Do you like Elminster? Do you dislike Elminster? Why/Why not?
Me, personally, I like the idea of Elminster, a powerful and old Wizard who acts like a champion of the goddess of magic. Elminster: The Making of the Mage, The Temptation of Elminster and Elminster's Daughter, I liked those. The other two, Elminster in Myth Drannor and Elminster in Hell I didn't like so much. I never read the Shadows of the Avatar books either.
I dont like the character of Elminster, though. I think that he is extremely overexposed. Keep the character to those novels, and to a few sourcebooks, and I think he is fine. When it seems like Elminster had a hand doing nearly every important thing to take place during his lifetime- Myth Drannors mythal, Mystra's holy energy during the Time of Trouble, raising the Seven Sisters, training Cormyr's Royal Magician, or giving Alias and Dragonbait the Finder's Stone, or helping forming the Harpers, and this and that and this and that, I get a bit frustrated. He seems to be everywhere, doing everything, doing everyone.
Is it just me? I know it's not "his" fault, since he is just a character and authors just write about him, but does anyone else share my opinion on him?
I don't really need him to be a statted out character though. :/
I wish they would go back to the Elminster interview style, it was personable.
I just thought like sharing. I was in a discussion about it but it really wasn't the main topic.
Do you like Elminster? Do you dislike Elminster? Why/Why not? (...)
I've enjoyed Elminster as a novel character, certainly. In 20+ years of playing the Realms, across multiple groups and games, I've never actually used him as an NPC or had him personally meet my players. Same thing when I've been a player, never sought him out. The closest we've come, I think, is when we found a small spellbook that Elminster had personally penned, which was fun... but we've always kept some distance between our PCs and the more popular NPCs.
Oh, and Elminster, without your hat on, people fear you more. Bring back the red hat!
He came in at the end after we saved Tantras. It wasn't so bad but he was a 2E fan like me and I learned that day that I must never use the high level NPC. The people in town cheered for El instead of us I think. It was like that episode of DM of The Ring and the Battle For Helms Deep. I heard many other 2E DMs do this in many 2E and 3E games.
I still like El, as a plot device not a scene stealer.
I envisioned him being more True Neutral, than Chaotic Good. He'd manipulate one side against another to keep both sides weak, so that neither side could fully conquer the other. If one side gains the upper hand, he switches sides. It was about keeping the balance and maintaining the status quo.
He rarely, if ever got involved directly, and if he was involved in something you'd likely never find out. He worked through webs. In my mind he was kinda like a non-Evil Shar. He was a long term plotter and schemer. He never took the center stage, as that was the last place he wanted to be - he's the guy who makes heroes, not becomes one.
That's how I envisioned him to be. Then he was thrust into center stage, much like Shar is being thrust into center stage now, and this entire persona is ruined.
In 4E, I've stuck close to cannon regarding Elminster. Both he and the Simbul are currently living in Candlekeep. Only one or two know their real identities, and the rest of the world thinks they are dead. They are hiding, because they are both defeated. After the destruction of the Weave, the Simbul lost her power and Elminster was involved in some type of magical catastrophe regarding the Spellplague. Both still retain their immortality, but that is all they retain. They are the last of the Chosen - all others are dead. All of Elminster's children are also dead.
The Simbul remains at Elminster's side out of both loyalty and love, but she is little more than a caregiver and nursemaid than a sexual concubine. In fact, I doubt Elminster would feel comfortable with her in that role. I've taken the lead of 4th Edition and made Elminster insane.
I actually am VERY loosely basing 4E Elminster off of John Forbes Nash, Jr. To those around him, they'd diagnose him with paranoid schizophrenia, clinical depression and multiple personality disorder. His life is lived between reality and fantasy. He has trouble telling them apart. His body is disfigured, and appears as a burn victim whose physical injuries are healed.
