feindish codex 1 and faerun [Archive] - Wizards Community

feindish codex 1 and faerun [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
BrianCritchley
06-14-06, 10:11 PM so how much of the stuff in feindish codex 1 is applicable to Faerun? particularily with the demon web pits section.
Demetrios
06-15-06, 03:03 AM Probably 90+% of it will be usable for the setting. The only serious difference would be making the Demonweb Pits its own plane instead of just layer of the Abyss, and even then the stuff on the Demonweb would still be pretty useful on its own. The Greyhawk references aren't applicable to the Realms either, but they aren't much more than flavor. Beshaba's layer is listed, even though she's moved out of the plane in the current edition (but that's a passing reference in a list of the layers of the plane). Beyond these and a few other minor things, the rest should be virtually all useful for a FR game, as the generic D&D Abyss and the FR Abyss are very similar.

And for people who don't use the current FR cosmology and still use the Great Wheel as in earlier editions, the whole book is usable from cover to cover.
BrianCritchley
06-15-06, 03:12 AM yeah, the seperation of faerun from the wheel was the most.... wide reaching effect of 3E by far
ikki
06-15-06, 04:50 PM yeah, the seperation of faerun from the wheel was the most.... wide reaching effect of 3E by far

everyone i know of ignores the official setup..
BrianCritchley
06-15-06, 05:05 PM everyone i know of ignores the official setup..

the thing is for those the planes are important too, the tree has some rather major limiting factors. namely that it's just not terriably well suited for planer adventures. the cosmology of faerun was designed from a "homes for the gods" prespective not a "places to go adventureing" prespective.

or thats my read on it.
it's intresting but not a very good set up for planehopping
Zanan
06-16-06, 05:58 AM BTW, from how I read it, it is actually not much of a tree. Anyway ... WotSQ VI describes the current Demonwebs of Faerūn's cosmology. There is not that much in there right now apart from those beings described.

If you'd ask me ... I'd take the features (layout et al) given in FC (though I haven't seen it so far) and use the descriptions of the novels and PGtF.

NB: Don't start a debate about the pros and cons of the tree and the wheel and what have you.
Gray Richardson
06-16-06, 06:55 AM everyone i know of ignores the official setup..Well, I use the official Tree cosmology. But then, I prefer to stick to the canon realms in my games. I also happen to think it's a fantastic cosmology. Full of promise and adventure. :)
Gray Richardson
06-16-06, 07:14 AM the thing is for those the planes are important too, the tree has some rather major limiting factors. namely that it's just not terriably well suited for planer adventures. the cosmology of faerun was designed from a "homes for the gods" prespective not a "places to go adventureing" prespective.

or thats my read on it.
it's intresting but not a very good set up for planehoppingNot at all! The Tree is a lot of fun to go adventuring in! :) I take my players to the planes very often in my weekly Forgotten Realms campaign--which is currently based out of Suzail, the capital of Cormyr. In fact, just last week the players have had to go to the Great Dismal Delve on the Elemental Plane of Earth to rescue a comrade who was kidnapped by a dao.

Honestly, the Tree is a really fun cosmology, not all that different from the Great Wheel. The big difference is that the Wheel is totally organized around the concept of alignment. Alignment is the be-all and end-all of the Wheel.

But the Tree is not overly concerned with alignment, as alignment is just not all that important in the Realms. The Tree is organized more along cultural and historical factors. Like-minded pantheons formed and inhabit planes together. It is open to change, new planes can be added, or spun off from old ones. And old planes can even be destroyed or fade away from lack of belief. For the sophisticated Forgotten Realms player, the Great Tree is immanently more suited to this culturally rich and historically textured world.

I am a big fan of the Wheel, don't get me wrong. I love the Wheel, I ran Planescape adventures for years. And if you prefer it, by all means use the Wheel for your game. But after using the Tree, I have grown to love it and I prefer the Tree to the Wheel, at least as far as the Forgotten Realms is concerned. :)

If you are having trouble imagining how many wonderful planar adventures you can have in the Tree, please check out this thread here chock full of Great Tree planar plot hooks and adventure ideas: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=259611
Zanan
06-16-06, 01:08 PM BTW, the Infinite Staircase makes much more sense for a tree rather than a wheel, doesn't it? :D
BrianCritchley
06-16-06, 04:49 PM the big problem with the tree is how travel goes, you can't travel from one plane to another save by portal, if you wanna planeshift you have to planeshift to the material plane then to another plane.

ok granbted a single act of GM fiat changes THAT :)
Zanan
06-16-06, 05:48 PM Don't see a problem here. There is plane shift normally, via the astral or plane of shadows methinks. One shift more or less ...
There are portals ... if you can find them. No big deal either IMHO. Or, at least, not much more of a drawback compared to days gone by.
There is the Infinite Staircase, as it was in AD&D or any wheel setting featuring it. No change either.

