Words and definitions in the FR books [Archive] - Wizards Community

Words and definitions in the FR books [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
WizO_BigSister
09-04-04, 06:46 PM Have you ever noticed that when people debate or answer questions on these boards they often give a definition of a word that appears in one of the FR source books? This sometimes causes problems ... especially when people disagree about the definition of the word. One very common cause of disagreement (or even *shock horror* flames) is that people can use different source books to find these definitions.

What do you think are the correct places to look for the FR setting definitions of various words, and what are the incorrect places? Why do you think this?

Right ... here's one of my opinions. I think it is wrong to use a dictionary to define a game term. The rulebooks use many words in a very specific manner, and they have meanings that are different to the meanings of the words in general English usage. For example the word Chaotic when used in 3rd ed D&D has a very different meaning than the one found in the Concise Oxfpord Dictionary. If we meet a monk in Waterdeep we certainly do not expect them to be a "Member of a community of men living apart under vows of poverty, chastity and obedience" Concise Oxford Dictionary definition

These words are pretty clear (although I have seen people quote dictionary definitions of "lawful" to back up their ideas on what a lawful character can and can't do). Other words are not as clear. An example that springs to mind is "faithless". When the FRCS talks of what happens to the "faithless" where do you go to find what this word means. It obviously isn't the same as the word in common English usage ... it doesn't mean adulterers, and it doesn't mean those who don't go to church on Sunday.

I am not asking for the actual definition of the words I have used as examples, so please don't post them. I am asking you to consider where you go to get such definitions, and to think about the concept of specific meaning vs common usage.
Kuje31
09-04-04, 07:01 PM If they are FR specific, then you use the current FR books for 3e and 3.5. This is also WOTC's stance as well as seen in one of thier FAQs and as well as the Player's Guide since it overwrote some of the 3e FRCS material and the 3e FRCS overwrote some of the 2e material. Or Serpent Kingdoms did the same with Faiths & Pantheons, in that it added back in some deities that F&P said didn't exist. Or in that the Player's Guide changed Orcus yet again to just a demon prince when he was a lesser power in F&P.

If you can't find the newest info in the 3e or 3.5e FR sourcebooks, then you fall back on the 2e and 1e FR material which also includes Planescape, Ravenloft (if it is Ravenloft specific, like what happened to Jander Sunstar), Greyhawk for Greyhawk specific material that had made it's way into FR. Like Khelben the Younger being in Greyhawk or Khelben the Older meeting one of the Greyhawk NPC's and making a spell to fight off that NPC's spells. Or Dragonlance material that also entered FR, etc.

Then you fall back on "Greyhawk" material for 3E and 3.5E. Which is any thing that WOTC releases for the default setting. This includes Complete Divine, Races of Stone, etc. Races of Stone is not FR specific because in Greyhawk female dwarves don't grow beards, while in FR they can but some of them shave.

Taking words from RL is fine as well if they match what is used in D&D terms, because otherwise none of us would be able to communicate on messages boards or in any written form. :)

The above text is all my opinion except for the first paragraph, which is WOTC's as well.
Zanan
09-05-04, 10:05 AM Vendui!

Essentially, I am going along with Kuje's statements. Since I am not as strict with the canon rule used by some on the boards, I tend go by the following ... if I am looking for the most up-to-date and appropriate meaning of a word that is:

Obviously, it is FR sourcebooks books first and foremost.

+ 3E/RE FR sourcebooks update and correct older material about the "same topic" and do not negate non-mentioned stuff by default

- 3E/RE Core supplements update FR material were there is no reference to the new rules in anything FR as yet, which does not mean that those rulebooks override existing FR material in general:
(e.g., the Black Flame Zealot and Stormlord in Complete Divine update the namesake - PrC in Unapproachable East and Faiths & Pantheons respectivly, but the description of deities such as Lolth or the cosmology remains Core material.)

