Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Kuje31 03-10-04, 08:02 PM	If some of you didn't realize it. Ed has been fielding questions over on the Candlekeep site, and since no one has really been posting the answers over here I have been doing it myself. :) So again here's some new information from Ed. Oh before you read if you have problems with the Chosen being naked and showing off thier flesh. Please do NOT comment on that again, since it has info about Alustriel showing off her flesh and info on her lovers. THANKS! Now here's Ed: Well met, all. The Hooded One here again (this whipped cur trailing me is hight Blueblade; if he offers you a beer, I’d decline), with the latest answers from Ed: Karth, Steve Schend catalogued Alustriel’s sons elsewhere and elsewhen, and to avoid stepping on the toes of folks currently at work on must-remain-mysterious-for-now things in the Realms, I’m going to bow out of giving you names, order of birth, levels, et al. Sorry. However, you deserve answers to the rest of your related query, so here goes: My concept of Alustriel as de facto ruler of Silverymoon has always been glossed over by TSR (and now WotC) for Code of Ethics/Code of Conduct reasons, because I see her as the Realms equivalent of ‘the Queen of Courtly Love,’ presiding over a Court that amuses itself (along with delighting in wit, new songs, new inventions or clever craftsmanship, and fashions) with dalliances, courtship, and lovemaking. Er, lots of lovemaking. :} In the same way that real-world kings in some places and times enjoyed droit de signeur [French for: “As the King, I have the right to sleep with anyone” :}], Alustriel takes many lovers for short periods of time, and is one of those rare kind, understanding, warm people who has the knack of staying close, affectionate friends with former lovers, even in the presence of other ex-flames. In fact, it’s quite likely that any meeting of courtiers will contain a majority of folk who have visited the royal bed or baths at one time or another -- and most of them remain fiercely loyal to Alustriel and to her dream of Silverymoon. (In fact, some cynics, such as Torm of the Knights of Myth Drannor, believe she deliberately seduces political foes to transform them into personal friends.) The fact demonstrably remains that to attack Alustriel in Silverymoon will be to evoke immediate defense of her person by dozens of champions who will lay down their lives to protect hers, even knowing she’s the “Anointed of the Goddess” and may not really need their protection. For obvious moral reasons, published Realmslore glides over all this ‘free love’ stuff (gakk! orgies! Nonononono!) without saying much (though if you read the words of Silverymmon-related Realmslore I’ve written, nothing contradicts it). If you’re portraying Alustriel correctly in play, she loves to laugh (except when to do so would be cruel to others), gives hugs, caresses, and kisses freely, has no personal dignity (nude? Me? Yes, so? Yes, I heard him comment on the shape and taste of my breasts -- that’s why I was thanking him) but a LOT of personal grace and charm, and never forgets details about people (so if meeting a knight she bedded one night eight years ago, she’ll recall the name of his ailing mother and her ailment, the name of his new bride, and any ‘touchy triggers’ any of them might have). Most folk who meet her can’t remain jealous of her or angry at her for long. The original Mystra seemed to encourage Alustriel to have children (why? Hoho! SO many mysteries, waved before you!), because she conceived every nine months and a day or two, giving Faerun a succession of healthy males in a series of easy births (and being little constricted or uncomfortable while pregnant, because rather than acquiring a ballooning belly, the High Lady always put on weight all over, and retained her poise, balance, and activities). Yes, she’s given birth to females, and no, I’m not going to say ANYTHING more about that for future schemes reasons. :} The new Mystra may have other ideas, because (as far as Elminster knows -- and he doesn’t hesitate to ask her, straight out) Alustriel isn’t pregnant right now, and shows no signs of becoming so. For details of her current consort, see the quartet of Realmslore columns appearing on the WotC website right now. “Aerasume” is a surname, and all of the tall, strapping lads who bear it share the same father, who remains Alustriel’s lover on nights when she needs comforting, but these days is often away from Silverymoon on explorative expeditions into the wilderlands. As I said: with very few exceptions, Alustriel remains on good terms with her former lovers, and manages somehow to keep them comfortable with each other (I guess it’s like being members of a club one very much enjoys being part of). So they all get along well together. At long-ago GenCons I often ran Realms play sessions in which PCs were sent with an urgent message to Alustriel [a stranger to them by all but reputation] through a secret portal that admitted them to the Palace but removed all metal -- weapons and, er, BELT BUCKLES -- and all enchanted materials [items and garments vanished, spells operating on the bodies of the PCs just melted away] in doing so. Stumbling over their own falling clothing but under imperative, overriding orders to get to Alustriel right away (and bearing a