They're still around, sure, but they're not as interesting as before, which is a shame.
Edit: Greenknight got here before me,
so please ignore
What article is that information in?
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080807a
That's the link of the article, and contains other info.
They are gone. Now they are a small band based only in Lurar that focuses exclusively to stop Netheril. Thats not the Harpers. Not at all. The Harpers are dead
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080807a
That's the link of the article, and contains other info.
Thank you.
The Harpers are still around. I'm just wondering what's the point of having them disband if they're just going to go and reform, again? And was it really necessary to make them a pale shadow of what they used to be, with just one and only one goal in mind? Why don't they interfere in the plots of the Zhentarim and Red Wizards, anymore? Why not try to put a stop to the Cult of the Dragon? Why must their attention solely be focused on Netheril to the exclusion of anything and everything else?
They're still around, sure, but they're not as interesting as before, which is a shame.
That pretty much sums up my own feelings. And the new Harpers are just one more development that makes it seem like the Shades are the main bad guys of the world. I don't think there should be a "main bad guy" of the setting.
It's like the Moonstars, who were not Harpers. They were Khelben's kickass party of henchmen.
The Realms need a a Justice League to drop the ball for the PCs to pick up! Or to keep less decent minded individuals in check.
Of course, the irony would be they forget to destroy the Heralds and thus they're still around being Harpers-Lite.
This is NOT FR - sorry.
Everything that set it apart has been eliminated.
All thats left of the old FR is an angsty Dark Elf, a crazy old hermit, and the name... which isn't even getting a logo.
This is NOT FR - sorry.
Everything that set it apart has been eliminated.
I'm a big 4E defender, but I do have to wonder what IS left.
It's likely a lot of my 4E games will be in Cormyr now.
The Harper's may not be dead either.
Despite an excerpt from the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide saying they were disbanded? Right....
Anyway, it's obvious why they needed to destroy the Harpers. The lesser men who are currently making the new Realms couldn't let their mediocre work stand up against the history of the Realms, or else it'd be obvious for all to see how rubbish it really is. So they expunged anything from that good part of the Realms.
I'm a big 4E defender, but I do have to wonder what IS left.
we have converted another from the dark side
Despite an excerpt from the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide saying they were disbanded? Right....
Anyway, it's obvious why they needed to destroy the Harpers. The lesser men who are currently making the new Realms couldn't let their mediocre work stand up against the history of the Realms, or else it'd be obvious for all to see how rubbish it really is. So they expunged anything from that good part of the Realms.
And a secretive group would want you to believe they had disbanded, so you stop worrying about them, and they can get their work done.
Despite an excerpt from the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide saying they were disbanded? Right...
You think that means something? I'm not sure it does given all the other contradictory official bits.
But yes, I confess, I'm glad the Moonstars are gone. Seriously, was anyone else laughing at Cloak and Dagger when they were made as the next big thing? I mean, the book seemed utterly unselfconscious that they were being touted as awesome when their only difference was "all shades of autonomy are gone and you can only join if you agree to do everything Khelben says."
And a secretive group would want you to believe they had disbanded, so you stop worrying about them, and they can get their work done.
Given that this is information from THE Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, it should be accurate, as DM's actually have to read it and use the information within in their own games.
It's not as if the line is ambiguous either.
But yes, I confess, I'm glad the Moonstars are gone. Seriously, was anyone else laughing at Cloak and Dagger when they were made as the next big thing? I mean, the book seemed utterly unselfconscious that they were being touted as awesome when their only difference was "all shades of autonomy are gone and you can only join if you agree to do everything Khelben says."
I liked the Moonstars. Didn't like the 'awesome' factor, but I did like how they operated in shades of grey.
As to why they disbanded, a large portion of the Harpers were spellcasters, who knows how many were lost to the Spellplague. Add to that and the loss of Mystra and the reorganizing of the other gods that supported them and there might be a reason for it.
Bel
Moonstars, never noticed the awesome factor, I liked them, the prophecy and all, they had great development potential
and they are gone too if I'm not mistaken
It's like the Moonstars, who were not Harpers. They were Khelben's kickass party of henchmen.
And even they weren't focused solely on the Shades.
And even they weren't focused solely on the Shades.
No, they were focused on defending the pact between the northern cities.
No, they were focused on defending the pact between the northern cities.
The Moonstars had more than one goal, and many of them were clandestine and known only to Khelben.
So what happens when some 'Netherese agents' infitrate this current batch of 'Harpers'? -What if this batch of 'Harpers' were secretly formed by the 'Shades' as a means of strengthing themselves. A way to 'cull the weak'.
18DELTA ;)
-Its simple 'They did'. Then brought them back as a 'shadow' of their former selves. Now this 'Group' is all fixated on 'Netheril and the Shades'.
-What if this batch of 'Harpers' were secretly formed by the 'Shades' as a means of strengthing themselves. A way to 'cull the weak'.
18DELTA ;)
That's the idea, use the lore they give us, don't simply attack out of frustration. Make it your own. If you don't like the loss of the Harpers, well now your Higher level characters are free to build there own organization, without stepping on the old Harper's toes. Just as good as building a kingdom, and better in some ways, since you are still able to move around more or less freely in the Realms.
You take a large and distributed group with many areas, policies, leaders and plots.
You plan to destroy most of the leaders either through the time-jump or the spellplague.
You want to leave what is left in a state that fits with PoL and is malleable to whatever people want to make it.
You don't want to leave it as it is because that will mean there is a lot of referencing back to old lore which is on the other side of the dividing line that you have put in.
Answer?
This.
A group that is mostly hidden (untold and so DM-malleable)
A group with a single raison d'etre (simplified)
A group that has disbanded (killing old links to lore) and has reformed (setting a new year zero)
That's the idea, use the lore they give us, don't simply attack out of frustration. Make it your own. If you don't like the loss of the Harpers, well now your Higher level characters are free to build there own organization, without stepping on the old Harper's toes. Just as good as building a kingdom, and better in some ways, since you are still able to move around more or less freely in the Realms.
-I know this is getting old fast. Really Fast.
-Heck we could use 'Shar' (I know I am sick of her too! :embarrass ) as the 'secret re-founder' of this batch of 'Harpers'. Have the PC's stumble over this Revelation. ;)
18DELTA
The logic of this seems straightforward. It is a simplification and DM-hole making excercise.
You take a large and distributed group with many areas, policies, leaders and plots.
You plan to destroy most of the leaders either through the time-jump or the spellplague.
You want to leave what is left in a state that fits with PoL and is malleable to whatever people want to make it.
You don't want to leave it as it is because that will mean there is a lot of referencing back to old lore which is on the other side of the dividing line that you have put in.
Answer?
This.
A group that is mostly hidden (untold and so DM-malleable)
A group with a single raison d'etre (simplified)
A group that has disbanded (killing old links to lore) and has reformed (setting a new year zero)
-I totally agree with this. This their way of divorcing the setting from previous lore. I dont like it but thats the way it is. :embarrass
18DELTA ;)
I loved the books. I love the setting. What 4e is doing to everything that it touches bothers me, not because it is causing playability problems, but because it is almost simplifying it TOO much. After all, we play a campaign setting because we are enamored with it's history. Wiping that history out to the point of 'well, all of that information is pretty much moot now' is a lame way to go about it.
But truth be told, it almost seems like it's come down to all of us looking at things to attack. And then attacking them from a very limited context. Getting yourself worked up seems almost fruitless at this point.
Just my two cents.
I wonder how the FR designing team thought we were going to recieve that.
Its simple - the enboldened word was missing...
You think that means something? I'm not sure it does given all the other contradictory official bits.
Is this not the SADDEST thing of all? The new FR isn't even consistent with ITSELF?
yea, they merged them back
To what end?
They merged them back, because killing them off seperately was too much work?
Or maybe it would have added to the all-important 'page count'.
It doesn't appear that any thought what-so-ever went into ANY of this, aside from "I need to get rid of this, so my stuff shines through".
Was the current team really that jealous of Ed? The guy posts better material DAILY at CK then these guys came up with in THREE YEARS!!!
That's the idea, use the lore they give us, don't simply attack out of frustration.
Well, a person can choose not to do either of those things. Are you implying that a criticism of these excerpts is never anything but an "attack out of frustration"?
Not to speak ill of previous design directions, but I've long believed that some of the developments at the end of 2nd Edition really knocked the Harpers off-track. The whole "Harper Schism" angle, the focus on internal factions, and the way Harpers were handled in some of the fiction, combined to make this great organization seem very soap-opera-like and excessively angst-y. Most of our internal discussions about Harpers moving into 4e ran toward "oh, just let them die already." But I think it would have been a sadder and more diminished setting without the Harpers at all. So what you're seeing with the Harpers is an effort to rehabilitate the organization, to shake it free of its angst and self-doubt, to restore its secretiveness and exclusivity. In other words, we want joining the Harpers to be something that comes with a real sense of achievement for the player.
Setting the Harpers up to be "enemies of Netheril" is a bit narrow, but Netheril is a big threat. It borders dozens of lands, so Harpers might be active anywhere from the Moonsea to the Dragon Coast to the Gray Vale to Luruar. And I'm sure they've got other things on their plates besides the shades.
-Rich speaks.
18DELTA ;)
Well, I can appreciate that Rich didn't want the Harpers gone altogether.
-Yeah it puts Him fighting battles we would never know about on behalf of The Realms in perspective.
18DELTA ;)
-Yeah it puts Him fighting battles we would never know about on behalf of The Realms in perspective.
18DELTA ;)
I'm sure that he is responsible for the realms being published at all. :D
Well, I can appreciate that Rich didn't want the Harpers gone altogether.
Indeed, I find them a little.. constricted for my tastes in that I always felt they had their fingers in everyone's pies, and even with Rich's hedging it looks like that won't be the case. I also like some of the "softer" Harper moments (Storm and Syluné's duel in the Seven Sisters sourcebook remains one of my favourites), and I don't see these being reflected in the new leaner-meaner Harpers.
This doesn't feel much like the Harpers for me, but then that is coloured by which books I have read and the fact that I have never Played them, only Read about them.
But I am not about to suggest for one moment that other people's games should be a slave to my fondness for a disorganised meddlesome rabble.
As to Rich's comments... I can sort of agree, the 3rd edition era changes to the Harpers did seem kind of screwy to me ("Moonstars? Wha?"). I'm also unsurprised that others wanted to just remove the Harpers altogether (see my above comment about 4E FR design principles).
In reading these threads, it occured to me how many of us became caught up on the wording of it all - that they "disbanded" the Harpers. I paused, and asked myself, why is this any different than if they had simply drawn down the organization, or had it undergo some sort of reformation. My conclusions were...
1) They really wanted to make a clear break - the old Harpers are gone. This is a new beast (that won't steal your PCs' thunder).
2) This was easier than trying to explain how all the Harpers got back together, thinned their ranks, reorganized and refocused themselves into this new Harpers Lite.
3) It wouldn't really have made a difference in the end, because they're still drastically changing the nature of the organization in ways that I disagree with.
4) It wouldn't matter for personal campaigns, largely - but that was always true for any of the changes, if one was so inclined.
That all being said, it still irks me that it was presented in this way. I wonder if the Harpers decided that evil, tyranny, slavery, etc had all somehow disappeared from the Realms in the aftermath of the Spellplague, so there was no more need of them?
Even if the Chosen disappeared, Twilight Hall declared themselves disbanded, and the Moonstars closed up shop, the base nature of the organization is such that it would endure, with new leaders arising. Clandestine and semi-clandestine networks, especially ones as widespread as the Harpers are (were) are very difficult to destroy outright.On a separate note though, I get the distinct feeling that there are a lot of internal struggles between those forces that are pushing for a much greater 'gutting' or replacing of the Realms, and those who are trying to preserve as much as they can. We are not privy to the exact details of these things, and probably won't be (at least until 20+ years on, when someone writes their memoirs :P ). That does not, however, mean that I judge the resulting product any more favorably. It feels to me to have more of the overtones of a Faustian bargain, as I think it would have been preferable to 'let it die' and move on, rather than to try and keep it around.
Canonically, the Harpers have disbanded several times throughout their history only to reform later.
Personally, in my games, the Harpers will still exist albeit in a different form. Any central authority that the Harpers had will be destroyed, and this will lead to the widespread belief that they have been disbanded. On top of that, this belief is necessary, as even kingdoms that once looked kindly upon Harpers (at least to a degree) no longer do so. Being a Harper is a crime in Imperial Cormyr, for example, as one of the goals of a Harper is to keep kingdoms small - something Cormyr has little interest in being.
Without a central authority Harpers are once again a very secret organization organized into a cell like structure. After Khelben's death the Moonstars would have slowly began to dissolve and reintegrate back into the Harpers, bringing along with them their more pessimistic view of the world. Over the past century, this view will be held by most Harpers, save for the newer and more idealistic members.
The Harper structure would work like this:
At its base is the cell. All Harpers are organized into cells, which are based upon the location that they operate. The structure of the cells vary - some are more formally organized, while others are nothing more than a loose connection of friends and like-minded folk working toward similar goals.
Each cell has a leader that everyone reports to and that leader usually knows one individual from another, usually neighboring, Harper cell. When information of importance is learned it is passed from one cell to another.
