Evidently death punishment isnt used (maybe because resurrection makes it pointless?), but she does torture.
The "sphere of fire", a spell very similar to eternity of torture, wherein a subject expiriences burning forever and ever. A punishment reserved for arsonists (burning precious trees!!), and evidently noone wants to go thru that a second time, from which one can draw the conclusion its a semi frequent punishment.
Oh and you can lose con in it, so you can actually die, unlike eternity of torture.. which btw is a vile spell. Now last i checked, vile is reserved for evil..
Went thru some old books, and heres a bit from the seven sisters.
Evidently death punishment isnt used (maybe because resurrection makes it pointless?), but she does torture.
The "sphere of fire", a spell very similar to eternity of torture, wherein a subject expiriences burning forever and ever. A punishment reserved for arsonists (burning precious trees!!), and evidently noone wants to go thru that a second time, from which one can draw the conclusion its a semi frequent punishment.
Oh and you can lose con in it, so you can actually die, unlike eternity of torture.. which btw is a vile spell. Now last i checked, vile is reserved for evil..
Wondering which book did you find this in...
"Flame of torment", not detailed beyond a general description, page 115.
http://www.google.fi/search?hl=sv&safe=off&q=tsr+9475
And although there is a 20% chance of losing 1 point of con for every day (or partial) day of exposure to the Flame... the chance is noncumulative... Which means, mathethematically, even the most extreme punishment length (7 days) instead of the usual (a single evening) would mean that there is a 1 in 78125 chance of losing 7 con... and as far as I know the lowest you can manage (without extra effects) is 8... in other words to my knowledge you couldn't even die from this even if you were the unluckiest criminal in the Realms.
And since this isn't a death sentence but a very unpleasant punishment for the most ardent of offenders I would imagine that there would be someone monitoring...
What on the Realms do you have against the High Lady, Ikki?
She has stated that in order to serve her people, that occasionally she has to preform acts that she personally finds reprehensible. Such as denying Drizzt entry to Silverymoon. She knew his heart was good, but the ramifications of a Drow wandering the streets could be a threat to the peace of the city.
No kidding. She can be "nice" (though I am not saying she is) but she is also, first and formost, a ruler. That means you have to think of the good of your people first. Which means that sometimes you have to undertake unpleasant acts. No Realm in Faerun is free of this as far as I know.
That said Ikki's take on this seems so skewed I can't get my head around it. An explanation of his/her reasoning would be good. I have just read the couple of paragraphs on this a few times over... and every time I re-read my interpretation gets further from theirs... not closer.
Oh and you can lose con in it, so you can actually die, unlike eternity of torture.. which btw is a vile spell. Now last i checked, vile is reserved for evil..
-Vile Magic, Exalted Magic, and all that stuff didn't exist in 2e.
That said Ikki's take on this seems so skewed I can't get my head around it. An explanation of his/her reasoning would be good. I have just read the couple of paragraphs on this a few times over... and every time I re-read my interpretation gets further from theirs... not closer.
Iluv....we're not talking about a real person, we're talking about a fictional character in a fantasy game setting.
ikki just figured out that there's more depth to the fictional character of Alutriel than he/she had previously realized is all.
Throw in the fact that she was just as insane as all the other Chosen....and there you go, full circle.
No kidding. She can be "nice" (though I am not saying she is) but she is also, first and formost, a ruler. That means you have to think of the good of your people first. Which means that sometimes you have to undertake unpleasant acts. No Realm in Faerun is free of this as far as I know.
That said Ikki's take on this seems so skewed I can't get my head around it. An explanation of his/her reasoning would be good. I have just read the couple of paragraphs on this a few times over... and every time I re-read my interpretation gets further from theirs... not closer.
Heh, and yet "good" is supposed to refrain from such things as torture.
I cannot quite see what "being burned alive forever and ever", is anything but.
-Vile Magic, Exalted Magic, and all that stuff didn't exist in 2e.
True, but as it does now (not counting 4e), one must presume it always has to one level or another. Also, this was a comparison..
Quacks and walks like a duck, is it not one?
