Post/Author/DateTime	Post
treehouse916 02-23-06, 10:19 AM	I had a question about a comment made in 'Not in my Eberron!', but I didn't want to clutter up the thread as it doesn't seem to be all about responding to others' posts. This is deceptively phrased like a question to a specific person (Edymnion), but that's only because his comments bring up a nagging problem I have with a prevailing mentality about Eberron. So, with that explanation/disclaimer in mind: Remember that there are no gods running around Eberron to show off, and that Adult dragons are very big, extremely powerful, and have lived for longer than any elf. And when almost no NPC in the entire setting is more than lvl 2-3, that CR 15+ Dragon is going to be pretty darn godlike to them. Yes, it's true that most Eberron characters are 2nd-3rd level at the most. But isn't the whole point of that logic so that we can ignore the background characters and focus on the PCs? I assume that most Eberron DMs don't force their players to abandon characters that have progressed past 8th level, right? I mean, high level play is fun, and Eberron is built to incorporate it (meaning, you can scale these low level encounters and introduce higher level opponents as they get to the higher levels, just like in any other D&D setting). A rogue dragon from Argonnessen is a legitimate idea (here me out here). Dragons are intelligent, wise, powerful and long-lived, but they are still mortals. They have a lifespan, and at the end of it, they die. Right? So it's not like their minds are going to be totally alien to our own. This is especially true in Eberron, where the alignment restrictions on all dragons have been eliminated. To me, at least, this indicates that their personalities (and dysfunctions) are just as varied as our own. If you can have homicidal lunatics who eat people in Sharn, then you can have them in Argonnessen, and any dragon who is super-intelligent, super-wise, super-powerful AND homicidal is going to realize that the pickings are much easier on the other side of the sea. And finally, we go back to the whole spirit of Eberron (and the heart of my question). The spirit of Eberron is that it is your world, to do with however you please. Edymnion, you like for all of your dragons to be god-like entities who are never found simply experiencing the carnal pleasure of eating members of the lesser mortal races. That is correct. I like it the other way around. Argonnessen is not very well detailed, so I feel like I have free reign to do whatever I want with my dragons. So there are the ascendent philosopher dragons, who are sort of like Edy's vision of all older dragons. Then there are the younger ones who meddle with affairs that don't really concern dragonkind because of portents in the Prophecy (and, of course, factions within the Chamber that disagree on what the Prophecy really says, so they end up with conflicting agendas). Then there are the aforementioned homicidal maniacs, who don't really think that mortals are fit for any other role than 'dinner'. And there are all of the personalities in between. And that is also correct, because it's my Eberron, and I can really do whatever I want. That's the spirit of the world, right? So, I think any time you are about to make an argument about whether something fits into Eberron canon, you should always stop and think about it very carefully, because the #1 rule of Eberron seems to be 'have it your way'. If Keith (or any developer) says 'there can be rogue dragons, who aren't concerned with the Prophecy and just want some dinner', what's the point in arguing about it? It's like a suggestion from a friend, not a mandate from the heavens. You can say 'yes, that's a good idea' or 'no, that doesn't fit my vision'. But arguing about whether or not it's legal is a waste of time, because you already determine the legality of particular facets of your Eberron on a daily basis. One of the things I loved about Eberron when I first picked it up was that flexibility, that feeling that I really owned the world. So I naturally am confused when I see people trying to say 'no, that's not right'. I think that mentality hurts the usefulness of these boards. I know that I kind of stay away from here when I am working on any adventure that veers away from 'canon', because I don't want to have to weed through all of the 'but that doesn't work in Eberron' posts to get to responses that actually apply to my question. This has been a problem in the past, and it's a shame, because there are some really great ideas floating around here. What I'd like to see is less of the 'Eberron orthodox' attitude on these boards. I know it's a lot to ask, but 'Eberron orthodox' is an oxymoron if you really think about it.
Tom McCarthy 02-23-06, 10:36 AM	Personally, I'll be keeping the hungry, hoard-loving, apolitical dragons to a bare minimum. The problem is, the general impression of dragons in the world is not that they are hungry, hoard-loving and apolitical. And yet, even one hungry, hoard-loving, apolitical dragon would garner immediate attention in every news sheet all over Khorvaire. If a dragon is obvious and not subtle, she's going to make the news, and her antics are going to get at least as much ink as the notorious white Ford Bronco. So, if the general impression of dragons is that they stay in Argonessen and are insular and inscrutable, I can't really have more than a dozen of them living the life of a rapacious dragon on Khorvaire, and even those ones need to be in isolated areas and making some attempts not to draw attention to themsleves (so sleeping, feeding at night, etc.). But if you've got a way to have your hungry, hoard-loving, apolitical dragon in your campaign that you're happy with, I'm not going to think any less of you. I'm just outlining my choice, and how I arrived at it.
treehouse916 02-23-06, 10:56 AM	Right, to avoid any confusion in future discussion, my point in bringing up the 'hungry dragon theory' isn't to say that that's something everyone should use. I'm saying that it's logic that you can follow if you wish in your own campaign, or not. I was using it as an example for the larger point I was trying to make, I suppose. Obviously, it's your Eberron, so whatever you say goes. But you are right - a hungry dragon ravaging the countryside would be big news in Khorvaire. And that's perfect, because the PCs are going to be famous heroes by the time they are able to tangle with a CR 15+ dragon, so they'll be the first ones called by the sovereigns of the afflicted nations to handle the dangerous threat. To me, that situation is Eberron flavor at its very core. But that's just my opinion. Another thing - dragon encounters are lots of fun for my players. Every time we have a dragon encounter they all have a blast, and I don't want to neglect that element in Eberron just because it is a little bit 'unorthodox'. In the end, I've got to do what is fun for my players, and it's not really anyone's business to question that, since in the end D&D is all about having fun.
DarkWarriorKarg 02-23-06, 10:57 AM	Yes, But you're not ordering fellow posters and the game developers to conform to your vision, nor do you expect them to.
Rechan 02-23-06, 11:44 AM	I'd point out that a Dragon need not ravage the countryside and it be noticed everywhere. There are locations where a Dragon could easily do this and not be noticed because it's so far removed from civilization: The Demon Wastes, The Shadow Marches, Q'Barra (deep in the jungle at least), Frostfell, Xen'Drik, and the Mournland. The Dragon could be guarding (or nesting) in one of the fallen fortresses of the fiends in Q'barra, hunting in the jungles. It could be on a personal crusade against the fiends of the Demon Wastes, and the LoD, wanting to elimate this guerilla warrior dragon, fanagle the PCs to hunt it down (they could even possibly "Frame" the dragon by polymorphing into one and destroying a settlement in the edge of the Eldeen Reaches). It could be plundering Xen'Drik artifacts or doing its own arcane study, and since Xen'Drik is so isolated, no one would know (except maybe the Giants). Frostfell looks like an excellent hunting ground, a "vacation spot" for dragons who want to just gobble mortals without much care. An agent of the Chamber could have been caught in the heart of the Mournland (a plant in Metrol?) and was so warped by the energies that it went a little bonkers and reverted to its primitive form. It could also have been possessed by a Rakshasa or equally powerful fiend, and is being forced to destroy the countryside, in order to stir up some bad press on Argonnesen. Or if it attacked Aerenal, stir up a new war against the Dragons. And don't forget that Dragons can master magic fairly easily; the Dragon itself could polymorph itself or cast illusions to make it look like a wholely different creature, ravaging the countryside without its true identity being exposed. Imagine the look on your players faaces when they go to face down the Aberrational horror stirred up from Khyber, only to find it's a dragon in disguise!
Arcane Guyver 02-23-06, 04:43 PM	I agree with the spirit of this topic - I'm growing increasingly annoyed at how what could be construed as house rules (albeit, possibly Keith Baker's house rules) are treated as The Way Things Are Done in Eberron. As far as 'rogue dragons' are concerned: there are plenty of ways to use dragons without making them so far behind the scenes that PCs may never see them. Just think of a reason why a dragon would want to attack the PCs, then develop it from there. They may not be mortal, but they can still get extremely ****** if things don't go their way. At it's simplest, imagine the PCs escape from a dungeon, the place crumbling away as they exit, unbeknownst to the PCs revealing a dragonmark where the ruin used to lay. While taking a status report and assessing wounds, a 'vulture' (one of those prophecy-chasing dragons mentioned in PGtE) swoops in. This dragon feels that she either cannot study the newly revealed piece of prophecy with noisy insects in the area, or feels they are unfit to look at this piece of the prophecy revealed. Bam, an unexpected but memorable capstone encounter for the adventure. And whos to say that members of the Chamber aren't gunning for eachother? The PCs might be used as pawns in a feud between to dragons. Or, another way to accomplish it...imagine a somewhat young dragon being controlled by a powerful mentalist? One who isn't necessarily controlled, but treats a 'marked' mortal as some sort of messiah or linchpin for the prophecy, and does everything in his power to protect her? A dragon driven quite insane by its studies (possibly tapping into the forbidden knowledge of Xoriat or the Rajahs) either starts doing the aforementioned 'razing the countryside,' or he might be doing something more insidious...
Gurv 02-23-06, 05:32 PM	But you're not ordering fellow posters and the game developers to conform to your vision, nor do you expect them to. I think that most people realize that nothing is meant to be absolute. When someone says that "dragons behave like this in Eberron", they mean "in general", "most of the time" and/or "unless there is a reason otherwise". They also realize that different groups enjoy different things. In the Eberron setting, a dragon ravaging the countryside is abnormal. That doesn't mean it can't happen. Just that it is the exception rather than the rule. Of course, if the DM wants it to be otherwise, then things change. I've been accused, along with Edymnion, with being a "canon guardian". Personally, I like the sound of that. But I don't think any of us want everyone to conform to a single vision of what Eberron is like. We just want to make sure that people recognize when they are deviating from the norm; go ahead, feel free...just be aware that it is not where the setting designers were going with it. Do whatever you want with any element of the setting you choose. But don't expect perfect applause from everyone when you change things.
Euangelion 02-23-06, 05:48 PM	I've been accused, along with Edymnion, with being a "canon guardian". Personally, I like the sound of that. But I don't think any of us want everyone to conform to a single vision of what Eberron is like. We just want to make sure that people recognize when they are deviating from the norm; go ahead, feel free...just be aware that it is not where the setting designers were going with it. Do whatever you want with any element of the setting you choose. But don't expect perfect applause from everyone when you change things. The greater issue I see isn't so much people being slapped down because they want to change something in the setting. The issue is that there's a group version/vision of Eberron that this online community defends, even when officially published material contradicts it! (Hungry dragons and sub-races in the PGtE being a recent example, and the Church of the Silver Flame being portrayed on these boards as thoroughly corrupt from top to bottom being an issue from day 1.)
(Psi)SeveredHead 02-23-06, 07:46 PM	I don't think the rampaging dragon is impossible to do. There are bound to be a few evil dragons of low Wisdom. But they're rare - they only come out of Argonessen once in a blue moon (where a blue moon is defined as about a century, or whatever unit of time is convenient for you, rather than the accurate Earth-based term). The last time such a dragon rampaged, it was taken down by that generation's high level adventurers. Only this time, only the PCs can deal with it, as the only adventurer alive who fought the previous battle is an elderly elf who has put on weight. And the dragon paid is deliberately avoiding messing with the plans of the daelkyr and what have you, and is being courted by Vol too, so no bad guys taking it down :D And, of course, you don't make that dragon do anything too bad until the PCs are 12th-level or so, so at least they have a chance against the thing. I don't agree with a dragon holing up in a cave on Khorvaire and eating people every week ... but you could probably fit that in your Eberron, if you felt like it. Just put it in some out-of-the-way area, rather than the capital of Aundair, and now you have a good reason why it hasn't been killed yet. The greater issue I see isn't so much people being slapped down because they want to change something in the setting. The issue is that there's a group version/vision of Eberron that this online community defends, even when officially published material contradicts it! (Hungry dragons and sub-races in the PGtE being a recent example, and the Church of the Silver Flame being portrayed on these boards as thoroughly corrupt from top to bottom being an issue from day 1.) A lot of the post ECS material contradicts the ECS and even Hellcow's vision, not to mention forum members' visions. Subraces is a good example of that. Too many cooks, if you ask me, but chaining Hellcow to a wooden table and make him pump out all the sourcebooks strikes me as being ... inhumane. Probably illegal, too. I don't think anything outside of the ECS should be treated as canon anyway. I, for one, don't give a damn what splatbooks say about subraces - not in my Eberron. Fortunately, it's not like in FR, where anytime one of a zillion new subraces is created, they're given a long backstory and an important place in the storyline :rolleyes:
Euangelion 02-23-06, 09:30 PM	A lot of the post ECS material contradicts the ECS and even Hellcow's vision, not to mention forum members' visions. Subraces is a good example of that. Too many cooks, if you ask me, but chaining Hellcow to a wooden table and make him pump out all the sourcebooks strikes me as being ... inhumane. Probably illegal, too. I don't think anything outside of the ECS should be treated as canon anyway. I, for one, don't give a damn what splatbooks say about subraces - not in my Eberron. But the other end of the issue is how the community responds to those who dare to support the more recent developments in Eberron that are at odds with what this community tends to support as being "authentic" Eberron. In other words, does our tendency towards elitism sometimes hinder the role this community is supposed to play (i.e. helping players and DMs alike enjoy playing Eberron-based D&D by providing opportunities to discuss the setting) by making this community inhospitable to those who don't share our "groupthink" version of Eberron? I remember distinctly someone who posted a thread seeking advice on where to fit elven sub-races in his Eberron campaign, and for the most part all he got were "there are no sub-races in Eberron!! :rant: :yuck: :censored: :tantrum: " posts in response. At least he had the guts to call us on it, but how many lurkers have had questions or issues unanswered because they knew we'd go off on them for even asking the question? I also find it (as I mentioned in a mini-rant on another thread) ironic if not hypocritical that this community defends Keith's vision of Eberron up and down whenever a sourcebook contains information that we believe conflicts with that vision, except when it comes to the issue of the Church of the Silver Flame. Portraying all Silver Flame followers as being corrupt and/or zealots is exactly the same as if all dragons were portrayed as man-hungry hoard-gatherers. What should be the very unusual (and thus far more interesting) exception becomes the rule, which defeats the purpose of the whole thing. I feel I can say something about this elitism because I know I'm just as guilty of it as anyone, so don't bother pointing out my hypocrisy. Unfortunately, I'm all too well aware of it.