pass that would let them do so), the racing PCs were directed to a certain chamber, and burst into it to discover that it was taken up by a vast, shallow bath filled with warm rosewater and naked people making love. SOMEwhere in all of that sliding flesh was Alustriel. Their mission: find her. I loved watching players’ faces, right at that moment. Ahem. I hope that answers half of your questions, Karth. :} As the commercials say: “All participants are trained professionals. Don’t try this at home.” But then again, feel free to ignore this warning. Faraer! Well met as always! Yes, "Spellstorm" is one of my Baron’s Blades modules. It was donated to the RPGA for their use, and they edited it, unfortunately removed most of the fun graphics handouts I did for it (messages and other things given to players during play so their PCs could solve a mystery). So I vastly prefer my original. As for artists: well, I’m sure we’ve all had this feeling, when looking at a piece of artwork or watching a movie or television show that adapts a book we love, of thinking “That character looks wrong!” . . . and of course I get a lot of that when looking at Realms stuff. (Please remember, all who read this, that we’re talking personal preferences here.) When doing the Volo’s Guides, I turned in eighty-page art orders with examples drawn from divers sources of how buildings and garments and people should look, and Val Valusek captured almost everything perfectly (though the printing method used in the Volo books often obscured the beautiful detail of her originals and made them “blobby”). In like manner, I love the pic she did that appears on page 74 of the City of Splendors Campaign Guide, and it hangs over my upstairs study desk. Her interior art throughout Seven Sisters pleases me VERY much. Her Realms work in general has been superb art and ‘bang-on’ in getting the looks of things correct. I love the Larry Elmore piece used as the cover of both Cities of Mystery and the City of Splendors Adventurers Guide To The City, and almost swoon over the grandeur of his cover for FR5 The Savage Frontier. I think Matt Stawicki got Elminster just right on the cover of Elminster In Hell, and Fred Fields did the same for Khelben on the cover of the City of Splendors box (in both cases, expertly capturing the man AS HE LOOKED AT THAT TIME). Just as pieces of art, I like the Walter Velez cover for Stormlight and the cover of the forthcoming Elminster’s Daughter. I could go on for pages and pages here (it’s okay, Alaundo, I won’t!) of “I like this,” but what really matters to me is capturing the look of buildings, countryside, monsters, and individuals correctly, so a DM can hold an example up and saying, “You see THIS.” I’ve detailed all or part of all the northern dungeons you list, but most of them are “mini-dungeons” (eight to twelve chambers linked by passages), and the published references to many of them no longer match my faint, 1st-Edition pencil originals. Which is a not-so-deft way of saying you’ll probably never see said originals in print. BTW: I had many mini-dungeons of the sort my players call “gauntlets” (doing the right or wrong thing triggers a portal that whisks you to another subterranean chamber and encounter, which you can’t avoid because there’s no way out except by finding the next portal, and so on, in a little chain; terribly unfair, of course [evil grin]). No, none of those maps are from my originals, though the Scardale one is a simplified (individual buildings in city core blocks not shown), made-smaller version of one of my originals. The needs of a publisher require small, compact maps, and most of the Dales are clusters of farm dwellings, so you’d have handfuls of buildings here and there, on a map measuring 4 feet by 8 feet, as the “center” of a dale. So things got . . . telescoped. Are the maps of Dalelands towns that first appeared in FRS1 The Dalelands and FRQ3 Doom of Daggerdale all yours? At the moment there’s no hope of seeing the cut parts of FRQ1, for reasons of the time it would take and the different approach to the game since then. I didn’t finish writing a lot of it to readable-by-all standards, would have to put the maps ‘back’ to my more complex and larger originals, and WotC doesn’t publish exhaustive setpiece locales (detailing every chamberpot, intrigue, and old feud tale in a small village). As far as I know, the publisher for Mornmist went bankrupt, or nearly so, through no fault of his own. Lynn Abbey and I did our world-building, and I believe four novels were contracted and at least partially paid-for and written (not by Lynn or myself). I heard that the publisher was selling copies of the first one at flea markets, years later, but I’ve never seen a copy, and that might be mere rumor. Rob King, who’d just left TSR, was editor for the project, brought us all on board, and behaved with honour and dignity as disaster overtook Mornmist, which was a serious fantasy setting in which intelligent, speaking animals (echoes of Redwall) adventured in a post-Apocalypse North America. BTW: I know there are far too many Arthurian fantasies out there, but Rob’s, published by TOR these last few years, are VERY good. Literature. Foxhelm, you haven’t bothered me; I LOVE answering questions. Besides catching up with all of my friends in gaming (and there’s no truth whatsoever that “catching up” means ‘drinking