Iluv....we're not talking about a real person, we're talking about a fictional character in a fantasy game setting.
This, Mr_Misc, was not helpful. I am patently aware that we are talking about a fictional character in a fictional setting. But people can have something against fictional characters in a fictional setting... the Pillorying of the Chosen, in this regard, seems to be a nice case in point.
ikki just figured out that there's more depth to the fictional character of Alutriel than he/she had previously realized is all.
Throw in the fact that she was just as insane as all the other Chosen....and there you go, full circle.
Oh yes indeed. The increase of Ikki's view from "black and white" to "shades of grey" can be nothing but a good thing. Yet what I was surprised at was his/her interpretation of the material, not the conclusion reached itself. To my understanding it was factually incorrect at the beginning ("Evidently death punishment isn't used") forged a link between the two spells that does not exist in the text ("a spell very similar to eternity of torture") and then used that information to make inferences ("the conclusion its a semi frequent punishment") based on assumptions including (see next section)...
Heh, and yet "good" is supposed to refrain from such things as torture.
I cannot quite see what "being burned alive forever and ever", is anything but.
Emphasis mine. Where does it say this in the text? Because I can't find even a single mention of it. It says they have the feeling of being burned alive yes... but only for the duration of the punishment, which is usually "an evening". Did this quote comes from the spell you linked it to and not this spell?
That said I agree, this is not a "nice" thing to do. It probably isn't even a "good" thing to do. Sadly even the Good Realms in Faerun do terrible things sometimes, see Waterdeep (and the Blackstaff) and Cormyr (with Vangey and his War Wizards) for quite strong examples. Considering this I don't find it at all surprised that the designers (Ed in this case) will have recognised and implemented that darker side of rulership.
Let's face it, if our rulers in the Real World manage it and still maintain their "good" facades then why on earth can't a fictional one do it?
..and still maintain their "good" facades
And that was the point. Some darker sides that havent been talked about much. Especially when she in question is supposed to be the wellspring of happy joy all day long.
There does seem to be some very dark sides.
And that was the point. Some darker sides that havent been talked about much. Especially when she in question is supposed to be the wellspring of happy joy all day long.
There does seem to be some very dark sides.
In comparison to what goes on under other rulers?
There are indeed many dark sides.
I always thought this was nicely illustrated in Modesitt's books (especially the Spellsong Saga), the difference between imposing suffering as a necessary extension of the rule of law as a ruler.... and just doing it because you either enjoy it or view it as expedient as a ruler.
The good rulers in the Realms always struck me as the first kind. They may sometimes do "Bad Things" but never happily and without a damn good reason.
Well, all Chosen (the seven sisters, Elminster, Halaster etc) are in some way insane. Normal morality is hard to apply to them.
Hal isnt chosen, and was cured of the insanity. Now hes sort of like dead tho..
Murdering sentients without provocation is pretty evil in my book.
She was a tyrant, plain and simple.
If she noted a group of Orcs near her citry, she would slay first, and ask questions later.
Really, now this is interesting. Where can I read about her doing this?
If she noted a group of Orcs near her citry, she would slay first, and ask questions later.
Murdering sentients without provocation is pretty evil in my book.
She was a tyrant, plain and simple.
says the good peoples orcish action committe GPOAC.. trying to instill false guilt and extract compensation for all the slain orcs since millennia.
Poor orcs that were persecuted their native culture of human eating and plunder... and denied gruumsh worship in elven temples.. that consisted of ******* on the elven idols..
No orc was ever innocent or good.
True, but as it does now (not counting 4e), one must presume it always has to one level or another. Also, this was a comparison..
-I'm not very familiar with the spell or anything, but things that are 'Vile' and 'Exalted' come with very specific connotations, and are very different from spells that would ordinarily otherwise be 'Evil', or 'Good'
No orc was ever innocent or good.
-Hear, hear!