treehouse916 02-23-06, 10:03 PM	I've been accused, along with Edymnion, with being a "canon guardian". Personally, I like the sound of that. But I don't think any of us want everyone to conform to a single vision of what Eberron is like. We just want to make sure that people recognize when they are deviating from the norm; go ahead, feel free...just be aware that it is not where the setting designers were going with it. Keep in mind that Eberron is still very young in comparison to most other settings. What you envision as the perfect (or canon) Eberron is what you have seen in the very early products, when they were all overseen by one person who had one vision. Expecting this to continue is ludicrous as you well know, since Eberron cannot flourish unless it has multiple authors ready to put material together (and thus gain more revenue so the Eberron team can keep on getting paychecks). Eberron canon is determined by what WotC publishes, not by what the earliest fans of the setting like the best. Does that make sense? I see the counter-argument, so I'm going to get it out right now: "We don't owe WotC our purchases; if they publish books that contradict each other and diminish in quality, we have a right to complain." You are right. But that doesn't change the fact that Eberron itself will change, and some of the elements of your original vision will be lost in the process. Contradictions in published material are a legitimate complaint, but understand that this is a rough side effect of an evolving world. Even Keith Baker will see some things from the Eberron Campaign Setting that he's not totally satisfied with, and will thus want to change in future products. It sucks, but it's happening, and it's going to continue happening. Perfect synergy between all of the Eberron books is a pipe dream. I think it's great that Eberron has diehard fans who are monitoring the progress of the world and meticulously combing for contradictions, but at some point you have to accept that Eberron canon is not a static thing, nor can you choose out of the official material what to consider canon. What you can choose (and this is the most important thing of all) is what to include in your own game. Ultimately, Eberron exists to provide you and your friends with an enjoyable campaign, and you (as the DM) have ultimate reign over everything that goes on within that context. So it doesn't really matter if the 2007 Eberron lineup includes The Invasion of the Munchkin Drow of Xen'Drik, because you as the DM can limit and abolish access to all material from any book. Hopefully, you have control over your group and know how to put the smack down on whiners who want to play Umbragen Drizz't. I think everyone would be a lot happier (canon guardians included) if we could all let go of that need to feel threatened by ideas that seem blasphemous. Point them out by all means if they are from publishers and open the floor for discussion, but realize that in the end it doesn't mean anything to your game unless you consciously choose for it to be so. Do whatever you want with any element of the setting you choose. But don't expect perfect applause from everyone when you change things. The only thing I expect is to not be chastised for doing what I please with Eberron. A pat on the back is not required :D
Grymar 02-23-06, 10:22 PM	I see the point of keeping them rare and superior, but I also think that is the very thing that makes it an amazing encounter when the party stumbles across one. Don't forget how many of us have spoken how small the population of Khorvaire is compared to the land area. For instance in Southeastern Thrane just south of Lake Arul is a forest which is barely named (the Thornwood) and doesn't have a lick of information about it. But by my estimates, it is roughly 80x80 miles, that's 6400 square miles by my math. The outpost just SE of there is Arythawn Keep, which is mentioned for being an out-of-the-way boarder post that is nearly forgotten since it is so desolate. Plus you have the Gray Mists just across the river which keeps people away...tell me that a young to young adult green dragon couldn't easily live in that forest eating big game and hiding out from the other dragons because it did...something. A party who is cutting through that forest might have quite the surprise on their hands.... ...which would be an incredible and memorable encounter. Play the dragon smart, have it use tactics to drive the invaders out of its territory. There is nothing there that violates the EPIC DRAGONS ONLY rule that some of you live by. Plus if the characters do win and go back and start bragging about it, well then the Chamber won't be too happy about that, will they? Lowly humans bragging about killing a dragon?
(Psi)SeveredHead 02-23-06, 10:41 PM	But the other end of the issue is how the community responds to those who dare to support the more recent developments in Eberron that are at odds with what this community tends to support as being "authentic" Eberron. In other words, does our tendency towards elitism sometimes hinder the role this community is supposed to play (i.e. helping players and DMs alike enjoy playing Eberron-based D&D by providing opportunities to discuss the setting) by making this community inhospitable to those who don't share our "groupthink" version of Eberron? Yeah, we do go too far. I remember distinctly someone who posted a thread seeking advice on where to fit elven sub-races in his Eberron campaign, and for the most part all he got were "there are no sub-races in Eberron!! :rant: :yuck: :censored: :tantrum: " posts in response. At least he had the guts to call us on it, but how many lurkers have had questions or issues unanswered because they knew we'd go off on them for even asking the question? Well, someone had to educate him on that :D We posters often go too far on that kind of thing. It's not like he's publishing for WotC. I also find it (as I mentioned in a mini-rant on another thread) ironic if not hypocritical that this community defends Keith's vision of Eberron up and down whenever a sourcebook contains information that we believe conflicts with that vision, except when it comes to the issue of the Church of the Silver Flame. Portraying all Silver Flame followers as being corrupt and/or zealots is exactly the same as if all dragons were portrayed as man-hungry hoard-gatherers. What should be the very unusual (and thus far more interesting) exception becomes the rule, which defeats the purpose of the whole thing. I'm not part of that majority. Heck, I found Marked for Death painful to read because of the way the Silver Flamers were portrayed. (Plus, any time the Justicar talked to the Silver Flame paladins, I had to cringe.) I need to find a Hellcow quote on the Silver Flame. Something of about a sentence or two so I can fit it in my sig. I should point out that the Silver Flame is not a "problem" in other campaign settings, whereas subraces are. Subraces and other such things have damaged other campaign settings, and its sad to see WotC forget those lessons so quickly in its efforts to pad the page count of Eberron sourcebooks, or worse, replace useful material with that stuff. You can get subraces in non-Eberron books, which a DM can port into Eberron if they so choose.
Edymnion 02-23-06, 11:32 PM	There are just certain things that define Eberron as a setting that shouldn't be messed with, IMO. Things like no subraces (god forbid you use flavor instead of mechanics), fuzzy alignments, dragons guarding the prophecy, warforged not being robots, etc. Many of these core elements are specifically what makes Eberron differant from everything else. The stuff that actually makes Eberron a breath of fresh air in a VERY stale industry/genre. Some people are afraid of change and won't accept it, and WotC wants to get every last dollar they can, so instead of trying to keep the setting seperate and unique, they will (and have) begin/begun to fence sit and try to draw those people that don't want new things by pulling in old stuff. After all, the people that are afraid of deathless elves and backstabbing gnomes won't feel so much like a fish out of water if they can bring in Wood Elves and the like, so they can stay wrapped up in the old deadwood stereotyping those things include by their very nature. I've personally got no problem with bringing in any new writer that accepts the fact that this is Eberron. Not Greyhawk, not Faerun, not anything else that has ever come before, and instead is willing to sit down and help accentuate how this setting is unique, and not try to weight it down by dragging all of the old stuff into it. New race of dragons that fits Eberron's unique viewpoint = good. Trying to squeeze planar dragons into Eberron just to have more monsters to fight = bad. New classes to make the setting better = good. Taking all of the classes from the Complete XXXX books and trying to figure out how to shoe-horn them into Eberron = bad. And when the old stuff they're dragging in starts to contradict the original flavor, then yes, thats a very bad thing. No, Keith's vision of Eberron isn't the end all be all of the setting. I'll be one of the first to say that some of his ideas are so far out in left field to be laughable they're so bad, IMO (pregnant male changlings spring to mind here). But, bottom line, when people go out of their way to make Eberron more like the existing settings, then they are screwing up the very foundation of the idea that makes Eberron so good. The fact that it is *NOT* like the other settings. I don't want the great wheel. I don't want tree hugging hippy elves and beer swilling scottish dwarves. I like Eberron because it is so very differant than everything else. When Eberron ceases to be differant and unique, it will cease being worth playing in. So, by all means, bring in as many new writers as needed to keep the setting alive, but not if it means bringing in people that haven't had time to get aquainted with the thing. Make sure they are completely off their "Well this would fly in Faerun/Greyhawk/whatever" mentality before they're allowed to write for Eberron. When they can appreciate the differances that make this setting so special, and not unintentionally try to ruin those differances, I'll be happy to hail them as welcome members of the crew. Until then, let 'em write a paragraph or two here and there to see how they do, not giving them entire chapters that will essentially define the direction of the setting for the rest of time. A well established setting like Faerun can easily absorb a bad writer screwing something up, because it's already set. Eberron can't do that yet. If some new guy writes in a book that Argonessan is made of cheese and filled with half-troll dire trout, then there's nothing to say it isn't, and chances are that all future writers will refer back to those trollish trout as how its supposed to be. Right now, the material that comes out is what Eberron will be for the rest of time, and I would prefer it be written by people that know what they're doing.
Nimrud 02-24-06, 06:00 AM	Firstly, nobody is saying you cannot deviate from 'canon' whatever that may be. If you want to introduce new elements into Eberron, by all means do so. Don't let a few posters on a forum stop you. Secondly, people like Edymnion are simply expressing their idea of what Eberron is supposed to be, what they like about the setting, how it's unique and special for them. Some people (again like Edymnion) put their views strongly, and state they don't want designers to change what they feel is unique about the setting. This is legitimate, since we are all customers of the product, and these boards are here for WOTC customers to make their views about the products known. Thirdly, if you understand a campaign setting like Eberron as literature, you can see how an interpretative community almost necessarily springs up, just as it does around any work of fiction that has readers. People will form certain ideas about what the work 'means', and when you have enough people who share the same ideas, then you have 'canonical' interpretations. This works the same way for a campaign setting, facilitated by a forum like this one where people can share and compare their views easily. However, just because there is a 'canonical' interpretation doesn't mean you have to accept it. There is no 'right' and 'wrong' about these things, because the discussion is primarily about aesthetics, not objective facts. That said, if most people in an interpretative community accept a certain interpretation of a literary work (or a certain 'vision' of it if you like), and if you don't agree with that collective interpretation or 'vision', then you are deviating from that. Again, you are not right or wrong for doing that, just different. You may have your reasons for 'seeing it different'. You may share your reasons, and being human beings, you will find other people disagreeing with you with various degrees of vehemence and politeness. It might disturb you to find others taking things a lot more seriously than you about certain matters, or taking a lot more rigid views about them, but there's nothing wrong or even strange about that. So what are my views about dragons. I'm not in the camp that treats them as quasi-deities. That's too much. Deities in Eberron are far-away concept-like things. 'Avatars' of the gods is very much an alien idea as far as Eberron is concerned. Dragons on the other hand are very much real creatures of the world, even though the average Khorvairean might never have seen one in his life. On the other hand, dragons should be rare. They have a specific place in Eberron, and should not be encountered randomly or placed willy-nilly in an Eberron campaign without a good reason. And if dragons are rare, then 'rogue' dragons should be even rarer. Certainly, it should not be an excuse to put a dragon in the game just so the PCs can fight one. "Why is a dragon terrorising the village? Oh I dunno, it's a ROGUE dragon. Yeah, that's it." Not in my Eberron.
Euangelion 02-24-06, 07:41 AM	That's good stuff, Nimrud. The problem comes when defending the 'canonical interpretation' becomes more important to the community than facilitating discussion and enjoyment of the game for anyone, even those who don't subscribe to some or all of the 'canonical interpretation.' I'm just suggesting that there's no reason why this community of intelligent and insightful participants can't be more self-aware than most people and control their natural tendencies to defend their interpretation at all costs, for the sake of the primary purpose of this community.
Logos7 02-24-06, 08:24 AM	I think a lot of the problem is the impression that eberron is "low level" even the originator of the thread said that their's are no NPC with more than 2 -3 npc levels which is flat wrong, thier's a good amount of level 19 and 20 NPC classes in cities and metroploi. and i think this is probably the worst example of "we say its eberron .: eberron. I think the setting intended to make the characters heroic, and i don't think it has to cap everything else to 2 hd (althought it seems like it might run more like cthulhu than), I think it's more the problem that OMG it's something with 24 hd ,it's got to be important that this line of thought endears that leads to these "differences of opionions" That said to each their own, their's no wrong way to do this, Logos
Sereno 02-24-06, 09:26 AM	I think a lot of the problem is the impression that eberron is "low level" even the originator of the thread said that their's are no NPC with more than 2 -3 npc levels which is flat wrong, thier's a good amount of level 19 and 20 NPC classes in cities and metroploi. and i think this is probably the worst example of "we say its eberron .: eberron. All you have to do is read Keith's Dragonshard on Demographics (or use the web tool that was generated from it: http://www.coveworld.net/eberron/demographics.html) to realize that Eberron *does* have high-level NPCs ... however, in keeping with Keith's vision they aren't supposed to be the "world movers and shakers." That role is supposed to be reserved for the PCs. There's enormous opportunity for high-level play in Eberron; a single (weakest) Daelkyr is a CR 20! There's imprisioned fiends all over the place in hidden prisons and ancient lost cities. A member of the Chamber who goes insane could easily fill the roll of "rampaging dragon" at practically any CR. What there isn't is a host of high-level HEROS to save the day. There's just the PCs. That's one of the main thing that differentiates Eberron from FR, IMO.
treehouse916 02-24-06, 11:53 AM	There are just certain things that define Eberron as a setting that shouldn't be messed with, IMO. Things like no subraces (god forbid you use flavor instead of mechanics), fuzzy alignments, dragons guarding the prophecy, warforged not being robots, etc. I'd like to approach this from a detached standpoint, as I myself am not a big fan of subraces. The whole 'no subraces' thing is a personal taste of Keith's that many of us have picked up (or always had, whether we realized it or not). But it's NOT Eberron canon, whether you like it or not. WotC determines what Eberron canon is; you can pay attention to them or not, but if you choose not to, you are diverging from canon yourself. If a sanctioned WotC book says that Eberron can have subraces, or any of the other things that you harp on (such as the new classes from the Complete series being given –optional- places in the setting), then that's canon. It is the responsibility of every DM, whether they are running homebrew, Forgotten Realms, Iron Heroes or Eberron, to pick and choose the elements that they want for their campaign, and let their players know what's what. If you can't do that, then you shouldn't be a DM. Trying to put this burden on WotC is folly; so is expecting them not to cross-reference their material whenever they can, because WotC is a business, and they are going to do that. As I said before, complaining about these things is a legitimate stance, because developers need fanbase feedback, but going off on tangeants about it to posters is not appropriate. I occasionally see a post start up here to the effect of ‘Where should I put X element in Eberron?’ If your response to this post is going to be ‘that element doesn’t fit anywhere in Eberron’, think about whether this is really true, or if it’s just your personal taste before you reply. If it’s personal taste, it’d be better if you didn’t say anything at all, because that’s not often going to be helpful, but at the very least put a disclaimer on it. You have to remember that, as pillars of the community, your opinions have weight, and they will naturally snowball as they are picked up from one thread to another. You have responsibilities, therefore, to be moderate in your posts, whoever they are directed at. Edy might only be harping at the developers, but someone else will see his argument, agree with it, and take that aggressive attitude to a regular forum member. Some of this isn’t in your control, but all online communities have a certain tone, and that tone is usually set by the old timers. Please keep this in mind. Firstly, nobody is saying you cannot deviate from 'canon' whatever that may be. If you want to introduce new elements into Eberron, by all means do so. Don't let a few posters on a forum stop you. Actually, they do. Not me specifically, because I've wised up and stopped posting any ‘deviant’ topics here. The only reason I even started this thread is because I don't really have a 'stake' in this community, and I feel I can give you a pretty good idea of what outsiders think of this place (I have almost daily communication with several Eberron fans who don't frequent these forums, and I know my feelings are shared by everyone I’ve talked to about it). You say 'don't let a few posters on a forum stop you', but that's kind of the whole point of posting in a forum, to get feedback on your ideas. I don't just like to see my written word. These arguments about canon, and how they always seem to spring up in unrelated threads, are a discouragement to new posters. Please face this fact and address it if you plan to keep this community useful in the long run. Secondly, people like Edymnion are simply expressing their idea of what Eberron is supposed to be, what they like about the setting, how it's unique and special for them. Some people (again like Edymnion) put their views strongly, and state they don't want designers to change what they feel is unique about the setting. There's nothing wrong with expressing your ideas, as long as you don't call them 'canon' when they are in fact not. However, just because there is a 'canonical' interpretation doesn't mean you have to accept it. There is no 'right' and 'wrong' about these things, because the discussion is primarily about aesthetics, not objective facts. That said, if most people in an interpretative community accept a certain interpretation of a literary work (or a certain 'vision' of it if you like), and if you don't agree with that collective interpretation or 'vision', then you are deviating from that. Again, you are not right or wrong for doing that, just different. You may have your reasons for 'seeing it different'. You may share your reasons, and being human beings, you will find other people disagreeing with you with various degrees of vehemence and politeness. It might disturb you to find others taking things a lot more seriously than you about certain matters, or taking a lot more rigid views about them, but there's nothing wrong or even strange about that. So canon is decided by the community now? How is that useful to new Eberron DMs and players, who aren't familiar with this board’s politics? It's fine to have a group vision, but for God's sakes, don't call it 'canon'. That's misleading, and there are so many other ways to phrase it (as you did just now).
