me. But then, as I said earlier, when you don't think undead are inherently evil, then the whole thing's just not going to agree with you. :) Other systems manage to get along just fine without rules-based alignment rules, so the whole D20 house of cards won't come down if I run my game this way. The real problem comes when I want to play in someone else's game. And ultimately this issue comes down to: run your game the way you want. Everything else is just trying to convince the other guy your interpretation is correct. An added layer to this is that Keith is in the conversation, which is "Well this is how I run Eberron and I see it", and that has varying levels of extra weight to the argument.
Hellcow 08-05-07, 03:45 AM	This, I feel, is a better reflection of D&D rules. How you view things really doesn't effect your alignment - your action does. Personally, I still see things differently, but that's exactly the problem we've been discussing; no one every agrees on alignment. For me, action alone doesn't define alignment, because that core principle of evil being able to do good and good being able to do evil. Taking the good soldier who kills babies. There's a group of human-eating ogres that have been raiding a border settlement. People are being dragged away in the night and eaten. A few people have tried to reason with the ogres with absolutely no success. So the soldier and his companions go and kill the ogres. And what do you know, the ogres have babies. What do they do? If they leave the children behind, they will suffer a slow death by starvation; they're too young to fend for themselves. They're not interested in taking the ogres home and trying to raise them themselves. I might expect a paladin to try something like this - convince the villagers to raise the baby ogres. But for a normal person? If he chooses to kill the children as swiftly and painlessly as possible, I'm not going to change his alignment. Yes, killing children can always been seen as an evil act. But it's a lose-lose situation. And his primary motivation was "Place my own life at risk to defend the helpless villagers". So for me, the balance is good. His motivation was good. He's not perfect, and when he had to choose between two evils he chose to protect his own. But he took no pleasure in it, he was fighting to defend the townsfolk as opposed to fighting for personal gain, and he didn't just leave the children to starve to death, which in my opinion would have been a crueler act. Of course, the situation becomes more complex if there are other ogres around who might take in the children (but what do you know about ogres? Would they take in a child from a neighboring clan). But again, for me, the fact that the soldier's primary concern was protecting others, even at the risk of his own life - and the fact that he'd even stop to consider what might be the merciful course of action - is why I'd set his alignment as good. The evil person might also fight the ogres, but he'd be looking for some sort of personal gain in it, whether he's counting on the ogres having treasure or expecting to get paid by the villagers. His action is objectively good, but his motivation is still selfish. And even then, his action is objectively good only because he is a human from the same nation as the villagers. From the OGRE'S standpoint, it's an evil act. Perhaps the ogres were provoked in some way, or see the humans as aggressors - or simply see the humans the same way we see cattle, and don't consider it an evil act to eat them. Either way, the humans showing up and killing them, then butchering their children? Certainly an evil act. So really, the action itself could be good or evil depending which side you're own... which brings me back to the character's motivation and outlook when I decide what alignment to make him. I want people to be concerned with actions as opposed to alignment. I WANT them to say "that action is evil and we need to oppose it" as opposed to "I used detect evil and that man is evil, let's get him." In my opinion, the personal alignment is secondary to what the person does; if you're a good werewolf and the good templars are trying to kill you, does it matter that they are good? Likewise, this is the key to weakening the power of detect evil; I may be reluctant to trust someone with an evil alignment, but the fact of the matter is that a particular evil person may be more reliable that a good person. Who do you want at your side - Kaius, the harsh realist, or Aurala, the idealist? Either one is capable of performing noble or evil acts - but they'll have a different view of these acts, and very different reasons for taking them. Personally, I don't like the alignment system. The other game I play most often is Over The Edge, which doesn't get into alignments, affiliations, or any of that; you are who you are. But as alignment is part of D&D, I prefer to keep it as a vague indicator fo the TYPE of person you're dealing with, which may set up expectations... but that ultimately, it DOESN'T serve as any sort of foolproof predictor of actions. But as you said before, I doubt any of us are going to change our minds. We all have opinions, likely based on the way we've been running games for years; it doesn't strike me as the kind of thing where anyone's going to suddenly say "I never thought of it that way - I'll get everyone in my group to change their whole philosophy." Still, always interesting to hear different opinions. Marv from Sin City is another good example - I think it would be hard to say that Marv is a Good, or even Neutral character, given his level of brutal