In essence, I fail to see the drawback the tree seems to have, compared to the wheel that is. Heck, they even skipped the rules about magic as e.g. listed in For Duty and Deity.
Shemeska the Marauder
06-16-06, 07:33 PM In essence, I fail to see the drawback the tree seems to have, compared to the wheel that is. Heck, they even skipped the rules about magic as e.g. listed in For Duty and Deity.

The Tree planes are micromanaged backyards of Torillian deities who largely exist in a vacuum rather than a larger, infinite multivese. It's no longer a place of wonder and awe in which mortals can become involved and be relevant as planewalkers; it has been reduced at best to a largely undetailed pastiche of what it had been, and an open mockery of its prior grandure at worse with the new vacuum of detail and relevance for planar adventuring presented as 'options'.

Your house got burned to the ground? That's hardly a bad thing! I dunno, it kinda looks comfy in the right light! So many options now! Yay for cosmological arson!

What relevance do mortals have now? Why wander the pre-Eladrin ruins of Pelion, the Mirrored Library of Sum-Of-All at the base of the Infinite Spire, or walk amidst the frozen petitioners at the core of Carceri on the blood and ice orb of Agathys under the mocking gaze of Apomps? Why do that when you can wander through Bane's backyard in a bunch of planes that are no longer incarnate mortal notions, ideas, infinite layers of reality where nightmares, dreams, and base morality become physical, but now in the Tree exist as the whimsy of a deity? Why seek out planes that are the sum of what is good and evil, lawful and chaotic, universes of their own where these concepts and their exemplars war... when you can visit Finder's deific domain and... and do... hmm... oops.

The cosmology change was a bad idea.

If you don't use the planes, cosmology doesn't really affect you, Great Wheel or Tree. But if you actively use the planes, the Tree is virtually a kick in the teeth.

I for one am glad that FC:1 happily included FR references. Makes me smile.
GothicDan
06-16-06, 09:07 PM Zanan, also note that it makes any sort of Planar travel, even between domains of Faerunian deities themselves, more difficult. And also, it invalidates a lot of old lore, as canon stands, or at least messes things up so that we, as readers, have to fill in all of the gaps ourselves. Now, normally, this isn't a bad thing - if this is the intent of the game designers, if the adventures/lore are specifically left vague/open (as things often were in previous editions), but this was a decision made without ANY acknowledgment of what it would change in the past.

And more importantly, the question shouldn't be "what are the drawbacks of this change?" The question should be "what are the benefits?"

Originally, the intent was to make things more Faerun-o-centric... When it was never supposed to be. I have no respect for a cosmology that picks up aspects of a formerly and (imnsho) better cosmology (Baator, the Abyss, the River of Blood/The Styx, the slightly-altered Loth lords, etc.) and then pretends like it's all different. That's a lack of creativity and respect.

The drawbacks? Cosmological travel is more difficult; a lot of old lore invalidated or made difficult (such as deities coming from other Crystal Spheres, and the mention of Abyssal Lords and the like). Lolth originally was an entity that came from another campaign setting, based in the Core cosmology, as was Corellon and Moradin and Yondalla. Gargauth himself was intrinsically tied with the Nine Hells. Ed made it QUITE clear that much of Faerun was linked to other planes or alternate Material Worlds, and that mortal belief and interpretation plays a huge part in its workings, even religiously (as the majority of current Faerunian deities are past mortals) - the current cosmology seems more focused on deities simply keeping their gardens/domains clean with no interaction from mortals at all.