-I'm not very familiar with the spell or anything, but things that are 'Vile' and 'Exalted' come with very specific connotations, and are very different from spells that would ordinarily otherwise be 'Evil', or 'Good'
Heh, back in the old days when animate dead made you evil :P
Anything concerning negative energy was irredeemably evil aswell.. lol
Heh, back in the old days when animate dead made you evil :P
Anything concerning negative energy was irredeemably evil aswell.. lol
-Well, not exactly. 2e is the days of 'White Necromancy', such as the necromancy practiced by followers of Sehanine Moonbow. Baelnorn, Ghosts, Mummies (only of which Mummies use Negative Energy, but...)...
Heh, and yet "good" is supposed to refrain from such things as torture.
I cannot quite see what "being burned alive forever and ever", is anything but.
1) This is not torture this is punishment for a crime. That in it self is a very large difference.
2) It doesn't say that she just gleefully does it to innocent people etc., etc, she does it to people who have committed a crime, a crime I might add is very destructive. What would you say is a 'good' punishment?
3) You are looking at it though the glasses of mordern day veiws of 'cruel and unusual' punishment. Which is very poorly defined and very subjective even in the mordern day.
Heh, back in the old days when animate dead made you evil :P
Anything concerning negative energy was irredeemably evil aswell.. lol
That is not true...only the use of animating dead was evil. Other uses of negative energy wasn't.
1) This is not torture this is punishment for a crime. That in it self is a very large difference.
2) It doesn't say that she just gleefully does it to innocent people etc., etc, she does it to people who have committed a crime, a crime I might add is very destructive. What would you say is a 'good' punishment?
3) You are looking at it though the glasses of mordern day veiws of 'cruel and unusual' punishment. Which is very poorly defined and very subjective even in the mordern day.
hehe, im about as anti modern world as you can imagine :P
...well.. who still has internet, that is.
That ccc signature isnt just show, and no tv..
I have been told i have no place in this millennia and not really one inb the previous.. unless one counts the very beginning.
Anyway, i was using the systems own rules for what is good and evil.
As for my own opinion, id probly burn those firestarters alive, not just simulation.
hehe, im about as anti modern world as you can imagine :P
...well.. who still has internet, that is.
That ccc signature isnt just show, and no tv..
I have been told i have no place in this millennia and not really one inb the previous.. unless one counts the very beginning.
Anyway, i was using the systems own rules for what is good and evil.
As for my own opinion, id probly burn those firestarters alive, not just simulation.
Then you know what I mean byu the difference between tortue and punishment...Sure you can she isn't nice but then again nice has nothing to do with being good...
The alignment system does not take into account the burden of rulership or anything like that. It is very black and white. An action is either good or evil. Torture in all instances, even under the illusionary guise of "punishment" is still evil.
That is how it is in cannon, at least pre-4th Edition.
However, let's face it. NPC's are almost always given a free pass on such things, unfortunately, when compared to PC's. Unless the NPC's happened to be a Paladin.
It's just another argument for why 4th Edition alignment was a step in the right direction. The only unfortunate thing that can be said is that they did not throw the alignment system out entirely.
She's a baby-eater!!!
However, let's face it. NPC's are almost always given a free pass on such things, unfortunately, when compared to PC's. Unless the NPC's happened to be a Paladin.
Well wouldn't they have to be? I mean if you apply the logic that any punishment they meted out or either ordered or even were aware of and did nothing would be alignment altering... So if the NPCs didn't have a "get out of jail free card" then wouldn't the chances of anyone in the Realms who had responsibility over others from the level of squad captain up to monarch be Neutral or worse?
It's just another argument for why 4th Edition alignment was a step in the right direction. The only unfortunate thing that can be said is that they did not throw the alignment system out entirely.
But doesn't the fact that NPCs are no longer bound by the rules that bind PCs mean that they automatically get out of this even without the changes to the alignment system?
Well wouldn't they have to be? I mean if you apply the logic that any punishment they meted out or either ordered or even were aware of and did nothing would be alignment altering... So if the NPCs didn't have a "get out of jail free card" then wouldn't the chances of anyone in the Realms who had responsibility over others from the level of squad captain up to monarch be Neutral or worse?