ruthlessness. And yet the only reason he did it is because something that he admired and loved and felt was innocent was despoiled, and to bring vengeance to those responsible (or even in association with) was worth the sacrifice of his life. Which in my view essentially brings us back to Kaius. The degree of brutality Marv is willing to employ is, in my opinion, what would define him as evil in my book. Selfishness is one thing I easure on, and you're right, he's not a selfish man. The other is empathy, and there he's not so high. It's back to the ogres - do you even think about the children? Do you kill them swiftly? Or do you chop off the adult ogre's legs and make them watch as you kill the children, then hang the horrifically mutilated bodies as a warning to other ogres? It may be that doing that WILL actually protect the village in the long run - it will frighten people off. But it's still an action that I feel a person of good alignment wouldn't do... even if at the end of the day the long-term effects of the action serve a greater good. The people Marv kills are truly horrible people, not simply evil in alignment but performing clearly evil acts, but that doesn't change the fact that he can himself have an evil alignment - and that having that evil alignment is part of what allows him to take those horrific actions without remorse. At the moment, the actions of the evil Kaius are doing more for the stability of Khorvaire than those of good Aurala... but that doesn't change the fact that Kaius will ping as evil and Aurala as good. Just like I'd have Marv ping as evil despite the fact that he WOULDN'T just torture and murder people for the fun of it - that he only goes on his killing spree because of love. I'd also point out that part of noir is often that there's precious little "good" to be found in the world. Sam Spade is the closest thing we have to a hero in The Maltese Falcon, but he's hardly a moral paragon. the same goes for most of Sin City. There may be people who at the end of the day do good... but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are "good" in the traditional sense of alignment (as I use it). An added layer to this is that Keith is in the conversation, which is "Well this is how I run Eberron and I see it", and that has varying levels of extra weight to the argument. Which is an unfortunate factor in any conversation I take part in, and why I think so many game designers DO stay off the boards. The problem is that I am a gamer as well as a game designer, and thus have an interest in the conversation. I don't believe that there is a right answer in this case. There are aspects of the campaign where I can conclusively state "You're doing it wrong" - the Daughters of Sora Kell aren't morons, the Heirs of Dhakaan aren't savages, the Church of the Silver Flame doesn't have a monopoly on religious corruption, and so on. But ultimately, alignment is a question of philosophy. I don't even know that James or Bill would agree with my vision of alignment. I CAN say that Eberron is supposed to cause people to question alignment, and perhaps this conversation means that it's working. ;) For me, that's about getting players to judge people on their actions as opposed to their alignment. Yup, I'd make Marv evil. But if you found him, heard his story, and found that he pinged as evil, would you try to stop him? Perhaps you might find that the torture did turn your stomach, but when you're dealing with a cannibal serial killer, are you going to deny that the end result is a good thing - even if the methods are those that would revolt someone with a more empathic nature? But again, that doesn't make it the right way to do things, and it doesn't make it the only way to do things. It just makes it the way I do things. If you would say that because Marv is killing evil people and doing it out of love, you'd make him good, that's fine. The reason these arguments never end is because there ISN'T a right answer to such a nebulous concept. The only thing you can decide (IMO) is the role you want it to play in your campaign. The question still remains: does my presence in a conversation do more harm than good? While I like taking part in discussions, there's a part of me that feels that it does. That's why I often do stay out of discussions on topics like Zilargo or Dhakaan. People may ask for my opinion on something they've written or how I'd use a creature or class, but I'm not sure that it really helps to get an answer. If nine people start posting on a thread about Zilargo, and are having a great time coming up with fabulous ideas, and it just so happens that half of them contadict my own vision for Zilargo, does it help anyone to have me come in and say "Well, I'd do it differently" - or does it simply squelch the creativity and fun of people who may very well prefer there own ideas to mine... but who might give up on an idea because I said I wouldn't do it that way? And the fact of the matter is that I DO have strong opinions on things, so if I get drawn into a discussion I WILL debate, even though I do believe that at the end of the day we play games to have fun, and you should do what is best for you and your players. It's something I need to think about, and I'd appreciate hearing people's opinions. It may be that it is better for me to monitor the boards without posting, or to return to a form of more retricted posting - going back to the AKB thread instead of dropping into random threads. I believe that it's important to stay in touch with the people playing the game, but it may be that I'm doing more harm than good with my current actions.