What was the point in changing to a cosmology in which so many of the Realm's lore connections (not in YOUR game, or HIS game, but in the lore as written) are made no longer viable or believable?
BrianCritchley
06-16-06, 09:30 PM What relevance do mortals have now? Why wander the pre-Eladrin ruins of Pelion, the Mirrored Library of Sum-Of-All at the base of the Infinite Spire, or walk amidst the frozen petitioners at the core of Carceri on the blood and ice orb of Agathys under the mocking gaze of Apomps? Why do that when you can wander through Bane's backyard in a bunch of planes that are no longer incarnate mortal notions, ideas, infinite layers of reality where nightmares, dreams, and base morality become physical, but now in the Tree exist as the whimsy of a deity? Why seek out planes that are the sum of what is good and evil, lawful and chaotic, universes of their own where these concepts and their exemplars war... when you can visit Finder's deific domain and... and do... hmm... oops.

what's really needed is for a specific sourcebook on the planes in faerun to substantially flesh it out. the big problem with the tree as it stands is, as Shemeska said "why bother going there?, what's there for a mortal to do other then play in the gods back yards"

thus I propose to WOTC the following sourcebook idea:

Nezram's Guide to the Planes! A guide book to the Planes and the great Tree.
This resource for forgotten realms D&D 3.5 is devoted to the Great Tree, the exciting new planer structure introduced to faerun as of d&d 3.0! This tome penned by Nezram, Faerun's formost plane walker gives the reader a tour of the planes and explains the myrid oppertunities for adventures in the backyards of the gods themselves! from the Abyss to Warrior's rest tour the planes, and be amazed, be terrified, and most importantly be ready for an adventure that is literally out of this world!
Gray Richardson
06-17-06, 03:07 AM I would totally buy that book! :)
GothicDan
06-17-06, 03:45 AM Depending on who wrote it, I'd buy it.

Though with the current 3E Realms-design, it would never be named "Nezram's," because that would be way too in-character/fluffy for WotC and its current consumers.
Zanan
06-17-06, 04:51 AM That's a lack of creativity and respect.

Cannot really agree here. There was always some sort of mixture between the various settings. You see, it is not that anything Greyhawkian came out of nowhere and is thus original and shall/can not be used in a different or similar setting. IMHO, the usage of these deities, feature, demons et al in FR cosmology as well as its change in format is nothing more like changing the AD&D psionics to the more accessible 3E version.

What was the point in changing to a cosmology in which so many of the Realm's lore connections (not in YOUR game, or HIS game, but in the lore as written) are made no longer viable or believable?

Hm. On the other hand - though this will not be regarded as an argument, I would assume - how about looking at the "new" shape as a beginning/basis, not a change. I know that old material was abound and made more sense to some around here. Most Faerūnian players will probably not look at the whole planescaping aspect more than once in every second campaign though. They will most likely have no problem with a "bottled" cosmology that has only minor connections to other "bottles". I understand that this new "shape" annoys the old hands, but taken from a Faerūn - only perspective, the perceived drawbacks are not that horrible. For plane-traveling from Toril to one of the FR planes works more or less like before. Unless I am mistaken? The "tree shape" was most likely created for a more unique FR setting, not to annoy the Planescaping community. Does it cross old canon? Most likely. But if that is an argument, I might throw in the new rules on the darkness spell and all as well.

I see your points, rest assured. I guess there will be more exhaustive books about the matter who will suit the demands of the Planescaping community despite a "tree shaped" FR cosmology.
Crust
06-17-06, 10:15 AM Yes, Faerun's cosmology resembles a great tree and a river of blood. However, I like incorporating a degree of ambiguity concerning the understanding of the planes. A five-year-old can understand the make-up of the planes, and that doesn't sit right with me. The outer planes (and the inner planes for that matter) shouldn't be such a simple concept. The Great Wheel, the World Tree, a collection of spheres, a double-helix design... There should be more room for discussion and interpretation concerning the make-up of the planes. It shouldn't be as simple as "Oh, the upper planes are like a big tree, and the lower planes are like a river of blood. Ewww!" No. It should be a bit more complicated than that, and giving PCs the option of saying "I believe in the Great Wheel" or "No, the World Tree is my interpretation," would make role-playing the planes a bit more believable, I think.
Shemeska the Marauder
06-17-06, 10:58 AM thus I propose to WOTC the following sourcebook idea:

Depending on who wrote it, I'd buy it. I wouldn't use it as is out of the box now, I'd cherrypick things into the Great Wheel, same as I might for a 3rd party book with planar ideas. But if it was well written it would find a use, though not the intended use for FR. ;)
BrianCritchley
06-17-06, 03:01 PM yeah I like the idea too, here's hoping one of the WOTC writers looks at it and thinks it's an awesome idea too :)