Nimrud 02-24-06, 12:30 PM	Actually, they do. Not me specifically, because I've wised up and stopped posting any ‘deviant’ topics here. The only reason I even started this thread is because I don't really have a 'stake' in this community, and I feel I can give you a pretty good idea of what outsiders think of this place (I have almost daily communication with several Eberron fans who don't frequent these forums, and I know my feelings are shared by everyone I’ve talked to about it). You say 'don't let a few posters on a forum stop you', but that's kind of the whole point of posting in a forum, to get feedback on your ideas. I don't just like to see my written word. These arguments about canon, and how they always seem to spring up in unrelated threads, are a discouragement to new posters. Please face this fact and address it if you plan to keep this community useful in the long run. I see, you like to hear feedback on your views, but you don't want to hear people talk about what they think is the 'true' vision of the setting, especially if they disagree with you. Because it oppresses your freedom of expression and misleads and discourages newbies. Instead people should just be accepting of all ideas about Eberron whatever they might be, especially those of newbie Eberron players and DMs, because that will make this community more useful in the long run. So if anybody says: SUBRACES! We should all echo: GREAT! GO FOR IT! OK. ;) You know, it's all right to have people tell you, very convincingly, that you are wrong. They are so very convincing, because they believe they are right, that their way is the best way to interpret Eberron. Oppressive as it may be, it doesn't mean you have to accept it. Like you said, it's feedback. Feedback doesn't stop you from doing otherwise. Unless you let it (i.e. failed your will save). ;) There's nothing wrong with expressing your ideas, as long as you don't call them 'canon' when they are in fact not. Hence the 'quote marks' around 'canon'. So canon is decided by the community now? How is that useful to new Eberron DMs and players, who aren't familiar with this board’s politics? It's fine to have a group vision, but for God's sakes, don't call it 'canon'. That's misleading, and there are so many other ways to phrase it (as you did just now). Well let's call it a 'school of thought' or 'body of opinion'. How about that? Frankly a rose by any other name... Politics? We have that on these boards? The boards belong to everybody. Newbies and ... how did you phrase it? Pillars of the Community! Lurkers and regulars. Everybody is entitled to a point of view, and to express it in free discussion. Freedom of expression means that some people might express their views emphatically and dogmatically, i.e browbeat you with their point of view. And some of them are really smart and knowledgeable, like Edymnion. :eek: That's kind of the risk you take visiting forums like these. To allow these forums be more useful to you in the long run, you have to learn not to let it bother you.
Nimrud 02-24-06, 12:34 PM	By the way, I like your lecturing Edymnion about his responsibilities as a pillar of the community! A fine scold! Tut tut Edy! Tut tut! :D
treehouse916 02-24-06, 12:35 PM	Nimrud, are you deliberately misconstruing my viewpoint or is that an accident? I am not even going to respond to your last post point-by-point until that distinction is clear. Snide tone does not an argument make. I don't think I've been rude so far, and I'd appreciate similar courtesy from you.
Nimrud 02-24-06, 12:45 PM	Sorry. Didn't mean to come across snide. Thought it was a lighthearted poke in the ribs. Sometimes lighthearted pokes too enthusiastically applied turn out to be painful. Sorry about that. (It's just that the picture of you wagging your finger at Edy "Pillar of the Community" was funny. Sorry.) Back to your issue with my remarks. How am I misconstruing you? Perhaps you might want to rephrase what you said so I understand you better.
treehouse916 02-24-06, 12:48 PM	Emotion and tone is very hard to convey across this medium. I wasn't sure whether the emoticons were for my benefit, or everyone elses, so I asked. We're cool now :D I'm about to move from one computer to another, I'll have a more in depth response in a little while.
treehouse916 02-24-06, 01:31 PM	Alright, I'm back. I see, you like to hear feedback on your views, but you don't want to hear people talk about what they think is the 'true' vision of the setting, especially if they disagree with you. Because it oppresses your freedom of expression and misleads and discourages newbies. Instead people should just be accepting of all ideas about Eberron whatever they might be, especially those of newbie Eberron players and DMs, because that will make this community more useful in the long run. So if anybody says: SUBRACES! We should all echo: GREAT! GO FOR IT! That's not at all what I'm trying to say. My point in previous posts, if it isn't already clear, can be boiled down to this: Arguments about canon should not spring up in every 'deviant thread'. I'm using 'deviant' for lack of a better term, though I'm sure very few people here actually take it that seriously. When somebody asks about anything on this board, I would hope that most people's reactions would be to try to come up with some constructive advice. 'GREAT! GO FOR IT!' is not constructive. No one needs cheerleaders, but at the same time no one needs hecklers either. There is nothing wrong with praising someone for a good idea, or warning them that they are deviating from the norm, but if that's the only point of your post, then there's really no point in posting. Agree with me or not, that's what I'm trying to say. All of this discussion about canon, rogue dragons and so on is just backdrop. I hope this clears up my point of view for you. Well let's call it a 'school of thought' or 'body of opinion'. How about that? Frankly a rose by any other name... 'School of thought' and 'canon' are synonyms? :) Politics? We have that on these boards? The boards belong to everybody. Newbies and ... how did you phrase it? Pillars of the Community! Lurkers and regulars. Everybody is entitled to a point of view, and to express it in free discussion. Freedom of expression means that some people might express their views emphatically and dogmatically, i.e browbeat you with their point of view. And some of them are really smart and knowledgeable, like Edymnion. That's kind of the risk you take visiting forums like these. To allow these forums be more useful to you in the long run, you have to learn not to let it bother you. Politics and pillars of the community are once again 'for lack of a better term' situations. By politics, I simply mean the unspoken understandings between frequent posters here, the school of thought that you promote, and the general language that the posters use in discussion. In other words, all of the things that a newbie isn't going to know about (or necessarily care about) when they first come here. Looking back on my original use of the word, I think it still makes sense in context. And to the other thing...most Eberron fans by now associate 'pillars of the community' with exhalted gnomes. But I don't think it's an insulting term, and the general idea of it applies here all the same. I would be happy to hear from someone else that my words had weight in a community. If this turns out to be pretentious, at least I'm the one saying it and not them. ;) I realize that a paragraph of my previous post comes off as a finger-wagging lecture. That sort of goes back to tone and emotion being hard to convey over a message board. As I said at the beginning of the thread, this is not directed at Edymnion, at least not exclusively. This is directed at all of the old timers who have a specific, orthodox view of Eberron, and promote that view aggressively at every opportunity. I stand by my point that these folks need to be careful how they phrase things, because their thoughts are going to be echoed. What they say has an effect on the tone of this community, just as with any online discussion board. Your idea that the opinions of newbies are just as important as the ideas of old timers is true as far as I'm concerned, but historically the old timer will still find him or herself being agreed with more often. It's natural for humans to look towards seniority for the answers. Ideally, we avoid this as much as possible, but it still happens on a daily basis. Eh?
Edymnion 02-24-06, 10:59 PM	You have to remember that, as pillars of the community, your opinions have weight, and they will naturally snowball as they are picked up from one thread to another. You have responsibilities, therefore, to be moderate in your posts, whoever they are directed at. Edy might only be harping at the developers, but someone else will see his argument, agree with it, and take that aggressive attitude to a regular forum member. Some of this isn’t in your control, but all online communities have a certain tone, and that tone is usually set by the old timers. Please keep this in mind.Good. My tone is "Read the stinking setting before you write for it." PGtE did an excellent job at this, except for the sidebars. The main body of the book is extremly well done, and on the whole, doesn't present the optional material as hard and fast. It even has the magic word "if" when talking about using Heroes of Horror. It says "If you are using Heroes of Horror in your game, then" and goes on to say how you could use it. Thats excellent, thats exactly how it should be done. But the sidebars don't go and say anything about the optional material being optional, it just says "Yes, this is here, and this is how you use it. Like it or not, thats just the way it is". The duality is amazing, actually. Its like they hired the good talented people to write the book, then let Jimmy the Intern hammer out the sidebars during his lunch hour. So no, I have no plans on dumbing down anything I post. If someone writes pure gold, I'll praise them for it all day long (which I plan on doing for quite some time for the main text of PGtE, its just fantastic). But if somebody puts out a big steaming pile of :censored: and slaps an Eberron logo on it, I'm not pulling any punches, I'll call it like I see it. If I have any weight around here, I'd like to think I have it because I don't sugar coat stuff. I don't suck up, but give credit where credit is due. If someone does good, I congratulate them. If they do bad, I call them on it. I don't really care what that makes people think of me (good or ill), and I won't try to suck up to somebody just because I want them to like me. God knows the last thing this world needs is another suckup. :D
Docrailgun 02-25-06, 12:36 AM	I'm a bit confused by this. What's the point of buying a setting such as Eberron if one isn't going to bother to use the "canonical" setting? Certainly there's room for fitting one's characters in the game, and for telling one's own stories... but if one is going to alter a basic fact of the universe (such as adding in Faerunian gods, Dark Sun this or that, or brining back the Mark of Death), then it's no longer "Eberron". I used my own homebrew setting for 15+ years, but I decided to run campaigns with Eberron because I liked the setting. If I decide I don't like the setting anymore, I can go back to my own universe. What a waste of money otherwise. I would hope that people would say the same of me if I wasted the money to buy all the "Forgotten Realms" books and then decided that my campaign was going to be that setting except that all drow were good, and were using their new creations (the Warforged, who are all Chosen of Mystra) to fight the evil dwarves (and their master... the foul Elminster (a half-dragon, half-fiend War Troll). In any case, it's silly for people to complain that someone else is complaining that they're not being canonical _when they're not being canonical_! This is an "Eberron" board. When one is on a board about a certain universe, one should expect that one will talk about that universe. If one is altering that universe beyond a certain point, it's no longer that universe. It'd be like talking about D&D without a Vance-ian magical system. A fantasy system (even d20-based) without that magical system is no longer D&D. It's something else. Alright, I'm back. I realize that a paragraph of my previous post comes off as a finger-wagging lecture. That sort of goes back to tone and emotion being hard to convey over a message board. As I said at the beginning of the thread, this is not directed at Edymnion, at least not exclusively. This is directed at all of the old timers who have a specific, orthodox view of Eberron, and promote that view aggressively at every opportunity. I stand by my point that these folks need to be careful how they phrase things, because their thoughts are going to be echoed. What they say has an effect on the tone of this community, just as with any online discussion board. Your idea that the opinions of newbies are just as important as the ideas of old timers is true as far as I'm concerned, but historically the old timer will still find him or herself being agreed with more often. It's natural for humans to look towards seniority for the answers. Ideally, we avoid this as much as possible, but it still happens on a daily basis. Eh?
Euangelion 02-25-06, 12:47 AM	But the sidebars don't go and say anything about the optional material being optional, it just says "Yes, this is here, and this is how you use it. Like it or not, thats just the way it is". With the notable exception of the issue of alternate domains. In the sidebars for the Church of the Silver Flame and the Cults of the Dragon Below, the sidebars use heavy "if" language. However, in the main text for the sections on the SH and D6, the domains from other sources are presented as equal to the ones from the PH and ECS. The sidebar for the Red Gauntlets and Heroes of Battle on page 95 also starts off with the word "if." Also, the sub-race stuff (thought the chapter specifically calls them races, not sub-races) for Frostfell and Everice is in the main text, not the sidebars. I think it's more an author issue than it is a main text vs. sidebar issue. Edit: I would be frustrated if I were the one who wrote those sidebars and got lumped in with the other sidebars. I appreciate your willingness to call them as you see them, but we all have a responsibility to try our best to make sure we're seeing what's really there.
Euangelion 02-25-06, 01:03 AM	I'm a bit confused by this. What's the point of buying a setting such as Eberron if one isn't going to bother to use the "canonical" setting? Certainly there's room for fitting one's characters in the game, and for telling one's own stories... but if one is going to alter a basic fact of the universe (such as adding in Faerunian gods, Dark Sun this or that, or brining back the Mark of Death), then it's no longer "Eberron". I disagree. One of the things that makes Eberron what it is, is an attitude of putting control in the hands of the DM. The Mark of Death is a great example of this. A DM is free to determine what powers the Mark grants, what focus items have been created to use with it, and if, when, and how the Mark is returning. No matter what the DM decides about the Mark of Death, it doesn't make the campaign any less Eberron. Thus the canon regarding the Mark of Death is that it's up to the DM! And truly, this goes for anything in the setting. Faerun gods in Eberron? Okay, it's unorthodox, but I see no reason why it would suddenly make it not Eberron, and people should be free to discuss these issues on these boards without having to wade through a pile of unconstructive "But that's not canon!" posts to do so.
nastynate 02-25-06, 01:56 AM	I'm glad somebody has the nut hairs to finally start a thread like this. I am a huge fan of Eberron, and yet I almost never come here anymore. The board regulars seem to have conspired together to from a concensus view of what Eberron is, which while perfectly fine, is very stifling to those who have ideas that are different than theirs. I think it's gotten pretty out of hand when WotC can't even publish a book for their own setting, without it getting torn to shreds by the self appointed keepers of Eberron lore. Eberron was designed to be flexible, so that if somebody wants to define the mark of death and run a campaign around it they can. If somebody (heaven forbid) wants to use races of stone, or complete arcane in the setting they should be able to. Some people may think whisper gnomes have no place in their vision of Eberron and that's perfectly fine, but if another person wants to, guess what? They are perfectly within their rights to do so as well. The players of this game spend their hard earned money on these supplimental products, and flat out telling them they can't is very elitist. I am running a Heroes of Horror based campaign here and there set within Karrnath, and I've taken a great deal of creative license with the setting, in order to fit the vision of the game I want to run. I could care less if my story-line fits perfectly into the established norm. Particularly in a new setting with so many intentionally vague and unfinished stories, how can there even be an established norm? Why do you all suppose things are left undefined? Isn't it so we can fill in the blanks at our own gaming tables? This is where the Eberron boards come up short. If I want wu-jen, goliaths, and xeph in my campaign, there's no way in hell I'm going to even suggest it here, let along ask for advice or ideas from people who are going to tell me "Go play Forgotten Realms!" There's no more precedent in FR for incorperating the complete series than there is in Eberron. In fact given that the Forgotten Realms have such a well defined history, and far fewer places to customize things, it's actually easier to fit them into Eberron. Luckily WotC does recognize this corner of the market, and did insert the hated sidebars into the PGtE. WotC realized that people do own complete adventurer, and will want to actually use it. They aren't so short-sighted as to dismiss things out of hand, when a portion of their target market actually wants them. Sub-races have been sticking in my craw for some time. I don't really like them either, because from an evolutional stand-point it seems more logical in my eyes for humans to have sub-races than elves. Additionally I think they are really just tools for power-gaming (which is fine BTW), but I prefer power-gaming to be a product of classes and feats, not elves with strength bonuses. I'm all for min/maxing classes which IMHO are just packages of mechanics which spell out what you can do, and do not define who you are; races on the other hand should be a big part of who you are, and should only play a small role in what you can do (unless you play some monstrous race like an Illithid that is inherently inclined towards some mechanically specific role within the world). However the sub-races do exist in print, and are a part of the generic D&D universe. Thus those who do wish to allow them in their setting shouldn't be ridiculed, or ignored. In short, there is a very negative tone in these forums, for those who don't conform to the views of Edymnion and his fellow board regulars. While I applaud your devotion to your particular opinion, it is not canon any more than mine is. Your opinions are not the word handed down from high, and you folks should at least try to show a modicum of respect for those who do not embrace it as such. That's all. I'm prepared for the back-lash, so go ahead...flame on!