under the table’) this is what I go to GenCon Indy every year FOR. However, your first question has too many variables for me to do more than wildly guess (what about the advance of technology? The doings of the Shades or Thay or Larloch or other masters of powerful magic? Plagues? Tidal waves and volcanism and continental sinkings or risings? So let me just answer by saying what I’d do, if as DM I was setting up a far-future Realms campaign. I see the Silver Marches and Waterdeep as both growing in size, wealth, and population, despite the batterings of orc hordes. I see certain critters (dragons) as being far rarer, thanks to reactions to the flights of dragons that cause an “exterminate on sight” attitude in many humans. I see strong surface dwarf and elf realms on the mainland, and the collapse of Thay into small, warring holds. I see Sembia trying to swallow both Westgate and the Dales, and failing to swallow Cormyr, which now has a large wealthy merchant class and overcrowding. I see Impiltur and Thesk and Aglarond also expanding, with much local lawlessness and warfare . . . and everywhere, I see powerful mages exterminated, and those who do have magic keeping a lower profile (adviser to throne rather than on throne, local healer and sage rather than local tyrant). I see many of the Chosen gone mad and weepingly imploring Mystra to slay them -- and in a few cases, I see Azuth stepping in with newly-picked Chosen to oversee rituals in which a new Chosen slays a willing old Chosen in a manner that allows subsumption of the Silver Fire and some memories (transfer from old to new). I see the memories changing the new Chosen and driving a few of them mad (the work of Shar?). I see fewer gods, and all of them having less power and influence, as general wealth and technology increases, and “the common folk” make praying increasingly a “say and do this for good luck on the way home, and then say and do this to this other god before bed” matter-of-fact affair rather than obeying priests to the death. I see lots of new, small realms, and warfar between them. And I’m not sure I’d want to see much more of a Realms like that, or play in them. Yet as I said at the outset, this is merely one possibility among literally thousands. As for the Planetouched, I doubt there’ll be a “Year of” them soon, because the Roll of Years is set for quite some time into both past and future, and because in the Realms they’re individuals rather than grouped as coherent colonies, nations, or kingdoms I think it’s a lot more fun in play to have planetouched living among just regular folks (remember, much of the Realms is already a United Nations of half-breeds and various intelligent races anyway, not given over to single xenophobic races), especially if they keep a low profile and can surprise PCs in play. Quite a few of the ladies of pleasure in Waterdeep and Amn are tieflings, for instance, because of the “lure of the illicit” and the spice of danger. I’m unsure what you’re asking here: “Also what do your characters think of the Planetouched?” Do you mean the vast and varied NPCs I run as DM? Or the characters run by my players? Or . . .? Dargoth, future schemes not yet quite unfolded in the published Realms prohibit me from saying anything about Glen. Yes, it DOES seem rather odd, doesn’t it? :} The title of the Waterdeep novel still isn’t settled, but neither Elaine nor I get to choose it. Suggest, yes, choose no: publishers always reserve that right for themselves (also release date, price, marketing, format) because they’re the ones risking the money, and they therefore want to control how a product is presented to the market. Yes, the Realms has many outcast (as opposed to ruling) archdevils and similar major-league-nasty unique creatures from other planes, but most of them keep a low profile (because to do otherwise is to get whacked). No, I’m not going to reveal any more here, again because of future plans. Alexander, you’re welcome. And so is everyone else who’s thanked me; I’m sorry, I’ve been remiss in basic courtesy the last little while. And while I’m at it, you’re welcome, Alaundo, and I must thank YOU for making this forum available and so welcoming to all who love the Realms. It’s my pleasure to help make the Realms more colourful and real for everyone, whenever and however I can. I have quite nondescript business cards (other than the crescent moon badge they bear), but I also have Elminster business cards I hand out at conventions and at book autographing sessions (to those who don’t bring, or can’t afford to buy, the books, but do want to meet me). And hi, Crust! There are many “unfold secrets of the Realms,” but I don’t want to air dirty linen here, just explain why some things turned out the ay they did. Jim Lowder and I are good friends, and I have a LOT of respect for him as a writer and an editor. I try to be as friendly as possible with all of the gaming creatives and Realms fans I meet, because what else is life for? If I can put a smile on someone’s face, I’ve helped a little, and done a little to pay back whatever gods there be for the air I’ve breathed and water and food I’ve used, that day. So endeth Ed’s words (for now). Those last few lines have, as usual, left me close to tears (awwww, Ed, you big bearded lug, you!), so I’ll skip the smart or flirtatious comments. Your Hooded One, as always.