Although the delusions he struggles with is in reality created by both his own insanity, but also an unknown number of dead individuals - mostly wizards - who died during the Spellplague. Most of these individuals are very much insane, others are very dangerous and seek to take control of him, while others appear benevolent.
To give an example of what the world might seem like looking at it through Elminster's eyes...
His room in Candlekeep is small, windowless, and very barren. It has a serious and withdrawn-from-the-world feeling to it, like a monk living in a monastery. It'd have the bare essentials only and be dimly lit by candle light. Probably the most odd thing in the room would be the bed. It'd have restraints on it, like those used to restrain psychiatric patients. This is occasionally required, as he may lose control, becoming a danger to himself or others. Sometimes his paranoia (the voices in his head) might confuse him and lead him to believe that someone is trying to harm him and that he needs to defend himself. So he might get a weapon and try and hurt them - or anyone else, for that matter.
To give an example of this type of situation, and what the world looks like through his eyes, the Simbul might be there trying to give him a glass of water. If he looks to his left, he might see someone being burned alive by blue fire, screaming painfully at the top of their lungs. He is in control enough to realize that it is just an illusion - that such a thing is not reality. Another individual might be standing behind the Simbul, simply watching her or perhaps holding a weapon of some type - or threatening her life. Then a voice in his head might be saying something like, "She tried to poison you yesterday, don't you remember? She resents what you've made her become. She wants to get rid of you. You drag her down. She's going to try and poison you again." He may become confused by this voice, thinking that it is his own thoughts or mind (it may even be!), and then slap the glass of water from her hands, and begin telling her that he "knows" what she is trying to do - that he's seen through her "lies." So forth and so on.
From there he could become more aggressive or be calmed by her. If he gets worse, he may have to be restrained until he calms down.
Another example of his mental state is his memory. He may forget certain events have taken place, or suddenly feel as if he is somehow in the past. These are actually when he is most like his old self. He'll be his usual self (as I depicted him above) one moment, then suddenly start to talk about some type of emotionally intense event that is about to take place. For example, he may begin exclaiming that he and the Simbul need to hurry and save Laspeera, one of his daughters. He would be confused about where he is or what is going on around him. Then the Simbul would have to try and calm him, and gently explain that Laspeera has been dead for over fifty years, that she was captured by the Prince's of Shade and tortured to death in an effort to completely wipe out his family line. This, of course, assuming he believes her and does not become hostile, will result in him reliving the traumatic experience of being told he had lost a child all over again. He'd begin to sob uncontrollably, sink into a depression, right up until he forgets about it all over again.
This is what Elminster has become in my Realms, and while I know some people might completely flip out, he serves a very real purpose. First of all, it makes clear how dangerous and dark the world is... seeing Elminster (or anyone really) reduced to this it enrages an individual. Elminster, the great hero, has been utterly and completely destroyed. He serves as a reminder that even the greatest of heroes and the most powerful are capable of falling. The world is incredibly dark, there is no "shadow" - that would indicate that there is some light somewhere, no, it's pitch black. The heroes failed.
If I bring Elminster into my game, which I very well might someday, it is for a purpose. To give you a reason to fight. When you look at him, I want you to feel both pity and rage, and then turn that rage into righteous anger which you turn upon those which are responsible for the "darkening" of the Realms. I want you to feel as if you are the last hope, and that if you fail all is lost, and that even if what you are doing is small in comparison to the darkness facing the world, a single point of light is better than no light at all.
You are no longer fighting just for yourself, but for individuals like Elminster and the Simbul who have been horribly harmed as a result of the evil that now is pervasive. It also puts a familiar face on the price of failure.
In general, I would keep him from directly working with the PCs until level 18 or so, I guess, unless they make it their business to seek him out and work for him personally. Which, with all the gofers he has, might take some work. He might not be paranoid, but he's been in trouble enough time to be suspicious out of people who seek him out.