For example, let's say a servant in a lord's court is a Harper. He overhears his lord plotting to overthrow the King of Cormyr. He then passes this information onto his contact in the Harpers, usually his cell leader. The leader then deems this information important enough to be passed on, so he writes it down, and passes it off to his contact in another cell with clear instructions on where the message should go. This message is then passed onto that cells leader, who then passes on the information to another cell, and so forth and so on until it reaches its destination.
It is also plausible that some Harper cells work against one another. They are not an organized and allied group all the time, which is another reason there is no formalized leadership.
The Luraran Harpers, for example, would be a group that is highly focused on removing the Shades from power, generally at the exclusion of all else. It also would not be an overtly secret cell, like most, and they'd work more openly to oppose the Shades. This likely isolates them from the rest of the Harper organization, more so than usual, as a result.
All Harpers would be given the Harper Pin, which would identify them to other Harpers. It is custom for any Harper, even one that you work at cross purposes with, to be allowed shelter, food, drink and rest when discovered in your area.
Overall, in my world, the Harpers will be working toward small, democratic governments, that live in balance with the land. This is something that is not very popular in most places, and most governments have laws against Harpers, even some which are democratic in nature.
For me, though, it's not just about the Harpers, how they are currently presented, or what the explanation is of how they came to emerge in their current state (or lack thereof) in the new 4th edition setting.
What it comes down to is a profound sense that the designers, in aggregate, that have overall control of the official Realms have failed in my view to adequately preserve what I felt were the core concepts of the Realms, to demonstrate an understanding for those concepts, and perhaps most importantly, to show consideration for the fact that I and others cared about these things. Not everyone feels this way, and I know some people are excited about it. I just wish I could be, too - and it frustrates me to feel that with a little more care given to to the desires of the old fan base, we could've had a continuing storyline and setting that, while maybe nobody was perfectly happy with, that we all could have liked.
-This is what Steven Schend had to say at Candlekeep.
Hehehe. What a devious idea....the tel'Teukiira faking their own death/dissolution and going into hiding.
Nah, that's not the sort of thing Khelben would have ever taught them....
Oh wait--that's almost exactly the sort of thing he kept trying to teach the Harpers the two or three times they had to rebuild the group (look to Code of the Harpers, ye gentles).
So, if nothing else, you have at least my opinion that both the Harpers and the Moonstars would have at least a few folks within their ranks quite content to let folks believe they had died off or become a very small group...and just continue on their secretive, merry ways doing what they need to do...
Brilliant, Bakra!
Steven
PS: While there are some mentions of Moonstars and Harpers in BLACKSTAFF TOWER, they are not truly linked to the plot nor are there many great details revealed. Just one or two important ones (in my opinion).
18DELTA ;)
It's easier to change the Harpers to suit your desires as a DM in 4E than in 3E. Just look at the difference. In 3E, the Harpers were everywhere, and for a secret organization, they seemed to operate rather openly. They had allies coming out of their ears, many of which had great degrees of power that they could call upon to aid the organization, either personal or political. (The most well known being, of course, the Chosen of Mystra.)
With their power and prevalence, it is rather difficult to shift them to suit your needs. This feels like a 'fresh start' for the Harpers, IMO. Their leaders died during the Spellplague, but if you want them to more-or-less be what they were previously, you have 100 Years in the Timeline to make that happen. In 3E if you wanted to axe the Harper leadership there would have been serious repercussions, entire political boundaries and balances would have shifted almost immediately.
Also, while I understand those who hate that the Harpers shown are so focused upon the Shades (who will not even exist in my Realms), how is it any different than their previous strong focus upon the Zhents?
Anyway, I'm actually happy about this change because now I can shift the Harpers more in line toward how I always viewed them. They aren't necessarily good guys, even if, at times, their goals are good in nature. What unites the Harpers in my Realms will be the following:
1. The wish to see democratic governments.
2. The wish to see small governments.
3. The strong belief in personal freedom and self-expression.
4. The strong belief that civilization and nature must co-exist in a balanced state.
5. The strong belief in racial equality.
In their minds, the ideal government or area is either a place similar to the Dalelands for more rural communities or a city-state ruled by a democratically elected Council.
The methods in which they achieve these goals are varied, and is a large reason that they are disliked and criminalized in most civilized lands. Acts of terror - kidnappings, assassinations, blackmail - these things are actively employed by some of the more radical members. However, there are also some who believe in the more gradual change over time through shifting peoples opinions. The Harpers, overall, are a very "gray" organization with equal amounts of idealists and hardliners who believe that the only way to bring about freedom for all is radical revolution.
It's a group that regularly performs clandestine missions, and a organization that the PCs could find as either allies or enemies - sometimes both at the same time. It isn't Elminster's Harpers anymore. It is what is left after most, if not all, of the ranking members were killed or died. The Harpers survived because of the rank and file, but in the end I'd say they lost at least half of their members, maybe even as many as two-thirds.
-And, remember, this coming from a person that used to like Shar, Shade, Shadows, etc.
But I can't take them seriously compared to the Red Wizards and Zhents.
It's like they were created to be the "Serious" baddies compared to them but failed to realize the old guys have their charm.
Shades=Serpentor
Zhents=Cobra Commander.
Shades=Serpentor
Zhents=Cobra Commander.
-Which one was the big threat?
Cobra Commander was a terrorist.
The inherent silliness of Serpentor/The Shades causes the supposedly tired out concept of the Zhents/Cobra Commander, which is down to Earth by comparison, to seem far more attractive. The Zhents are a merchant cartel, a cult, and some wizards out for power...to seem more attractive.
The Red Wizards of Thay may be beaten repeatedly but they're at least a concept that's simple enough to be effective unlike the Shades who are way too over the top.
1. They were just crammed into the setting.
2. They want to recreate Netheril.
3. They're yet another nation ruled by powerful Archwizards.
Really, there were enough of those already between Thay and Halruua.
However, mostly what bothers me is that it feels like the ancient past (Netheril) is not so ancient anymore. I like the past to stay mysterious and... in the past. I wouldn't have had a problem with a group of Wizards, such as the Twisted Rune, trying to resurrect Netheril and reclaim its lost secrets. That is more in line with my line of thinking.
In the end though, they do feel like guys inserted into the setting to make up for the Zhents and Red Wizards being turned into keystone kops by TSR. I can't really BLAME WotC for doing it - they were rather pathetic thanks to TSR's "evil must never win and must always suck" policy. It is more or less that policy that has us in the situation we now find ourselves.
Serpentor was the reincarnated spirit of Ghenghis Khan, Julius Caesar, Dracula, Hannibal, and a dozen of other guys used to create him.
Including Sergeant Slaughter!
I would liked to have seen a conflict develop between "Shade" and Halruaa.
Genius!
I finally understand what it is about the 4E Realms that has been tweaking my nose from the shadows (so to speak). The conflicts! There feels like there is no surcease, no cessation of it. No place to hide or run. I finally got a sniff of it with the Luruar excerpt and thanks to that and Harn's comment I got a handle on it.
The Realms have always been a damn scary place, but ever since my interest in them began (2E) there have been places (minor) and people (major) that represent bastions of hope. The kind of "no matter how bad it gets, this is a place/person around which/whom you can take a load off and enjoy and off-colour anecdote." That is one reason, I think, that I adored stories in which the Chosen (especially Storm, Laer, Alustriel, Dove and El) were a part. They were moving patches of Chaotic Humour or Humourous Peace. Two new alignments?
Some tales of the Harpers, especially Storm's tales (including the aforementioned Harpers one) remind me of this most strongly.
(See, I tied it back into topic at the end there :D )
I see the Harpers being reborn over the course of the next few years. It's rebirth is due to the heroic actions of many newcomer adventurers that have been popping up in the last few years. It seems as though this new Campaign and era is a Rebirth of the Hero (PCs).
Genius!
I finally understand what it is about the 4E Realms that has been tweaking my nose from the shadows (so to speak). The conflicts! There feels like there is no surcease, no cessation of it. No place to hide or run.
This is generally what they mean by 'Points of Light'. The world is falling into darkness all around, and only the heroes (the PCs) can save it. Having NPCs that are capable of fighting back apparently caused too many people to complain that their characters were overshadowed.
I don't like the Shades for a number of reasons.
(post snipped for brevity's sake)
Something must be wrong here, since we're agreeing. :D
You summed it up rather well, I think. I didn't mind them on the whole, but I think they fit better as a minor side plot, rather than the major overwhelming world-spanning villains they appear to have been conceived as. It makes me yearn for the days when the Zhents and Red Wizards were the sinister, big bad evil guys. TSR definitely let them get kicked around way too much - Evil has to win some of the battles in an ongoing saga lest they fall into exactly this sort of rut.
This is generally what they mean by 'Points of Light'. The world is falling into darkness all around, and only the heroes (the PCs) can save it. Having NPCs that are capable of fighting back apparently caused too many people to complain that their characters were overshadowed.
I find this inversion interesting.
3E - You have a world which is in general balance. It will not be free of suffering tomorrow but nor is it likely to collapse totally if you take your eye off one particular region for five minutes. The leveled NPCs that assist in this balancing act are perceived as a problem. The PCs are perceived to be prevented from being Truly Heroic.
4E - You have a world that isn't in general balance. If you apply the PoL concept it would suggest that, by the numbers, the darkness has more area in which to stew, grow and build up numbers than the light. Without a continuous corrective force it will collapse. There are few, if any, leveled NPCs to do this so... the PCs are the corrective force that is there to save the day.
My brain is having a problem here because it feels like the same problem but turned on its head...
3E - Because the NPCs were perceived as being effective and Heroic there had to be an injection of Handwavium to keep them from solving all of the world's problems before the PCs got to them. (I know this is perception, I am discussing the perceived reasons here.)
4E - Because there are no NPCs, every major problem either:
a) Is taken care of by a band of PC adventurers, whether yours is close or not. Introduce Handwavium.
or b) There are no problems except in the region your band happens to either be in, is travelling to, or can get to quickly enough (with the new limitations on trvel) to stop from becoming irreparable. Introduce Handwavium.
This feels like the same problem but coming from the opposite direction.
And if the novels don't stop... and aren't just LFR adventure logs (or even if they are)... you will have the introduction of new powers that will bring either the 3E situation back into being or will need Terminally Retiring to preserve the 4E one.
Why aren't NPCs allowed to be heroic anymore? It seems like everyone who isn't a PC has to be a git.
Whatever... the world isn't really worth saving anymore - the PCs should just hook-up with the bad guys (who are now WAY more powerful then the PCs).
Of course, now we have a new problem - what about all those groups that liked to play evil parties? Now there are way too many evils over-shadowing the uber-kewl PCs.
I think to get it right, in 5e they should just get rid of all the NPCs. In fact, they should get rid of everything - the countries, the monsters, the animals, the plants... even the terrain.
All of it over-shadows the players, so the only way to create the perfect world would be to lock all the new players up alone in their rooms with zero stimulus, so that they could be the centers of the universe like the always wanted...
and we can just keep medicating them. :P
I don't like the Shades for a number of reasons.
1. They were just crammed into the setting.
2. They want to recreate Netheril.
3. They're yet another nation ruled by powerful Archwizards.
Really, there were enough of those already between Thay and Halruua.
And rather then get rid of that terrible idea that wasn't working, they decided to make it even bigger (and stupider), and get rid of the ones that were working.
You know, there's admitting you made a mistake, and trying to make up for it, and then there's 4e.
So, either your party has to be everywhere at once, or the world goes to crap everywhere they can't be.
Odd moment. I was once complimented on my games by a player who said that I made the villains far more competent in canon. My statement being that for every Zhentariam plot that is foiled by the PCs or other bodies, three succeed (and also playing it as such).
My reaction was a confused. "I thought that's what the Zhents were all about anyway."
I
This feels like the same problem but coming from the opposite direction.
(snip for brevity)
Why aren't NPCs allowed to be heroic anymore? It seems like everyone who isn't a PC has to be a git.
I tend to think the 'problem' was overblown in the first place. Consider this - FR has always been far broader in scope than Dragonlance, which revolved primarily around a single storyline that featured a core group of major heroes that pretty much did everything. Those heroes largely got killed off/etc for Fifth Age... but what setting do most DL players seem to prefer? The pre-Fifth Age one, ie War of the Lance era. ;)
I think the problems with FR, such as there were, would have been much better addressed with a clearer approach to introducing new Players/DMs to how to run/play in the Realms, and in showing how to incorporate the various NPCs properly (ie, sparingly if at all), rather than letting them run away with your game.
I think the problems with FR, such as there were, would have been much better addressed with a clearer approach to introducing new Players/DMs to how to run/play in the Realms, and in showing how to incorporate the various NPCs properly (ie, sparingly if at all), rather than letting them run away with your game.
Indeed. Hence my attempting to state the two sides of the problem and solicit opinions. Hopefully we will get some from people who did feel there was an NPC/PC problem, those who didn't and those who think that my view of the situation is either naieve, erroneously constructed or just plain unhelpful.
I think to get it right, in 5e they should just get rid of all the NPCs. In fact, they should get rid of everything - the countries, the monsters, the animals, the plants... even the terrain.
they're probably playtesting that as we speak
they're probably playtesting that as we speak
-It sounds fun.