Ranger REG 03-11-04, 02:19 AM	Is this the Forgotten Realms or the Naughty Realms? I can't wait to see a "Mature Readers Only" label start popping up on FR products. Austin Powers: " Yeah, Baby!" :cool:
Kuje31 03-11-04, 02:59 AM	Originally posted by Ranger REG Is this the Forgotten Realms or the Naughty Realms? I can't wait to see a "Mature Readers Only" label start popping up on FR products. Austin Powers: " Yeah, Baby!" :cool: Bah, FR has always been open about some things..... but TSR had that silly comic code/code of conduct rules where you couldn't discuss love among multiple partners nor lesbian or gay partners as well. And brothels had to be called festhalls, etc. Ed's FR has always been open about relationships if you read between the lines..... :)
Dawnspeaker 03-11-04, 11:56 AM	Not even between the lines sometimes. Without going to much into the novels..there is a certain series where a lady ranger Knight of Myth Drannor is fooling around with two harper lads. (at the sametime mind you.)
ender 03-12-04, 06:21 PM	Thanks, Kuje. I'll have to check out that thread at Candlekeep. Ed has always impressed me with his graciousness, both to his fellow Realms game designers (who must inevitably clash with him, at times, in their visions of various people and places) and to fans and players.
mrmister 03-13-04, 02:36 AM	Ed's vision of the Realms always has a strong element of RANDY OLD GOAT in it. That's how we ended up with the Simbul and the rest of the Silver-Haired, Big-Breasted Munchkin Parade.
Ranger REG 03-13-04, 03:52 AM	You state that as if it's a bad thing. :smirk:
Aragathor 03-13-04, 06:43 AM	Not everyone enjoys such style. There are people who have a different moral code than Mr. Greenwood and they dislike such texts and ideas. So yes, in some peoples eyes this is a bad "thing".
Mystery Man 03-13-04, 06:59 AM	Originally posted by Aragathor Not everyone enjoys such style. There are people who have a different moral code than Mr. Greenwood and they dislike such texts and ideas. So yes, in some peoples eyes this is a bad "thing". Just how do you know exactly what E.G.'s "moral code" is? That's got to be the stupidest statement I've heard today. And its 6 in the a.m. for me. :rolleyes:
mrmister 03-13-04, 10:54 AM	I wouldn't say "bad thing" so much as "cheesy thing".
ElGrecoETAC 03-13-04, 11:40 AM	This is just an opinion, so just shoot me. Ed Greenwood's vision of the Realms, bottom line, is one where people, regardless of sex or race, often live a lifestyle free of inhibitions prevalent in this little blue world of ours. I find it interesting that there are people who choose to ignore the issues of with a fantasy world plagued by homicidal Orcs, rampaging Dragons, and exploitive Zhentarim, but find it's more worthy to voice their objections when it comes to fictional characters that don't have hang-ups when it comes to not wearing clothes or enjoying different variations of sex. :confused: /:rolleyes:
Tempus665 03-13-04, 12:52 PM	After all, why create your own world if its people would have the same problems that people in the real world have? If I would suddenly be transported to a world like Toril, I´d also live a carefree life. Sue me. Also, having sexually free people in your campaign doesn´t say anything about your moral codes. After all, there are also a lot of murderers, thieves, white collar criminals, rapists, evil cultists, cannibals, etcetera in the Realms. Ed´s insights continue to be valuable to me :bow:
WizO_BigSister 03-13-04, 06:19 PM	*Sprinkles fairy dust of being nice to each other over the thread* Chaps and chapesses, don't forget the golden rule “It is ok to disagree with what someone has written; it is not ok to attack the person who wrote it. If you can't tell the difference then maybe you shouldn't make the post!" So its ok to continue this debate so long as you keep it polite and friendly ... and that includes any comments aimed at Ed. Also, keep it suitable for all ages. Thanks muchly :)
MagicMatt 03-13-04, 06:33 PM	I don’t think the FR is adult enough in content, I’m glad too see that there is a bit of FUN being had… It’s part of fantasy, always has been, read the old stuff by REH or ERB from the twenties, it’s all sex and naked women! Oh, and lot’s of wicked violence back then too.
Wooly Rupert 03-13-04, 07:09 PM	Originally posted by WizO_BigSister Chaps and chapesses, don't forget the golden rule Chapesses? Is that a word? ;)
Sarta 03-13-04, 07:22 PM	Originally posted by Wooly Rupert Chapesses? Is that a word? ;) She probably felt it better than chippies. Sarta
mrmister 03-13-04, 10:20 PM	I personaloly don't have anything against free love--I just thing that this whole element of the Realms is totally, utterly cheesy. It's all Ed's thing--he loves silver-haired women, lots of nakedness and so forth. If it had ever been more developed maybe it would come out better, but I suspect that this is the way Ed likes it--I just think it's not very clever, honest or interesting.