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
BrianCritchley 06-14-06, 10:11 PM	so how much of the stuff in feindish codex 1 is applicable to Faerun? particularily with the demon web pits section.
Demetrios 06-15-06, 03:03 AM	Probably 90+% of it will be usable for the setting. The only serious difference would be making the Demonweb Pits its own plane instead of just layer of the Abyss, and even then the stuff on the Demonweb would still be pretty useful on its own. The Greyhawk references aren't applicable to the Realms either, but they aren't much more than flavor. Beshaba's layer is listed, even though she's moved out of the plane in the current edition (but that's a passing reference in a list of the layers of the plane). Beyond these and a few other minor things, the rest should be virtually all useful for a FR game, as the generic D&D Abyss and the FR Abyss are very similar. And for people who don't use the current FR cosmology and still use the Great Wheel as in earlier editions, the whole book is usable from cover to cover.
BrianCritchley 06-15-06, 03:12 AM	yeah, the seperation of faerun from the wheel was the most.... wide reaching effect of 3E by far
ikki 06-15-06, 04:50 PM	yeah, the seperation of faerun from the wheel was the most.... wide reaching effect of 3E by far everyone i know of ignores the official setup..
BrianCritchley 06-15-06, 05:05 PM	everyone i know of ignores the official setup.. the thing is for those the planes are important too, the tree has some rather major limiting factors. namely that it's just not terriably well suited for planer adventures. the cosmology of faerun was designed from a "homes for the gods" prespective not a "places to go adventureing" prespective. or thats my read on it. it's intresting but not a very good set up for planehopping
Zanan 06-16-06, 05:58 AM	BTW, from how I read it, it is actually not much of a tree. Anyway ... WotSQ VI describes the current Demonwebs of Faerūn's cosmology. There is not that much in there right now apart from those beings described. If you'd ask me ... I'd take the features (layout et al) given in FC (though I haven't seen it so far) and use the descriptions of the novels and PGtF. NB: Don't start a debate about the pros and cons of the tree and the wheel and what have you.
Gray Richardson 06-16-06, 06:55 AM	everyone i know of ignores the official setup..Well, I use the official Tree cosmology. But then, I prefer to stick to the canon realms in my games. I also happen to think it's a fantastic cosmology. Full of promise and adventure. :)
Gray Richardson 06-16-06, 07:14 AM	the thing is for those the planes are important too, the tree has some rather major limiting factors. namely that it's just not terriably well suited for planer adventures. the cosmology of faerun was designed from a "homes for the gods" prespective not a "places to go adventureing" prespective. or thats my read on it. it's intresting but not a very good set up for planehoppingNot at all! The Tree is a lot of fun to go adventuring in! :) I take my players to the planes very often in my weekly Forgotten Realms campaign--which is currently based out of Suzail, the capital of Cormyr. In fact, just last week the players have had to go to the Great Dismal Delve on the Elemental Plane of Earth to rescue a comrade who was kidnapped by a dao. Honestly, the Tree is a really fun cosmology, not all that different from the Great Wheel. The big difference is that the Wheel is totally organized around the concept of alignment. Alignment is the be-all and end-all of the Wheel. But the Tree is not overly concerned with alignment, as alignment is just not all that important in the Realms. The Tree is organized more along cultural and historical factors. Like-minded pantheons formed and inhabit planes together. It is open to change, new planes can be added, or spun off from old ones. And old planes can even be destroyed or fade away from lack of belief. For the sophisticated Forgotten Realms player, the Great Tree is immanently more suited to this culturally rich and historically textured world. I am a big fan of the Wheel, don't get me wrong. I love the Wheel, I ran Planescape adventures for years. And if you prefer it, by all means use the Wheel for your game. But after using the Tree, I have grown to love it and I prefer the Tree to the Wheel, at least as far as the Forgotten Realms is concerned. :) If you are having trouble imagining how many wonderful planar adventures you can have in the Tree, please check out this thread here chock full of Great Tree planar plot hooks and adventure ideas: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=259611
Zanan 06-16-06, 01:08 PM	BTW, the Infinite Staircase makes much more sense for a tree rather than a wheel, doesn't it? :D
BrianCritchley 06-16-06, 04:49 PM	the big problem with the tree is how travel goes, you can't travel from one plane to another save by portal, if you wanna planeshift you have to planeshift to the material plane then to another plane. ok granbted a single act of GM fiat changes THAT :)