Well let me be clear. NPC's do not have a "get out of jail free card" when it comes to alignment. Alignment effects both PC and NPC alike equally, so if Alustriel were either to go out or order others to go out to ****, pillage and slaughter indiscriminately - then she'd fall to evil.
What I was saying was this: In most cases NPC's are poorly thought out and written, alignments applied without reason or justification, and then said NPC's are often given contradictory deeds attributed to them or backgrounds.
It is perfectly possible to be a good aligned ruler; it is just more difficult and creates more headaches than if you were a neutral or evil aligned ruler. Being "fair, just and merciful" tends to have that side effect.
Your alignment is never beholden to those under you, unless you give them direct orders to do something evil. Thus, if this type of torture (and that is what it is) happens under Alustriel's orders or with her knowledge (and she does nothing to stop it) then yes that deserves an alignment shift. I would argue the shift should be to neutral rather than evil, since it is torture for punishment rather than enjoyment.
Although canonically, based on the black and white D&D alignments of previous editions, she -could- eventually slide toward evil. However, it is very clear that torture is evil, no matter the circumstance, no matter the reason or cause, and thus someone who orders torture or has the ability to stop it but does not would eventually lose their good alignment. That is simply how it works.
But doesn't the fact that NPCs are no longer bound by the rules that bind PCs mean that they automatically get out of this even without the changes to the alignment system?
No, NPCs are still bound by the rules that bind PCs. It is just that whoever wrote this did not take alignment into account. I really cannot imagine a good aligned NPC or PC supporting any kind of torture and keeping their good alignment. It is impossible as it is explicitly stated that torture is -always- evil.
All that being said, I do not have a problem with this, and even like the punishment. I would simply just shift her alignment to neutral or in the case of 4th Edition, Unaligned. Of course, she is dead in 4E so it is pretty moot.
johnkretzer-
3) You are looking at it though the glasses of mordern day veiws of 'cruel and unusual' punishment. Which is very poorly defined and very subjective even in the mordern day.
The entire alignment system is based upon modern day views, and more specifically, modern day western views. If you want to go for a more medieval feel to the alignment system, then I can assure you the Realms would be a very different place. In many cases, the Realms are more humane and liberal than the modern world.
ikki just figured out that there's more depth to the fictional character of Alutriel than he/she had previously realized is all.
And Iluvrien just asked ikki to explain his/her reasoning about the topic in a more complete fashion.
If she noted a group of Orcs near her citry, she would slay first, and ask questions later.
Source?
Well let me be clear. NPC's do not have a "get out of jail free card" when it comes to alignment. Alignment effects both PC and NPC alike equally, so if Alustriel were either to go out or order others to go out to ****, pillage and slaughter indiscriminately - then she'd fall to evil.
I would agree with you here, if she did that then I would expect an alignment shift. I was, however, in my last post speaking about NPCs in general, hence there being no mention of Alustriel specifically.
What I was saying was this: In most cases NPC's are poorly thought out and written, alignments applied without reason or justification, and then said NPC's are often given contradictory deeds attributed to them or backgrounds.
It is perfectly possible to be a good aligned ruler; it is just more difficult and creates more headaches than if you were a neutral or evil aligned ruler. Being "fair, just and merciful" tends to have that side effect.
Your alignment is never beholden to those under you, unless you give them direct orders to do something evil. Thus, if this type of torture (and that is what it is) happens under Alustriel's orders or with her knowledge (and she does nothing to stop it) then yes that deserves an alignment shift. I would argue the shift should be to neutral rather than evil, since it is torture for punishment rather than enjoyment.
Your first statement is likely perfectly accurate. In many cases these things will not have had the time devoted to them to outline them properly. To be honest I am not all that fond of the alignment system to begin with (which is why none of my posts before yours referred to it... nor, in fact, does the title of the thread). I have been dealing with this situation on a Character basis, not on an alignment one. I was suggesting that it was still possible for her to be a (generalised adjective) "good" ruler without having to be an (alignment) "Good" one. There are countries in our own world that maintain a death penalty and have been shown to endorse torture in extreme situations... I wouldn't be so quite to decry the character of their rulers.