Kash Darreder 03-14-04, 02:58 AM	Originally posted by mrmister I personaloly don't have anything against free love--I just thing that this whole element of the Realms is totally, utterly cheesy. It's all Ed's thing--he loves silver-haired women, lots of nakedness and so forth. If it had ever been more developed maybe it would come out better, but I suspect that this is the way Ed likes it--I just think it's not very clever, honest or interesting. But doesnt that make it all the more "real"? KD
Alathayn 03-14-04, 05:59 AM	Um, never thought of Alustriel that way... May PCs just brought a message to her and I can tell ya that was a lot different (I think my players would have questioned my state of mind if J had played her that way) However J agree with those that that ideas like this are just as much part of fantasy as magic or epic battles.
ElGrecoETAC 03-14-04, 07:01 AM	Originally posted by mrmister I personaloly don't have anything against free love--I just thing that this whole element of the Realms is totally, utterly cheesy. It's all Ed's thing--he loves silver-haired women, lots of nakedness and so forth. If it had ever been more developed maybe it would come out better, but I suspect that this is the way Ed likes it--I just think it's not very clever, honest or interesting. The funny thing is, though, that this element of the Realms, as conceived by Ed Greenwood, is a fraction of a fraction of the overall work. For some reason, however, people love to focus on it/criticize it more than anything else (other than maybe the whole Drow thing). Clever is relative in this case, because I think you are questioning taste more than how "intelligent" the concept of Elminster & Co.'s lifestyles are. Honest it is, because that's what they had going on with their campaign, and Ed's kept it alive--his privilige as a creator. Interesting? Obviously it is... otherwise, people wouldn't feel the need to comment on the subject on a regular basis.
Sariel Rahab 03-14-04, 01:56 PM	The nature of the gods in FR would probably lead to the "moral values" being alot more diverse than the western hemispheres Abrahamic religions take on the matter. I would believe that some of the lawful churches have more trouble with this than the more chaotic churches (Sharess, Sune, Hanali and the like formost). The view on nakedness and sex would probably in many cases be alot more liberal. That being said doesn't stop it from being cheesy, and I, myself, would find it a bit difficult to present my players with a naked Alustriel having sex when they come seeking audience with her. I'd find that too cheesy for me :)
mrmister 03-15-04, 12:48 PM	It feels neither clever, honest or interesting because it feels like the randiness of people who game by themselves and don't get out much. It feels like low-rent, cheeseball porn. invented by the worst kind of "gamer" stereotypes.
Faraer 03-15-04, 12:59 PM	Accusations of dishonesty from someone who so drastically misreads Ed as to see any trace of munchkinism don't carry much weight.
druid berrymore 03-15-04, 01:20 PM	Originally posted by Sariel Rahab The view on nakedness and sex would probably in many cases be alot more liberal. That being said doesn't stop it from being cheesy, and I, myself, would find it a bit difficult to present my players with a naked Alustriel having sex when they come seeking audience with her. I'd find that too cheesy for me :) It's cheesy if you expose it the way you describe, but if you use it in a more subtle way it makes Alustriel a very interesting and mysterious character. This is background material, people. She may be the "queen of courtly love", but that doesn't mean she makes love in the courtyard. Storytelling is about complex characters, so any bit of character developing material like this is great. Thanks Ed.
Sariel Rahab 03-15-04, 02:43 PM	Ah yes, I just commented on Ed's description of the gen-con event. I have no problems with the NPC's being described this way, and I agree that it ads flavour to her. However, I, myself, would not be comfortable playing this out to a bunch of guys (and one girl), I might briefly mention it, but would not play it out, but that's just me :) It is very good as background material though, and ads life to the character. Sure, you can look at it as cheesy, but no matter what you write, someone would have a problem with it, and - sex is a natural part of the world, even a roleplaying world - though most of us would like to keep it in the background (far in the background :) )
Propheous 03-15-04, 09:42 PM	Perhaps you should read a bit more history. I don't know about you but many of this worlds great historical nations from England to Greece and beyond all had a very free out look on human desires. In fact it was only in the last I would say thousand years that has start to change. I would go so far as to say it hasn't changed at all in reality. Just about every US president is accused of illicit sexual behaviour, and do we even need to step into the arena of the English Monarchies taste in fun and frolic? I think alot of the people who are complaining about this sort of behaviour or calling it cheesy or typical of closet gamers need to get out more themselves. Most of these practices are relatively common place in most parts of the worlds at this moment. Whole societies of "swingers", "nudist", and similar people practice thier own way of doing things. Just as the "purists", and "religious" do. Being adult about something is accepting that the world is not black and white, and is in fact a myriad of colours each of which need to be respected.