Rechan 02-25-06, 02:55 AM	Hey Nastynate, nice to see you here again. :) Doubt we've ever crossed swords, but I recall you from the "Does a party really need a healer" thread. I am running a Heroes of Horror based campaign here and there set within Karrnath, and I've taken a great deal of creative license with the setting, in order to fit the vision of the game I want to run. I could care less if my story-line fits perfectly into the established norm. Particularly in a new setting with so many intentionally vague and unfinished stories, how can there even be an established norm? Why do you all suppose things are left undefined? Isn't it so we can fill in the blanks at our own gaming tables? I actually would like to hear about your campaign, Nate. I own HoH and I like it a great deal. None of your ideas will be considered blasphemy. Sub-races have been sticking in my craw for some time. I don't really like them either, because from an evolutional stand-point it seems more logical in my eyes for humans to have sub-races than elves. I see so many people who get bent out of shape about subraces because they have a +2 here or there, but remember that in Eberron Subraces can reflect drastically different aspects. Subraces can be derived from influences of x race who have grown up in a Manifest Zone. The Manifest zone is going to basically "mess" with their bloodlines; a race that's grown in a manifest zone to Fernia is going to be like native Planetouched, or possibly have the Fire subtype or something, so there can be a reason for Subraces (albeit the ones in the MM are pretty, well, dull). And then there are the obvious differences, like Aquatic elves. It's a little hard for a race to adapt to living underwater without growing frickin' gills, y'know? :) Or the psi-forged (which ultimately are no different than a WF who's made with adamantite or densewood body). Luckily WotC does recognize this corner of the market, and did insert the hated sidebars into the PGtE. I'm kinda wishywashy on the sidebar issue. I like them. I like the inclusion of other material in Eberron, and I understand why WotC included them; every other day someone comes on the boards asking where to put Oriental stuff in Eberron, and so WotC can address that. Part of my issue with the sidebars is this: No where in the book is it stated 'This is a suggestion'. 'These could go here.' 'Thse would fit in here'. It just says 'This? Yeah, it's RIGHT HERE'. Take Xen'Drik for the example, in how they loaded every extra race they could in there. That could be construed by a DM that, well, if they're going to send a party to that part of Xen'Drik, and the book says this stuff is there, then they should go buy that book so they know what they're talking about. I would be fine if somewhere there was a disclaimer that said: "Sidebars? Merely suggested options." My other issue with the sidebars is the suggestions themselves; I just disagreed with how or where they placed a specific thing; I thought my way of including x in the setting was much better or interesting. But that's just "My idea is better" so don't take too much stock in that. ;) To me, Eberron material comes in two varieties: 1) Fleshing out. This is what Five Nations/S:CoT has done. They detail places and people, offer plot hooks, basically just flesh stuff out. 2) Drop it in. This is like the Explorer's Handbook, and (I'm hoping) the Secrets of Xen'Drik book is; they offer adventure sites and suggestions, and it's all optional. Nothing's in stone. I agree with everything else you've said.
Archangel62 02-25-06, 03:03 AM	I've been playing Eberron as long as it's been out and I have to say that Edyminton and I probably disagree on over half of everything that's been included. I realize that Eberron is a cool new setting, it has stuff that most of us have wanted to see in a setting for quite some time, as a wild guess plenty of people hate the mods because they start to identify themselves in with it and hate that the people of WotC people have ruined 'their' world. Onto another note, I have no problem with adding the modifications, I'd argue that this is also a way to ensure survival of the setting, not kill it. If they have to give EVERYTHING they release a question of yes and no in introduction to the setting people might not want to play it because they can't play the kinds of characters they want to play. Also, for logical reasons, considering that the RPGA does do complete Eberron my guess is that this was also a way for them to codify rules for that as well to say that 'Yes, they can be this, this, this, this, and this but these aren't available." for both the people of the RPGA and the players looking at entering.
Edymnion 02-25-06, 03:09 PM	What most people seem to be unable to see is that there is a differance between "I want to add this in, how would I go about doing it?", "Where are these in this setting", and "This is where things are." Someone posting up "For my game, I want to use this subrace, how should I go about doing this?" is fine, it shows that the person asking the question has a base understanding of the setting, and knows they are intentionally changing things. Thats great, thats fine, go for it. Someone posting up "Where is subrace X in Eberron?", those are the ones that get the "There aren't any subraces in Eberron" speech. They're not getting shot down, they're getting educated that, by default, what they want does not exist in the setting. They clearly don't know whats going on, and its best that they understand whats going on before they start trying to change things. Its like a new DM and monster PC races. Don't go adding weird stuff in until you know how to run the basic stuff. Someone posting up (or even worse, printing up) "Subrace X is here in Eberron!" is just asking for a tongue lashing, as they aren't proposing a change, they aren't acknowledging that they are houseruling, they are stating it as fact that thats the way things are. You wouldn't expect people to ignore posts like "Vol is a Half-Troll Dwarf living in Thronehold" without correcting them, would you? Same thing applies to all of this. If someone demonstrates that they understand how the setting works and then says they want to change something anyway, thats cool, its their game, they can do whatever they like. If they demonstrate that they're totally clueless, they're going to get people telling them how its supposed to work. If someone is flat out pulling stuff out of their butt and presenting it as god's own truth, then they're going to get debunked PDQ.
Euangelion 02-25-06, 03:39 PM	In response I offer this thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=446950&page=1&pp=30). It started out seeking advice on where sub-races might fit, but went downhill from there. There's a lot of us represented on that thread, but I think that few of us were really helpful to the OP. If this is a typical response, I don't think that we all handle things quite as well as you indicate. Heck, things got so bad a WizO had to step in.
(Psi)SeveredHead 02-25-06, 09:49 PM	In response I offer this thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=446950&page=1&pp=30). It started out seeking advice on where sub-races might fit, but went downhill from there. There's a lot of us represented on that thread, but I think that few of us were really helpful to the OP. If this is a typical response, I don't think that we all handle things quite as well as you indicate. Heck, things got so bad a WizO had to step in. I don't think Edy is stating what is happening (even if that's what he was trying to do) but saying what should happen.
The Necromancer King 02-26-06, 08:06 AM	Alright. So I got about halfway through reading this very long, horrifically verbose post, and couldn't take it anymore. I'm sorry if I re-hash something that has already been posted. Everything is optional. This bears repeating: EVERYTHING is optional. Keith's vision is one way to look at Eberron. Stan!'s version is another. Mine is one more, and you can add yours to the list. Each of us takes different options about the world, and bashes them together, making our whole. Edy's version is no less accurate than mine, and mine includes both sub-races and the dreaded GUNPOWDER. Why is my version completely legitimate? Because it's what happens at my table that matters, in the end. THAT is Eberron. What happens at your table, whatever you're using, whatever options you've picked from the ECS, the Sourcebooks, even the Core Trinity, that is the definition of Eberron. When people come here, it's for a few different reasons. The first, and the one that is causing this argument, is to keep things together with other people's versions of the world. If my world isn't matching up to Edy's on a point that I think it should, I will come to these boards to address the issue. I'll talk about it, and I'll argue it, until we come to an eventual compromise that works for everyone. And that's groovy. Canon is still what happens at my table the next week, whatever happens here. If I say "Wood elves only live in the Eldeen Reaches," some would accuse me of being ignorant of the setting; I'm not. That's just where the Wood elves are when I sit down with my group, so it's the only canon that really matters. For you, it's just another option. The second reason is for more ideas, more options. That's where we get my using gunpowder. I like gunpowder, and it works for my game. I'm willing to share, with other people, how I've chosen to deal with gunpowder in the Shared Imagined Space of my game (which uses options I stole from the Dragon, as well as a few of my own). We trade stories of what happened at our table, and see if anyone else can use that experience to help their own games. That is great, and it shouldn't be discouraged, even if it doesn't match up to your view of the game world. Those to reasons are also the reasons people buy sourcebooks. If the books contradict eachother, take the option you like best, and run with it. If in my campaign, I've been treating Drow one way, and then Races of Eberron comes out with something different, I've got two options: I can keep running drow the way I've been running them, or I can let everybody know "Hey, the official stuff came down today, and I'm going to be changing Drow society to keep up with their vision of the world." Usually, I go with the second option, because they have much more detailed plans than me. But on the occasions that I go the other way, I shouldn't feel like I'm violating some code. I'm just picking an option. If you pick up every game book and address every post with this mentality, you can see with some objectivity. It's all optional, I'll take what I want and leave the rest. If someone posts "Where can I find Wood elves?" and I reply "Wood elves are only found in the Eldeen reaches," feel free to tell me where Wood elves are. If you have an option I like more, I'll use it. If Wood elves aren't a racial distinction in your game (they actually aren't in mine; it's just an example I'm running with), then feel free to post that option as well, and how you prefer to differentiate between elven cultures. This is our craft, people. This is what we do. We pick systems and settings apart, we look at them from different points of view, we bash them together, and we make something great out of the wreckage. And then we go and play, and what happens at the table, is the only real canon.
Edymnion 02-26-06, 12:34 PM	Everything is optional. This bears repeating: EVERYTHING is optional.Yes, and no. Yes in that the DM can veto anything he wants. No in that, if you're playing by the campaign as written, its not optional, its now part and parsel with Vol being a half-dragon lich, or the Lord of Blades being a Warforged. Its just a variation on the Oberroni Falacy. Just because the DM can ignore it doesn't mean the material is correct in the first place.
Lurkalot 02-26-06, 03:37 PM	Just because the DM can ignore it doesn't mean the material is correct in the first place. And there is the difference of opinion in a single word: correct. Much as I agree with Edymnion's tastes on sub-races, there is no such thing. It's all subjective according to taste. I have my opinions, others have theirs. Edymnion, I'm sorry to address you personally on this, but you are the most vocal here. Would it be fair to say that your concern is that WotC version of 'correct' carries more weight than yours with newcomers to Eberron? By all means, keep plugging your own vision on its merits, but to say that published material is not correct, can't be supported.
treehouse916 02-26-06, 05:00 PM	Hey, this thread exploded while I was out of town. Yay. Someone posting up "Where is subrace X in Eberron?", those are the ones that get the "There aren't any subraces in Eberron" speech. They're not getting shot down, they're getting educated that, by default, what they want does not exist in the setting. They clearly don't know whats going on, and its best that they understand whats going on before they start trying to change things. Its like a new DM and monster PC races. Don't go adding weird stuff in until you know how to run the basic stuff. No. Just no. If someone is asking 'Where is subrace X in Eberron?' It's fine to tell them that they don't have a specific place in Eberron by canon, but they don't need a speech or a lecture. Obviously if they are asking the question they are interested in subraces, so a good answer might be 'Are you the DM? Because subraces aren't default in Eberron, but if you are running the campaign, at your option you might stick subrace X in location Y, with background Z'. That's a helpful answer. To use specific examples, Siran Dunmorgan's responses in the thread listed by Euangelion were helpful (while at the same time stating both his opinion about subraces and the fact that they are not default in Eberron). We are all here to be helpful to others, and gain help in return, right? Though that thread is ripe with examples of posts that are not helpful, and sometimes downright rude, I'm not going to point any specific ones out because that thread is eight months old and people might have changed since then. Edit: But one final thing to say on that note - when you answer any thread with something that veers the topic off course intentionally, that's called 'derailing', and it's bad manners in any message board. I'm just saying... We aren't all going to agree about what Eberron is like, or what should be in it. What we can agree on is to be civil towards one another, as well as to not have any delusions that our opinions are more important than anyone elses' (including the developers, who define canon - not the fans).
Acev 02-26-06, 05:23 PM	Well said Treehouse916. If you have no help to offer. Keep your comments to yourself.
LuciferNietzsche 03-02-06, 11:12 PM	I've been trying for days now to get a post on here, and everytime I try, I get some stupid advertisement redirecting me to some bogus free offer. Now that I've gotten that fixed, it's time to drop my opinion on here. Everything is optional, but that's true of all D&D, not just Eberron. Eberron's uniqueness is in it's default canon, not it's ability to be whatever you want. Keith's vision was D&D with far more social complexity and variation than any other D&D setting, and he succeeded. But many DMs and players don't want that, they want things THEIR way. So, they throw out what they don't like, make up what they want to fill in the gaps, and play. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Problems crop up when people do EXACTLY the same thing, and then dare to claim it's canon. What Keith says is not canon, what's in the novels is not canon, what any person says aside from official errata is NOT canon. What's in the books and the errata is canon and nothing else. But that doesn't mean you can't do what you want in your own game. It just means you can't tell people that's the way it really is. People who do this sort of thing see themselves as self-styled defenders of Eberron canon. They're really just hypocrites. Eberron doesn't need defenders, and if it did, the only ones who COULD claim the title are the ones who WON'T claim it. Just to be completely clear, it is NOT canon if it's not in any of the books or errata. It IS canon if it's in even one of the books or errata, whether anyone likes it or not. However, just because it's canon, doesn't mean you have to use it, or run your game that way. So have some respect for the setting and don't claim that people MUST follow canon, or MUST do it your way because you're always right (which I doubt). Note: I used no names in my post, so that those of you who fall into the category I mentioned can save some face.
The Necromancer King 03-03-06, 05:34 AM	Eberron's uniqueness is in it's default canon, not it's ability to be whatever you want. I'm going to answer your statement with another quote, if you'll pardon my doing so. "The features that most set Eberron apart are its tone and attitude." - Eberron Campaign Setting, Pg. 7 Just to be completely clear, it is NOT canon if it's not in any of the books or errata. It IS canon if it's in even one of the books or errata, whether anyone likes it or not. So if Wizards puts out a book that tells us that Zilargo is populated mostly by squirming bits of pus, and Sharn is not actually a city of towers (it is in fact a small village of tribal huts), you'd be cool with calling that canon? I'd call it crap, and stick to how I've been playing Eberron all along. Canon is what happens at your table, the rules and the ideas that are going to be incorporated into YOUR game. Nothing else matters. The books are just references to work from when you want them, treasure-houses of ideas to loot when you've run dry. No in that, if you're playing by the campaign as written, its not optional, its now part and parsel with Vol being a half-dragon lich, or the Lord of Blades being a Warforged. Color me crazy, but I'd call both of those examples as optional. The Lord of Blades could just as easilly be a deranged half-elven blade-master as a warforged artificer. And Vol could just as easilly be the sole surviving member of her House, clinging to live through reincarnation spells and doing her best to avoid the Inevitables. Depends on what your game needs. I prefer them the way they are in the book (though I think the LoBster is going to take a couple levels of blade-master now...), but that doesn't make it non-optional. Playing the campaign, as it is written, is a choice made by the GM and the players. Most people use the books as a reference, and add or remove whatever they don't like. That too is a choice. People who don't play the setting by the book do not need to be educated every time they ask a question that goes against the grain. You can't push your choice of game on someone else. If you refuse to assist them in their endeavors, that's cool. Just don't call them down for not playing the setting the way you do.