The White Sorcerer 08-05-07, 04:23 AM	The question still remains: does my presence in a conversation do more harm than good? It is sometimes harmful, yes, when people take your words as absolute canon. When people start seeing your comments as more official than the books, we lose the common ground for discussion. Also, you have better things to do. Those Dragonshards don't write themselves!
Lazaro 08-05-07, 08:02 AM	It is sometimes harmful, yes, when people take your words as absolute canon. When people start seeing your comments as more official than the books, we lose the common ground for discussion. Also, you have better things to do. Those Dragonshards don't write themselves! There have been a multitude of threads where people ask help on how to flesh out certain people, places, or things. And as the people begin to post you'll eventually see "Well Keith says". And it's about that point the thread dies. I think people just need to understand that what he posts is just his opinion. And that if you want to use it, use it. He is not an employee of WOTC, nor are his answers canon. It's not holy text, and a giant flaming bovine will not appear before you and devour you for not using it. But, I feel that this in no way should affect Keith’s posting on the boards. I personally like seeing his opinions, and seeing how similar or different they are from my. In the end everyone has a right to there opinion and it’s our choice to accept it or leave it. Heck, some of the things he's recommended I’ve used, and some I haven’t. At the end of the day it’s my campaign and I have to make the choices I feel are best for it.
Kensan_Oni 08-05-07, 10:50 AM	Hellcow: I am a defiant SOB who will take the rules as written and run with them, and call people who errata just flat dead wrong at times. (I've done this to Guy, from the Mini's Board, much to the shock and dismay of my locals). Mainly this stems from my inherit ability to take what is made in a setting and make it mine. I could care less what you say on the BBS. You, yourself, made it clear in the ECS that there is no central authority or storyline. There is no overplot hanging over people's heads. That means your opinions are just that, Opinions. No one has to follow them. Of course, I probably will be one of the rare few who will say this. :)
Charles Phipps 08-05-07, 11:53 AM	[deleted]
Charles Phipps 08-05-07, 12:04 PM	The question still remains: does my presence in a conversation do more harm than good? While I like taking part in discussions, there's a part of me that feels that it does. That's why I often do stay out of discussions on topics like Zilargo or Dhakaan. Well, instead of just going into an elaborate explanation why *I'M* very happy with what you contribute, I think I'll try and contribute something different. Do you read Star Wars comics, Hellcow? Over on TheForce.net, we're regularly graced with the opinions of John Ostrander who wrote the Republic comics and now writes the Legacy comics (set 160 years after ROTJ). One of the fun aspects of John's appearance is the fact that he frequently contributes vast amounts of information on authorial intent and ideas that he wanted to convey about the series. He points out that, like you, he's working with a licensed property and anything not on the page isn't canon yet but he can certainly share what he was going for. It's always tremendously entertaining and leads to a great deal of discussion that everyone has fun with. Now, over in the Forgotten Realms board you have Eddy Greenwood who claims (and it seems he really does) to have notes on what the pottery in Mystra's domain looks like. The guy constantly adding his own little bits and pieces to Forgotten Realms canon that's semi-recognized by WOTC. While the free-love and rules light version of Toril that he gives is somewhat controversial to some fans, a lot of people are grateful for his additions. Let's face it, we all know that your version of Karrnath doesn't have the Sovereign Host as the Majority Faith in the country as just one of the major changes that you've dealt with. However, a lot of us are interested in your take upon the country anyway. Mostly, they might feel they want to do the "Director's Cut" of Eberron perhaps or might like an alternate opinion. I think most DMs are mature enough to realize our own Eberrons are "alternate realities" from yours and the mainstream Eberron anyway. For instance, in my Eberron, the reason there's a subsantial Sovereign Host presence is because King Kaius brought the Blood of Vol religion to Karrnath before stomping out the Vassals. Then me switched gears and the survivors slowly crawled out of the woodwork again with everyone left in post-communist confusion. That works very well for my campaign but is probably not what you meant. So, please feel glad you're an "active fan community contributor"