Sarta 03-16-04, 01:42 AM	I've always viewed the morality of the chosen as being the result of having lived as long as they have. They are all pretty bonkers from this. They can't really be shocked by much anymore, so they are hardly likely to be prudish. They also have seen so many mortals live and die over the years that they have come to cherish moments when they can relax, let their guards down a bit, and just enjoy the moment. They know that long after this or that mortal has become dust and forgotten to most, they will still have the memory of how they enjoyed their company. My 2 cents, Sarta
mrmister 03-17-04, 12:53 AM	Maybe some of you are right--though I am struck by how many couldn't argue the facts, and simply talked about how my belief system is flawed or inadequate. C'est la vie. Once again--I don't have anything against nudity, orgies, etc. I do think that Ed's choices in the setting, when they involve women, default to hordes of sexy, silver-haired, nearly naked nymphs. And it's still cheesy...though I applaud everyone who inventively works their way around or explains as sociology what I see as shortcomings.
Mystery Man 03-17-04, 06:36 AM	As far as I know only the chosen have silver hair. But if you want to carry the silly exageration to the extreme to try to prove your point knock yourself out. Please. :) I thought this was interesting... Quote from Ed: "the silver hair of the Seven Sisters comes from Mystra's presence in the mother (and transferral of silver fire into their genes, in the womb). All of the Chosen who have the magic to do so can change their appearances at will (which can explain away dark eyebrows, Elminster looking like an old guy and not a pile of dust, Khelben likewise, and so on...) :}"
Wooly Rupert 03-17-04, 09:04 AM	Originally posted by mrmister hordes of sexy, silver-haired, nearly naked nymphs. Hordes? 7 women equals hordes? :confused:
mrmister 03-17-04, 10:32 AM	Actually, seven is quite a lot when the novels, metaplots, etc. increasingly revolve around them.
Sariel Rahab 03-17-04, 11:42 AM	Also from Ed (and from the same tread): quote: Karth, you’re welcome, too. :} I wasn’t thinking of Heinlein when I made Alustriel act that way (for one thing, those particular novels hadn’t been written yet), but rather of some of the historical tales of the French and Italian courts where women -- especially widows of dead dukes and kings --used their charms to rule (and the troubadors did their thing, and ‘courtly love’ was the rage). I coupled that with some real-life experiences of meeting women of the 60s generation (Woodstock, coffee houses, folk musicians, the drug scene), who through their beauty, generous sharing of their own bodies, and sunny dispositions and ‘genuinely caring for others’ characters, exercised great influence on the people around them. It was a time before AIDS and widespread sexual diseases, a “free love” time of rebellion against repressive social authority, and to a young gangly nerd like me, watching awestruck with my glasses steaming over, there was something magical at seeing beautiful women strolling nude and carefree through parkland, totally at ease, laughing and chatting casually with the various long-haired, scruffy-jeans-clad guys who were inevitably accompanying them. In the case of the Seven Sisters, I see their need for the companionship of others (and casualness when it comes to nudity and to sex) as being born not out of social rebellion or drugs or an insecure need to ‘belong,’ and be at the center of “what’s happening,” but rather as the result of living for centuries, outliving generations of friends and loved ones, and trying to make up for the ever-growing grief and loneliness of being ‘The One Who Survives, And Is Left Alone Again, and Again, and Again.’ As I’ve said before on many occasions, none of the Chosen are probably anywhere near what we would judge as sane or ‘normal’ (whatever that is :}). That’s part of their fascination for me. Not “I can hurl godly power” but “I’ve been hurling godly power for so long, and yet can’t save the things about the world around me that I want to save, and can’t even die when and how I want to, and I’m so TIRED of it all, and what can I do to derive some enjoyment out of this.” In other words, I want to look inside their heads and see what makes them tick. Increasingly, my books and those of other Realms authors, too, are (behind the fighting and spectacles of roaring monsters and slapstick) concerned with looking inside their characters and seeing what makes them the way they are, and how their adventures change them -- which of course is what all good books do in some manner. (It’s also why I’m always somewhat bemused when I read yet another “Elminster’s a munchkin!” or “Elmonster’s just Greenwood’s pet erotic wish-fulfillment character!” or “Elminster’s a Gandalf ripoff!” post. I moved beyond thinking about the game and characters in that way almost thirty years ago.) End quote. I think he explains it very well, and I think it both paints a more vivid portrait of her, and that it makes sense - I would still like to underline that I would not paint that picture to detailed to my players, but that is just a matter of taste.
mrmister 03-17-04, 11:54 AM	Well that explains it--Heinlein has exactly the same issues, and indulges in the same brand of cheese...it derails some of his best work, too.