It may be perfectly possible to be "a good aligned" ruler... I just can't think of an example in the Realms. Could you shed some light?
Your last point is pretty much a restatement of my own so I won't address it seeing as we seem to agree.
Although canonically, based on the black and white D&D alignments of previous editions, she -could- eventually slide toward evil. However, it is very clear that torture is evil, no matter the circumstance, no matter the reason or cause, and thus someone who orders torture or has the ability to stop it but does not would eventually lose their good alignment. That is simply how it works.
Yet another reason why I don't like the alignment system and think that actually it should have nothing to do with characterisation... and I even dislike it's effect on the mechanics (X vs. Good, or X vs. Evil effects).
No, NPCs are still bound by the rules that bind PCs. It is just that whoever wrote this did not take alignment into account. I really cannot imagine a good aligned NPC or PC supporting any kind of torture and keeping their good alignment. It is impossible as it is explicitly stated that torture is -always- evil.
But speaking mechanically, as you seem to be, the fact that NPCs are no longer built using PC tools (as in 3E) might suggest a disconnection in all sub-systems rather than just cherry picking. Not least because NPCs are subject to different forces than the PCs. Especially under 4th Edition as they are the ones who aren't the destiny touched Chosen Ones at the centre of every story. Higher standards should be expected of the PCs if they are to be marked as special from the beginning, shouldn't they?
And by the way. I agree with them about defining torture as evil.
All that being said, I do not have a problem with this, and even like the punishment. I would simply just shift her alignment to neutral or in the case of 4th Edition, Unaligned. Of course, she is dead in 4E so it is pretty moot.
I would just drop alignment altogether and actually give her a character Bio that makes it obvious what her character is... or, seeing as she is dead, anyone elses too! One thing I like about the new FRCG is that it doesn't have things like alignment in the NPC descriptions. I am also of the opinion that those descriptions are about as useful for canonical characterisation as an egg-whisk is for surfing... but that is by the by.
And Iluvrien just asked ikki to explain his/her reasoning about the topic in a more complete fashion.
My thanks, your Ladyship. This is exactly what I was asking.
In msatran's FR campaign, I had--have, actually, but we haven't played this group in years, once the characters reached 21st level in their last adventure--a character who is the lord of a small town in Turnstone Pass south of Sundabar; he answers directly to Alustriel.
He's also lawful neutral, a worshipper of Sune and Clangeddin and a minotaur. (He got the land as a result of a DoMT draw, and later earned the title).
One day, the character and a few other folks, when very high level, wandered over to Baraskur, the cavern complex mentioned in the Silver Marches guide that held a group of orcs, who were given to raiding the area.
Insofar as they existed within the territory that was his to guard and control, they proceeded to slaughter every last one of them. He was also planning on killing the women and children, by and large because part of the complex was definately given over to being what was in essence a breeding operation (I won't get into the details) for more orcs.
He was stopped in what he was going to do by another good-aligned character. While he had the right to do so (of high justice in his lands), the other PC in essence appealed his judgement and the case was taken to Alustriel.
The argument made by the PC on behalf of the orcish women and children was that they were innocents who shouldn't be harmed. Despite the fact that they followed an evil god, they were--especially the children--innocent of bearing arms against the realm and thus people who should not be punished.
The argument made by the Lord was that the orcs were intentionally attempting to increase their numbers of warriors, that no place in the Marches would accept them in even if they were to be considered "innocent", and that imprisoning them would be an even crueller fate (not to mention more costly). He also made the point that the children and women would wind up hating the people of the Marches due to the killing of the warriors who were their families.
I know how msatran had Alustriel decide, and what I would have her decide, but before I mention that, I'm curious: what do YOU guys think she would decide?
My thanks, your Ladyship. This is exactly what I was asking.
You're welcome.
He's also lawful neutral, a worshipper of Sune and Clangeddin and a minotaur.
He worships a minotaur?:P
I know how msatran had Alustriel decide, and what I would have her decide, but before I mention that, I'm curious: what do YOU guys think she would decide?