Also, I think that he and the Harpers actively try to promote his image as an eccentric sage, not a uber-powerful archmage. Keeping a low profile helps him avoid long waiting lines in front of his door and the enmity of too many powerful NPCs. I'd say that in my campaigns, no more than 20 people would know Elminster's real powers, and the vast majority of the people who have heard his name know him as a sage.
Interesting take... far too bleak for me by far, but well thought out nonetheless.
Yeah, it is pretty bleak. However, I decided to use WotC's idea and run with it. I needed to think of a reason that the Simbul and Elminster would basically be chilling out on a farm in the Dalelands. That doesn't make much sense, when you think about it. After the Spellplague, both would have been weakened. Both have made powerful enemies who'd sell their own mothers to kill them.
So basically, I had Elminster and the Simbul go out on the run. Various groups, after the death of Mystra, began hunting down and killing her Chosen, going after their families and other connected groups (such as the Harpers). Elminster obtained his current state in a rather heroic fashion, he was trying to save some city (haven't decided which) from the Spellplague. However, something went wrong - the plague somehow passed through a portal and the entire city was consumed by "blue fire." Despite this tragedy he did manage to close the portal and prevent it from spreading outward creating an even worse situation.
Since he was at ground zero, and survived the blue flames of the plague, I decided that he should look like a recovered burned victim. It is a physical representation of the internal damage. Everyone in the city, having died in the flames, ended up trapped inside Elminster's Mind. Everyone assumes that the Simbul was with him at the time (she was nearby, but not in the city) and that they both died in the event.
I guess this technically makes Elminster a plaguechanged creature, though the only powers he got with it is his insanity and delusions... it might be interesting to have him discover some dormant abilities though. Perhaps not necessarily linked to Elminster himself, but to the various individuals trapped within his mind, which he is actively trying to repress.
Elminster isn't always crazy, as he has times where he is lucid. I only described the "bad days." He enjoys Candlekeep because reading and writing keeps him focused and calm, and allows him to ignore the delusions that he is constantly plagued with - similar to how in a Beautiful Mind, when toward the end Nash learns to ignore his hallucinations.
Except, of course, what Elminster sees are real individuals that once existed, but are now trapped within him, most of them reliving their last moments over and over. Some perhaps accusing him of failure. However, more frighteningly would be those that seem to be lucid and aware of their condition and situation, and attempt to take control of his mind and body.
This is what Elminster has become in my Realms, and while I know some people might completely flip out, he serves a very real purpose. First of all, it makes clear how dangerous and dark the world is... seeing Elminster (or anyone really) reduced to this it enrages an individual. Elminster, the great hero, has been utterly and completely destroyed. He serves as a reminder that even the greatest of heroes and the most powerful are capable of falling. The world is incredibly dark, there is no "shadow" - that would indicate that there is some light somewhere, no, it's pitch black. The heroes failed.
This is an excellent idea actually, but I think it's just a little extreme in some ways because it might make him a little less useful as a potential plot device. I still have him with a degree of magical ability as well, but he's hardly in any condition to be fighting aboleths (which Mr. Cordell has ensured are crawling around), shadow servants, demons and the like. Most things still wouldn't want to pick a fight with him though, but he wouldn't be able to take on the opponents he could once easily handle anymore.
I prefer keeping him, maybe a little insane but not entirely broken as someone the players could perhaps seek out for advice on an opponent, region or similar but who ultimately could not face the same dangers they could anymore.
I must be one of the few that more or less liked Elminster as he was... I did not see him at all in my FR games, mostly because they were fairly low-level. Elminster would be one of the myriad of high-level NPCs duking it out in the background; at levels up to 10 he has no business at all with the party - this is why he has/had an entire organization helping him. Actually, I could get a kick out of having him crossing paths with them in a way they wouldn't recognize - maybe eating a meat pie in the tavern they are in Amn or as the guy in front of them in the alchemy shop in Bezantur.