It's one reason I favored the Moonstars over the Harpers. They had a much more realistic view of the world. Compromising with your enemy and working diplomatically with others is not a bad thing. There should be more to a game than: "It's a villain! Kill him!"
Such games often lead in interesting directions, with unlikely and shaky alliances which result in political intrigue - something I love. For example, in 4E you might find yourself (a Harper) allied with or helping the Zhents to battle the Shades.
In 3E with the overwhelming presence of good - in many, many forms - this type of action was much less likely.
It is fun to watch PCs who try and be heroes, acting in ways that are more morally grey. The lines between friend and foe are more easily blurred.
Seriously... what's left of the Realms except for the name? It's been radically altered into an incredibly generic setting, with all the good parts removed.
I'm not pleased at all. It's just sad what they've done. I loathed the Netherese and Shar, and I know for a fact that they weren't terribly popular with others who loved the Realms.
For whom exactly did they rebuild the Realms? The future novel writers?
The Harpers are completely gone
They're not completely gone.
HARPERS OF LURUAR
The Faerûn-spanning organization known as the Harpers disbanded nearly a century ago. However, in the city of Everlund is Moongleam Tower, a Harper hold of old. When Netheril returned, a remnant of the old organization re-formed. Under the leadership of Eaerlraun Shadowlyn, the small organization is dedicated to one purpose: opposing the growing power of the Shadovar. When Eaerlraun was later assassinated by Shadovar assassins for his effrontery, the old, oft-ignored rule of keeping one’s Harper membership secret gained new meaning and purpose.
Even with the assassination of Eaerlraun, the fledgling organization persists. Today, Moongleam Tower serves as the only known Harper hold in all Faerûn. Rather than housing Harpers, the clandestine leadership based in the tower is a patron to all who wish to take the secret pledge against the Shadovar and all ill that emerges from Shadow.
They're not completely gone.
Yes, the old Harpers are completely gone. It says so. These new Harpers are merely the name taken by a group that works against the Netherese/Shadowvar. Not the same by any means, not even close.
Yes, the old Harpers are completely gone. It says so. hese new Harpers are merely the name taken by a group that works against the Netherese/Shadowvar. Not the same by any means, not even close.
When Netheril returned, a remnant of the old organization re-formed.
That doesn't say that the old guys left and never came back. It doesn't say a bunch of new guys came in and just took the name with no connection to the old group whatsoever. A remnant of the old organization, I.E. people who were Harpers reformed the organization.
That doesn't say that the old guys left and never came back. It doesn't say a bunch of new guys came in and just took the name with no connection to the old group whatsoever. A remnant of the old organization, I.E. people who were Harpers reformed the organization.
A group that takes the old name of something, and sets up shop in their old building, is simply not the same thing. This new group doesn't have anything at all in common with the old Harpers, except the name and the old building. Understand the difference?
A group that takes the old name of something, and sets up shop in their old building, is simply not the same thing.
It does if it has the same people.
This new group doesn't have anything at all in common with the old Harpers, except the name and the old building.
...and the people. Once again, these weren't some random nobodies that showed up and decided to claim the name because it was no longer trademarked. They weren't people who never even met any Harpers. They were actual Harpers before it disbanded, and decided to put it back together again. If it's the same people, with the same name, then yes, it's the Harpers.
Understand the difference?
Here's what I understand. Alustriel is dead. The Harpers have turned into a gimpy shadow of what they used to be. You're not exactly bereft of things to complain about. So is it really necessary to make up things to complain about in addition?
It does if it has the same people.
There is no indication of this, other than the one mention that it was re-founded (with an entirely different purpose) by one named individual: Eaerlraun Shadowlyn. And he was assassinated, so he's gone as well.
...and the people. Once again, these weren't some random nobodies that showed up and decided to claim the name because it was no longer trademarked. They weren't people who never even met any Harpers. They were actual Harpers before it disbanded, and decided to put it back together again. If it's the same people, with the same name, then yes, it's the Harpers.
One person, one. There is nothing to indicate that there was more than one former Harper involved in this re-founding.
Here's what I understand. Alustriel is dead. The Harpers have turned into a gimpy shadow of what they used to be. You're not exactly bereft of things to complain about. So is it really necessary to make up things to complain about in addition?
I'm not making anything up, although you seem intent on targeting me in a snotty way for some reason. You are the one making an assumption here, not me, and it's pretty shaky at that. One former Harper, who is dead, does not make for the "same organization". Clearly not, given that they have entirely different goals than the original Harpers. Furthermore, this new organization acts as a "patron to all who wish to take on a secret pledge against the Shadowvar", which never would have been something the old Harpers would have done. They sought out the PCs, if then, not the other way around. Frankly, I'm beginning to think that you don't understand what the Harpers were all about - if you really think that these are still Harpers in any way, shape or form.
There is no indication of this, other than the one mention that it was re-founded (with an entirely different purpose) by one named individual: Eaerlraun Shadowlyn. And he was assassinated, so he's gone as well.
One person, one. There is nothing to indicate that there was more than one former Harper involved in this re-founding.
"...a remnant of the old organization re-formed..."
That doesn't say "Earl got some new guys and called them the Harpers". That says "a remnant of the old organization".
Remnant
1. Something left over; a remainder.
2. A piece of fabric remaining after the rest has been used or sold.
3. A surviving trace or vestige: a remnant of his past glory.
4. A small surviving group of people. Often used in the plural.
I'm not making anything up, although you seem intent on targeting me in a snotty way for some reason. You are the one making an assumption here, not me, and it's pretty shaky at that.
"...a remnant of the old organization re-formed..."
What's the more likely position? That one single Harper decided to form an all-new group with brand new people, or that multiple Harpers decided to reform? You can't have an "old organization reform" when it's just one guy and a bunch of new people.
-Yeah it puts Him fighting battles we would never know about on behalf of The Realms in perspective.
18DELTA ;)
1.) If someone thinks they have to destroy something in order to save it, then I don't want them fighting any battles on my behalf.
2.) The "perspective" that the above information provides is that Rich Baker had to fight his "battles on behalf of the Realms" against THE OTHER REALMS DESIGNERS. Not very reasurring.
What's the more likely position? That one single Harper decided to form an all-new group with brand new people, or that multiple Harpers decided to reform? You can't have an "old organization reform" when it's just one guy and a bunch of new people.
Of course you can have an old organization "reform" (i.e. take the name, but not much else) with just one guy and a bunch of new people. Happens all the time in the real world.
You're reading way more into "remnant" than is actually there. It doesn't say Eaerlraun -and- other former Harpers, it just says him. And then they kill him off, so that he's not involved any more either. The "remnant" is Eaerlraun, his tower, and the name, that's all.
Why go to all of that trouble if it's meant to have any similarity at all to the former organization?
In any event, it is certain that the vast majority of Harpers anywhere in the world will be "new" Harpers. That's what happens when you jump forward 100 years or so into the future. Humans have a tendency to, you know, die of old age. Not to mention that being a Harper is generally dangerous as you make lots of enemies.
Also the Harper focus on the Shades is really not all that different than the Harper focus on the Zhents in previous editions. If you were an enemy to the Zhents, you were sure to find yourself on the good side of the Harpers.
So really all that changed was some world views. They seem to have become more Moonstar-ish (a good thing IMO) and their big enemy shifted from the Zhents to the Shades.
Why go to all of that trouble if it's meant to have any similarity at all to the former organization?
Because I think they fully intend to rebuild the Harpers. If you look at the past, you'll clearly see that the Harpers disbanded a number of times and then reformed. This is simply another example of it happening again. However, this time, your PC has the chance to get in on the action.
...However, this time, your PC has the chance to get in on the action.
The PCs weren't able to before?
You're reading way more into "remnant" than is actually there.
And you're reading things in there that aren't even supported, while being dismissive of contradictions. There's no indication that it's just Earl and a bunch of new guys. None whatsoever. Whereas the text indicates otherwise. What's the more likely truth, then? That Earl got a bunch of new people, or that a bunch of Harpers got together and said "You know what? While all the others turn their back and walk away, you can count on me to stttaaayyy?"
The "remnant" is Eaerlraun, his tower, and the name, that's all.
So Earl and the tower are the elements that reformed? And you think I'm stretching?
Why go to all of that trouble if it's meant to have any similarity at all to the former organization?
Because a bunch of them decided that they wouldn't just give up without a fight.
So really all that changed was some world views. They seem to have become more Moonstar-ish (a good thing IMO) and their big enemy shifted from the Zhents to the Shades.
Exactly. The Harpers were founded in 324 DR. The Zhentarim weren't founded til 1261 DR. Did their refocusing their plans to take into account the Zhentarim mean they suddenly weren't Harpers, as they were no longer focusing as intently on previous enemies? That's ridiculous. Obviously as the political landscape on Faerun changed, so too did their goals. The Shades are now the big threat, so they get the lions share of the attention.
And you're reading things in there that aren't even supported, and which're potentially contradicted. There's no indication that it's just Earl and a bunch of new guys. None whatsoever. Whereas the text indicates otherwise. What's the more likely truth, then? That Earl got a bunch of new people, or that a bunch of Harpers got together and said "You know what? While all the others turn their back and walk away, you can count on me to stttaaayyy?" (...)
Believe whatever you want, it doesn't say anything remotely like what you're suggesting above.
The PCs weren't able to before?
No, they could not help rebuild the Harpers from scratch, because, obviously, they were a fully fledged organization set in their ways. Now you have the chance to mold them, perhaps even taking them in a new direction if you wanted.
No, they could not help rebuild the Harpers from scratch, because, obviously, they were a fully fledged organization set in their ways. Now you have the chance to mold them, perhaps even taking them in a new direction if you wanted.
Can't have it both ways. Either they're GreenKnight's "remnant" (which somehow oddly includes a bunch of unmentioned prior Harpers), or it's "rebuilding from stratch".
Of course, you can read it any old way you want to, since it's a game and all game material is for use/development by the players.
But if it's indeed rebuilding from scratch (which is how I read the article, so I agree with this), why bother? The best things about the Realms were the rich history and organizations with deep secrets and widespread plans, not that PCs could mold everything to their personal liking.
Can't have it both ways. Either they're GreenKnight's "remnant" (which somehow oddly includes a bunch of unmentioned prior Harpers), or it's "rebuilding from stratch".
Of course, you can read it any old way you want to, since it's a game and all game material is for use/development by the players.
Of course it is both ways. Here is what it says.
HARPERS OF LURUAR
The Faerûn-spanning organization known as the Harpers disbanded nearly a century ago. However, in the city of Everlund is Moongleam Tower, a Harper hold of old. When Netheril returned, a remnant of the old organization re-formed. Under the leadership of Eaerlraun Shadowlyn, the small organization is dedicated to one purpose: opposing the growing power of the Shadovar. When Eaerlraun was later assassinated by Shadovar assassins for his effrontery, the old, oft-ignored rule of keeping one’s Harper membership secret gained new meaning and purpose.
Even with the assassination of Eaerlraun, the fledgling organization persists. Today, Moongleam Tower serves as the only known Harper hold in all Faerûn. Rather than housing Harpers, the clandestine leadership based in the tower is a patron to all who wish to take the secret pledge against the Shadovar and all ill that emerges from Shadow.
Here is what I take from the text:
1. A remndant group of the old disbanded Harpers led by Eaerlraun Shadowlyn reformed the organization in Everlund using Moongleam Tower as their base of operations.
2. Netheril assassinated Eaerlraun, forcing the remaining Harpers into even more secrecy than normal. They continued to persist after his death, however.
3. Moongleam Tower is the only KNOWN Harper stronghold in Faerun, however that does not mean others do not exist.
4. Moongleam Tower is no longer the base of the Harpers, although it does serve as a touch point for any who wish to take a secret pledge to work against the Shadovar. However, even though it is no longer the Harper base of operations, they still control it. (So it is a way for you to get into contact with them.)
5. The PC's if they were so inclined, could get in on the ground work and help the Harpers rebuild, and in so doing, shape and mold them to suit their liking.
But if it's indeed rebuilding from scratch (which is how I read the article, so I agree with this), why bother? The best things about the Realms were the rich history and organizations with deep secrets and widespread plans, not that PCs could mold everything to their personal liking.
That is a matter of opinion and personal taste. I think this has opportunities for both.
Here is what I take from the text: (...)
That's fine, for your own game you can read it any way you like, and embellish it any way you want to. I have no dispute with that. Doesn't change the fact that they've utterly destroyed the Harpers in all but name.
Plus, it clearly says the following:
"When Netheril returned, a remnant of the old organization re-formed. Under the leadership of Eaerlraun Shadowlyn, the small organization is dedicated to one purpose: opposing the growing power of the Shadovar."
Who was Eaerlraun leading? A remnant of the old organization that re-formed. That is non-debatable. It says nothing about a bunch of new people, although it is logical to draw the conclusion that new people are in fact joining. However, the core group are all remnants of the old Harpers.
That's fine, for your own game you can read it any way you like, and embellish it any way you want to. I have no dispute with that. Doesn't change the fact that they've utterly destroyed the Harpers in all but name.
And that's fine for your game. In mine the Harpers will exist in secret, each cell will have a local focus, the Moonsea will be the Zhents and so on. Some cells will contain an older Harper, some won't.
Bel
And that's fine for your game. (...)
You mean "it's fine for canon", because in my game none of this ridiculous re-imagining takes place.