I would think she would have spared them, since they didn't actually commit any crimes. But I'm interested in how that panned out.
...and *IS* a minotaur.
I figured that, but I wanted to yank your chain.:P
As many have said, since when is being good have anything to do with being nice? Tyr was the biggest jerk in the pantheon and yet he was also the most LG, explain that one to me.
I haven't read the entry (as I don't have it), but I'm sure this wasn't a common offense like "spit on the sidewalk and you are set on fire". When extreme crimes are taken (quite possible with evil magic) then extreme punishments are in order. In order for there to be justice, there must be balance. If something extrordinary happens, then an extrordinary punishment is due.
Those that were punished deserved what they got, too bad so sad. If you can't take the heat, get outta the kitchen (sorry for the bad joke, I couldn't help it).
Making someone feel uncomfortable for a night isn't torture or cruel. No long lasting effects, no scars, no permanent hit point loss and almost no chance at con loss. It sounds uncomfortable, but not torture.
And Orconian says he read somethng about Alustriel blowing up orcs (a noble and just cause) and then eating orc children, when the hell did that happen? Now you see THAT one act would make her evil!
And Orconian says he read somethng about Alustriel blowing up orcs (a noble and just cause) and then eating orc children, when the hell did that happen?
-Alternative medicine...
So it must be true. :P
And who was Alustriel's lover? That guy who always wants to get beat up?
Alustriel eating orcs? Where did you read that from? Maybe it's a delicacy in Silverymoon....
Alustriel: Welcome to my humble abode...sit and well discuss things for now...eat
Simbul: Hey this is good, what's this?
Alustriel: Mashed orc brain.
Simbul: *chokes on her nostrils*
I'm just assuming she ate them.
Sorry, according to D&D Alignment (pre-4th Edition at least) torture is evil, and thus causing someone horrific pain, even if only for just a little while, is still torture. After you've done something like this two or three times you really should lose your good alignment and fall to neutral at the very least.
The alignment system does not take into account the burden of rulership or anything like that. It is very black and white. An action is either good or evil. Torture in all instances, even under the illusionary guise of "punishment" is still evil.
That is how it is in cannon, at least pre-4th Edition.
However, let's face it. NPC's are almost always given a free pass on such things, unfortunately, when compared to PC's. Unless the NPC's happened to be a Paladin.
It's just another argument for why 4th Edition alignment was a step in the right direction. The only unfortunate thing that can be said is that they did not throw the alignment system out entirely.
You really don't have to aplogize for misinterperting the alignment in D&D as a system for of hard rules it. It is ok really. Alot people seem to fail to understand what the alignment guideline is suppose to be for.
Torture vs punishment....sorry if the crime is commited it is not torture. That is my interpertation. Just wondering though what kind of punishment for a crime do you think a good character can adminstered(or write into law if they are a ruler).
I know how msatran had Alustriel decide, and what I would have her decide, but before I mention that, I'm curious: what do YOU guys think she would decide?
My question is what is she doing allowing a minotaur into the Silver Marches in the first place??!!?? :P j/k
She would hand them over to the church of Eldath...
I mean, people just don't go around saying "I'm lawful neutral! I'm chaotic good!" or what-have-you. Modern-day folks might use labels like "Republican" or "Democrat" or "Christian" or "Muslim", but there's no guideline for those that puts everyone in those groups on the same moral plane.
Not only that, the traditional definitions of "good" and "evil" have changed over the course of human history as well. Consider the meaning of "lawful" after all...it's sort of dependent on what the laws are in the place you're at, isn't it?
Alustriel's alignment is Chaotic Good. In my opinion, this means that she values good over evil *and* that she's less bound by traditional versions of due process of law and the like. Would she torture someone? I think that depends on the nature of the torture...I don't think she would condone it in any but the most absolute-good situations, and even then it would have to be something reversible and non-permanent. I think she'd sooner rely on charm and enchantment and domination magicks before she relied on torture.
though I haven't seen it *yet* in 4E I'm sure it will be coming eventually
Eliminating that was a stated design goal, so I doubt we'll see alignment detection, again.