Zanan 06-16-06, 05:48 PM	Don't see a problem here. There is plane shift normally, via the astral or plane of shadows methinks. One shift more or less ... There are portals ... if you can find them. No big deal either IMHO. Or, at least, not much more of a drawback compared to days gone by. There is the Infinite Staircase, as it was in AD&D or any wheel setting featuring it. No change either. In essence, I fail to see the drawback the tree seems to have, compared to the wheel that is. Heck, they even skipped the rules about magic as e.g. listed in For Duty and Deity.
Shemeska the Marauder 06-16-06, 07:33 PM	In essence, I fail to see the drawback the tree seems to have, compared to the wheel that is. Heck, they even skipped the rules about magic as e.g. listed in For Duty and Deity. The Tree planes are micromanaged backyards of Torillian deities who largely exist in a vacuum rather than a larger, infinite multivese. It's no longer a place of wonder and awe in which mortals can become involved and be relevant as planewalkers; it has been reduced at best to a largely undetailed pastiche of what it had been, and an open mockery of its prior grandure at worse with the new vacuum of detail and relevance for planar adventuring presented as 'options'. Your house got burned to the ground? That's hardly a bad thing! I dunno, it kinda looks comfy in the right light! So many options now! Yay for cosmological arson! What relevance do mortals have now? Why wander the pre-Eladrin ruins of Pelion, the Mirrored Library of Sum-Of-All at the base of the Infinite Spire, or walk amidst the frozen petitioners at the core of Carceri on the blood and ice orb of Agathys under the mocking gaze of Apomps? Why do that when you can wander through Bane's backyard in a bunch of planes that are no longer incarnate mortal notions, ideas, infinite layers of reality where nightmares, dreams, and base morality become physical, but now in the Tree exist as the whimsy of a deity? Why seek out planes that are the sum of what is good and evil, lawful and chaotic, universes of their own where these concepts and their exemplars war... when you can visit Finder's deific domain and... and do... hmm... oops. The cosmology change was a bad idea. If you don't use the planes, cosmology doesn't really affect you, Great Wheel or Tree. But if you actively use the planes, the Tree is virtually a kick in the teeth. I for one am glad that FC:1 happily included FR references. Makes me smile.
GothicDan 06-16-06, 09:07 PM	Zanan, also note that it makes any sort of Planar travel, even between domains of Faerunian deities themselves, more difficult. And also, it invalidates a lot of old lore, as canon stands, or at least messes things up so that we, as readers, have to fill in all of the gaps ourselves. Now, normally, this isn't a bad thing - if this is the intent of the game designers, if the adventures/lore are specifically left vague/open (as things often were in previous editions), but this was a decision made without ANY acknowledgment of what it would change in the past. And more importantly, the question shouldn't be "what are the drawbacks of this change?" The question should be "what are the benefits?" Originally, the intent was to make things more Faerun-o-centric... When it was never supposed to be. I have no respect for a cosmology that picks up aspects of a formerly and (imnsho) better cosmology (Baator, the Abyss, the River of Blood/The Styx, the slightly-altered Loth lords, etc.) and then pretends like it's all different. That's a lack of creativity and respect. The drawbacks? Cosmological travel is more difficult; a lot of old lore invalidated or made difficult (such as deities coming from other Crystal Spheres, and the mention of Abyssal Lords and the like). Lolth originally was an entity that came from another campaign setting, based in the Core cosmology, as was Corellon and Moradin and Yondalla. Gargauth himself was intrinsically tied with the Nine Hells. Ed made it QUITE clear that much of Faerun was linked to other planes or alternate Material Worlds, and that mortal belief and interpretation plays a huge part in its workings, even religiously (as the majority of current Faerunian deities are past mortals) - the current cosmology seems more focused on deities simply keeping their gardens/domains clean with no interaction from mortals at all. What was the point in changing to a cosmology in which so many of the Realm's lore connections (not in YOUR game, or HIS game, but in the lore as written) are made no longer viable or believable?