- AD&D FR material with no updates
- AD&D material with links to the FR, such as Planescape
- AD&D material with no ties to the Realms
.
.
.
- dictionaries, usually starting off with something having "mythology" in the heading before coming to the OEDs of this world

If I am looking for a simple explanation or meaning of a word, I take out any FR book which springs to mind, e.g. "crusader" - Faiths & Avatars, yochlol - The Drow of the Underdark and Monsters of Faerūn ... and so on. In many respects, editions do not exactly matter.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
WizO_BigSister 09-04-04, 06:46 PM	Have you ever noticed that when people debate or answer questions on these boards they often give a definition of a word that appears in one of the FR source books? This sometimes causes problems ... especially when people disagree about the definition of the word. One very common cause of disagreement (or even shock horror flames) is that people can use different source books to find these definitions. What do you think are the correct places to look for the FR setting definitions of various words, and what are the incorrect places? Why do you think this? Right ... here's one of my opinions. I think it is wrong to use a dictionary to define a game term. The rulebooks use many words in a very specific manner, and they have meanings that are different to the meanings of the words in general English usage. For example the word Chaotic when used in 3rd ed D&D has a very different meaning than the one found in the Concise Oxfpord Dictionary. If we meet a monk in Waterdeep we certainly do not expect them to be a "Member of a community of men living apart under vows of poverty, chastity and obedience" Concise Oxford Dictionary definition These words are pretty clear (although I have seen people quote dictionary definitions of "lawful" to back up their ideas on what a lawful character can and can't do). Other words are not as clear. An example that springs to mind is "faithless". When the FRCS talks of what happens to the "faithless" where do you go to find what this word means. It obviously isn't the same as the word in common English usage ... it doesn't mean adulterers, and it doesn't mean those who don't go to church on Sunday. I am not asking for the actual definition of the words I have used as examples, so please don't post them. I am asking you to consider where you go to get such definitions, and to think about the concept of specific meaning vs common usage.
Kuje31 09-04-04, 07:01 PM	If they are FR specific, then you use the current FR books for 3e and 3.5. This is also WOTC's stance as well as seen in one of thier FAQs and as well as the Player's Guide since it overwrote some of the 3e FRCS material and the 3e FRCS overwrote some of the 2e material. Or Serpent Kingdoms did the same with Faiths & Pantheons, in that it added back in some deities that F&P said didn't exist. Or in that the Player's Guide changed Orcus yet again to just a demon prince when he was a lesser power in F&P. If you can't find the newest info in the 3e or 3.5e FR sourcebooks, then you fall back on the 2e and 1e FR material which also includes Planescape, Ravenloft (if it is Ravenloft specific, like what happened to Jander Sunstar), Greyhawk for Greyhawk specific material that had made it's way into FR. Like Khelben the Younger being in Greyhawk or Khelben the Older meeting one of the Greyhawk NPC's and making a spell to fight off that NPC's spells. Or Dragonlance material that also entered FR, etc. Then you fall back on "Greyhawk" material for 3E and 3.5E. Which is any thing that WOTC releases for the default setting. This includes Complete Divine, Races of Stone, etc. Races of Stone is not FR specific because in Greyhawk female dwarves don't grow beards, while in FR they can but some of them shave. Taking words from RL is fine as well if they match what is used in D&D terms, because otherwise none of us would be able to communicate on messages boards or in any written form. :) The above text is all my opinion except for the first paragraph, which is WOTC's as well.
Zanan 09-05-04, 10:05 AM	Vendui! Essentially, I am going along with Kuje's statements. Since I am not as strict with the canon rule used by some on the boards, I tend go by the following ... if I am looking for the most up-to-date and appropriate meaning of a word that is: Obviously, it is FR sourcebooks books first and foremost. + 3E/RE FR sourcebooks update and correct older material about the "same topic" and do not negate non-mentioned stuff by default - 3E/RE Core supplements update FR material were there is no reference to the new rules in anything FR as yet, which does not mean that those rulebooks override existing FR material in general: (e.g., the Black Flame Zealot and Stormlord in Complete Divine update the namesake - PrC in Unapproachable East and Faiths & Pantheons respectivly, but the description of deities such as Lolth or the cosmology remains Core material.) - AD&D FR material with no updates - AD&D material with links to the FR, such as Planescape - AD&D material with no ties to the Realms . . . - dictionaries, usually starting off with something having "mythology" in the heading before coming to the OEDs of this world If I am looking for a simple explanation or meaning of a word, I take out any FR book which springs to mind, e.g. "crusader" - Faiths & Avatars, yochlol - The Drow of the Underdark and Monsters of Faerūn ... and so on. In many respects, editions do not exactly matter.