Faraer 03-17-04, 12:10 PM	It really is dispiriting, amid this extraordinary creative outlow from Ed, to see people fixating on this non-issue. Facts?RANDY OLD GOATIf you mean Ed, ad hominem attack.Big-BreastedNot so stated.Munchkin No basis at all.cheesyThis is a (rather vague) aesthetic response.feels like the randiness of people who game by themselves and don't get out muchEd is married, doesn't game by himself but with his regular players, etc. etc.Ed's choices in the setting, when they involve women, default to hordes ofSeven characters aren't hordes however much they're focused on -- a focus (in so far as it exists) directly against Ed's preference as to which characters to feature in novels. Literally thousands of Ed's highly various female characters are in print.inventively works their way aroundWho's inventing?issuesThe most gifted literary scholars can't reliably infer 'issues' from people's writing. If they did, and they couldn't prove it, it would still be libel.
mrmister 03-17-04, 12:32 PM	Infer what you wish, but I am not making any ad hominem attacks on Ed--just the parts of his creation that are cheesy and substandard, in my opinion. It would appear you'd like to drag the discussion into the personal, and perhaps get the thread locked? Also, if you can, try quoting more than one word at a time. You see, some of us use words in constructions called "sentences" and "paragraphs" to impart meaning. This may be a new phenomenon to you, but trust me--it's sweeping the world. By "issues" I mean "issues" many have with Heinlein, i.e. the same flaws--but I think you knew that. You just wanted another word to add to your list. Finally, a lot of people like to throw the word "libel" around here, including some moderators. Very little actually qualifies as libel--if you see someone screaming "libel!" it usually means they just don't like your opinion and it's an effective way of silencing opposition. I'm just about done with this--as I stated earlier, before others went crazy, some of you made some good points, and it was refreshing to hear that some other folks have similar issues with the setting. I was also glad to hear from those who agree that parts are cheesy but find constructive ways of improving on that--THAT was useful.
Kuje31 03-17-04, 01:00 PM	Thanks for actually following my disclaimer at the top. Sigh I knew I shouldn't have posted that information because it would get turned into this type of thread again.
mrmister 03-17-04, 02:25 PM	Don't lose any sleep over it. ;)
ElaineCunningham 03-17-04, 03:04 PM	Originally posted by mrmister [B]Finally, a lot of people like to throw the word "libel" around here, including some moderators. Very little actually qualifies as libel--if you see someone screaming "libel!" it usually means they just don't like your opinion and it's an effective way of silencing opposition. I heard that Kuje had exported some of Ed Greenwood's recent posts, and was curious to see if the tone of the WotC forum had changed since I left a couple of months back. Hmmm. As mrmister says, "libel" is a vastly overused word. I have seen very little on this forum or any other that fits the criteria. For any who are interested, here are the basics: 1. Libel is a false statement of fact about a person that is printed, broadcast, or otherwise communicated to others in written or other permanent form. 2. The false statement must be defamatory, meaning that it actually harms the reputation of the other person, as opposed to being merely insulting or offensive. 3. The defamatory statement must have been published to at least one other person, and must clearly identify the subject. (So am email sent to the subject wouldn't qualify: a post on a public forum most likely would.) 4. The defamatory statement(s) must also be a false statement of fact. Since name-calling, hyperbole, or exaggerated and heated words cannot be proven true or false, they cannot be the subject of a libel or slander claim. 5. The defamatory statement must also have been made with fault; that is, the person making the statements knew his statement was false or recklessly disregarded the truth or falsity of his statement. A statement must fit ALL the above criteria to be considered libel. For example: let's say a poster who is also a publishing professional falsely accused another writer of plagerism. Of course there's no guarantee that a court would rule for the plaintiff (the accused writer), but this example covers the basics: it's a statement, it's false, it is defamatory (accusations of plagerism can be exceedingly damaging to a writer's reputation and career), it can be proven true or false, and it was made by someone who, by virtue of his profession, should know the damage such comments can do. So, as you can see, it's not easy to commit libel. You really have to work at it. For more information, here's a useful link: http://www.ldrc.com/LDRC_Info/libelfaqs.html (http://www.ldrc.com/LDRC_Info/libelfaqs.html) By this definition of libel, it is not illegal to be insulting and offensive. It is not illegal to make judgements about what another person thinks, or to present these subjective comments as fact. (i.e, "Ed likes.... Ed thinks....) It is not illegal to bandy about terms such as "randy old goat." It is not illegal to assume that you can know someone's "moral code" from the fiction he writes. It's not consistent, of course, in that few peole assume that the authors of the WotSQ series are evil, manipulative, and devious, or that authors who excel in battle choreography show the same tendency toward gleeful violence as do their characters. For whatever reason, sexual matters are regarded differently -- a statement of the writer's personal morality, an autobiography of his life during the 1960's, the fevered outpouring of gamer-geekish wish fulfillment, or some such. But such conclusions are merely an inconsistency of logic, not libel. Those who appreciate Ed Greenwood's creativity, good humor, and generosity might enjoy interacting with the Forgotten Realms creator on the FR Novels forum at www.candlekeep.com.