In general, I would keep him from directly working with the PCs until level 18 or so, I guess, unless they make it their business to seek him out and work for him personally. Which, with all the gofers he has, might take some work. He might not be paranoid, but he's been in trouble enough time to be suspicious out of people who seek him out.
Also, I think that he and the Harpers actively try to promote his image as an eccentric sage, not a uber-powerful archmage. Keeping a low profile helps him avoid long waiting lines in front of his door and the enmity of too many powerful NPCs. I'd say that in my campaigns, no more than 20 people would know Elminster's real powers, and the vast majority of the people who have heard his name know him as a sage.
The second paragraphy summarises why I dislike Elminster, and it's not really a specificically Elminster problem. Should 18th level characters really be working as lackeys for for someone else?
Shouldn't they by that point of their careers have their own goals and ambitions, or is being able to cast Wish trivial?Also, I'd like to eventually someday make both the Simbul and Elminster the center of a campaign. I've never used them before, and as such, it'd be nice to somehow use them in a way that meshes with my style, while eliminating the standard fears that typically come into play with using such NPC's.
Basically, at the moment the Simbul and Elminster are in Candlekeep, and they are working to keep a low profile. They have many enemies that are still alive, and many individuals who would take their life – gleefully – if they knew their true identities. The Simbul is going by the name of Myra Summers, a widowed woman whose husband died mysteriously. She is in Candlekeep to take care of her father, a close personal friend of the Keeper of the Tomes. Her father is an elderly man who, in his age, has become rather confused and delusional. He is rarely ever seen publicly, and anytime he is he is always closely escorted by Myra and one or two others before being ushered back inside. Most believe he is on his last legs and will pass soon, and that Myra will remain in Candlekeep for a time, before leaving to find a new husband and perhaps settle down – she is still young, after all.
Of course, in reality her "Father" is Elminster, and there is nothing young about her. She, like Elminster, has changed a lot over the last 100 years. What would you expect? One day you can hurl fireballs around the size of houses, and the next you realize for the first time in your life that you ACTUALLY have to eat to stay alive. You tend to lose a lot of your spunk and brazen carelessness, when suddenly you become super vulnerable and powerless for the first time in your life.
Although, not being insane like Elminster has opened other doors of opportunity for her to protect herself. I am envisioning her, instead of hurling fireballs, hurling magical daggers made of blue flame linked to a spellscar. So at minimum, even though Elminster himself is defenseless, she at least has the ability to fend off a minor attack.
Basically, what I am considering is having the First Reader be a traitor, and a spy for the Empire of Netheril. He uncovers the truth about Elminster and the Simbul, and ensures that information is passed along to his contacts.
The PC's will be pretty low level, and likely have already completed some type of adventure together. They'd be in Candlekeep for one reason or another. Perhaps they are following clues dealing with a certain Netherese spy, who happens to be... of course... the First Reader.
However, before they could get too far in their investigation they become sidetracked. The Keeper of the Tomes is assassinated! Following the clues, they'd quickly learn that the assassin was really after the beautiful Myra, and that the Keeper of the Tomes was killed because he got in the way. The assassin himself was later found mysteriously dead, after Myra successfully fended him off.
Realizing the jig is up and that she's in serious deep crap, Myra AKA the Simbul realizes that she has to get herself and Elminster out of Candlekeep ASAP. That's when the old manipulative habits start to resurface. When questioned about why an assassin would be after her, she was really a wife of a wealthy Sembian Merchant who got into conflict with the Empire. They had her husband killed but she escaped with her father and came to Candlekeep to hide. She'd tell them that she'd be happy to share some of her wealth with them if they'd only help get her and her father to safety.
They'd then flee Candlekeep under the cover of darkness, completely unknowing that they have the Simbul and Elminster with them and just how much danger they are truly in... and just how far the First Reader, now the Keeper of the Tomes, is willing to go to deliver them all to the Princes of Shade himself.