However, I suspect further discussion on a point where people have settled opinions is probably pointless.
When TSR first started publishing the Realms, they had a strict Code of Ethics: in all their published fiction, the good guys HAD to win, evildoers could never be shown to profit from their evil deeds, and no specific real-world "shady techniques" (how to break into a place, how to strangle someone) could be described. And so on.
In the early days, the results of this disgusted some readers (why the Zhentarim so "Keystone Kops" incompetent?), but it was the Way It Was.
Over the years since, there have been various codes applied by Wizards (and now by Hasbro), governing what can and can't appear in Realms fiction and game design. Moreover, you can't read a word of Realms fiction that hasn't been read, edited, and approved by an in-house editor (which is only sensible; it avoids having something horrible slipped into print maliciously or by accident in a printers' mixup).
So Ed has always had to write under such restrictions, yes.
I've always realized that I've been one of those "disgusted readers" mentioned. I suppose it's a large part of my personality, because I've always favored the underdogs in any given situation. I love a good struggle.
In previous editions, moreso under the reign of TSR, the Zhents and pretty much every evil organization was turned into a joke. Groups like the Harpers and the Chosen only continued to grow in prominence and power. I could not help but be drawn toward the side of the villains. I longed to see them kick the teeth in of groups such as the Harpers, to see them win a few REAL victories - just to prove that they were competent.
I guess in large part this is the reason I didn't find the 4E Realms as repellant as others. There were other things that drew me toward the idea, but this was certainly one of the internal motivating factors. I never felt I could use a Zhent or a Red Wizard in a game, because I personally could never take them seriously. My perception of them, and what they had been turned into, was forever tarnished. There is certainly some resentment there.
In the 4E Realms the tables have definitely turned. In 3E I hated groups such as the Harpers, but in 4E groups such as the reformed Harpers excite my imagination. For the first time, I actually want them to win. I want to see them be successful.
I guess it's just part of my personality. I just love the underdog.
I guess in large part this is the reason I didn't find the 4E Realms as repellant as others. There were other things that drew me toward the idea, but this was certainly one of the internal motivating factors.
Repellant - that's a good word for the 4E Realms.
I'm siding with Therese on this one. The designers wanted a "simple" and yet largely ineffective version of the harpers, so they had to be replaced with this "non-harper" Harpers.
You can't work that way. You're bound to make many, many enemies. And considering the Harper Code, not just "evil" organizations. Imperial Cormyr would have met opposition by them, for example, because it got to powerful.
Also, we have the Harper schism. The organization lost two of their most powerful members, and supposedly a quite a few of their best field agents. Also, it alienated the other more powerful members of the more loosely organized eastern branch. Many of those were killed or incapacitated in the decades after the schism, so their protection fell away.
So, with all these problems, it is reasonable to disband the organization as it is and go underground.
Repellant - that's a good word for the 4E Realms.
I'm siding with Therese on this one. The designers wanted a "simple" and yet largely ineffective version of the harpers, so they had to be replaced with this "non-harper" Harpers.
Kinda like Caffein-free coffee, or alcohal-free beer.
The point: Why bother?
There is a lot I didn't care for in the Realms, and strangely enough I made a lot of the same changes that WotC did. I played down the Harpers, Greatly disliked Mystra and her Weave, seperated Chult from the main continent, etc, etc...
So why do I hate the fact that the official Realms has actually become more like mine?
I don't...
I hate the fact that they forced these changes on EVERYONE else. My game is my game, and even I'm not egotistical enough to think my version is better then everyone elses.
Obviously, someone at WotC did.
This is not the Realms we knew - this is someone's poorly thought-out Homebrew nightmare pasted over the Realms.
Wow... I go away only for a week and a half, and I come back to even more deconstruction of the Realms. The Harpers are completely gone, Alustriel has "passed away" in some handwaved non-explanation, Shar apparently has cults everywhere, and the Shadowvar-Netherese now the pre-eminent bad guys.
Seriously... what's left of the Realms except for the name? It's been radically altered into an incredibly generic setting, with all the good parts removed.
I'm not pleased at all. It's just sad what they've done. I loathed the Netherese and Shar, and I know for a fact that they weren't terribly popular with others who loved the Realms.
For whom exactly did they rebuild the Realms? The future novel writers?
Shar has always had cults everywhere I always figured. The Harpers are not gone, just reduced in status for now. Nethril may be one of the biggest threats to the Realms but I doubt it, we have only seen a few excerpts so far.
The purpose of rebuilding the Realms? For me. I was a fan since 87 and got tired of 3E stuff not because it was horrible but because it felt like a rehash of what on before. The only book I was looking foward to in 3e was a Cormyr book but that was 4 years ago. After 20 years of being a fan I was starting to get bored with the Realms, novels and gameing. Now they may have just hooked me again. After Sept I will know for sure if what they did worked but they messed with the NPCs, gods and brought in more aboleths, all the things I wanted to see for a while. I am pretty happy with all the changes.
Doesn't change the fact that they've utterly destroyed the Harpers in all but name.
It helps in the discussion if you learn how to seperate 'opinion' with 'fact'.
Sorry, I can understand people's aggravation with changes they dislike, but only up to a point. When people seem to WANT to have their own setting destroyed, it becomes really impossible to argue.
You are free to dislike the new setting, and disagree with what others think is cool (or not).
But I am going to try and make the best of the new setting. I hope to be able to work with the people in the LFR campaign, and with other designers, from Rich Baker to Ed Greenwood, where possible. I think we can make this a great setting ocne we accept the change, and focus on what has been given instead of what has been taken away.
I am sure that I will see the Harpers' use, and I hope that it will be a moment where my players will be eager to be a a part of it.
Gomez
I personally prefer a setting that tends toward the oppressive side, where it feels as if evil is going to overwhelm the world. I like more morally realistic games and shy away from black and white. Sometimes, you just have to let some bad things happen in order to stop the worst.
It's one reason I favored the Moonstars over the Harpers. They had a much more realistic view of the world. Compromising with your enemy and working diplomatically with others is not a bad thing. There should be more to a game than: "It's a villain! Kill him!"
Such games often lead in interesting directions, with unlikely and shaky alliances which result in political intrigue - something I love. For example, in 4E you might find yourself (a Harper) allied with or helping the Zhents to battle the Shades.
In 3E with the overwhelming presence of good - in many, many forms - this type of action was much less likely.
It is fun to watch PCs who try and be heroes, acting in ways that are more morally grey. The lines between friend and foe are more easily blurred.
I play WoD when I want that.
When people seem to WANT to have their own setting destroyed, it becomes really impossible to argue.
I am not sure what you mean by that
Sorry, I can understand people's aggravation with changes they dislike, but only up to a point. When people seem to WANT to have their own setting destroyed, it becomes really impossible to argue.
There are quite a few people here who had a burning desire to see the Realms deconstructed and pumped up with odd novelties. For those people, who before were the ones begging for massive change, they're happy with what they're seeing. These changes were so huge that they flipped the fanbase completely around.
Yet the problem isn't so much that some people wanted elements of the setting destroyed or changed, it's that quite a lot of those people now feel -very- smugly justified and entitled to not merely express their appreciation for the changes but go on the attack against people who are unhappy with the changes.
I personally prefer a setting that tends toward the oppressive side, where it feels as if evil is going to overwhelm the world. I like more morally realistic games and shy away from black and white. Sometimes, you just have to let some bad things happen in order to stop the worst.
I can see why this kind of situation would reinforce these options, I shall only mention in passing that nothing prevented you from bringing in these elements to your 3E game, however...
...going back to my original point. In this kind of situation, what provides balance? The Harpers of the past worked to keep everyone small, they were a large organisation and their public face may well have acted as a deterrent to overt power-grabbing... neither good nor evil got to "win" and it kept things stable... as well as providing a nice variety of places for us all to play in and read about.
What, in the 4E Realms, prevents the darkness overwhelming the light?
By areas, numbers and power the Forces of Darkness (
:88E: 
) are well within their abilities to start stamping out the Points without a concerted effort... and as the more intelligent foes that 4E wants them to be they would certainly form a temporary alliance if it meant wiping out an enemy.-Fits all of the criteria of "a remnant of the old organization re-formed".
-Let's look at Marvel comics, for a moment: There have been two separate 'The New Mutants' comics/X-teams. One was around in the '80s, and evolved in X-Force. The other is around today. Both use the same name, but are/were inherently different groups.
I can see why this kind of situation would reinforce these options, I shall only mention in passing that nothing prevented you from bringing in these elements to your 3E game, however...
Because in order to give villains in the Realms believability there had to be a massive shake up. In my Realms the Zhents, the Red Wizards, the Cult of the Dragon, all of these organizations and many others - even the Shades - are now gone. They've been replaced by new threats. This is not something easily done without a massive RSE and a time jump.
I could have done it myself, sure. Nothing stopped me from doing it, but I wanted to make use of all the sourcebooks when they came out. In order to do that it, forced me to stay within certain limits to keep them relevant.
Now that 3E has come to an end, and the old Realms is destroyed, I have little desire to play in WotC's version. However, I will still be buying the setting for ideas and inspiration, taking what I can use and discarding the rest. I will also be using more core material as I will be attempting to tie my Realms closely to the 4E ruleset. (Similarly to how Eberron was designed with the 3E ruleset in mind, I am doing the same with the 4E ruleset in mind as I redesign my Realms.)
What am I using? The vast history of the Realms and the map (3E with some modifications), and that's pretty much it.
What, in the 4E Realms, prevents the darkness overwhelming the light?
In my Realms, it's not as if they haven't exactly suffered right along with the good guys. All sides are now on an equal playing field. However, the tone of the world itself is much darker and more foreboding. Additionally, faster means of travel - teleporting, portals and the like - are EXTREMELY rare (like hundreds of times more so than previously). So there is the issue of distance separating the various threats. Magic itself is no longer as prevalent, in fact it is rather rare in many regions now.
There is also the wilderness regions, which are much more vast and dangerous. The 'bad guys' have to deal with all of those threats as well.
Finally, the lines between good and evil are more blurred than ever before. There no longer exists stark contrasts between good and evil, only varying shades of gray with some shades lighter or darker than others.
That is what has happened to MY Realms. I have no idea what they are planning in the 4E FR cannon setting. We will just have to wait and see.
Ergo, the Shades must be even more a group of 'Keystone Kops' then the Zhents ever were.
And we've all been saying for years that the only thing keeping Thay from ruling its neighbors was a lack of internal cohesion. With a strong, unified gov't their existance now make NO sense what-so-ever.
I truly believe the designers have no concept of RW physics, politics, climatology, history, geology or any other word ending in 'ology'.
They just make stuff up with no rhyme or reason... like little children playing in a sandbox...
and someone else's sandbox to boot....
And it was at it's worst just before the release date. There are only eleven more days till we see if history repeats itself.
Bel
I truly believe the designers have no concept of RW physics, politics, climatology, history, geology or any other word ending in 'ology'.
They just make stuff up with no rhyme or reason... like little children playing in a sandbox...
and someone else's sandbox to boot....
-There are settings that are worse, in this regard.
but it was the first, so it can be given some leeway. This is 2008, and people expect more from an RPG then they did in the 70's.
Also, Eberron is chock-full of internal cohesion, so I can't blame the company as a whole - just the FR team.
I should point out that, in terms of holding the Empire of Netheril at bay, it looks as if Imperial Cormyr is not doing too shabby of a job.
Plot necessity, rather than any kind of authentic balancing element, is responsible for that. It's not believable.
Plot necessity, rather than any kind of authentic balancing element, is responsible for that. It's not believable.
-Negating Shade's annexation of Sembia would make it believable.
I can see why this kind of situation would reinforce these options, I shall only mention in passing that nothing prevented you from bringing in these elements to your 3E game, however...
...going back to my original point. In this kind of situation, what provides balance? The Harpers of the past worked to keep everyone small, they were a large organisation and their public face may well have acted as a deterrent to overt power-grabbing... neither good nor evil got to "win" and it kept things stable... as well as providing a nice variety of places for us all to play in and read about.
What, in the 4E Realms, prevents the darkness overwhelming the light?
By areas, numbers and power the Forces of Darkness (
-I fixed it for you just didn't look right.
-Also I like the fact that Netheril controls Sembia. Cormyr is flanked on two sides. The Dales and thus Cormanthor is flanked on two sides. I am trying to look at the possibilities instead of just complaining about somethings I can change in my Realms. YMMV!
18DELTA ;)
The only thing I found unbelievable about the Cormyr article is the fact that they expanded toward the South, instead of just taking Sembia. Of course, I don't know all the details yet.
In any event, at this point it seems like you just want to hate things simply for the sake of hating them, even if it makes no logical sense.
No, they could not help rebuild the Harpers from scratch, because, obviously, they were a fully fledged organization set in their ways.
PCs could certainly have done that before, depending on what was going on in their home campaign.
"When Netheril returned, a remnant of the old organization re-formed. Under the leadership of Eaerlraun Shadowlyn..."
I just noticed--even the Harper's name is "shadowy".
PCs could certainly have done that before, depending on what was going on in their home campaign.