BrianCritchley 06-16-06, 09:30 PM	What relevance do mortals have now? Why wander the pre-Eladrin ruins of Pelion, the Mirrored Library of Sum-Of-All at the base of the Infinite Spire, or walk amidst the frozen petitioners at the core of Carceri on the blood and ice orb of Agathys under the mocking gaze of Apomps? Why do that when you can wander through Bane's backyard in a bunch of planes that are no longer incarnate mortal notions, ideas, infinite layers of reality where nightmares, dreams, and base morality become physical, but now in the Tree exist as the whimsy of a deity? Why seek out planes that are the sum of what is good and evil, lawful and chaotic, universes of their own where these concepts and their exemplars war... when you can visit Finder's deific domain and... and do... hmm... oops. what's really needed is for a specific sourcebook on the planes in faerun to substantially flesh it out. the big problem with the tree as it stands is, as Shemeska said "why bother going there?, what's there for a mortal to do other then play in the gods back yards" thus I propose to WOTC the following sourcebook idea: Nezram's Guide to the Planes! A guide book to the Planes and the great Tree. This resource for forgotten realms D&D 3.5 is devoted to the Great Tree, the exciting new planer structure introduced to faerun as of d&d 3.0! This tome penned by Nezram, Faerun's formost plane walker gives the reader a tour of the planes and explains the myrid oppertunities for adventures in the backyards of the gods themselves! from the Abyss to Warrior's rest tour the planes, and be amazed, be terrified, and most importantly be ready for an adventure that is literally out of this world!
Gray Richardson 06-17-06, 03:07 AM	I would totally buy that book! :)
GothicDan 06-17-06, 03:45 AM	Depending on who wrote it, I'd buy it. Though with the current 3E Realms-design, it would never be named "Nezram's," because that would be way too in-character/fluffy for WotC and its current consumers.
Zanan 06-17-06, 04:51 AM	That's a lack of creativity and respect. Cannot really agree here. There was always some sort of mixture between the various settings. You see, it is not that anything Greyhawkian came out of nowhere and is thus original and shall/can not be used in a different or similar setting. IMHO, the usage of these deities, feature, demons et al in FR cosmology as well as its change in format is nothing more like changing the AD&D psionics to the more accessible 3E version. What was the point in changing to a cosmology in which so many of the Realm's lore connections (not in YOUR game, or HIS game, but in the lore as written) are made no longer viable or believable? Hm. On the other hand - though this will not be regarded as an argument, I would assume - how about looking at the "new" shape as a beginning/basis, not a change. I know that old material was abound and made more sense to some around here. Most Faerūnian players will probably not look at the whole planescaping aspect more than once in every second campaign though. They will most likely have no problem with a "bottled" cosmology that has only minor connections to other "bottles". I understand that this new "shape" annoys the old hands, but taken from a Faerūn - only perspective, the perceived drawbacks are not that horrible. For plane-traveling from Toril to one of the FR planes works more or less like before. Unless I am mistaken? The "tree shape" was most likely created for a more unique FR setting, not to annoy the Planescaping community. Does it cross old canon? Most likely. But if that is an argument, I might throw in the new rules on the darkness spell and all as well. I see your points, rest assured. I guess there will be more exhaustive books about the matter who will suit the demands of the Planescaping community despite a "tree shaped" FR cosmology.
Crust 06-17-06, 10:15 AM	Yes, Faerun's cosmology resembles a great tree and a river of blood. However, I like incorporating a degree of ambiguity concerning the understanding of the planes. A five-year-old can understand the make-up of the planes, and that doesn't sit right with me. The outer planes (and the inner planes for that matter) shouldn't be such a simple concept. The Great Wheel, the World Tree, a collection of spheres, a double-helix design... There should be more room for discussion and interpretation concerning the make-up of the planes. It shouldn't be as simple as "Oh, the upper planes are like a big tree, and the lower planes are like a river of blood. Ewww!" No. It should be a bit more complicated than that, and giving PCs the option of saying "I believe in the Great Wheel" or "No, the World Tree is my interpretation," would make role-playing the planes a bit more believable, I think.
Shemeska the Marauder 06-17-06, 10:58 AM	thus I propose to WOTC the following sourcebook idea: Depending on who wrote it, I'd buy it. I wouldn't use it as is out of the box now, I'd cherrypick things into the Great Wheel, same as I might for a 3rd party book with planar ideas. But if it was well written it would find a use, though not the intended use for FR. ;)
BrianCritchley 06-17-06, 03:01 PM	yeah I like the idea too, here's hoping one of the WOTC writers looks at it and thinks it's an awesome idea too :)