Euangelion 03-03-06, 08:18 AM	Canon is what happens at your table, the rules and the ideas that are going to be incorporated into YOUR game. Nothing else matters. The books are just references to work from when you want them, treasure-houses of ideas to loot when you've run dry. Heh, that's funny. If your first statement is true, then no one on these boards has any right to tell others what or what is not canon. At this point, that sounds pretty good. On the other hand, your last statement that I quoted might seem kind of insulting to those who worked so hard to put together the campaign setting. So nothing that anyone has written really matters to what is Eberron at your table? (That's a straight up question, no sarcasm. I mean it.)
Jetty 03-03-06, 01:28 PM	I'm going to answer your statement with another quote, if you'll pardon my doing so. "The features that most set Eberron apart are its tone and attitude." - Eberron Campaign Setting, Pg. 7 So you are both basically saying the same thing: Eberron's tone and attitude are the two pillars of the setting, so they are canon and create the uniqueness. :) So if Wizards puts out a book that tells us that Zilargo is populated mostly by squirming bits of pus, and Sharn is not actually a city of towers (it is in fact a small village of tribal huts), you'd be cool with calling that canon? I'd call it crap, and stick to how I've been playing Eberron all along. Oh, I would certainly call it canon. And it would certainly be the last Eberron book I bought (actually, the one before would be the last one I bought if I could get this information in time). But I must agree: It would not be cool and I would stick to the way it is now. EDIT: One more thing, I expect no one actually believes anything like that could happen, right? Canon is what happens at your table, the rules and the ideas that are going to be incorporated into YOUR game. Nothing else matters. The books are just references to work from when you want them, treasure-houses of ideas to loot when you've run dry. I think there is some confusion as to the meaning of the words you are using: CANON is what is published. HOUSE RULES is what happens at our tables On the other hand I strongly agree with the "Nothing else matters. The books are just references to work from when you want them, treasure-houses of ideas to loot when you've run dry." part. Playing the campaign, as it is written, is a choice made by the GM and the players. Most people use the books as a reference, and add or remove whatever they don't like. That too is a choice. People who don't play the setting by the book do not need to be educated every time they ask a question that goes against the grain. You can't push your choice of game on someone else. If you refuse to assist them in their endeavors, that's cool. Just don't call them down for not playing the setting the way you do. We have probably same opinion here, but your choice of the quote is unfortunate. The phrase "if you're playing by the campaign as written, its not optional, its now part and parsel ..." states only the truth: if you play it by the book, than it is set in stone. That does not mean that you have to play it by the book :) Please note that my opinions are not ment to be in any way personal. I only chose to answer your post because I just came to this thread now and you are practically the last one before me. ;) I just feel that there is a lot of unnecessary disagreement here. I wanted to say "Both sides have some valid points", but as I think of it, thare are no true sides here. It is just wordplay, mainly people quoting (and disagreeing with) other people with basically the same opinions, but different word usage. Some issues are so garbled now that no matter what you write, it just deepens the confusion. I hope I have not offended anyone but that is the way I see it. :)
The Necromancer King 03-03-06, 06:23 PM	Now we're running into definition trouble, which is so bloody common in the English language. Canon, as I typically understand it, is the group of codified "laws" that govern how a game is played. They need not be written, just explicitly understood. The definition being used to support the books is something more akin to the collected works of Holy Scripture, and thus, what has been published. I will defend my take on the word to the death, should any choose to battle me. :D We have probably same opinion here, but your choice of the quote is unfortunate. The phrase "if you're playing by the campaign as written, its not optional, its now part and parsel ..." states only the truth: if you play it by the book, than it is set in stone. That does not mean that you have to play it by the book As has become obvious from the many sourcebooks, even the simplest of things set forth by the ECS are being contradicted. You get a choice, when there is a contradiction. Should someone put out a sourcebook that contradicts the ECS on the point of the LoBster's race and class, suddenly even that becomes a point on which you have to make a choice. Have to work now. I'll post again later.
LuciferNietzsche 03-03-06, 10:47 PM	Then for the purposes of clarity, let me say that for me... Canon is that which is official published material, sanctioned by the company, and published by the same, for consumer use. This includes all official errata. House Rules are those details of both rule and story that occur at each individual gaming table. This also includes opinions by developers and designers that are not considered official errata. Now, I understand that there are plenty of those who have their own definitions of such terms, as well as other terms that fit the definitions I've given. I'm saying now that this is irrelevant, because I used those words in the context I felt appropriate. You don't have to like or accept it, just understand the meaning I intended. Hopefully that's cleared up. Anyone basing further arguments against my views on the fact that my wording doesn't fit what they like will be ignored. No offense toward you, Necromancer, just wanted to make sure no one else got any notions.
The Necromancer King 03-04-06, 09:47 PM	Actually, my notion of the term "canon" is taken from a dictionary, making it an equally valid definition. This is the definition I use for canon. A secular law, rule, or code of law. 1. An established principle: the canons of polite society. 2. A basis for judgment; a standard or criterion. This is the definition you use for canon. A group of literary works that are generally accepted as representing a field Both definitions are referenced from Dictionary.com. It's become a semantical argument, however, and apart from the spirit of the conversation. I believe that this semantical argument is key to understanding the reason people wish to "alter" canon, but I'm sure my opinion on the matter means quite little. As my entire defense of those wishing to alter canon is based on that semantical difference, I agree to disagree on the point, and bow out of the discussion. I'd hate to insult any of the real philosophers on the board.
Beleriphon 03-05-06, 05:39 PM	In short, there is a very negative tone in these forums, for those who don't conform to the views of Edymnion and his fellow board regulars. While I applaud your devotion to your particular opinion, it is not canon any more than mine is. Your opinions are not the word handed down from high, and you folks should at least try to show a modicum of respect for those who do not embrace it as such. I'm right there with you. Some people can get a bit, uppity, about Eberron. I think at some level its because it was so different than standard D&D stuff. By implying, which all most of the new material does, it rubs the people that fell in love with the differences the wrong way. At some level they're right, I don't particularly like some the material presented in PGtE because of the phrasing because it doesn't strike me as fitting in with the original material. Of course I'm also wise enough to know that canon is what we determine, its whatever WotC decides to print no matter whether I like it or not.
Siran Dunmorgan 03-06-06, 05:38 AM	Canon? Official? That'd be material marked as official and printed or distributed by Wizards of the Coast or Paizo Publishing. Sometimes, this official material is contradictory; sometimes, material intended as optional becomes a standard for future publications. For example, we know from the Elves of Aerenal Dragonshard articles—which are official, having received the imprimatur of the Dungeons & Dragons team at Wizards of the Coast—that Aeren was female. The "Legend of Aeren" presented in Magic of Eberron contradicts this assertion: in that passage, Aeren is male. The contradiction is dismissed by many, typically with a comment to the effect that the material presented in Magic of Eberron is clearly marked as a legend, and is therefore optional. However, in related material presented in the recent Player's Guide to Eberron, we again find Aeren described as male; this time, the identification is unequivocally not presented as legend. Sometimes, the official publications expand on material left incomplete in the Eberron Campaign Setting in a way that contradicts what we've done with our own campaigns. For example, Arcanix and the Arcane Congress as presented in Five Nations is very different in tone and execution from the version in which I have been running my players.[1] Often, we here on the boards disagree on some interpretation of either rules or background text. When this happens, we tend to appeal to authority to support our arguments. The official authorities consist of Paizo Publications and Wizards of the Coast, as noted above. We also have a practice similar to the Islamic concept of hadith, the sayings of the Prophet (on whom peace!) at work on these boards as well, in that we tend to regard what Hellcow has said as having only slightly less—and occasionally more—authority than more official sources. Beyond that, we're pretty much on our own. Most of us tend to pay attention to what folks like Gurv and Edymnion—and a few others—have to say, because they tend to have fairly reasoned arguments without a preponderance of ad-hominem commentary, and they know the source texts to a level of detail that the rest of us can only envy. But what we say here isn't official. It may become official, like the discussion a couple of years ago about the elan being imprisoned quori, but that doesn't happen particularly often.[2] The real issue is that we all seem to expect there to exist an Eberron in which we share: the arguments are about how things "are" in that shared Eberron. The problem arises because that shared Eberron isn't stable: it's as malleable as the consensus of people making it up. Some of those people have strong opinions, and the logic necessary to back them up. Some have strong opinions and weak logic. Some have strong logic, but don't feel sufficiently moved by the topic to comment upon it. For myself, with respect to subraces, I'm happy to admit that many elven subraces do exist in my Eberron campaign. In my campaign, they are not Player races, and tend to have the Extraplanar subtype when on Eberron: of the elven subraces mentioned in the Monster Manual, Gray Elves were the most commonly encountered creature when my players became involved in a series of Greensinger escapades.[3] It's not a matter of not having them: it's a matter of having a reason for them. —Siran Dunmorgan [1] I began running an Arcanix campaign before publication of either City of Towers or Five Nations; the over-the-top presentation of Arcanix in the latter volume still sets my teeth on edge, despite its being "official", and referenced in the Player's Guide to Eberron. [2] For those of you who do not believe that what we say here affects the published books, I submit that the notion of elan as imprisoned or fused quori was first proposed by Ashrem Bayle, in a post dated 14-April-04; inspired by this post, Hellcow proposed the present form of elan creation—a punishment imposed by the other quori—in a follow-up post that same day. It's clear from the context of the posts that Hellcow hadn't thought about it until Ashrem Bayle started the discussion. [3] I mentioned in passing to my players that lake-dwelling aquatic elves may also live on Thelanis. They haven't been there yet—nor, to that matter, to areas of Eberron linked to it—but wild elves and wood elves are both reasonable inhabitants of Lamannia. I have a page or so of notes about an advanced campaign involving the Player Characters as intermediaries in a war between the wood elves ("aloof guardians of the forests") and the elementals of Lammania on that plane.
Roxlimn 03-06-06, 03:04 PM	I'd have to also agree that the Eberron boards tend to stifle creativity and shoo people away who might have been interested in the boards and the campaign world. It's counterproductive. Eberron in the ECS doesn't have subraces based on cultural differences, but they do have subraces based on regional location. I would point out that any rumored kingdom of elves beneath the sea would either have to be a subrace or a kingdom with a goshdarned many artificers with nothing better to do than submerge their civilization. If you wanted that kind of a setting, you would have to have a subrace, and Eberron thematic concept clearly calls for one in that instance. Moreover, Eberron also distinguishes between cultures of people, apart from their racial profile. Humans, Elves, and Dwarves from Aundair are more likely to be Educated than the same Humans, Dwarves, and Elves from the Shadow Marches. Valenar Elves even have weapon proficiencies distinct from that of normal PHB Elves. In that sense, they could be considered subraces. Racial capabilities adjusted for region or culture are part of the core mechanics. These options are present in the DMG, as are subraces. If an Eberron DM wants to include subraces in his campaign, I think it would be better for the community at large to help him acheive what he wants. You can press for subtlety over a hammer if you like. For example: DM1: I'd like a race of Wood Elves living in the woods of Eberron, sundered branches of former Valenar who've gone feral and barbaric. I think I want to use the Faerun Wood Elves for that. Eberron Guardian1: Well, you could do that if you like, but Eberron tends to distiguish itself from other settings through subtle differences between races. If you have a subculture of Wood Elves living elsewhere, I would do this: change weapon proficiencies to Blowgun and Shortsword, change favored class to Barbarian. Eberron Guardian2: Alternatively, you could do away with weapon proficiencies altogether, since a barbaric culture is unlikely to have standardized training of any sort. Instead, you could institute a +2 bonus on Constitution checks against environmental hazards and + 2 bonus on Strength checks, to reflect their slightly hardier and stronger nature. ________________________________________ _____________________________________ I particularly do not like the way board regulars react to adding new base classes. What's wrong with using Ninja or the Shinobi-no-Bushi for House Phiarlan operatives. When they outlined the House itself, I instantly thought "Ninja." House Phiarlan and House Thuranni resemble nothing so much as rival ninja clans, down to the cover functions which aren't exactly cover functions exclusively. Why not include base ninjas? What about House Deneith and noble-type warriors? Wouldn't an OA Samurai fit those, to a greater or lesser extent? The loyalty to house and lord more than to a moral ideal (Paladin vs. Samurai) especially slots into an Eberron mindset. Why not generalize this class? What's wrong with that, exactly? What about that Effigy Master and Green Star Adept from Complete Arcane? Even before the Renegade Mastermaker made its appearance in Magic of Eberron, I was thinking about an Artificer slowly making himself into a Construct, based on a class adapted from Green Star Adept. Indeed, there still is no "Construct Master" class based on the Effigy Master Prestige Class, and I had expected something of the sort to come from Magic of Eberron. With Artifice and Constructs being a major thrust of Eberron, wouldn't it make sense that some Artificer, somewhere, has perfected creating Constructs based on Monster forms? "Effigies are magically animated automatons built in the form of living creatures. They are things of clockwork mechanisms and alchemy, animated by an elemental spirit boud to their mechanical shells." Adapted to Eberron, these Forged Binders would make perfect sense - the master artificers manning the Creation Forges that birthed the Warforged. They could easily be renegades who've managed to merge Elemental Binding and Forged construction into one dangerous new art. What's wrong with all these additions, anyway? Eberron can be pulp and remain exciting and new [i]even if you add all these classes into it. Even adding subraces as they are as exceptional or eccentric individuals within the main race works quite well. There is no need for hostility. There is no need to repeat ad infinitum what Eberron is not about. Say it once, then stop. If someone else has said it, no need to repeat. Just make interesting suggestions. If someone comes around asking about guns in Eberron, why contradict him? Why not suggest to him ways by which he can make his guns more Eberron-like, without telling him to put a sock in it? Are Wand-like contrivances that can be activated by use or command word really so out of place? If you suggest to this person magical devices that are guns in everything but name, would that hurt Eberron's premise? Eternal Wands are heading that way already anyway. Why not help him make magical ranged weapons (maybe even called "Gunz") that do what Mages and Artificers already do anyway? Is that so bad? The only thing worse than having a bunch of people coming in and spouting off all sorts of nonsense about what Eberron is like would be a bunch of people coming in and spouting off all sorts of nonsense about what Eberron should be.