Sure. However, in order to do that, you'd have to knock out all the Heralds, the Chosen and all the Harper leaders. Then you have to go into detail on how and why it happened and the resulting political fallout. You would also have to concern yourself with Mystra, should she decide to directly intervene to save one of her Chosen (as she has done in the past). The entire political map would shift almost over night.
If you are going to go through that much trouble, there was no point in even waiting for more Source Books for the Forgotten Realms. You might as well blow it up like 4E did and start from scratch so you can get rid of everything you disliked.
Which is exactly what I did, and now not only am I getting rid of everything I disliked in pre-4E Forgotten Realms, I am getting rid of everything I dislike in the post-4E Realms as well.
Sure. However, in order to do that, you'd have to knock out all the Heralds, the Chosen and all the Harper leaders. Then you have to go into detail on how and why it happened and the resulting political fallout. You would also have to concern yourself with Mystra, should she decide to directly intervene to save one of her Chosen (as she has done in the past). The entire political map would shift almost over night.
So what? My point was that it wasn't "impossible" until now.
I just noticed--even the Harper's name is "shadowy".
One might even say that his point of light was snuffed out.
The Netherese took umbrage at his bright and shiny goodness.
Or that his name foreshadowed his dark and gloomy end.
Turn out the lights, the harper's over.
;)
-I don't see what's so hard: The Harpers disbanded, and then another group formed, with a very different "mission statement" was founded by a former Harper- who is now dead- and took the name of the Harpers.
-Fits all of the criteria of "a remnant of the old organization re-formed".
Not really, as one guy doesn't not constitute a remnant of an old organization reforming. That doesn't make sense from the standpoint of reading comprehension or logic. Shadowlyn didn't reform with himself.
Second of all, with plenty of former Harpers to choose from, why would he recruit all-new people? Fighting the Shades isn't something to take lightly. So what's more likely? That he surrounded himself with fresh faces? People that he never met, doesn't know, doesn't trust, and who he's not certain can do the job? Or with people he's known for years? Proven Harpers with a track record to back it up? Old friends who he trusts with his life? Are we to believe that not one Harper aside from Shadowlyn disagreed with the choice to disband? That there wouldn't be a great many of them who would've preferred to continue, rather than disband? That not one of them save for Shadowlyn would've come back?
-Let's look at Marvel comics, for a moment: There have been two separate 'The New Mutants' comics/X-teams. One was around in the '80s, and evolved in X-Force. The other is around today. Both use the same name, but are/were inherently different groups.
I was actually going to use a comics example, too, but the example was this.
Let's say you have the X-Men, which consist of Cyclops, Phoenix, Archangel, Iceman, Beast, Wolverine, Storm, Colossus, Shadowcat, Nightcrawler, Rogue, Gambit, Havok, Polaris, Bishop, Jubilee, Psylocke, and Juggernaut.
Then they disband. So the X-Men are no more.
But after a while, Cyclops, Phoenix, Beast, Colossus, and Storm get together and they call themselves 'X-Men'. Are they not the X-Men? That's an example of a remnant of an old organization reforming.
So what? My point was that it wasn't "impossible" until now.
So what? The same can be said for anyone who doesn't like some of the changes to 4E. Don't like what they did with the Harpers, you can still bring them back in your game or keep it so that they never disappeared. Don't like it that Mystra is dead? Bring her back. Don't like it that Helm is dead? Bring him back or ignore what happened.
All of those things are much easier to do in 4E than trying to re-arrange the entire political structure that had been manufactured in previous editions just to weaken or remove the Harpers.
All of those things are much easier to do in 4E than trying to re-arrange the entire political structure that had been manufactured in previous editions just to weaken or remove the Harpers.
And yet, these changes once made can be removed from a game... but change the direction of the novels in a way that can't. How useful that it only permanently affects something that people always blame for the problems in the franchise anyway ;) .
I was actually going to use a comics example, too, but the example was this.
Let's say you have the X-Men, which consist of Cyclops, Phoenix, Archangel, Iceman, Beast, Wolverine, Storm, Colossus, Shadowcat, Nightcrawler, Rogue, Gambit, Havok, Polaris, Bishop, Jubilee, Psylocke, and Juggernaut.
Then they disband. So the X-Men are no more.
But after a while, Cyclops, Phoenix, Beast, Colossus, and Storm get together and they call themselves 'X-Men'. Are they not the X-Men? That's an example of a remnant of an old organization reforming.
That is exactly what the text was meant to imply and how I understood it. I can only assume that those who took it another way are just so frustrated / irritated that they are (consciously or unconsciously) seeing things in the worst possible light.
True, it only listed the leader of the organization, but that is the way it has almost always been and it is only a tiny excerpt. Additionally, this is good news for DM's who wanted to have a Harper survive the time jump and still be around and active. Since there aren't any names you can fill things in yourself. For example, lets say in your game existed a Moon Elf Harper that you really loved and wanted to survive. With the time jump you only need to think of a reason for him to establish a connection with this branch of the Harpers. Hell, since they didn't list the new leader of this branch, your Moon Elf could have replaced the leader once he was assassinated.
Yes, it definately sucks for novel readers. They are screwed no matter what. :P
I don't read the novels, though, just the sourcebooks and obtain my novel information second hand.
Although, novels are notorious for screwing up cannon, getting it flat wrong, or just ignoring it. So, really, IMO - it's par for what already happens in them.
I've always said that the novels should be optional-cannon for DM's. Then let the authors have a free reign.
One might even say that his point of light was snuffed out.
The Netherese took umbrage at his bright and shiny goodness.
Or that his name foreshadowed his dark and gloomy end.
Turn out the lights, the harper's over.
;)
Hehehe, thanks for the extra laughs!
A group with a single raison d'etre (simplified)
Except this is not what the Harpers are about, they may call themselves Harpers, but they are not.
And who are we making this simple for?
Damian
They were my favourite organization in FR.
ignore, found the answer to my question.
Damian
ps can I delete this post entirely?
Harpers are still the same as always, only publically led to believe that they are gone because of their reputation. It was becoming common knowledge of where Harpers were likely to be, so since n00bs were getting picked off by Zhentarim and thugs looking to get into the Zhentarim constantly they couldn't keep recruiting. Finally, Elminister stepped up and "disbanded" them. Thus, if a Harper is caught by Zhentarim, who cares? They don't bother them anymore, as far as the public knows.
Meh. The solution to this is simple; just ignore it and introduce your own version.
well, sure. But that doesn't prevent the fact that what they did ticks me off
Meh. The solution to this is simple; just ignore it and introduce your own version.
Were it simply this one thing, yes, you would be absolutely correct.
Of course... wouldn't that have been true for those people who wanted it all changed in the first place?
Were it simply this one thing, yes, you would be absolutely correct.
Of course... wouldn't that have been true for those people who wanted it all changed in the first place?
sure they could havee just said, hey the harpers are gone
Were it simply this one thing, yes, you would be absolutely correct.
Which is why we now get to IGNORE EVERYTHING they tell us is canon.
When you like 95% of something, it's knda hard to let go of that last 5%. But when you hate 95% of something, its damn easy to ignore that last 5%.
Just my take on things now. Bring it on, WotC - I don't care how bad you make this setting; I wll rise to the challenge and STILL make it interesting. :D
Of course... wouldn't that have been true for those people who wanted it all changed in the first place?
Yes it would have...
But they chose to listen to the people who hated the canon...
Rather then the people who bought the novels...
Silly WotC.
Reports of the Harpers' demise are greatly exaggerated. More will be revealed in my next Realms novel (after THE SWORD NEVER SLEEPS). Suffice it to say that the Harpers got so infiltrated by undercover foes as to become compromised, so a trick was pulled that Elminster (for one) has pulled before.
The Harpers "disbanded," but a MUCH smaller and more secretive group of Harpers carried on. Eliminating certain false former Harpers was one of their ongoing goals. What their goals are now, few can say . . . for there are few Harpers indeed, and these days they say little, believing in "deeds, not words."
Ed's comments at Candlekeep on the fate of the Harpers:
If I had just read Ed's comments I would be fine. But in reading the excerpt and Rich's comments on these boards has given me a migraine
And incidentally, the Hooded One added this:
How personally angry he is, Uzzy, I don't know. Ed is a "slow to anger" sort; patience has been his watchword these past 49 years. As the Beatles sang, "Life is very short . . . and there's no time/For fussing and fighting, my friend"
...which, in truth, is probably good advice. There are far better things for us to be upset over in the world today. ;)
The Realms was always a place that needed heroes. Only difference now is that it's lacking most of the backstory that made the Realms an interesting and unique fantasy world.
With the endless horde of stock villains the Realms had this is true. The Realms always needed heroes and they had them. For every stock villain there was a stock hero, named or unnamed, with adventurers painted as commonplace. So while the Realms certainly needed heroes, the problem was that it did not technically need the PCs.
This is a problem of any world that has a forward moving timeline. In order for that timeline to be in motion, you need to account for the various forces and their actions. Obviously, you can't account for what takes place in someones home game. Thus, it is very possible that an adventure hook you saw listed and used in your game gets solved by some group or another in a novel, perhaps even leading to completely different outcomes. Or worse, a player reads the novel and then suddenly gains intimate knowledge of a campaign you're about to run.
The Realms was always a place that needed heroes. Only difference now is that it's lacking most of the backstory that made the Realms an interesting and unique fantasy world.
As I said in my first sentence "Well the new Realms is still much a place for heros. Anyway the backstory is still there as well. Hell anything is still there if one wishes it to be. Very, very simple.
Ask Ed how simple gaming in the Realms is even if you do not care for the current "version". His game hasn't been "canon" since a long time ago and he does not seem one bit bothered by it. ;)
So while the Realms certainly needed heroes, the problem was that it did not technically need the PCs.
And why should it? No, really. I mean that. Your PCs are special, in that they have decided to become adventurers and set out to "save the world" as short sighted as we know that is. But for the Realms to "need" them the adventurers to have come together as the only group in the area with abilities that already (at 1st level) set them apart from common folk that will allow them to overcome this menace... especially in low-level campaigns? Doesn't that seem a little odd to anyone else?
That the PCs are useful, and may be the most efficient way of way of dealing with this problem at this time.. I can wrap my head around that one. But the Star Wars-esqe "Help me Obi-Wan you're my only hope" type anime destiny? That every PC you ever play is the annointed saviour (or destroyer) of the Realms from the very beginning? Later on I can see it, if there is a rampaging Dragon and your group are the nearest lot to try and give it a good kicking because the local authorities cannot cope... then the local area might need you, but even then, what about if you fail? Almost every failed adventure tragedy would have a maximum radius, wouldn't it?
This is a problem of any world that has a forward moving timeline. Or worse, a player reads the novel and then suddenly gains intimate knowledge of a campaign you're about to run.
Ok. Kill the novels. I mean this too. They may be the most profitable part of the setting, and they almost certainly provide the support for half of the actual gaming books and materials you see, but kill them. I swear, I have never seen something so inanimate be so hated by so many. (my apologies, Mr Churchill.)
And why should it? No, really. I mean that. Your PCs are special, in that they have decided to become adventurers and set out to "save the world" as short sighted as we know that is. But for the Realms to "need" them the adventurers to have come together as the only group in the area with abilities that already (at 1st level) set them apart from common folk that will allow them to overcome this menace... especially in low-level campaigns? Doesn't that seem a little odd to anyone else?
Keep in mind that the crazy high level epic silliness only started to get really bad in the later half of the FR product's lifetime. In the beginning, Elminster was more or less the highest level NPC.
Also, the 4E rules work to make the PC's relevant right from 1st level and more equally distribute power over the course of many levels as well as work toward limiting more of the high magic silliness.
But I'm not talking about save-the-world type of quests. I'm talking about things on a more local scale. Cormyr, the Dalelands, Waterdeep and the like are popular areas in the novels and in the setting. There is a very definite mood, both stated and unstated, that adventurer types are common in those areas - both of the powerful and not-so-powerful variety.
So, it's not as if you can have a serious orc or goblin raid on Shadowdale unless you pull a dues ex machina to get rid of Elminster and the other folk there. It'd be even worse if you tried to have someone like Obould actually conquer Silverymoon or Waterdeep. Or have the Red Wizards launch an attack against Aglarond (although to be fair only the Simbul is painted as being able to stop them, and with only one NPC standing in the way it's easy to handwave her out of there). However, when you have to begin to do it for three or more NPCs it begins to get silly and unbelievable.
However, the entire core (and selling point) of the D&D franchise is that your PC is the hero. The tons of named and unnamed NPCs who could jump out at any moment to save the world from destruction was silly and undercut the core of what D&D is about. Which is why WotC changed things.
Do I necessarily agree? No. Does it make things more believable? Has the Realms ever been believable? I think 4E tries to fix many of the problems with the setting (and D&D), but overall has failed to address key issues even going as far as to make them worse in some areas.
Maybe it is just me, but I have grown disenfranchised with high fantasy and the like more and more. I largely blame the Realms for that. I guess I just long for something that was more in line with the 1E Realms and D&D.
Ok. Kill the novels. I mean this too. They may be the most profitable part of the setting, and they almost certainly provide the support for half of the actual gaming books and materials you see, but kill them. I swear, I have never seen something so inanimate be so hated by so many. (my apologies, Mr Churchill.)
I don't suggest killing the novels. Just not making them cannon. Separate the game from the novels, halt the timeline advancement, and then for all major novels have a .pdf supplement created (for purchase) that details the changes. Then let DM's decide if they want it in their campaign or not.