-Just because such things no longer exist in D&D doesn't mean they don't exist in the Forgotten Realms any more. Remember, in the 2e to 3e transition, Potions of Longetivity were taken out of the game. Ed Greenwood, and other authors, have stressed that, in the Forgotten Realms, they still remained. Being as that Alignment Detection spells and items and such play an important role in some royal courts and such, they still exist in the Forgotten Realms, as well, like those potions.
Wouldn't that be confusing playing a FR RPG?
-Think of it like this: The restaurant took something off the menu. In an official capacity, whatever that was is no longer offered. That doesn't mean, however, that if you ask for whatever it was, the waiter/waitress won't be able to get it for you. Not everything is on the menu.
-No.
-Think of it like this: The restaurant took something off the menu. In an official capacity, whatever that was is no longer offered. That doesn't mean, however, that if you ask for whatever it was, the waiter/waitress won't be able to get it for you. Not everything is on the menu.
But according to you, that item should only exist in another restraunt, and not the one they took it off the menu. "Does not exist in DnD, but does exist in the realms". So it's not like saying you can just toss it in any other DnD that is not specified with the realms.
-If the Lord of the Rings RPG did not ever give the rules for the One Ring, does the One Ring not exist in the Lord of the Rings RPG world?
-Forgotten Realms =/= D&D. It uses the D&D rules, but it's it's own setting. Just like all of the other D&D settings use the D&D rules, but are their own settings.
-If the Lord of the Rings RPG did not ever give the rules for the One Ring, does the One Ring not exist in the Lord of the Rings RPG world?
Ah but the 1 ring had prior rules, and then was taken out. As in, a rule might have been taken out, but it use to be there. Your analogy consist of saying that the rule never existed in DnD and FR installed it.
Also I'd like to comment that after arguing with all these redsox fans today. Just remember 26>2
Too bad LK is a mets fan.
-Forgotten Realms =/= D&D. It uses the D&D rules, but it's it's own setting.
Much of the core of the Realms prior to its release the Gray Box was modified and built to conform to the D&D rules as they existed back then.
Potions of Longevity existed back then, so that's why the authors want to keep them around (even if we don't see them in the D&D rulebooks anymore) because that keeps the older lore in place.
Ah but the 1 ring had prior rules, and then was taken out. As in, a rule might have been taken out, but it use to be there. Your analogy consist of saying that the rule never existed in DnD and FR installed it.
-Fair enough. The rules for using the One Ring existed, and then they were taken out. Does that remove the physical item, The One Ring, from the world of the Lord of the Rings RPG game?
Much of the core of the Realms prior to its release the Gray Box was modified and built to conform to the D&D rules as they existed back then.
-Which doesn't change the fact that the setting continues to act independently of the rules in numerous cases, the one relevant in this discussion, to keep established lore intact.
Potions of Longevity existed back then, so that's why the authors want to keep them around (even if we don't see them in the D&D rulebooks anymore) because that keeps the older lore in place.
-Correct. Thus, as I said, concerning alignment detection spells and items, they exist in the setting, and it is likely that regardless of the fact that the D&D rules don't support alignment detection magics and items, such magics and items will still continue to be used in the Forgotten Realms.
The rules for using the One Ring existed, and then they were taken out. Does that remove the physical item, The One Ring, from the world of the Lord of the Rings RPG game?
I was under the impression that, when you said "taking something out", it meant in another DnD world, it no longer existed, but the FR DnD had kept it maintained in their playfield.
I was under the impression that, when you said "taking something out", it meant in another DnD world, it no longer existed, but the FR DnD had kept it maintained in their playfield.
-The stats for the item, in 3e D&D were never published. That said, however, because the items were a part of the setting- powerful individuals, such as Wizards, and rich nobles were known for keeping large stockpiles of such items- they continue to exist in the setting, in the background, sans D&D stats to reflect what they do.
I'm curious; maybe I can get some ideas as to how to integrate same into my game.