Siran Dunmorgan 03-06-06, 04:23 PM	I particularly do not like the way board regulars react to adding new base classes. What's wrong with using Ninja or the Shinobi-no-Bushi for House Phiarlan operatives. When they outlined the House itself, I instantly thought "Ninja." House Phiarlan and House Thuranni resemble nothing so much as rival ninja clans, down to the cover functions which aren't exactly cover functions exclusively. Why not include base ninjas? What about House Deneith and noble-type warriors? Wouldn't an OA Samurai fit those, to a greater or lesser extent? The loyalty to house and lord more than to a moral ideal (Paladin vs. Samurai) especially slots into an Eberron mindset. Why not generalize this class? What's wrong with that, exactly? What about that Effigy Master and Green Star Adept from Complete Arcane? Even before the Renegade Mastermaker made its appearance in Magic of Eberron, I was thinking about an Artificer slowly making himself into a Construct, based on a class adapted from Green Star Adept. Indeed, there still is no "Construct Master" class based on the Effigy Master Prestige Class, and I had expected something of the sort to come from Magic of Eberron. With Artifice and Constructs being a major thrust of Eberron, wouldn't it make sense that some Artificer, somewhere, has perfected creating Constructs based on Monster forms? Nothing's wrong with them, as ideas. When I write adventures, however, I try to abide by the Wizards of the Coast guidelines for publishable adventures, i.e., assume that your audience has access only to the core rulebooks and Miniatures Handbook, unless you're writing an adventure keyed off of a specific book, e.g. Heroes of Horror. Eberron has room for everything. Personally, I like the idea of a Green Star Adept. I also like the idea of Green Star Adepts being hunted down by the Gatekeepers, in a desparate bid to keep the Green Star's influence from spreading while they try to figure out if it represents a planar invasion, something spat out by Khyber, or something completely new and unpleasantly different. But I'm not going to promote it as being part of our shared Eberron, because I'm also quite certain that on the one hand, not everyone will find it as interesting as I do, and on the other because it requires readers to have access to supplementary books—e.g. Complete Arcane—that not everyone will have. I'm not as taken with oriental classes per se; when someone asks me "where do samurai belong in Eberron?" I typically respond 'nowhere: there is no Japan analogue in Eberron." But if you scrape off the oriental-sounding names and call it something like "Karrnathi Swordbearer," that's more acceptable. I can easily see Karrnathi warlords receiving samurai-like loyalty from their retainers. The model for this is the Tashalantora, a Prestige Class presented in the "Blades of the Quori" Dragonshard in these words: "Mechanically, this is identical to the Fist of Zuoken prestige class presented in the Expanded Psionics Handbook." We all love Eberron. We all love our shared vision of Eberron. We can have relatively benign discussions about it. —Siran Dunmorgan
Azazyll 03-06-06, 05:22 PM	To quote a recent post by Keith "whatever works best for your story!" If I want the gods of eberron to walk the earth after the day of mourning, so be it. I happen to like mechanics with flavor, and I like subraces. Quoting darwin in a world of dragons and drow is strange (and here I respectfully disagree with the Hellcow). It's as weird as the reviewer who pointed out that the hobbits were eating tomatoes in the Lord of the Rings movies. If you don't like a profusion of subraces, go ahead and ignore those rules, should WotC ever happen to put them in (they already are there with the drow, but everybody can just ignore that example of how subraces can still be cool, even the old hat ones). I personally find half the joy of the game to be figuring out a mechanic that accentuates and inspries the roleplaying and the flavor of the game. Yes, that's right, flavor doesn't just inspire fluff, it can work the other way around. I buy D&D books largely because of the mechanics, otherwise I'd be reading novels. Possibly even doing classwork. When I see innovative new rules come out, I leap for joy. I'm incredibly excited about pact shadow and truename. I loved incarnum. I still by the FR books for the fifteen or so pages of crunch they still put in them, even though I will never use it. So I love the sidebars. I thought they rather elegantly found ways to incorporate all the stuff I'd been reading about in other books into the setting, and it was like I was reading the material all over again for the first time. I could never have thought of using shugenjas that way. I even like the Wu Jen now. Will I use them in eberron? probably not. But it was sure fun to read. What dissapoints me is when these things aren't done with grace and style. I feel that has been the downside to many of the previous eberron books, and a lot of WotC books in general, but was where PGtE really stood out from the crowd. But three cheers for giving me brilliant ideas about how to use the thousands of dollars worth of other D&D stuff I've bought over the years. Bravo. Remember, it always has A PLACE in eberron. Are they shoving "vol is a dwarven half troll" or "pustules rule zilargo" down my throat? no. Some people on these threads are sure shoving a lot of BS, in a way WotC never has. Pick a straw man that's reasonable guys. And saying you can't bring back the mark of death is outside of canon? What? that's the whole focus of my campagin. that's the whole focus of one the second trilogy printed for the setting. Talk about a narrow view of canon. Nothing they've done is as wacky as reading stuff posted on these boards. When we see posters ask "stupid" questions that show how "ignorant" they are, we should be saying "hey, great that you're playing, here are my ideas, what are yours?" or "I don't go for that in my game, but your ideas are pretty neat" everyone's going to come in with new ideas. That's what I want to see, NEW ideas. not necessarily defined by canon, since some of the best ideas will break canon. Stifling people's ideas on a message board for a game about imnagination and fantasy is pretty strange. And a good way to lead to the stagnation of a setting before it's even two years old. Now I get an idea about how people can kill each other over religion. Look how upset we get when someone differs from our personal ideas about a game.
greatfrito 03-06-06, 06:18 PM	On the Eberron boards I have seen both the best and worst of the online community when it comes to being "civil". Perhaps not the worst of being immature, but general civility? Yeah, it's been lacking more than a few times, and often in the form of the "That's not in Eberron. You shoudn't consider that, and here's what's wrong with it" response. Now, that's not really a common thing (anymore, it seems discussion of these responses are more prevelant than the responses themselves), but it really does color the community poorly when it crops up. I'm not certain, but I would guess that Eberron's status as a "unique" setting lead toward more dissagreements than more generalized settings. There's the core Eb. floating in the middle of it all, dictated by the books (like them or not, I consider the Wizards books to be "official". Now, how much that matters to me, I'll get to), and each person deviates from this middle-ground of book-quoting in some way. You have to, really, to play the game. The problem now seems to be that a lot of people on these boards have overlapping ideas of what Eberron should be, and they have established their own center for the universe that may or may not make room for the books as they're published, or for the ideas of other people. I would have no problem with that, personally, if these people were -civil- about it - if they just said to themselves "Oh, well, I don't agree with this idea. Good thing I don't have to use it!" instead of railing against things with all of their might. Still, rude comments aren't everywhere. Heck, they're not even that common (unless a new book just came out ;) ). When they pop up though, they color this whole community in a poor light. I know that I've been turned off from reading and posting for a while by a large boom of "There can't be XX level NPCs!", "You can't have subraces, they don't exist in Eb.", and "That class/object/feat can't be in Eberron because there aren't (class/feat/object) in Eberron." threads. It's sad. That all said (and as haphazardly as possible!), this is a web community, and one of the better ones I've been around. People can, and will, say what's on their mind. Saying it -abrasively- leads to responses in kind, which degenerate, and make us all look bad, and make the board less fun. I... don't remember what I was talking about. Uh... rock on then?
Flack Jack 03-07-06, 01:26 AM	I hope it hasn't been mentioned as I'm not going to read all of these posts but I recall that Mr. Baker left out subraces for a reason. He felt that cultural differences were more important than physical ones. A good example of course being the Aerenal and the Valenar. I couldn't be happier with the fluff myself. Besides let FR keep the sub race thing. It works wonders there. P.S. That is not sarcastic. I do think FR benifets from there Subrace bonanza.
Rechan 03-07-06, 01:35 AM	But if you scrape off the oriental-sounding names and call it something like "Karrnathi Swordbearer," Why? Eberron has names like Q'Barra, Xen'Drik, Karnath, Draguun, and Zilargo and Sarlona. Strange words like samurai and ninja sound equally odd and weird. The only problem I think you have with them is the oriental flavor that accompanies said words.
Siran Dunmorgan 03-07-06, 03:13 AM	Why? Eberron has names like Q'Barra, Xen'Drik, Karnath, Draguun, and Zilargo and Sarlona. Strange words like samurai and ninja sound equally odd and weird. The only problem I think you have with them is the oriental flavor that accompanies said words. Aye. That's quite correct: words like "samurai" or "shugenja," or "ninja" are identifiably, instantly, and unequivocally Japanese. That's the problem: they are so Japanese that using them conjures the imagery of Japan in the mind of the listener or reader. It requires an act of deliberation to set aside the imagery and understanding of the culture that spawned it, a requirement that complicates acceptance of the actual target culture or context. The problem with applying—for instance—the ninja class to certain of the quasi-monastic goblin orders is that Dhakaani aren't Japanese: they're Dhakaani. Their culture stands on its own, without the imagery that surrounds the use of the Japanese terms. They may act in accordance with a class that is mechanically identical to the ninja class described in Complete Adventurer, but they are not ninja! Calling them ninja sets up a pattern of understanding, and invites extrapolation based on the society and culture of an idealized classical Japan; an unnecessary complication, given that classical Dhakaani society is available to fill a similar rôle. Calling the shaarat'khesh "ninjas" implies dismissing the thousands upon thousands of years of history and culture that underlie the former term, and imposing upon them the imagery of a societal rôle that they have never possessed. Would that we could build an Eberron crunch-book—a Complete Eberron if you will—that captured these useful game mechanics, of sworn warriors and stealthy assassins, without relying on the imagery of Earth's oriental past! Now, that said, perhaps the entire matter is a function of my own lack of imaginative prowess, that I can't "get past" the Japanese, Chinese, Mongolian, et al. imagery evoked by these terms: I will be first to admit that these boards are filled with persons more imaginative than myself. But, at the same time, I find it difficult to believe that I am the only person who finds the cognitive load inherent in explaining that "these Karrnathi fellows: they're not really samurai" an unnecessary burden when applying the archetype of the class to Eberron. —Siran Dunmorgan
Rechan 03-07-06, 08:46 AM	Aye. That's quite correct: words like "samurai" or "shugenja," or "ninja" are identifiably, instantly, and unequivocally Japanese. That's the problem: they are so Japanese that using them conjures the imagery of Japan in the mind of the listener or reader. It requires an act of deliberation to set aside the imagery and understanding of the culture that spawned it, a requirement that complicates acceptance of the actual target culture or context. By the same token however, there is no Europe in Eberron, so there can be no Knight. That conjurs up images of armored cavaliers riding across the countryside to slay dragons and save damsels - which, while is staple D&D, is Not Eberron. The cultural conjuration goes both ways. :) Yet I get what you're saying. However, you don't have to call it anything. I reference of course Batman. If you've seen Batman Begins, Bruce Wayne was trained in "The art of the Ninja" by a rogue group of revolutionaries who used the techniques for their own ends; the art of stealth, distraction, and swift ambush. At his core, in D&D terms, Batman is somehow a Ninja/Paladin/Monk, but who somehow manages to infringe upon the aligment system to break the law in vigilantism but remain steadfastly Lawful Good in his actions. But in no place would anyone refer to Batman as a class. He is not 'A ninja', or a fighter, or anything; he's just Batman. In turn, I think all the classes could use some reinventing too. The monk doesn't have to be "A monk", associated with any order or ascetic tradition; the monk could be a "Medani/Deneith Unarmed Operative", a bodyguard who can appear unarmed, and has skills to do stealth work in addition to busting chops. Now, I personally don't feel that the Japanese cultural feel is impossible in Eberron. Sure, the history doesn't fit, but the essence, 'a higher class of mercenaries who believe in honor in action while relying on pure loyalty, and who follow a particular code of conduct (Bushido)' is not out of place. This sort of loyal, prideful, and respectable mercenary could have developed among Karnath's nobility, elite units within the Deneith House, and/or Draguun Hobgoblins; the former two could have been influenced by the latter. But that's for another thread entirely - I don't want to hijack this one.
Jetty 03-07-06, 08:48 AM	... Calling them ninja sets up a pattern of understanding, and invites extrapolation based on the society and culture of an idealized classical Japan; an unnecessary complication, given that classical Dhakaani society is available to fill a similar rôle. Calling the shaarat'khesh "ninjas" implies dismissing the thousands upon thousands of years of history and culture that underlie the former term, and imposing upon them the imagery of a societal rôle that they have never possessed. ... These terms are Japanese, but that does not mean we cannot use them as names for the classes. The distinct cultures of Eberron are not defined by class names (which are the same for all cultures), but by specific in-campaign names. Let us take your example - the shaarat'khesh. It is not class name, it is the name of the organisation (or group). They may be rogues, monks or assassins (as per the Dragonshard). But nobody would call them these names while refering to them - they are just the Silent Blades. It does not matter if they are rogue1/monk1, monk8, monk1/rogue5/assassin1 or even monk1/ninja1 - the are all Silent Blades. To rename or the "eastern" classes for the single purpose of different class names is unnecessary, even conter-productive: 1) everybody has to remember the new names (to be used around the table) as well as the old names (to find references in the books). 2) no one will use them incharacter anyway - and if they do, it is the same as using the "old" classes from PHB. What has the name "bard" (or "monk" or "ranger") to do with Dhakaani culture? They are so called in our culture (or Galifar culture), but as you say - the Dhakaani are very different. Anyway I imagine you do not call the shaarat'khesh "monks", because they are a lot different from the other monks in the setting, so you would not call them "ninjas" as well. On the sidenote for me the term "monk" brings the image of Shaolin and China. Not because they were not monks in Europe, but because the DnD monk clearly has nothing to do with medieval Christian monks. And if we can use monks without "China" we can use ninja without "Japan" - at least for class names. The ninja class can be used in two ways: 1) As PC (single or multiclass) - no matter what name is written in character sheet, the PC will probably be "House Thurani agent" or "Karnathi assassin" or "Dhakaani Silent Blade" or whatever else. You just have to tell the player thet ninja is only class name, not occupation, and during roleplaying there is no use for class names.(Nobody calls himself rogue-monk in-game.) 2) As NPC (single or multiclass) - in this case it is only easier to overlook the class name. While interacting with the PCs the NPC will introduce itself by whatever organisation he belongs to or by whatever name he wishes (in the case of ninja it will probably be by whatever blow he pleases :) ) Nobody will even have to say the word "ninja". It will be only in your NPC description together with those special abilities. I chose ninja randomly, the same can be aplied to whatever class you find anywhere. I am not saying we should (or should not) use these classes in Eberron setting - this depends on the individual gaming groups. I only state, that there is no reason not to use a class because its given name. And by the way there is no reason a book should be published with classes that have Eberron-sounding names and are otherwise identical to already existing classes. That would be just waste of money for us. The only thing we need are references to these classes while describing certain organisations, so that we have some idea, where they fit the best. And PGtE is a good beginning!
Euangelion 03-07-06, 10:05 AM	That's the problem: they are so Japanese that using them conjures the imagery of Japan in the mind of the listener or reader. It requires an act of deliberation to set aside the imagery and understanding of the culture that spawned it, a requirement that complicates acceptance of the actual target culture or context. —Siran Dunmorgan Eberron already has this problem, namely with the Church of the Silver Flame. Throwing around terms like "church," "friar," "exorcism," "bishop," "cardinal," and "templar" draws to the minds of most people the Roman Catholic Church. But the CotSF is not the Catholic Church, but a lot of people react to it as if it were. Then throw in the term "Puritan" and it's all over! (This is one case, by the way, where I feel that the role of these boards in maintaining a vision of the original intent of the setting is important, not because later material strays from the original path in regards to the CotSF but because so many seem to misunderstand the intended important role of the CotSF in the setting due to their own personal negative feelings towards a real-life religious organization.) Turning instead towards terms like "archeirophant" is helpful (even to those of us who don't know Greek), but after S:CoT I haven't seen the term repeated. Oh well.