I don't suggest killing the novels. Just not making them cannon. Separate the game from the novels, halt the timeline advancement, and then for all major novels have a .pdf supplement created (for purchase) that details the changes. Then let DM's decide if they want it in their campaign or not.
This!
However, the entire core (and selling point) of the D&D franchise is that your PC is the hero.
I look forward to my first FR game, I really do. Finding a group around here that isn't already knee-deep in its own campaign and is willing to take on a total newbie is nigh on impossible. I have been trying for 4 years... that said, when I finally get a chance to play I hope that I will be content with being a hero, not the hero. Having heard the heroic deeds of the NPCs from the novels I should be well pleased by being considered among their ranks. These characters are paragons in the original sense of the word. For me they would give me something to aspire towards... not compete with.
Why must a party exist in vacuo? The abilities of many of these personalities may seem overwhelming but does that necessarily require the inclusion of an "Aura of NPC banishment"?
Take, for example, the hated Chosen of Mystra. Although they may be able to clear up the goblin infestation with a wave of a hand, doing so may create problems in the future. As loglived creatures they must realise the transitory nature of life... including their own. If they do not guide and bring on a new "crop" of heroes then what happens to the world when (inevitably) they do fall?
The High Lady favours foresight and has been known to pass on skills to those of the young who are leaving the Silverymoon, Dove teaches magic to the young when she kills evil mages, Laeral ensured (at one point) the magical education (and possible defense from Khelben) of the apprentices at Blackstaff tower... there are others, of which Storm might be the most important... but do you see what I mean?
I don't suggest killing the novels. Just not making them cannon. Separate the game from the novels, halt the timeline advancement, and then for all major novels have a .pdf supplement created (for purchase) that details the changes. Then let DM's decide if they want it in their campaign or not.
I suggested the decanonisation as a basis to prevent setting changes like these being used to slaughter their casts but was argued to a standstill. Surely, if there is no timeline advancement then the setting truly does become stagnant as so many have accused it of being?
Kill the novels. Blasphemy. Thats the only thing I got left
I would and do mourn their passing... but it does seem to be what the people on these forums want.
I don't think I have heard the novels described in positive terms for quite a while.
You know, I'm reflecting on my personal thoughts after reading something THO posted over at Candlekeep.
I've always realized that I've been one of those "disgusted readers" mentioned. I suppose it's a large part of my personality, because I've always favored the underdogs in any given situation. I love a good struggle.
In previous editions, moreso under the reign of TSR, the Zhents and pretty much every evil organization was turned into a joke. Groups like the Harpers and the Chosen only continued to grow in prominence and power. I could not help but be drawn toward the side of the villains. I longed to see them kick the teeth in of groups such as the Harpers, to see them win a few REAL victories - just to prove that they were competent.
I guess in large part this is the reason I didn't find the 4E Realms as repellant as others. There were other things that drew me toward the idea, but this was certainly one of the internal motivating factors. I never felt I could use a Zhent or a Red Wizard in a game, because I personally could never take them seriously. My perception of them, and what they had been turned into, was forever tarnished. There is certainly some resentment there.
In the 4E Realms the tables have definitely turned. In 3E I hated groups such as the Harpers, but in 4E groups such as the reformed Harpers excite my imagination. For the first time, I actually want them to win. I want to see them be successful.
I guess it's just part of my personality. I just love the underdog.
I sort of see your point, actually. If good is always designed so that it's going to win anyway because evil is presented as incompetent, it cheapens the point of their victories. At the same time, I sort of think that 4E Realms sort of went to the extreme of not really solving the entire problem by making it so evil, in 4E Realms, won in a lot of places through heavy-handed design (ie, Mystra's death, the loss of one of the Seven Sisters with probably more to come, massive landscape redesign, so on).
I look forward to my first FR game, I really do. Finding a group around here that isn't already knee-deep in its own campaign and is willing to take on a total newbie is nigh on impossible. I have been trying for 4 years... that said, when I finally get a chance to play I hope that I will be content with being a hero, not the hero. Having heard the heroic deeds of the NPCs from the novels I should be well pleased by being considered among their ranks. These characters are paragons in the original sense of the word. For me they would give me something to aspire towards... not compete with.
Ah, you see therein lies the rub. NPC's like Elminster are special for a reason, and in the end it is highly unlikely (at least in my games) that you'd ever be considered "among their ranks." That wouldn't mean you won't have your own sphere of influence and power, but one has to keep in mind that Elminster has been around for centuries amassing what he has - and realistically, how could you expect to gain 1/20th of that in the span of a campaign (or even several campaigns)?
Why must a party exist in vacuo? The abilities of many of these personalities may seem overwhelming but does that necessarily require the inclusion of an "Aura of NPC banishment"?
That's the problem: They do not. That is why the problem exists. It is a difficult balance to maintain, the ability to keep the world believable - obviously, the PC's aren't alone in their battles against whomever or whatever - but keep them from looking or feeling insignificant. After all, the game is about the PC's not about Elminster, Mystra, the Chosen, the Harpers etc. It's about the PC's who happen to be Harpers (or whatever else).
Another frequent problem and this is really the root cause of Chosen hatred and the novels by many, is how it effects the perceptions of people who want to play a game in the Realms. You read novels about Drizzt, Elminster and the Chosen because they are special, they are unique and they are powerful. You read novels about great conflicts between gods. Yet, all of those things are essentially background information in a Realms game or at least my own. The way things happen in the novels do not always reflect how they happen in my Realms.
For example, in the novels I do not feel the gods are given proper treatment. They are too much like mortals. In my Realms, if you were to meet an avatar or a minor manifestation of Bane (both of which are HIGHLY unlikely) the senses and feelings you get will be overpowering. You are in the presence of a living god. For Bane, it really doesn't matter that your Paladin is immune to fear. Simply being in his presence overwhelms you with terror, and yet you hate and loathe him at the same time - even as you fear him. His mere presence would be oppressive, as if a heavy soul-crushing tension weighs down upon the room and in particular on you. The experience would be a life altering one. If Bane appears and tells you do something, you do it because you're too afraid to disobey - unless of course, you're too frozen with fear to even muster up the courage to move.
Likewise, if you were to be in the presence of Shar you would be overwhelmed by the feelings of loss and hopelessness. It would be so overpowering you'd forget the rest of the world around you, perhaps even things about yourself, and fall to the ground weeping uncontrollably. Whatever Shar wants you give to her, because it doesn't matter - all that matters is the overwhelming sense of hopelessness and loss controlling you - and the knowledge that only Shar can end it. It would be so overpowering that even thoughts of suicide would not seem like an escape.
A god can suppress these things, of course, but why would they? Most gods are egotistical and flaunt their power - because they want worshipers. They want you to be in awe. You can't fight them. You can't stand against them. You can't resist them.
Likewise, the same is true for many NPC's. Rules don't matter for individuals such as Larloch, the Simbul or Elminster. If you go up in battle against them you just die. There really is no hope in defeating them in a fair fight. The only way they'd be defeated is through the use of some type of powerful artifact that suppressed their abilities and powers, bringing them down to your level.
However, this is not how it is in the novels, but that is how it is in my Realms. And I believe that it makes sense and is an accurate representation of what it'd be like if the Realms were a real place. Rules can't measure a gods power, for example, because they are beyond that. They are beyond mortals, completely and utterly in every way.
But someone who reads the novels and then plays in my game, is likely to feel that I am not running the Realms properly or that I am not portraying certain elements correctly. When in fact, I feel that it is the other way around.
I suggested the decanonisation as a basis to prevent setting changes like these being used to slaughter their casts but was argued to a standstill. Surely, if there is no timeline advancement then the setting truly does become stagnant as so many have accused it of being?
It's only stagnant if you let it become stagnant. The benefit of no time line advancement would mean more things will be detailed out. You won't be left wondering: "Gee, there hasn't been an update to Cormyr since 1365 and the current year is 1375. I wonder what has happened?" And then you won't find yourself in this situation: "I heard there is a new Cormyr sourcebook coming out. There hasn't been an update to the timeline there in over a decade, so don't do anything crazy so we can still use the information in it. It'll likely be set in 1378 two years in the future from our current date."
That was always my major problem. I wanted to use all the sourcebooks, but I felt like I was sharing with WotC. I want the Realms to be my own. I don't want to share it with them, with Ed, with Baker, with anyone but those I choose to share it with. That doesn't mean I'm not interested in THEIR Realms, I just don't want what happens in THEIR Realms impacting my own.
Having the history and events of the world written up to a specific date allows anything that occurs after that point to be controlled by individual DM's. Thus, all FR games would spring from the same starting point and diverge from there.
Novels could be optional cannon for DM's who want to incorporate them into their games, or use them as a basis for adventures to be played by their PCs.
But ultimately my biggest beef with the novels is how it impacts the perceptions of players who come to the game after reading them. You sit down with certain expectations and if they are not met, you feel slightly cheated. You sit down wanting to play in the Forgotten Realms, but if a DM runs it differently or makes massive changes, then there is a very real feeling that it is no longer the Forgotten Realms. Instead, it would feel like some bastardize version, a cheap imitation of the original.
Just imagine if WotC had decided to not advance the timeline for 4E. However, you find an FR game starting and join, only to find out that changes similar to what has taken place in the 4E transition took place in that DMs home campaign of the Realms. Would you not feel cheated, as if you were not getting what you wanted, that you were no longer playing in the Forgotten Realms? Most people would and it is logical to feel that way.
It is the reason I would be hesitant to allow a dedicated FR novel reader into my games. I would rather someone who had never heard of FR before, or who has heard of it but not really delved too deep into it, sit down and play. That gives me the opportunity to shape their perceptions of the world right from the outset, without any perceived notions of how things should be according to the WotC cannon.
I sort of see your point, actually. If good is always designed so that it's going to win anyway because evil is presented as incompetent, it cheapens the point of their victories. At the same time, I sort of think that 4E Realms sort of went to the extreme of not really solving the entire problem by making it so evil, in 4E Realms, won in a lot of places through heavy-handed design (ie, Mystra's death, the loss of one of the Seven Sisters with probably more to come, massive landscape redesign, so on).
Absolutely. 4E went in completely the opposite direction. I think certain things that happened were good, such as making the Harpers secret again and thinning their ranks. However, the number of bad things are also numerous.
The Shades, for example, in and of themselves are not the problem. It's the way they were introduced and who they are that is the problem. For example, let's say a war broke out in the Host Tower in Luskan. Half of them left and moved to the Anauroch where they intended to rebuild Netheril.
That could have been a workable way to introduce things. However, at the same time, I understand the reasons behind WotC's decisions. There were a high number of epic level NPC's (such as the Chosen) who would have opposed such a move. Thus, those individuals had to be powerful enough to be threats to them, perhaps defeating them, as well as being competent enough to hold their own.
I just feel the route they took was the easy way out, and ultimately made things boring.
What made Netheril so great was that it was a mysterious lost empire. It's what makes the Imaskari so great. They are mysterious and lost. Reforming those empires, especially by their direct survivors, makes it feel as if they were never really lost. It feels as if it cheapens them. There is a lot of this going on in the 4E Realms.
Additionally, changes could have been made to Thay so they could fill the Shades role. Although, I'm fully aware of how they were perceived - but at least they were not as bad off in that department as the Zhents. Or they could have used the Twisted Rune.
I personally would have dropped the idea of Netheril. They already had a wonderful and workable plot device in Shoon. There could have been some great stories written about how he worked toward regaining his lost power, took over the Twisted Rune, and then began to rebuild his Empire. That is the route I would have gone if I were writing novels.
This really really ticks me off. What a horrible horrible decision. Why did they do this to the Harpers such a fundamental part of the Realms now basically destroyed
Ok MC, you've always been nice to me, so I won't bash you directly on this. I've always hated the idea of favorites in any concept. The reasoning is because people make such a fuss about letting it go. Look what happen to RAS in his story, Wulfgar died, according to the authors liking of a character he created. When "fanboys" freaked out, he was forced to go agaisnt his decision. I personally would have told the fans to go to hell and left Wizard, teaching people a lesson that they can't always get what they want with no more new novels of any characters people may have enjoyed. I'm sure if Drizzt died, within a week people would demand a re-apperance. So in theory, everyone favors everything, meaning, if we all decided that what we like/love should stay, nothing would ever change and advance.
-Forgotten Realms novels, the text within contains information pertinent to the world. When a novel says X happens, in the setting, X happens. When it says Y happens, Y happens. This is what keeps the Forgotten Realms a "living" setting, these novels. Take away their status as world-influencing, and then they become like Eberron novels: Who cares? They don't matter, unless you want a quick read.
But they won't - they'll commit the same, dumb mistake all over again.
If they were smart, the novels would continue in 3e, and then the game could just go it's own way with 4e.
But they won't - they'll commit the same, dumb mistake all over again.
-You'd end up with the same problem that taking away the canon status of novels would have: They just wouldn't matter, so why bother, asides for a quick read? In the same vein, keeping the canon status, and keeping the novels in 1375 DR and on would then impact the new Realms as well.