Rechan 08-05-07, 03:58 PM	The question still remains: does my presence in a conversation do more harm than good? IMO, you provide a very useful thing in situations like this: Context and Background. Usually we on the boards are spinning our wheels, speculating. "This could be why this happened." You provide some level of an answer to the history that just didn't make the cut in the books. A great example of this is the "Silver Flame and the Purge" thread. You can provide the intention and the background surrounding the Purge. And while this does not say "You're wrong to think the SF was cruel in their actions, you have the right to run it like it was all their fault", it provides us with the original concept that you had, and how it played out when you wrote it. Usually your answers are so indepth that it makes sense to use them, not because they are official, but because they sound good. But we, as DMs, have the right to run the game how we dang well please. You, essentially, have thought of about every aspect of Eberron, because it's yours. That's a huge resource. This is very helpful when there's a lot of Eberron that's only been scratched at the surface (ergo the "Flesh out the Fringe Nations" thread), or the explanation for something that's between the lines. If you feel that you're ruining everyone's fun, then why not cut down on the size of the info you give? No one is asking for You to flesh out Zilargo from every hamlet to the Trust's executive bathroom. So don't feel obligated. Instead, offer some insights that others can spring off from. If you don't want to erase what Others have made in that thread, then fill in some gaps that they have neglected, Or, help build off Their ideas. You don't have to use their ideas in your game, or in a source book, but it's assisting the community project none the less. The only "Harm" that I really see is, as stated above, your comments being taken as canon. But also that you just wind up distracted and engrossed in a thread. Also, and this is just me talking here, I think you sometimes clarify something when it's not necessary. Like earlier in this thread, explaining In Quite A Lot of Detail how the Sulatar's work was not completely copied by Zilargo. While I could be wrong, I don't think anyone meant that the gnomes just flew in, copied all the notes of the Sulatar and zoomed off. They stole the fundamental idea of "Take elemental, squirt it into this device, boom, new tech", without taking half the designs and uses that the Firebinders had used. You spent a lot of time (three posts or so) explaining this point very well, but I just think there wasn't a lot of confusion on that. Squabbles like "Well why is the CoW sect so small in Sharn" or "The Gatekeepers, to a degree, are hypocrites for using Horrid animals" are like arguments over what color Kaius's eyes are - they really don't matter to 99% of the boards, and are just debates between two posters and getting in the middle of that isn't worth anyone's time, much less yours. ;) So no, I don't think you do any damage being here. Just as long as everyone else takes your opinions with as much a grain of salt as they do others.
Rerecros 08-05-07, 04:14 PM	It's not holy text, and a giant flaming bovine will not appear before you and devour you for not using it. The streets will flow with the blood of the non-believers :evillaugh Also, and this is just me talking here, I think you sometimes clarify something when it's not necessary. Like earlier in this thread, explaining In Quite A Lot of Detail how the Sulatar's work was not completely copied by Zilargo. While I could be wrong, I don't think anyone meant that the gnomes just flew in, copied all the notes of the Sulatar and zoomed off. They stole the fundamental idea of "Take elemental, squirt it into this device, boom, new tech", without taking half the designs and uses that the Firebinders had used. You spent a lot of time (three posts or so) explaining this point very well, but I just think there wasn't a lot of confusion on that. Yeah, how much time did you waste overanalyzing my joke? :rofl:
Hellcow 08-05-07, 08:39 PM	You spent a lot of time (three posts or so) explaining this point very well, but I just think there wasn't a lot of confusion on that. Yes, that's my way. On the point in particular, I agree - I don't think the people on this thread were arguing the point. The reason for my extended reaction is because it's a point I've seen come up before: no one in Khorvaire has done anything original, all the good stuff comes from somewhere else. A dragon taught the orcs, the gnomes stole elemental binding, the warforged came from Xen'drik, etc, etc. My point is just that while ideas may have been based on foreign sources, the people of the modern age have evolved their own unique twists. Aaren's warforged are different from their Xen'drik predecessors. The Zil have taken elemental binding in a different direction from the Sulatar. The Children of Winter and the Greensingers are different from the Gatekeepers. Even if people took the wheel from other cultures instead of reinventing it, they have still put their own spin (so to speak) on it. So you're right, I really didn't need to go into that level of detail. But the thread is "Common Misconceptions of Eberron", and one I've seen is "The people of the modern age haven't done anything original." ;)