Siran Dunmorgan 03-07-06, 01:25 PM	[Aside: This is why I enjoy these boards: good, high-quality discussion without name-calling, and a solid, honest effort to understand the position of the other posters. Good work, folks!] The point that since there is no Europe in Eberron, we should not use European terms, conventions, et al. in describing Eberron is actually correct, as far as it goes: that's why we have "Fighter" as the name for the class, rather than "Knight", and why the original name of the class "Wizard" was "Magic-user". The terms were and are intended to be generic. In fact, in Eberron, we have abandoned many European conventions, e.g. the use of the ir' prefix rather than the European "von", or the overloading of d' to represent dragonmark status, rather than place of origin. At the same time, the official material specifically describing Eberron does use terms such as "Templar" or "Knight" in reference to institutions and classes in the setting, e.g., the Knights Phantom; we can't help that, and, given that we are playing Dungeons & Dragons and not Bushido[1], it's not entirely inappropriate. Jetty, when I say "Would that we could build an Eberron crunch-book!" I echo Moses in his cry of "Would that all the Lord's people were prophets!"[2] It's not something that I expect to happen. I understand the decisions that went into structuring the Complete series books, and I understand why the explicit samurai, shugenja[3], wu-jen, and ninja classes were included in that series. More to the point, I fully agree with your comment 1); checking back to my original post on the subject, you'll see that my suggestion was to "scrape off the oriental-sounding names," and that this practice is already endorsed by Wizards of the Coast in the example of the Tashalantora. The Tashalantora aren't Fists of Zuoken, because there is no Zuoken in Eberron. But they play out under the same game mechanics. Rechan, the preceding paragraph is also the functional response to your comments concerning the use of the samurai class: you're right in that this type of dedicated warrior could indeed have arisen in the contexts you describe in Eberron. You'd commented that my opposition was to the "oriental flavor that accompanies said words." And, I assert that that is completely correct. I don't oppose use of the classes—not even in my own campaigns—as long as the player doesn't read too much of Japan into them. Allow me to reiterate: I am opposed to the oriental "flavor" that accompanies the terms, with respect to the Eberron campaign setting, not the mechanics of the classes involved. The retainers of Dhakaani warlords may act in accordance with a strict code of loyalty to their lords, but they don't wear long silk robes. The logo of the Heirs of Dhakaan is not a chrysanthemum blossom. —Siran Dunmorgan [1] Does anyone here remember Fantasy Games Unlimited's Bushido? Excellent game, for the period, and built with a great deal of respect for its subject matter. [2] Numbers 11:29; the quotation given is from the New American Standard version. [3] I'm amused that they presented shugenja as a divine class rather than arcane, and I suspect that if I were Japanese I'd be irritated, rather than amused, but that's a story for another time.
Rechan 03-07-06, 01:54 PM	Siran, it seems I'm confused then what you mean by "Oriental flavor", then. Where does the Flavor begin and end? Point, with regards to the kimono and the blossom (I wasn't even aware of the blossom). But Bushido is, if nothing else, a Code of Conduct; and does not the Paladin have a similar Code of Conduct? The tenants of the code can remain the same as long as you call it something other than Bushido, considering the cultural connotation. Also, I'll just re-iterate the point that we don't have to steadily repeat the class names. Heck, no one is going to say "That guy? He's a fighter. Sge's a barbarian[1], and that one? Rogue." The first would be referred to as a soldier, a pirate, a gladiator, a brigard; the second a soldier, a berzerker, a gladiator, a brigard; the third a soldier, a thief, a con artist, a brigard. And then we can move into the area of Orders, Organizations, Nationality-affiliated titles, etc. So in a sense, the only thing that the class Name Samurai does is color things from an out of character perspective, as people In character would have no points of reference for a Samurai or a Karnath Bladebarer beyond their contexts. To which I see that your point is to eradicate the out of character connotation of the oriental flavor, so I get what you're saying in that regard; just re-itterating that from an in character point of view, it's not something to worry about. [1] Barbarian in this context is used to describe the Class barbarian, not the cultural criticism of a "savage, uncultured group"; Hobgoblin fighters could be seen as "barbarians" from an Aundarian, and warforged barbarians could be seen as fighters to other soldiers. The class's name gives the connotation of savage, uncultured warrior, but really it's just a "self-aware warrior who relies more on a 'boost' of power rather than refined techniques".
Jetty 03-07-06, 02:43 PM	Allow me to reiterate: I am opposed to the oriental "flavor" that accompanies the terms, with respect to the Eberron campaign setting, not the mechanics of the classes involved. The only place where we differ is the need to "scrape off the oriental-sounding names" from the published class names. As it is only out of character matter, it really depends on the perceptions of various player groups. If one has a problem with the wrong impression they may inflict upon the individual gamers, then it is reasonable to change them. Otherwise they may stay the same. As I am in the second group, I see no reason to do so, as they are not used in-game anyway. Actually for some groups it may be more confusing to learn and refer to new names than to strip the oriental-flaver from the originals - it really depends... Maybe we could think about reasonable alterations (it is certainly more productive and useful for others than our bickering ;) ) or even better, we could ask Keith, if he has nay suggestions. Just because I see no need for them, I am certainly not against this even if I might not use them. :) There has to be no printed book for the new names to exists. [Aside: This is why I enjoy these boards: good, high-quality discussion without name-calling, and a solid, honest effort to understand the position of the other posters. Good work, folks!] I feel the same way. In fact, in Eberron, we have abandoned many European conventions, e.g. the use of the ir' prefix rather than the European "von", or the overloading of d' to represent dragonmark status, rather than place of origin. The german "von" and french "d'" mean the same thing - they indicate nobility and the place of origin (actually not necessary a place of origin but a land to which the title was bestowed) as originally if you were not noble, no land belonged to you. ;) The class's name gives the connotation of savage, uncultured warrior, but really it's just a "self-aware warrior who relies more on a 'boost' of power rather than refined techniques". That is almost correct. Unfortunately the class has illiteracy in the description. :( Otherwise I agree.
Aerowyn 03-07-06, 03:31 PM	:pbbbtt: I'm sure someone has already pointed this out.... ECS - Page 8, Right Column: "1. If it exists in D&D, then it has a place in Eberron. A monster or spell or magic item from the core rulebooks might feature a twist or two to account for Eberron's tone and attitude, but otherwise everything in the Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and Monster Manual has a place somewhere in Eberron. Also, this is the first D&D setting built entirely from the v.3.5 rules, which enabled us to blend rules and story in brand-new ways." Written this says that PHB, DMG, and MM stuff is all in. The intent is that Complete XXXX, and Races of XXXX and Joe's book of Magic Booger Missle is in. Edymnion posted Someone posting up "Where is subrace X in Eberron?", those are the ones that get the "There aren't any subraces in Eberron" speech. They're not getting shot down, they're getting educated that, by default, what they want does not exist in the setting. They clearly don't know whats going on, and its best that they understand whats going on before they start trying to change things. Its like a new DM and monster PC races. Don't go adding weird stuff in until you know how to run the basic stuff. And if one person says it and the rest of the post turns into a long list of everyone's version of the "There aren't any subraces in Eberron" speech what does that do to the posters confidence or even desire to post again? Someone posting up (or even worse, printing up) "Subrace X is here in Eberron!" is just asking for a tongue lashing, as they aren't proposing a change, they aren't acknowledging that they are houseruling, they are stating it as fact that thats the way things are. You wouldn't expect people to ignore posts like "Vol is a Half-Troll Dwarf living in Thronehold" without correcting them, would you? And in their campaign world it is fact, it is the way things are. They're discussing their campaign with you. Giving you the opportunity to influence their campaign world, their hard work. Do you like it? Probably not. Are you sitting at their table? Offer advice, constructive criticism, maybe near the end of the post after you've done that mention the lack of enjoyment you would get out of a houseruled game. Maybe they just don't know any better. Now something so many of us forget is that not everyone reads these boards religiously and when they come to the boards they make a very simple, common, mistake of thinking that everyone here is just like everyone at their table. Decisions they have labored long and hard over and discussions with their friends at the table over possible controversial DM'ing decisions have already been had. So when they come here seeking advice about their campaign or just to brag and they make the mistake starting off "My parties dream-dwarf, half-giant, and ....." and go full swing into their dillema or discussion all they hear is: Are you stupid? dream-dwarves and half-giants arn't Eberron. It doesn't matter what cool thing they've come up with or what problem the PC's presented them with....the board members already scared them away. Self-styled 'defenders of cannon' focus their responses too often than not on the problems with Eberron's 'feel' instead of seeing what the original poster's intent was. Which when you consider the number of arguments over R.A.W. vs. intent...is really kind of sad. It's scary to post on here the first time, and the second....and somewhere I suspect it will get easier. But this is a club, for people who like DnD, and everyone should fit in, but sometimes you 'defenders of canon' scare the hell out of us. My Eberron, your Eberron, and WOTC's Eberron won't always fit. Probably didn't fit from day one. I envision a perfect blend of Final Fantasy 1 and Final Fantasy 7 feel to Eberron that I doubt anyone else matches, including my players :pbbbtt: So if my Thronehold Half-Troll Dwarf Erandis d'Vol doesn't sit well with you, chuckle quietly behind your hand.
Roxlimn 03-08-06, 09:28 AM	Siran Dunmorgan: Technically speaking, there's no France or German or British analogues in the game, either, but calling the Thrane mounted warriors "knights" seems to carry over well enough, even when these warriors are nothing like French or British knights. For one thing, they're a centralized non-mercenary cavalry group sustained by an actual ruling theocracy. They're more like Muslim Medieval Cavalry than anything else, really. These guys also sported heavy armor (though they preferred slightly less than Full Plate for several reasons), they're sponsored by a church state, and they have no compunctions about gunning down enemy warriors from a distance with arrows. That squares more with the Thrannish knights than Western European Medieval Cavalry. What about Aundair? They have magical mounted warriors who rely greatly on light armor, mobility, and magical powers. Doesn't that sound awfully like legendary Xia Cavalry during the Autumn period in Chinese history? That definitely doesn't sound like anything from Western Europe. For that matter, what about Aerenal? Insular nation? Check. Ancestor Worship? Check. Designs on the mainland? Check. Strange customs and warriors? Check. That strikes me as about as Japanese as you need to be. In fact, none of the Five Nations matches neatly to any nation in the world, past or present, although you will find many similiarities between a particular nation and real nations, if you want to find these similarities. The problem you're having with "oriental-sounding names," is that to you, they're exotic and strange and alien. To me, they're not. As far as I'm concerned, a French knight covered from head to toe in steel is the exotic and strange kind of warrior, not so much the Samurai. Indeed, this warrior configuration and army (dis)organization is fairly unique to Western Europe. Samurai were more or less the same as mounted cavalry warriors in China and Korea appearing at about the same time, with similar emphasis on the bow and the spear, if rather simpler and more inferior armor. Later Samurai culture exalted the sword, but then again, so does Chinese, Thai, and Philippine culture at particular points in history. If someone asks me "where is the Samurai in Eberron?" I would have to answer "probably everywhere!" It astounds me to think how the designers could have missed creating such an excellent class in the PHB to begin with. I understand why its inclusion officially had to wait for Player's Guide to Eberron, but as far as I'm concerned, the sooner you adopt the Samurai class mainstream in your campaign the sooner you'll catch up to the future of warriors in D&D. To further elaborate on a point, European culture never experiences a shattering of a continent-wide empire into 5 distinct and intact kingdoms, each with a mind and the will to return the empire to its former glory. When Rome collapsed, the French and German areas of that empire essentially returned to the barely controlled barbaric tribes that had dominated it since day 1. Same for the British Isles. Until fairly recently, Germany was a conglomeration of numerous small but distinct states that may or may not be allied. A closer analogue would be the Age of Fragmentation in Chinese history. During that time, the Chinese nation was divided into many distinct but more or less largish states that never lost the capability to maintain national standing armies. Cultural cohesion is maintained in Khorvaire through the Dragonmarked Houses. The Five Nations may think of themselves as Karrn or Brelish or Thrannish, but they still believe themselves to be members of the Five Nations. In ancient China, cultural cohesion was maintained because the previous empires had largely erased tribal boundaries, and possibly significantly because of the extensive transport systems in place throughout the empire. Aside from roads, man-made canals made movement of goods within the main land mass relatively easy. Whatever the causes, in my eyes, modern Khorvaire, complete with its many advanced artifice-based innovations, bears more resemblance to China or Siam than it does to Western Europe. The size of the land alone makes any comparison to Western Europe problematic. Sorry about that. Semi-rant over. I would heartily endorse Samurai as important warrior-concepts in our idea of a shared Eberron. If that seems too Japanese, the soldier concept of Xia or the Hwarang would make suitable alternative options (both using the Samurai class design, of course). That's the problem: they are so Japanese that using them conjures the imagery of Japan in the mind of the listener or reader. It requires an act of deliberation to set aside the imagery and understanding of the culture that spawned it, a requirement that complicates acceptance of the actual target culture or context. Unless you are, yourself, Japanese. In that case, Samurai merely evokes the image of a warrior. Ninja evokes the image of a spy. Shugenja evokes the image of a supernatural character. Try to imagine the counterpoint. I'm Asian, I see the word "knight." That conjures images of full plated tribally structured barbarians in ponderous destriers (who were never that militarily succesful). It's definitely not the right image to be using for Karrnathi cavalry, but some guys call these Karrnathi Cavalry "knights" anyway. For that matter, Thrannish "knights" may or may not be thematically appropriate as far as the armor is concerned, but everything else is just way off, as well. It also requires for me an understanding of the culture that spawned the Knight to understand what is meant by "knight" in this context. In many cases, the use of Oriental Adventures classes is actually appropriate. Calling Dhakaani spies ninjas, I believe is deliberate in that they do have many similarities with ninjas of Japanese myth, and as far as that goes, their culture also has many similarities with Sengoku Period Japan. In many ways these are ninja, and aren't just being called ninja. And in that case, it actually simplifies understanding of Dhakaani culture to relate it to material that we already are at least nominally familiar with. In much the same way, we relate Breland to a European Monarchy, even though the nation itself is only superficially, at best, like a European nation. And again, in much the same way, we can apply most of the thematic elements of Samurai to nationally loyal warriors in modern Khorvaire. They're not exactly Samurai, but Aundairian Knights aren't exactly knights, either. I agree with you. I think you're just letting your ethnocentric orientation get the better of you here. You're letting the imagery of Samurai and Xia and Mongol horsemen as alien and strange foriegn warriors dictate your thinking. Try this thought experiment. Instead of thinking as Japanese as foreigners (with all the negative connotations), try to think of yourself as if you were half-Japanese, half-Chinese, half-Mongolian. These warriors aren't strange foreign potential or actual invaders. They're part of your own cultural heritage. Imagine going through a family tree and finding out that one of your ancestors might have been a Samurai. Imagine growing up knowing not the "Knight" as an ancient warrior, but the Samurai (or both at the same time). Imagine never having thought of history as being segregated into Ancient, Medieval, and Contemporary, but as a long series of dynasties and kingdoms going back to time immemorial. If you can do that, look back on the Knight. Is he not a strange and exotic creature? Jetty talks about "using monks without China" and "using Samurai without Japan," but to me, that's just crazy-talk. The Shaolin Monk and its associated warrior values and powers is almost certainly not like the D&D Monk. They make a point of using the Spear. Does the D&D Monk do that? You might aruge that the D&D monk is from another school. Wudan, perhaps? They use the straight jian (sword). What about the common one-bit schools? They usually also use some kind of bladed weapon as well, typically a curved or straight blade, or else emphasize the use of an alternative effective weapon, such as a spear, greatclub, or even a Greatsword. These Xia weren't secondary warriors that emphasized mobility and resistance. They were supposed to kick behinds and take names. In many ways, you'd be better served to use Fighter?Sorcerer/Eldritch Knight to model Chinese Xia than the Monk class. If you can use the Dervish PrC or the Swashbuckler class, those would be better for Han Dynasty "swashbuckling" Xia. So you see, the monk is already a European-concept class - that is - the concept of the Chinese warrior as Kwai-Chang-Kane. So with the atrocious CW Samurai. These cross-cultural stinkbombs are exactly the result, IMO, of insistent Eurocentric class design thinking. The more culture-sensitive OA Samurai, created using a concept of Samurai as a Japanese might think of him, is actually a universally desirable class design. Furthermore, I see no particular need to dissociate particular cultures from the D&D experience. What makes the European viewpoint inherently more desirable or superior as a mythological basis for adventure building? Is this not simply cultural discrimination? If you must portray a Shaolin-derived monk, ought you not to do it from a Shaolin perspective? If you portray a Shaolin monk the way a French knight sees him, then you are merely portraying a caricature, often harsh and oppressive, reducing your play experience to nothing more than a culturally discriminatory gesture. Indeed, as D&D moves to a more global audience, I think that there is a real need to move beyond unkind, inaccurate, and downright silly stereotypes and embrace a view that spans beyond cultural boundaries. I like Eberron at least partially because it's this kind of a D&D setting. I don't need to justify how Shaolin type Monasteries exist in a world that's almost clearly European in origin. Khorvaire, much like Dynasty-age or Fragmentation-age China, has these monasteries sprinkled througout the countryside variously acting as fortresses, schools (of the traditional kind), libraries, and oracles. Monks aren't wierd imports from who knows what civilization. They're everyday folk, like "knights" and "bandits." Indeed, a certain Sir Dorigan in Khorvaire may actually be a Monk in terms of class, even though he's called a "knight." If you think about Shaolin and the Chinese Xia in a culture sensitive fashion, you'll realize that these warriors are translated as "Knight-Errants" for good reason. In many ways, they acted in China just as Knight Errants did in early medieval France and Germany, wandering homeless warriors of great personal puissance who may be good or evil. In this case, is it really so far-fetched to call a character with largely Monk classes a "knight?" Surely not. Apart from the atrocious cultural relevance of the Monk class, the Shaolin-type Xia and the knight-errant occupied similar roles in a particular way, and would be easily equated as equivalent by any sufficiently knowledgeable and unbiased observer. I think that your ready acceptance of terms like "Templar," and "Knight" where they are clearly inappropriate, yet rejection of terms like ninja and samurai precisely where they are appropriate only is indicative of your self-confessed Eurocentric bias. Moreover, you seem to justify this "because we are playing Dungeons and Dragons," which hearkens back to a time when Dungeons and Dragons was only meant to portray European fantasy. Thankfully, that time is long past. While there are many residual evidences of that (the Monk class being a particular eyesore), there are also evidences of movement to a more global audience, allowing fantasy adventures in many environments, not just European. In fact, the DMG speaks of adapting the game to reflect a more "Asian" mindset, even though the writers of that particular passage are still looking at it from a painfully Eurocentric point of view. Technically speaking, there's nothing wrong with running an Asian themed game with the PHB and DMG rules as is. There might be some disconnects (like how most things look European), but it's not that big a problem. There would be even more of a disconnect with an Arthurian based theme, methinks, and you would need a lot more material and bannings to convert the game into an Arthurian game, than you need to run a credible Asian (not "oriental") game. The retainers of Dhakaani warlords may act in accordance with a strict code of loyalty to their lords, but they don't wear long silk robes. The logo of the Heirs of Dhakaan is not a chrysanthemum blossom. True, but the Knights of Thrane don't carry around crosses, either, they aren't organized by fief, and the Churches of Thrane look nothing like Christian Churches. Indeed, few people know that Samurai walked around in long silk robes, or that the symbol of the Japanese Emperor was a chrysanthemum blossom. Moreover, Samurai were loyal to the Shogun, not the Emperor, and especially during the Sengoku periods, are as liable to carry their own regional banners as not. Of course, not all Samurai walked around in long silk robes - only those that could afford it. The only disconnect would be for those people who knew enough to know possible points of objection, but not enough to identify with the culture. In that the Brelish kingdom is wealthy and is both a mercantile and an industrial nation, I would say that the Brelish monarchs and their retainers walked around with silk clothes (maybe even long silk robes), just because any monarch that could afford it invariably favored silk (even the Sultans of Baghdad preferred it). Heaven knows many of us still do. In China, were silk was made, it's not as prestigious a luxury item as elsewhere and Xia-based "Samurai" wouldn't necessarily wear it, if they found other materials more comfortable. Contrarily, few warriors of the Xia persuasion actually wore silk at any time, IIRC, that archetype usually being reserved for Imperial authorities or especially wealthy merchants. Indeed, many armies in wealthy Chinese periods routinely provided all their infantry with standard-issue silk undergarments to wear under their armor, because it reduced the mortality and morbidity of clashes that significantly. Azazyll: Amen.