That would be the beginning of the campaign. They'd eventually learn the truth sometime later, when the lies “Myra” has told simply no longer work, and she is forced into a corner and pushed them to their limit. Of course, by this point they are so far in over their head that they have no choice but to keep going forward. They are all in it together, like it or not, and they'll be hunted to the ends of Toril and back again. This ultimately forces a confrontation with the Empire of Netheril, that culminates in the destruction of the Shade Enclave and the death of most, perhaps all, the twelve princes. This in turn results in the unexpected collapse of the Empire of Netheril.
Somewhere halfway through I'd like to see a romance develop between one of the PC's and the Simbul. It might start out as manipulation, her pretending to have feelings for said PC, but using him as a weapon against the others to defend her and her "father." A way to prolong her manipulations and lies. However, overtime she'd develop honest and true feelings for the PC, which could cause an interesting rift between her and Elminster.
In the end I'd want Elminster to have come to terms with everything and his fate. I'd want him to sacrifice himself in some way that saves the PC's - perhaps giving them an opportunity to escape the Shade Enclave before it is destroyed, maybe by holding off one or more of the Princes alone. You know, a "Fly, you fools!" Gandalf moment. Perhaps, along the way, they find a way to recover some of his sanity. Of course, unlike Gandalf he'd really be dead, freeing up the Simbul to be with the PC.
With the collapse of the Empire immanent, and over the course of the campaign the Simbul regaining her confidence ("Hey, I can defend myself without powerful magic..."), she'd suddenly realizes she has an old score to settle with Szass Tam.
That would open up a whole new campaign.
Anyway, all the above was just stream of consciousness. I'd love to run a 4E campaign like that, and watching the fall out from the collapse of the Empire of Netheril, and perhaps later the collapse of Thay as well. The birthing pangs of a new age.
Is it just me?
I know for a fact it's not "just you", although I don't quite share your opinion about him. Elminster is one of my favorite characters in the Realms! I love the concept of the character and even the execution, although I would agree with you that he's been rather overexposed, in theory (like I said, I *do* like him and enjoy reading about him--if a new Elminster novel comes out, I won't say no!). There are other characters Ed would like to write about and there are other characters that we'd love to read about.
I guess the character sells pretty well.
PS: I'd also agree that El isn't the type of character who needed to be statted.
I'm sorry if I'm not a mindless zombie.
The second paragraphy summarises why I dislike Elminster, and it's not really a specificically Elminster problem. Should 18th level characters really be working as lackeys for for someone else?
Bluenose, I think you might have missed an important detail. I said working with him, not for him. The PCs do not have to be at his beck and call, unless they want it that way - this is the level when your party can have a meaningful and serious interaction with someone on his level as (near) equal. In a way, this is when they are in the same league. Now, if the characters want to work for him, that is their business. He's probably not a bad boss, and many a lvl 8 mage would do a lot to, say, take a peek at Elminster's spellbook.
And if the party doesn't want any part of Elminster in the game? It's a big world, and only one Elminster, so chances are he will just do something else and not meet them at all. Sure, if they operate in the Dales, have dealings with the harpers etc and have gained a level of notoriety he might want to keep tabs on powerful allies/enemies, but a thousand+ years old archmage with a couple of rogue levels probably knows how to be discreet.
Shouldn't they by that point of their careers have their own goals and ambitions, or is being able to cast Wish trivial?
No, they should have those at any point of their careers - that is what makes them characters. Elminster, or any other NPC levels high or low, does not take away that (barring dominate spells, but that's another topic). Player characters interact with NPCs as they try to achieve their goals and further their ambitions - whether it's Elminster the Archmage, Grubmug the goblin or Iggwig the half-illithid lizardman bartender. Yes, those NPCs will have goals and ambitions of their own and try to act on them, that's what makes them characters. And yes, they will try to impose those goals and ambitions on the characters they interact with, just as the PCs do. That's how it happens in real life, as well.