-Taking away the canon status of novels would be a poor business decision. Eberron novels were not canon to begin with, and look at them? Poor sales, as compared to Dragonlance and the Forgotten Realms. It's because they don't matter. Read the book, don't read the book, it makes no difference. And, the text within the book is about as relevant as Joe Schmoe's campaign.
-Forgotten Realms novels, the text within contains information pertinent to the world. When a novel says X happens, in the setting, X happens. When it says Y happens, Y happens. This is what keeps the Forgotten Realms a "living" setting, these novels. Take away their status as world-influencing, and then they become like Eberron novels: Who cares? They don't matter, unless you want a quick read.
Well, unless they work out some kind of framework to limit the prolific use of high level NPCs and the RSE's that demand their presence, within a couple years we'll be hearing those same complaints.
Bel
I'm sure there are legions of people who will disagree. After all, let's face it, more people read the books than actually play the setting or purchase an FR sourcebook. They aren't interested in that stuff. They are interested in the stories.
Yeah, I know it sounds crazy. Another reason I hate the Realms novels is because I find them, almost without exception, boring and flat. I love Steven Schend's work in the Realms, and out of all the Chosen, Blackstaff was my favorite - and really the only one I liked. (Keeping in mind the only way I really "knew" him was second hand information and sourcebooks.)
However, I tried to read through the Blackstaff Tower sample chapter and I couldn't even finish it. It was dry, uninteresting, boring and flat. I managed to get half way through it before I stopped. I just didn't want to keep reading - not because it was bad writing, per-say, but because it was flat. I simply didn't care to read on. Nothing grabbed my intention and made me care.
Most FR novels are like this. I've only read one FR novel from start to finish, in one sitting, and that was The Black Bouquet. I actually enjoyed that one. However, the only reason I read it was because I was told it had a Dark Moon Monk in it and I wanted to see what one acted like.
Thus, it still would have proven useful to me had it not been cannon because it would have given me an idea - something to work with.
If ALL Realms novels were like that though - confined to a small location and low level characters - I wouldn't have nearly as much problem.
MarkusTay63-
But they won't - they'll commit the same, dumb mistake all over again.
That's because they've already announced that there will be a 5th Edition. Once they've thoroughly made the same mistakes as they made previously, another huge RSE and time jump will "fix" things for the new edition.
-You'd end up with the same problem that taking away the canon status of novels would have: They just wouldn't matter, so why bother, asides for a quick read? In the same vein, keeping the canon status, and keeping the novels in 1375 DR and on would then impact the new Realms as well.
Can I have my quick read please?
Oddly enough for those who lambast the presence of the Chosen in the novels my favourite moments for them were not moments of power: Elminster's interaction with the Lady of Scorchstone Hall (Sharindala), meeting the girls who promptly tried to murder him (I still love the name "Uncle Weirdbeard"), Storm and her sparring, whenever Laer gives Khelben heck for being a grumpy old sod, Dove's compassion to an old slaver that had spent some effort in kindness, Alustriel's careful handling of Taern, the tricks the girls played on each other when younger... and those are just a few off the top of my head. These are the acts I am interested in reading about. Tales of Power I could get from the game, decent tales and characterisations should be the purview of the novels.
Well, unless they work out some kind of framework to limit the prolific use of high level NPCs and the RSE's that demand their presence, within a couple years we'll be hearing those same complaints.
Bel
-These are the things that sell books, aren't they? ;)
-What do you think would sell better: A prolific and climactic battle with the deities, in which the world is the never same again, or a bumbling farmer-turned-adventurer delving into a local dungeon to kill some Orcs?
I'm sure there are legions of people who will disagree. After all, let's face it, more people read the books than actually play the setting or purchase an FR sourcebook. They aren't interested in that stuff. They are interested in the stories.
-Agreed, hence the point I made in my last post. That said, with the idea that there will always be a section that buys books simply for the reading pleasure, and the cool looking cover/title/whatever, apply my statement. Or, negate the first group, and analyze this with just the "D&D/Forgotten Realms reader/fan" in mind.
Yeah, I know it sounds crazy. Another reason I hate the Realms novels is because I find them, almost without exception, boring and flat. I love Steven Schend's work in the Realms, and out of all the Chosen, Blackstaff was my favorite - and really the only one I liked. (Keeping in mind the only way I really "knew" him was second hand information and sourcebooks.)
However, I tried to read through the Blackstaff Tower sample chapter and I couldn't even finish it. It was dry, uninteresting, boring and flat. I managed to get half way through it before I stopped. I just didn't want to keep reading - not because it was bad writing, per-say, but because it was flat. I simply didn't care to read on. Nothing grabbed my intention and made me care.
Most FR novels are like this. I've only read one FR novel from start to finish, in one sitting, and that was The Black Bouquet. I actually enjoyed that one. However, the only reason I read it was because I was told it had a Dark Moon Monk in it and I wanted to see what one acted like.
Thus, it still would have proven useful to me had it not been cannon because it would have given me an idea - something to work with.
If ALL Realms novels were like that though - confined to a small location and low level characters - I wouldn't have nearly as much problem.
-I'm not sure I am understanding the relevancy of what you are mentioning. A lot of it, I agree with, but I'm not sure how it's relevant to what I said.
Reports of the Harpers' demise are greatly exaggerated. More will be revealed in my next Realms novel (after THE SWORD NEVER SLEEPS). Suffice it to say that the Harpers got so infiltrated by undercover foes as to become compromised, so a trick was pulled that Elminster (for one) has pulled before.
The Harpers "disbanded," but a MUCH smaller and more secretive group of Harpers carried on. Eliminating certain false former Harpers was one of their ongoing goals. What their goals are now, few can say . . . for there are few Harpers indeed, and these days they say little, believing in "deeds, not words."
You can find the link to Ed's words here, at the Chamber of Sages section at Candlekeep.
Nice to see the Harpers getting back to their roots and doing some house cleaning.
To bad this revelation won't do anything to increase the sanity level on these forums.
If the designers really wanted to make clear the new Harpers are a more multi-faceted organization than they are, they should have done so in their current mention. They could have done so without any additional word count. This is actually a presentation problem that existed before, but is now carried on into the new edition. It is one of the problems they should have addressed before all the changes they implemented on the Realms. The number of differing perceptions based on limited and selective official presentation of the Realms in previous editions led to the current situation.
Whatever Ed's opinion and intent might be, it seems the author of this article really wanted the Harpers solely focused on the Shadovar. That's the Harpers that the official Realms have now, that's the Harpers the new fans will see and use.
I would and do mourn their passing... but it does seem to be what the people on these forums want.
I don't think I have heard the novels described in positive terms for quite a while.
I don't think thats true. There are some here that a strictly players in the Realms and don't like the canon changing novels
You can find the link to Ed's words here, at the Chamber of Sages section at Candlekeep.
Nice to see the Harpers getting back to their roots and doing some house cleaning.
But the Harpers are still a one trick pony now, that is, just opposing the Shades
That the PCs are useful, and may be the most efficient way of way of dealing with this problem at this time.. I can wrap my head around that one. But the Star Wars-esqe "Help me Obi-Wan you're my only hope" type anime destiny? That every PC you ever play is the annointed saviour (or destroyer) of the Realms from the very beginning? Later on I can see it, if there is a rampaging Dragon and your group are the nearest lot to try and give it a good kicking because the local authorities cannot cope... then the local area might need you, but even then, what about if you fail? Almost every failed adventure tragedy would have a maximum radius, wouldn't it?
Sometimes I like playing "the Chosen One", but a lot of times I don't. I know that messageboards don't necessarily represent the majority, but...
I used to post a lot on the NWN forums. I remember how whenever a new game (or expansion) was coming out, many people would ask the developers whether or not the PC was going to be "the Chosen One". They were hoping they wouldn't be in that role, because they felt it was such an overused plot device.
Oddly enough for those who lambast the presence of the Chosen in the novels my favourite moments for them were not moments of power...
Same goes for me.
I used to post a lot on the NWN forums. I remember how whenever a new game (or expansion) was coming out, many people would ask the developers whether or not the PC was going to be "the Chosen One". They were hoping they wouldn't be in that role, because they felt it was such an overused plot device.
Could be worse at least. That was one thing that I didn't like about Age of Conan's storyline. Your PC is 'the Chosen One'...
...but so is every single other player in the game.
You can find the link to Ed's words here, at the Chamber of Sages section at Candlekeep.
The relevent quote -
From Ed through THO at CK -
"Reports of the Harpers' demise are greatly exaggerated. More will be revealed in my next Realms novel (after THE SWORD NEVER SLEEPS). Suffice it to say that the Harpers got so infiltrated by undercover foes as to become compromised, so a trick was pulled that Elminster (for one) has pulled before.
The Harpers "disbanded," but a MUCH smaller and more secretive group of Harpers carried on. Eliminating certain false former Harpers was one of their ongoing goals. What their goals are now, few can say . . . for there are few Harpers indeed, and these days they say little, believing in "deeds, not words."
I was trying to post that yesterday when it was frist posted over there, but the forums were acting all 'wonky' again. So Misc beat me to it...
Anyhow, that pretty much how I was going to play it anyway. Anything 'official' about them being solely 'anti-shade' I will ignore.
The Harpers #1 weapon in their arsenal has always been pitting 'bad guys' against each other, rather then taking a direct hand. That means if the Zhents have opened up a new, secret path across the northern Anauroch, a Harper (in disguise) would let that information slip to a Shade spy. If the Red Wizards were planning on opening an Enclave in a city where the Twisted Rune ran things, a serepticious Harper agent would give the TR a 'heads-up'.
Using them as 'an army' was always bad-form; they are more like the CIA. They use their contacts and local groups to achieve their ends.
Hopefully authors other then Ed will leave them be from now on, and with the death of the Chosen, perhaps we will start to see a 'saner' type of novel get written for the Realms.
Not that I plan to buy any....
Same goes for me.
I knew there was a reason I liked you.
I am reading the Sorcerer at the moment and about the only bit I am enjoying is the back and forth between the Chosen.. their little point scoring and banter.
Could be worse at least. That was one thing that I didn't like about Age of Conan's storyline. Your PC is 'the Chosen One'...
...but so is every single other player in the game.
LOL, that's always silly...
I knew there was a reason I liked you.
:D
I am reading the Sorcerer at the moment and about the only bit I am enjoying is the back and forth between the Chosen.. their little point scoring and banter.
LOL, still haven't read that book. I'll get around to it, someday.
LOL, still haven't read that book. I'll get around to it, someday.
There is a section where Laer and her sisters are giving Khelben a hard time when he tries to put himself in control of another person's mission... I loved it...
And absolutely no blowing up gods
.I wonder how the FR designing team thought we were going to recieve that.
Actually, they do not care. Like the dev's of 4e stated, we are not their target audience. They are assuming us fans of D&D and the Realms will just merrily go out and buy this garbage. They're targeting the younger crowd, trying to get new players in. Getting new players in is great, but not at the expense of your core group.
As to what they did to the Harpers, yet again, more proof to me that The Realms are Dead.
I'm a big 4E defender, but I do have to wonder what IS left.
It's likely a lot of my 4E games will be in Cormyr now.
Wait a minute. Didn;t you just write an whole long topic on how these changes are good and necessary? Or were you TRULY playing Devil's Advocate in that topic?
I hate Shades, and bringing back a dead empire shows a total lack of creativity, IMHO.
These guys just don't seem to be able to create their own stuff, so they crap all over the lore created by the truly creative designers of the past.
The Relms are about Lost civilizations and ruins - something the 'new crew' just can't seem to wrap their tiny little minds around. Now that I heard they brought back Imaskar as well, they just proved my point that they can't design their way out of a paper bag.
Stop copying others, and do something to earn your pay!!!
That's the idea, use the lore they give us, don't simply attack out of frustration. Make it your own. If you don't like the loss of the Harpers, well now your Higher level characters are free to build there own organization, without stepping on the old Harper's toes. Just as good as building a kingdom, and better in some ways, since you are still able to move around more or less freely in the Realms.
LOL
Seriously, I find this statement hysterical. I'm supposed to give WOTC my hard earned cash and then do THEIR job for them by changing everything they've written to make it my own? No thanks. Much better to keep my money and go OTHER routes. Seems my time in the Realms has come to an end...
There is a section where Laer and her sisters are giving Khelben a hard time when he tries to put himself in control of another person's mission... I loved it...
That does sound interesting!
And absolutely no blowing up gods
How very refreshing, in these times.;)
I hate Shades, and bringing back a dead empire shows a total lack of creativity, IMHO.
Well, look at it this way--at least back then, unearthing an old empire was "new". The problem is they keep doing it again, again, and again...
I actually don't have a huge problem with the Shades, but in my Realms they are just one more threat in the Realms out of many, not the threat in the Realms.
PS: The Deep Imaskar are a "symptom" of the problem you're talking about, but by now they've been around for a few years.
Yes, although it's not as secret as it used to be.
18DELTA ;)
Using them as 'an army' was always bad-form; they are more like the CIA. They use their contacts and local groups to achieve their ends.
I agree, and that is how I've always viewed the Harpers. I felt that they ended up being over used. They're meant to be an organization dedicated to espionage and intrigue. If they attack anyone, it's always assassination style missions - they go for the leaders. Otherwise the rest is just manipulation and scheming.