Alex_ 08-05-07, 10:39 PM	Sorry to go back so far in the thread and go off on my own little tangent, but these statements really caught my eye. These aren't criticisms of how you run things Rechan. This, I feel, is a better reflection of D&D rules. How you view things really doesn't effect your alignment - your action does. You could be the happiest fuzziest fellow you could be to 99% of the people you meet, and have a nice opinion ABOUT 99% of the people you meet. But if you cast enough spells with the [Evil] descriptor on that 1% - even if that 1% is the evil monsters you're fighting - it's going to move your alignment. Even if you're a Lawful Good paladin and you do all the righteous good things, if you take the sword to the ogre babies, I say your alignment should move, no matter how convinced you are that the ogres will grow up evil. This fact bears reminding that alignment in D&D is not ONLY morality/action, but is an actual force that can influence and infuse things. You can alter your alignment by casting spells with Evil/Good/Law/Chaos descriptors because those spells can taint/purify/reinforce/free you. It's a very spiritual and msytical kind of thing. It's really easy to say "Selfishness is the defining characteristic of evil" or "evil is incapable of trust", but I just can't ascribe to that. There are many instances where selfishness or lack of trust is necessary - purely survival. An undercover cop or operative cannot trust anyone, simply because betrayal can come from anyone, at any time. He can't even trust his true superiors, simply because they may have to cut him loose, or they may not be able to follow through with something, because it would damage the entire operation. The operative accepts that he is on his own, and any assistance should not be expected. I think this is intentional. There are also times when Good can be bad and negative to survival. The ideas of self sacrifice and altruism associated with Good can have a negative impact on that individual, and if you have a group composed largely of those individuals, or an institution devoted to that idea, it's usually going to be more vulnerable to outside predation. I think the idea is that at times Good and Evil are useful from a perfectly rational and impartial view. Doing what has to be and ONLY what has to be done for you/others is going to require some actions taken without concern for your own well being and SOME actions taken with your well being as the utmost priority. Sometimes following the rules and planning ahead is the best idea, but sometimes, you just have to wing it. Hence what I think Good/Evil/Law/Chaos is about. Not everyone is perfect. Your Good character thinks of others more often than they think of themselves. How does this affect your character and their view on the world? What is it like to be more compassionate and selflessly giving than others? What are the good and bad parts about being such a person? Sure people like the fact that your character would give their life for them, but that doesn't mean they like, respect, or love you. Your Chaotic character just doesn't deal with rules and structure as well as others. Sure that means they're more free on a personal level, but does it enrich their lives? Surely there are some negative points to living a life with less structure, restraints, and discipline than most other people. Even the true Neutral person has to deal with these things. They're usually either ignorant of Alignment, which can make it difficult for them to understand the thought processes and extreme beliefs of others, or they've dedicated themselves to neutrality, meaning they have to make decisions while trying not to fall into either extreme. Good/Evil/Law/Chaos conflict, not because one is inherently better and the other worse, but because they are simply ideologically opposed. The act of resiting the urge to do what's most logical (which may a choice opposed to your belief) or finding a way to resolve problems while remaining true to yourself can be just as much a source of drama, conflict, and can muddy alignment as much as simply having Good act Evil and Evil acting Good.
Phaseroth 08-06-07, 01:53 AM	My point is that "Stealing the secrets of elemental binding" isn't a simple act. We're talking about decades of reverse-engineering, finally successful only because of the skill of those involved. Essentially, Breland couldn't just grab an airsled and suddenly have its own elemental industry. So yes, they stole an idea, reverse engineered it and profited from it - but they were only able to do so because of their own skill and talent. Furthermore, they have developed their own innovations, so they can do things with elemental binding that the Sulatar can't... though the Sulatar can in turn do things that the Zil can't. Besides, everyone knows that the Sulatar stole the idea from the Xer'ox PARC labs first ... huh? Oh, sorry. Wrong boards. :D
ArcTan 08-06-07, 02:10 AM	If the Xenon PARC labs are Giants, then yeah, that actually makes a lot of sense. Also add in the part where the Sulatar stay in their damn jungle continent for years trying to "perfect" their ever-more expensive methods while the Gnomes, quick-and-dirty as their solution may be, actually *bring a solution to market*, and even let folks like House Lyrandar use and distribute it on their behalf.