LuciferNietzsche 03-08-06, 10:09 PM	Ah...finally, a breath of fresh air in the stagnant atmosphere of those who think they know everything, and really know nothing. Thank you for the snorkel in this pile of...well, you know... Thanks, Roxlimn.
Jetty 03-09-06, 07:53 AM	Roxlimn: Wow, is this the longest post contest :) Now seriously, it is great to see the point of view of someone from "the other side" (no pun intended). It is clear that the ECS was creating using features from many different cultures and blended them together quite well. In every Eberron nation one can find something familiar no matter what his roots are (and often overlook the similarities to other Earth cultures). The Five Nations might be similar to China, but thay are not China - they are not any Earth kingdom or state. And I am glad we can all identify with them on some level. Although you disagree with my view on monks and samurais in Eberron (at least that is what I understand under "crazy-talk" ;) ), your post only proves my point. You yourself state that the D&D monks are nothing like the real chinese ones and they certainly are nothing like medieval European ones. Furthermore you attacked the Eberron Knight as not related to medieval knights - that could be rephrased as: using knights without Europe. And there is nothing wrong in that. But the issue was one's perception of the names. If one can not imagine the ninja without replaying all the 80's movies in their mind, than he probably does not want to use it in context with the Eberron world. It might be our view on these classes are twisted by their presentation in western movies and books (certainly is), but it is not reasonable to expect us to now them as well as you do. I was stating that no matter what Earth culture the class is derived from (and no matter what your perceptions are) it is unnecessary to change the class names, if you are using the class features as they are anyway. I never really thought of the medieval knights as undisciplined mob of horse-riding heavily armoured overzelous big-headed warriors with no sence of military tactics. But concidering they never won any major battle in my country, they were usually just that. :) BTW, are there any good english written web pages regarding the military history of China and especially the Xia?
Siran Dunmorgan 03-09-06, 01:29 PM	Funny thing is, I mostly agree with Roxlimn. Roxlimn makes the point that as we bring Dungeons & Dragons into the third millenium, we need to take a more global view—and that seems correct. There's also the point that it's pretty straightforward to run an Asian-flavored game with the core rulebooks on their own, and Roxlimn is right about that too. In fact, I'm happy to say that I'm emphatic about this latter point—to the extent that it's reasonable to assert that shugenja are wizards[1], and sohei are clerics, and samurai are fighters, and ninja are rogues, and call it a day without the need for explicit samurai, shugenja, sohei or ninja classes.[1] That said, the argument that I was making is not that it's okay to be somewhat Euro- or Americo-centric when speaking of Dungeons & Dragons generally, but that terms such as "templar" and "cardinal" and "knight" have an explicit, official place written into the campaign setting, and that "samurai" does not, at least at present. I'm comfortable using the para-European terms because they're already there: the authors of the setting have already invoked the imagery and context attached to those terms. For example, the descriptions we have in official sources of the nature of the training and rôle of the Templars of the Silver Flame suggest something more closely resembling modern mujahedeen than medieval knights templar—but the authors of the setting chose to use the latter term.[2] Similarly, they elected not to refer to the dedicated warriors of the Dhakaani clans as samurai. In other words, the official answer to the question "Where are the samurai in Eberron?" is, in fact, that there are dedicated warriors mechanically identical to the samurai class described in Complete Warrior found among the Dhakaani, the Karrns, and/or House Deneith—but, in character, they are not called samurai. And I'm good with that. —Siran Dunmorgan [1] I am not using the classes here as they are implemented or described in the Complete series, because historical shugenja are much closer to wizards than they are to clerics in Dungeons & Dragons terms; on the other hand, the concept of the cleric class maps rather well onto historical sohei. [2] Given the example of the Silver Flame church depicted in the Player's Guide to Eberron and the written description of the Templars in that same volume, the official sources seem to be drawing their present inspiration for the Church of the Silver Flame from Islam, rather than medieval Christianity, as had previously been the case. This may be a manifestation of the larger world-view to which Roxlimn refers.
Euangelion 03-09-06, 01:55 PM	[2] Given the example of the Silver Flame church depicted in the Player's Guide to Eberron and the written description of the Templars in that same volume, the official sources seem to be drawing their present inspiration for the Church of the Silver Flame from Islam, rather than medieval Christianity, as had previously been the case. This may be a manifestation of the larger world-view to which Roxlimn refers. It appears to me that you misunderstood the reason for my post. I was agreeing with your points, and used terms already present in the ECS as an example of the point you were making. Again, the point is that since those terms are so attached to a particular real-life religious organization in the minds of most people, some may have been led to view the CotSF in a way that was not necessarily intended by the creators of Eberron. The same "danger" lies in using terms like "samurai."
Jetty 03-09-06, 03:14 PM	Has it occurred to you all that for all the "different arguments" we use, we are coming to a general concensus. Does it mean that the only problem we have is expressing ourselves in such a way as to understand each other perfectly? :) Probably too tired to think straight right now but it just seems that way :)
Euangelion 03-09-06, 03:47 PM	Has it occurred to you all that for all the "different arguments" we use, we are coming to a general concensus. Does it mean that the only problem we have is expressing ourselves in such a way as to understand each other perfectly? :) That is a constant struggle in my life! (Just ask my wife...)
Roxlimn 03-10-06, 11:00 AM	Jetty: Has it occurred to you all that for all the "different arguments" we use, we are coming to a general concensus. Does it mean that the only problem we have is expressing ourselves in such a way as to understand each other perfectly? Well, I don't see it as a problem. I see this as an opportunity to learn and teach. I teach you what I think, I try to learn how and what you're thinking. Once we understand each other perfectly, we have learned what we can from each other and move on to other discussions. But the issue was one's perception of the names. If one can not imagine the ninja without replaying all the 80's movies in their mind, than he probably does not want to use it in context with the Eberron world. And yet in that, I also call upon the discussions brought forth by Euangelion and myself. Using "knight" and "templar" in the context of the Silver Flame Cavalry is probably more misleading than using "Samurai" for loyal Brelish house warriors, based on those selfsame cultural miscues. If one cannot imagine ninja without replaying all the 80's movies in their minds, then it's probably time to use some other name, or else teach them what ninja in your campaign are like. To be fair, no one really has a uniform idea of what ninjas actually are. Japanese folklore differs significantly from modern Japanese myths of what ninjas are and what they're capable of. Remember the Power Rangers? Those are based on 5-man series in Japan in the 70s and 80s, which drew largely on imagery and modern day manga myths about what the ninja were. Indeed, Hollywood itself doesn't agree on what the ninja actually is, and Americans have spun their own tales and stories of what ninjas are. In many ways, the ninja is now just as much American myth as Japanese myth, particularly in America. What's a ninja? Shall we refer to Micheal Dudikoff or Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles? What about those secretive assassins in Kill Bill? Don't they strike you as sort of ninja-ish? (actually they're Yakuza, but I doubt the average American can tell the difference). Why not Power Rangers, Ninja Storm? Is that not enough for you? Well, there's Stephen Turnbull, a popular American reference for all things ninja, and also presentations on the NGC and Discovery Channel. Heck, many US Special Forces troops think of themselves as modern day ninja. So what's an American Ninja, I ask you? Perhaps the simplest answer is that they flip out and kill people. If you rule that ninja are like this in your campaign, who's to gainsay you? It's just another interpretation or "take" on what a ninja is. Goodness knows enough Americans are familiar with Naruto not to take offense. I never really thought of the medieval knights as undisciplined mob of horse-riding heavily armoured overzelous big-headed warriors with no sence of military tactics. But concidering they never won any major battle in my country, they were usually just that. The only major accomplishment they did on the world stage was capturing Jerusalem, and even that was only accomplished because the Muslim Empires were too busy killing each other to think of Northern European Knights to be much of any threat. They were important figures in European History, but relatively unimportant in the larger picture. The Greek Hoplite and the Roman Legion loom larger in world consciousness than they. Above them all, the Mongol Horseman. It definitely says something about how fearsome you are when a culture you barely touched villifies you more than 600 years after you're gone. BTW, are there any good english written web pages regarding the military history of China and especially the Xia? Yes. The people in the OA boards are actually more knowledgeable about that. I used to visit China History Forum but something happened to the site. In the thread "Ancient Chinese Code of Ethics," there is an excellent English link to a good accounting of what XIa were in general. The military history of China is so vast and detailed that it's probably fruitless to try to track it all down. I get the feeling that most Chinese don't even make the effort to translate their records into English because they have enough difficulties just trying to translate them into modern Mandarin. There are over 1600 military treatises written in various Chinese scripts, and each one of them refers to many historical accounts from which they attempt to formulate a theory of war. Try to search for something by Needham or that refers to something by Needham. That should get you to somewhere interesting fairly fast. Siran Dunmorgan: In other words, the official answer to the question "Where are the samurai in Eberron?" is, in fact, that there are dedicated warriors mechanically identical to the samurai class described in Complete Warrior found among the Dhakaani, the Karrns, and/or House Deneith—but, in character, they are not called samurai. And I'm good with that. But that still doesn't preclude the use of the excellent Samurai class. In fact, I agree with you on this to the extent that people of Euroamerican culture probably shouldn't use the terms "Samurai" and "Ninja" when they're trying to play an authentic Asian campaign because the foreign sounding names take too much attention away from the truly important parts of the game. Asians don't think of themselves as exotic people from a faraway land with a strange accent anymore than Europeans or Americans think that of themselves. To an Asian, a Samurai was a local historical and mythical warrior who behaved in particular ways, just as a Knight is to a European. The anime-ish show "Avatar: the Last Airbender," does more to showcase Asian perspective than Xiaolin Showdown does. Xiaolin Showdown is a slapstick comedy that's just on this side of fostering racial contempt. The Last Airbender shows normal people speaking in normal accents - but with differing cultures and beliefs. Even NGC and Discovery Channel can learn from this show. I would greatly increase my respect for these channels if they stop trying to use obviously accented voice-ins to speak the translated word. A Chinese Professor speaking in formal Mandarin is more properly translated as a British or East Coast American accent, whereas a market vendor speaking in colloquial Fukien could probably be translated as speaking with a New York accent and turn of phrase. Neither are properly translated as heavily accented English that could barely make itself understood. Having said that, I, myself, am NOT good with going with what the ECS refers to its various warriors as, particularly when these warriors are called so in order to appeal to the limited of understanding. I might be limited in understanding myself, but I'm aware that my own limitations of understanding do not conicide with D&D's main target audience and so I must take this into account. When D&D products like Eberron calls a warrior a "knight," I kind of have to take it with a largish grain of salt, because practically every warrior in the English language that isn't a barbarian is called a knight one way or the other, even when it's grossly inappropriate. Given that I usually have a crew that's familiar with the Samurai and the Ninja, why should I be contented to leave the references as they are? That's not to say that my crews don't have their own cultural biases. I would probably hesitate to name any class I create something unbelievably exotic like a Housecarl or an Ollam. There just wouldn't be any valid connection. Indeed, "druid" is itself a little weird enough already. A Shaman would probably slot in much more favorably. Even the D&D Druid itself isn't much of a historical or mythological Druid (given that we don't really know much about that).