I think what you said was one of the things I like least about people's perceptions of Elminster. He's a very powerful NPC - definitely. So are about 50 others, and I'm not even including dragons, elemental lords, and the like. Such NPCs should be handled carefully, especially in a game where the players are of lower level. That is obvious enough and, btw, need not be a problem. If the players don't want Elminster in their game, or don't want to work for him, and yet the DM forces them to, that's not a problem with Elminster, as a novel character or a Realms NPC. It's a problem with the DM. And if the players identify more with a famous NPC's goals and ambitions than those of their own characters, that's a problem with the players.
We know otherwise. From Ed:-
"He owes a little bit to the Old Storyteller of Thornton W. Burgess, a little bit to Merlin, a little bit to Gandalf, a trifle to Fagin, a trifle to the literary character Glencannon, a little bit more to the real-life (and long since sadly deceased) English comedian Michael Flanders, and so on."
And,
"He's more Merlin than he is Gandalf or Belgarath—in fact, if you look at Nicol Williamson 's portrayal of Merlin in the movie Excalibur, remove the skullcap, and change the red hair to dark brown, the result will be pretty close to Elminster's whimsical behaviour and general looks; Old El of course predates the movie, too. "
Elminster as an NPC in a campaign setting? I'm okay with; he pops up less often than in the novels it seems.
I haven't really had much use for him (or any of the Chosen and Seven Sisters) in our homebrew games. Still, I have definite ideas on how I would handle them in our Realms:
The Chosen of Mystra
I'd want to restore the aura of mystery surrounding the Chosen. In published material for v.3.5, "full disclosure" is givne on the stats of the Chosen. To me, this implies that their true power is widely recognized. I don't believe this is the case however.
As first indicated in Code of the Harpers, very few people are aware of the existence of the Chosen (as such). Going going back to this would hopefully place more importance on the PCs and less on iconic NPCs such as the Chosen.
For example: Most people have heard of Elminster the Sage, a reclusive archmage who resides in rural Shadowdale. Few however, realize he is a senior Harper. On the other hand, Khelben “Blackstaff” Arunsun is very much the cosmopolitan figure, largely suspected to be a Lord of Waterdeep and a Harper. Storm Silverhand, the Bard of Shadowdale, is a driving force behind the Harpers. Despite considerable renown, none of these individuals are widely recognized as the Chosen of Mystra.
As first indicated in Code of the Harpers, very few people are aware of the existence of the Chosen (as such). Going going back to this would hopefully place more importance on the PCs and less on iconic NPCs such as the Chosen.
For example: Most people have heard of Elminster the Sage, a reclusive archmage who resides in rural Shadowdale. Few however, realize he is a senior Harper. On the other hand, Khelben “Blackstaff” Arunsun is very much the cosmopolitan figure, largely suspected to be a Lord of Waterdeep and a Harper. Storm Silverhand, the Bard of Shadowdale, is a driving force behind the Harpers. Despite considerable renown, none of these individuals are widely recognized as the Chosen of Mystra.
What I mean is: Elminster has a lot of enemies, and many of those enemies are his equal or greater in power. Thus, by living in Shadowdale he is inviting the wrath of those enemies upon innocent people.
That's not to say he couldn't have a portal or something that connected him to Shadowdale, and allowed him to occasionally stroll the streets in disguise. But the way it was portrayed it was like having a big sign that said, "Here I am! Come and get me!" In which case many innocent people would die in the ensuing battle, assuming he was even home at the time, in which case it might actually make matters worse.
Of course, this is not necessarily unique to Elminster, but it's something I've always felt as odd. Once the PC's become famous they normally have to go around disguised. I mean, it's the reason superman protected his identity as Clark Kent and Spiderman protected his identity as Peter Parker: to protect those he cared about from his enemies who might come after them.