I wouldn't have minded had a splinter group fractured off from the Harpers with the goal of militarizing the Harpers in mind... that could have been an interesting plot story. Instead that's what they tried to morph the entire organization into, which I always felt was out of character for them.
In the end that is why I think this change is a good thing.
Given that this is information from THE Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, it should be accurate, as DM's actually have to read it and use the information within in their own games.
It's not as if the line is ambiguous either.
Something to keep in mind, DM's don't have to use the information in their own FR games. Its not like the Forgottern Realms Police are on Patrol. Yeah, the novels will reflect the 4E Realms, but games don't have to. For instance, I was planning on my FR homebase to be an enclave for the Harpers in the 100 year gap. And I still will. Its my FR game to run.
I felt that they ended up being over used.
-These seems to be a recurring theme, certain elements of the setting being used over and over and over, and being beaten to death.
-These seems to be a recurring theme, certain elements of the setting being used over and over and over, and being beaten to death.
This also works with the "I hate Mystra" and "I hate the uber NPCs" sentiment. TSR really started the beating of the dead horse concept and WOTC continued it in 3E.
This also works with the "I hate Mystra" and "I hate the uber NPCs" sentiment. TSR really started the beating of the dead horse concept and WOTC continued it in 3E.
-Which ties back to the X element of the setting being overused. If Mystra was not always featured, and used more sparingly, there would be less malice sent in her direction. If X NPC was not always featured, and used more sparingly, there would be less malice sent in his/her/it's direction.
Originally Posted by WotC_RichBaker
Most of our internal discussions about Harpers moving into 4e ran toward "oh, just let them die already."...
[/b]
Ok.... now this to me perfectly demonstrates what the real problem with the Realms was. Most of the recent developers just don't seem to care. From the very begining, the Realms was a labor of love. Ed Greenwood and others carefully built it up over the years, and the result was some thing truly special. They created a setting that was rich and unique, that had a truly wonderful set of personalities and flavor. Under their stewardship, the setting took on a life of it's own.
Now we have the new generation of developers at the helm. People that don't have the emotional envolvement that the previous developers had. People that weren't part of the Realms creation. Foster parents if you will. While they may be decent people, and perhaps even talented in what they do; they do not have the attachment to the realms that the others had, and do not have the capacity to nurture it as they did. So instead we get comments like these from the people who are paid to preserve and grow the franchise. To me, there is something inherently wrong with that, and it is no wonder that the realms are heading the direction that they are.
To me a developer should be passionate about their product. They need to be emotionally involved, and wanting to protect, nurture, and expand it. Instead we have developers who are saying that it is too much trouble to work with such a detailed setting, and many treasured parts of the realms should "Just go ahead and die". And thats the disapointing, as the developers need to care about their product at least as much as the players do.
I think this just re-affirmed my decision to go homebrew.
18DELTA :embarrass
Ok.... now this to me perfectly demonstrates what the real problem with the Realms was. Most of the recent developers just don't seem to care. From the very begining, the Realms was a labor of love. Ed Greenwood and others carefully built it up over the years, and the result was some thing truly special. They created a setting that was rich and unique, that had a truly wonderful set of personalities and flavor. Under their stewardship, the setting took on a life of it's own.
Now we have the new generation of developers at the helm. People that don't have the emotional envolvement that the previous developers had. People that weren't part of the Realms creation. Foster parents if you will. While they may be decent people, and perhaps even talented in what they do; they do not have the attachment to the realms that the others had, and do not have the capacity to nurture it as they did. So instead we get comments like these from the people who are paid to preserve and grow the franchise. To me, there is something inherently wrong with that, and it is no wonder that the realms are heading the direction that they are.
To me a developer should be passionate about their product. They need to be emotionally involved, and wanting to protect, nurture, and expand it. Instead we have developers who are saying that it is too much trouble to work with such a detailed setting, and many treasured parts of the realms should "Just go ahead and die". And thats the disapointing, as the developers need to care about their product at least as much as the players do.
-Tastefully and tactfully said, and seemingly, very true.
In a way the OGL is what killed the Realms. Think about it.
-Must the OGL be stopped?
-Logically it does make some sense, that with the old FR designers out doing other things in life via OGL and just moving on with life and careers outside of gaming, that a new batch of 'upstarts' would come in and try and leave their mark on the game, the setting, and the industry. Life does happen you know, I don't think some of the designers were wanting to stay at WotC forever just so they could write more Realms books. This was bound to happen one of these days. It came sooner than later dagnabit. So here we are with this mess that comes out tomorrow.
18DELTA ;)
-Logically it does make some sense, that with the old FR designers out doing other things in life via OGL and just moving on with life and careers outside of gaming...
-I don't think that can be attributed to the OGL. People have come into the setting, left their touch, and left before the OGL, and for reasons not related to the OGL. Jeff Grubb, for instance.
-I don't think that can be attributed to the OGL. People have come into the setting, left their touch, and left before the OGL, and for reasons not related to the OGL. Jeff Grubb, for instance.
True - and to further the counterpoint, without the OGL we might not be seeing some of the stuff from these authors, in new and original work, that we are now. Was it worth it to have all of these changes we don't like made to the Realms, if it means we get things like Pathfinder? Maybe so - we'll have to see how it all plays out.
Personally, I think it's good news for the hobby as a whole, the way this whole D&D split is looking like it may end up. After all, if we have an easier to learn/quicker more game-oriented version (4th Edition), and a complex/in-depth more simulation-oriented version (3.x/Pathfinder), the net result may well be to broaden the appeal of D&D in general, and result in a larger aggregate fanbase.
I think once the worst of the edition wars die down, we may see more people who own both, and play one or the other at a given time. After all, in the days of 2nd Edition, I owned that and many other RPGs, even as a relatively broke teenager. What was played would vary some, but it wasn't as if we religiously stuck to only one system ever.
-I don't think that can be attributed to the OGL. People have come into the setting, left their touch, and left before the OGL, and for reasons not related to the OGL. Jeff Grubb, for instance.
-So...designers come and go. Why are we complaining again then?
18DELTA ;) :P
-Which ties back to the X element of the setting being overused. If Mystra was not always featured, and used more sparingly, there would be less malice sent in her direction. If X NPC was not always featured, and used more sparingly, there would be less malice sent in his/her/it's direction.
WOTC's treatment of those characters did not help anything but I think some of the dislike for certain features of FR happened during TSRs reign. They toyed with some things to make a buck and beat the concept into the ground. Like I said WOTC didn't help matter but by then I think it was too late and many gamers had a negative view on certain aspects of the realms by then. Negative enough to have them steer clear from the setting and its sourcebooks.
I dont have a problem with the harpers being disbanded or destroyed. Too many goodies running around Faerun as it is. I was happy to see them diminished as well as most of the Chosen destroyed. This is a time of chaos in the Realms as life goes on after the Spellplague. Things arent always going to stay the same and people just need to deal with it. There always things we are gonna love in the FR setting, but change is always good otherwise things just become stagnet. I prefer a good shake up from time to time. It makes things less boring.
And what YOU like is present in almost every other game setting. Go play with them if you like that kind of setting and leave us with what we like.
Alediran made a good point too, but did so in an 'agressive' manner. Telling people to "go play somewhere else" does not help matters, even if your point was valid (and it was).
There had to be a hundred settings for D20 Fantasy out there without any Harpers, Chosen, Mystra, or Weave... so why didn't all the 'Haters' play those, if they disliked FR so much?
Why did FR have to become like every other setting for them to be happy? I never liked Dragonlance, and Dark Sun wasn't my cup of tea, but I never wanted them to change either to become more like the settings I played in - that would be both presumptuous and selfish of me. I know other people enjoyed them very much, and I was happy for them.
So why did people have to come along and insist that FR be remade in their image?
I don't like Giant Robots, so I avoid watching Transformers or anything else of that ilk. I don't go to Transformers boards and try to get them to take out the Giant Robots. There are dozens of other good anime shows I watch that make me happy, and ruining someone else's 'good time' isn't going to make me any happier - it just makes me a right bastard.
In fact, GH was perfectly suited for people who wanted a generic fantasy World without all the encyclopedic lore or Uber-Munchkin NPCs. Why couldn't that have stayed core, and FR be left alone? What was the point of changing everything that made FR stand out from the pack?
I'm certainly tired of many of your posts being borderline to outright attacks on anyone who dares to express excitement over the changes to the Realms. They are not your Realms, they belong to everyone. If you can't control your outbursts maybe you need to step back from the computer and find something that you don't have to share with other fans.
WOTC's treatment of those characters did not help anything but I think some of the dislike for certain features of FR happened during TSRs reign. They toyed with some things to make a buck and beat the concept into the ground. Like I said WOTC didn't help matter but by then I think it was too late and many gamers had a negative view on certain aspects of the realms by then. Negative enough to have them steer clear from the setting and its sourcebooks.
-I treat WotC and TSR as the same entity. It doesn't really matter who is publishing stuff as much as it matters what is being published.
You see, although I'd have to agree with Alediran's above statement, I think I would have to go along with LK and say that Bonzai made an excellent point, and did so with no vitriol what-so-ever.
Alediran made a good point too, but did so in an 'agressive' manner. Telling people to "go play somewhere else" does not help matters, even if your point was valid (and it was).
-It's not what you say, but how you say it.
-Example:
MT, you're an idiot.
MT, I find your opinions on this matter lacking, in this regard.
You see, although I'd have to agree with Alediran's above statement, I think I would have to go along with LK and say that Bonzai made an excellent point, and did so with no vitriol what-so-ever.
Alediran made a good point too, but did so in an 'agressive' manner. Telling people to "go play somewhere else" does not help matters, even if your point was valid (and it was).
There had to be a hundred settings for D20 Fantasy out there without any Harpers, Chosen, Mystra, or Weave... so why didn't all the 'Haters' play those, if they disliked FR so much?
Why did FR have to become like every other setting for them to be happy? I never liked Dragonlance, and Dark Sun wasn't my cup of tea, but I never wanted them to change either to become more like the settings I played in - that would be both presumptuous and selfish of me. I know other people enjoyed them very much, and I was happy for them.
So why did people have to come along and insist that FR be remade in their image?
I don't like Giant Robots, so I avoid watching Transformers or anything else of that ilk. I don't go to Transformers boards and try to get them to take out the Giant Robots. There are dozens of other good anime shows I watch that make me happy, and ruining someone else's 'good time' isn't going to make me any happier - it just makes me a right bastard.
In fact, GH was perfectly suited for people who wanted a generic fantasy World without all the encyclopedic lore or Uber-Munchkin NPCs. Why couldn't that have stayed core, and FR be left alone? What was the point of changing everything that made FR stand out from the pack?
here here
too bad its too late to save our setting
18DELTA :P
It isn't.
Everytime I try to step back and do what I love - enjoy the lore and build upon it, the 'atmosphere' here drags me back down and sullies me.
And I'm not saying I'm innocent - far from - but its a 'mob mentality', and we all feed each others hate. The few times I've taken a few days off from the boards, I felt a lot better about FR.
And thats a real kick in the head - I have to avoid the FR boards to feel good about it.
Starting tomorrow, I see a month-longth case of migrains and Ojeda coming at me.
And thats a real kick in the head - I have to avoid the FR boards to feel good about it.
Starting tomorrow, I see a month-longth case of migrains and Ojeda coming at me.
-As long as you don't ignore the Elves of Faerûn thread and the Kara-Tur Re-Dux thread...
I tried to leave onece, but in the word of The Godfather...
"Every time I thought I was out, they pull me back in."
I tried to leave onece, but in the word of The Godfather...
"Every time I thought I was out, they pull me back in."
-I'm very like that. :P
-I am tired of being negative about something that I am POWERLESS over, thus in my powerlessness I act out in anger, resentment, and or fear. It's not good for the community or the Realms as a whole.
I am beginning to think that this forum attracts negative posters, look at the resident "troll". He has regenerated how many times. He keeps coming back because he feed's off the negative vibe here. Thus I really think this forum needs a good dose of Moderation, not to stiffle discussion, but the threadcrapping, the off topic posts, and other stuff.(which I am guilty of myself) :embarrass 18DELTA
I am beginning to think that this forum attracts negative posters, look at the resident "troll". He has regenerated how many times. He keeps coming back because he feed's off the negative vibe here.
-No, our resident troll bothers us for reasons unrelated to any of this. Remember, the troll doesn't follow the setting, or play D&D. The troll trolls because that's what trolls do, and it has "targets".
Thus I really think this forum needs a good dose of Moderation, not to stiffle discussion, but the threadcrapping, the off topic posts, and other stuff.(which I am guilty of myself) :embarrass
-If you see posts that you believe violate the CoC, hit the 'Report Post' button. If a WizO agrees, the post will be edited/deleted. If not, the WizO does not violate the CoC.
I dont have a problem with the harpers being disbanded or destroyed. Too many goodies running around Faerun as it is.
No, there weren't.
-It's not what you say, but how you say it.
-Example:
MT, you're an idiot.
MT, I find your opinions on this matter lacking, in this regard.
I totally agree. Allow me to share another example:
Hey you, get offa my cloud!
Hey you, [b]GET OFF MY
CLOUD![/b]One statement is polite, the other nasty.
I totally agree. Allow me to share another example:
Hey you, get offa my cloud!
Hey you, [b]GET OFF MY
One statement is polite, the other nasty.
-Very true.