ElaineCunningham 03-17-04, 03:18 PM	Originally posted by Faraer The most gifted literary scholars can't reliably infer 'issues' from people's writing. If they did, and they couldn't prove it, it would still be libel. From what I've read about this issue, it seems that the burden of proof falls upon the person who is the subject of the alleged liable. In other words, you don't have to prove that the comments you made are true; the person you attacked has to prove that they are NOT true. That hardly seems fair, but I suppose things could get very dicey if people were held accountable for the accuracy of their every word. This way, there is some recourse for people who are under attack. Not much, but some. If there are any legal scholars present, please clarify.
Dargoth 03-17-04, 06:12 PM	Anyone else getting an error "Cannot find the server" when trying to go to Candlekeep?
Mystery Man 03-17-04, 06:31 PM	Originally posted by mrmister I'm just about done with this--as I stated earlier, before others went crazy, some of you made some good points, and it was refreshing to hear that some other folks have similar issues with the setting. I was also glad to hear from those who agree that parts are cheesy but find constructive ways of improving on that--THAT was useful. Perhaps your opinion or constructive ways of improving on something you think is wrong aren't as contructive as you would think. ;) I completely disagree with your choice of the word "cheese" and feel that once is enough. You're in the minority and restating it every time someone (which at this point is a lot of someones) disagrees with you is tedious.
Aragathor 03-17-04, 09:55 PM	Thank you Sariel Rahab for your last post, with it you had cleared my opinion about Mr. Greenwood. It fills a certain explanatory vacuum created by Kuje31's post that started this thread. As I see now Mr. Greenwood used parts of history and mixed them with his personal experience to create a logical background for the Seven Sisters/Alustriel, though it's a background that I will not accept in my game sessions because of my outlook on certain matters. As for my first post in this thread I would like to apologize those who took it as offensive or dumb. It was based only on partial informations posted by Kuje31 and as such it was flawed from the beggining.
ElGrecoETAC 03-17-04, 10:34 PM	Originally posted by mrmister I'm just about done with this--as I stated earlier, before others went crazy, some of you made some good points, and it was refreshing to hear that some other folks have similar issues with the setting. I was also glad to hear from those who agree that parts are cheesy but find constructive ways of improving on that--THAT was useful. So what you're basically summing up is that you checked this thread out, felt refreshed and glad to see and hear others that shared your established outlook, threw out unsupported conjecture concerning possible mindsets and lifestyles of people that disagreed with you, and now you're leaving? Just checking! :rolleyes:
mrmister 03-18-04, 02:26 AM	No dearie--still here. You kids can keep on posting so you get the warmth and fulfillment of having a last word--it's terribly important to some of you, I can see. Thanks for posting clarifications on libel, Ms. Cunningham, and the invitation to Candlekeep.
Tempus665 03-18-04, 02:51 AM	Originally posted by Dargoth Anyone else getting an error "Cannot find the server" when trying to go to Candlekeep? Yes, that happened yesterday. Everything seems to be okay now.
smashthedean 03-19-04, 05:52 PM	I think someone should pull together everything Ed has ever said on forums and such and put it all together into one big source.
Wooly Rupert 03-19-04, 06:54 PM	Originally posted by smashthedean I think someone should pull together everything Ed has ever said on forums and such and put it all together into one big source. That would indeed be a good thing... But considering everything I've heard about Ed, and what I've seen here and elsewhere, then I'm figuring that a compiled list like that would be very, very large!
Mystery Man 03-19-04, 06:57 PM	You can start here http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Castle/2566/sages.htm