Phaseroth 08-06-07, 04:36 AM	If the Xenon PARC labs are Giants, then yeah, that actually makes a lot of sense. Also add in the part where the Sulatar stay in their damn jungle continent for years trying to "perfect" their ever-more expensive methods while the Gnomes, quick-and-dirty as their solution may be, actually *bring a solution to market*, and even let folks like House Lyrandar use and distribute it on their behalf. Actually, looking at the map of Xen'drik, I'm going to change that to the Xer'ox M-ARC: The Xer'ox Mel-Aqat Research Conclave. Xer'ox was an organization of giant wizards and artificers who had developed a technique for quickly and easily duplicating magical effects, particularly enchanted items. This is where schemas came from. This group built a secret facility at Mel-Aqat, on the Eastern edge of the Menechtarun Desert, where they could study in peace and develop new magical tools for use against the invaders from Dal Quor. These researchers eventually developed a way to bind fire elementals, but it ended up being too little, too late. Other giants performed the mighty ritual that severed the ties between Eberron and Dal Quor, and in the aftermath came the elf rebellion. The forerunners of the Sulatar, drow slaves forced to work at M-ARC, found themselves in sole possession of the new technology, and the rest is, shall we say, history. And I should really start a separate thread for this, instead of hijacking this thread ;)
Hellcow 08-06-07, 12:03 PM	If the Xenon PARC labs are Giants, then yeah, that actually makes a lot of sense. Certainly. Actually, I'd argue that the Sulatar didn't even "steal it" as such; they were servants of the Sulat League and simply "inherited" it. They were the janitors at the Xer'ox facility and the owners left. Obviously developing things like a medium-sized airsled shows that they've done their own stuff with it, but the basic principles were simply handed to them. Also add in the part where the Sulatar stay in their damn jungle continent for years trying to "perfect" their ever-more expensive methods while the Gnomes, quick-and-dirty as their solution may be, actually *bring a solution to market*, and even let folks like House Lyrandar use and distribute it on their behalf. Yeah, that's what I was getting at (and hey, they've got water and air and earth, too!). Sure, they stole the idea, but given that the Sulatar have had it for thirty thousand years and the gnomes for a few centuries, they've done pretty well. (Though again, I recognize no one really cares about this but me.;))
Alex_ 08-06-07, 01:46 PM	Yeah, that's what I was getting at (and hey, they've got water and air and earth, too!). And once they get heart... (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/04/22/arts/ted.span.jpg)
Charles Phipps 08-06-07, 02:02 PM	What I want to know is, in Eberron can you have a Fiendish Bovine as a Blackguard Mount?
eehamburg 08-06-07, 03:35 PM	And once they get heart... (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/04/22/arts/ted.span.jpg) With the spirit of Gaia, I am Captain Planet and these are my planeteers ...
Alex_ 08-06-07, 03:52 PM	With the spirit of Gaia, I am Captain Planet and these are my planeteers ... Spirit of Eberron you mean :D
ArcTan 08-06-07, 08:40 PM	Yeah, that's what I was getting at (and hey, they've got water and air and earth, too!). Sure, they stole the idea, but given that the Sulatar have had it for thirty thousand years and the gnomes for a few centuries, they've done pretty well. (Though again, I recognize no one really cares about this but me.;)) You've got to add in the part about how the former Zilargo business conglomerate, IZM (Interdimensional Zil Mechanics) developed the physical magic circles to summon elementals, but hired Gnomish Conjurer Vilhelm of the Gates to write down the system of commands for controlling them, and then found that Vilhelm stole their whole empire out from under them (after a ruling by the Trust allowed all Wizards to copy and sell IZM-compatible magic circles for no cost). Of course, the Zilargo dominance of the market will only last until Sh'teevo the Mad King of the Sulatar invents a way to store Fire Elementals in translucent crystalline casings that let them store and play music.
ArcTan 08-06-07, 08:41 PM	And once they get heart... (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/04/22/arts/ted.span.jpg) They can't get it. Only the Washington Senators got heart, and they lost it when they made that Faustian pact with Asmodeus (played by Jerry Lewis).
Rechan 08-06-07, 08:55 PM	Xenon PARC is what now?
Demangel 08-06-07, 09:30 PM	Personally hellcow, I think your presence here in the discussion has a much stronger positive effect than a negative one. On the positive side, it helped stabilize a thread that was spiraling out of control (IE people remembered their manners). Another positive is that people are Debating or discussing elements of Eberron, who better to have guide us in the discussion? Another positive is that I feel very strongly that the best way for a good artist, world builder, product creator (etc), to get better at their work, and continue to pump out products the consumer will appreciate, is to engage in direct dialog with the consumer at large. More so when the product is something like this. The negatives that could come to the discussion you already understand, that your sentiments could very easily be: 1: Mistaken as canon. 2: Be taken out of context and then See #1. 3: Squelch creativity. I think it's one of the things I like about the setting that it's creator/s maintain an active presence within the community that enjoys it. Thus by your actions and your words on the subject I would ping you as Neutral good... Good intentions, maybe bending a few personal rules now and then to encourage the greater good. You are however aware of your own code of ethics, and aware that your actions may cause "evil" within the community, but not being so disciplined (lawful) as to be able to totally resist the temptation to be a tad selfish so long as your selfishness causes no undue harm to the community. Of course this could instead be the wicked manipulations of a diabolical bovine from hell claiming to be working for the greater good, but really drawing a lot of satisfaction from watching us all scurry around and give you inspiration for your next written work... Not caring how your opinions might sway the community one way or another. Thus making you Evil of some kind... However since your responses lead toward a more orderly progression of understanding, I would color you lawful evil. Or at worst, neutral evil. If your intention was to sew discord and paranoia around the boards by contradicting yourself and or others, and building up a following of fearful xenophobes, I might call you chaotic evil :) Now if you were truly neutral, you would post anonymously with an alt forum avatar... And not claim to be who you are, but not mask your knowledge or opinions either. If you were lawful good, you would completely and utterly avoid entering the debates, except to ask questions, and answer binary questions (IE Can a dragon shard do XYZ or not?). If you were chaotic good, we'd all be more confused than ever, revolting against WOTC as an evil overlord. Sharing pirated ebooks from WOTC with the rationale that such works are a form of art, and belong to the world. In the end we'd all feel wonderfully at peace about it and feel we accomplished something that made a difference, even though the world would spiral into anarchy, though a happy anarchy it may be. Interesting how alignment works isn't it :) Anyway, I'm derailing the thread now myself... sblock on...
ArcTan 08-06-07, 11:30 PM	Xenon PARC is what now? Xerox, not Xenon. Division of the same company that makes photocopiers. Research center where they invented the first GUIs (graphical user interfaces, i.e. Windows-like interfaces for computers). It's where the input peripheral we call a "mouse" was actually invented and named. The Macintosh operating system was originally based on their work. What we've been referring to is the hypocrisy of people slamming Bill Gates for "stealing" the Mac OS's idea in making Windows, when the Mac itself was largely stealing from the people at Xerox.
Rechan 08-06-07, 11:39 PM	Ah, okay. Thanks ArcTan. :)
NthDegree256 08-06-07, 11:52 PM	Of course, the Zilargo dominance of the market will only last until Sh'teevo the Mad King of the Sulatar invents a way to store Fire Elementals in translucent crystalline casings that let them store and play music. Thanks, now I'm picturing a drow in a black turtleneck saying "Oh, and before you go, there's just one more thing I'd like to announce."
ArcTan 08-06-07, 11:56 PM	"We call it the iScorpion. It can sting in twelve different formats, and is small enough to fit inside your nostril."
Rechan 08-07-07, 12:05 AM	So, who's going to make the Eberron version of the PC vs. Mac commercial? Plz, plz have someone fireballing the Mac representative. :D
DarkWarriorKarg 08-07-07, 12:18 PM	So, who's going to make the Eberron version of the PC vs. Mac commercial? Plz, plz have someone fireballing the Mac representative. :D "Hi, I'm a PC." "Hi, I'm..." "Not a PC." "That's right... I'm not a a PC I'm a..." "Who cares? This is Eberron... unless you're a PC, we don't even need to know your name. You can't even go as far as me. So you just sit back and watch me do stuff..." "But... I'm more powerful, I've got multiple connections and I'm well established..." "Only for now... but as PCs progress and those that are Not PCs don't, I'll surpass you." "But, I'm still better, especially with arts and music..." "You can have the bards."
Rechan 08-07-07, 12:40 PM	"Hi, I'm a PC." "Hi, I'm..." "Not a PC." :rofl:
Phaseroth 08-07-07, 02:27 PM	The Macintosh operating system was originally based on their work. What we've been referring to is the hypocrisy of people slamming Bill Gates for "stealing" the Mac OS's idea in making Windows, when the Mac itself was largely stealing from the people at Xerox. Actually, I'm a Mac user and I was poking fun at the people who say "Well Apple stole it from ...", when in fact they did no such thing - they licensed it legitimately. MS, on the other hand, was granted access to the inner workings of the Mac OS so that they could create the original MS Word for the Mac, and then turned around and used that inside knowledge to create the first version of Windows. The parallel between that and Hellcow's description of what the gnomes did just jumped out at me and I had to make the joke. But, as I said in my first post, "Wrong boards", so I'll drop it at this point because this isn't the place for a platform war :)