A balance of power exists (or existed, if you're looking back from 4E to 3E and previous) amongst Elminster and other beings of power. Those that chose to tip the scales got their arses handed to them. The wise learned to pit their minions against Elminster and his allies instead, before daring step forth against him themselves.
Elminster had an unparalleled advantage for centuries: Mystra. Through her he was gifted with knowledge that could best any other foe who was armed with magic. He could know their defenses, their weaknesses. Given Elminster’s job of prodding fledgling mages along, it’s likely a powerful foe is also a foe who Elminster helped along the path of magic decades or even centuries before.
He’s raised many up. And when the goddess willed it, he pulled them right back down.
::::::::::::::::::
I like Elminster.
I think he's been way overexposed and used wrongly over time.
But I still like him. A lot. So many secrets of the Realms he can (and still does) tell us. I’ve grown up seeing much of the Realms through his eyes.
In my campaign I've portrayed him a man of terrible power, who could cow Khelben Blackstaff with a look and calm the Simbul with a single word. But also as a man who is half mad and weak and in need of taking care of. Someone torn asunder physically and emotionally in the Hells, whose sharp mind sadly “goes away” from time to time as he becomes momentarily lost in hideous memories. A man who's still trying to put himself back together.
This helped me push the Epic Level characters to the fore in my game and served to dispel any notion the players might've had (and they did) that the Chosen or Elminster existed to save the day.
If the Realms is a box full of tools, Elminster is in my opinion the shiniest and most useful tool in the box, provided you know how best to use it.
In the past a typical story in the FR went something like this: Bad thing happens or is about to happen, good guys try and stop it, sometimes they fail or sometimes succeed, and one way or another through difficult struggles everything balances back out in the end.
In order for there to constantly be bad things happening (and thus a need for heroes) there had to be a greater number of monsters and other bad guys in the world that might otherwise make sense. The bad guys were sometimes crippled as they fought among themselves, but ultimately they out numbered the forces of good. That is what allowed the 'balance' as it were to be maintained.
Elminster was always in great danger and jeopardy. There are horrible things that can be done to Shadowdale without ever really setting foot there... and Elminster has certainly earned the ire of enough powerful wizards willing to do -anything- for revenge. Sometimes, that is all that motivates a villain above all else, and they're even willing to sacrifice their life in an attempt to get it.
In all of Elminster's years he would have certainly earned the anger and ire of more than one such individual.
What 4E explores is what happens when the hero's fail and evil unites to take out common enemies? Well, 4th Edition FR has the answer to that question.
@Misc... your take on him sounds a lot like mine, though I tend to think of him as considerably more sane and unbroken than that, though I am running pre-1100 DR at the moment.
Elminster shouldn't be living in Shadowdale, or anywhere that is populated by individuals at all. Ideally, a wizard of his power would have some type of planar home or a place constructed inside an extra-dimensional space... or at minimum a tower or something, way WAY off the beaten path in the middle of nowhere.
In his home he may have portals connecting him to various places, Waterdeep, Shadowdale, Candlekeep, etc. But at the end of the day his place of residence is no where near individuals who could find themselves in the crossfire between two powerful archwizards. It'd be the last thing Elminster, or any good aligned individual would want, and exactly what some evil wizard would desire.
Elminster would be forced not only to protect himself, but the innocent people around him who stand no chance of defending themselves. A distraction like that could be the end of him, and likely ultimately pointless.
If you have a home in the middle of no where, then you can set up proper defenses that innocent folks won't get themselves hurt on, and when traveling abroad you'd disguise yourself to be just another traveler on the beaten path. Is it lonely and isolationist? Sure, but that's the price you have to pay sometimes.
And a goodly one who has a particular way of looking at the world. They might look at retreating from the world as allowing 'evil' to dictate terms and handing it a victory over you... they might even consider it dangerous, since a portal can be deactivated and leave a beloved town defenseless while they're trapped in their sanctuary. Or maybe they just see it as pure cowardice and refuse to hide. Maybe they see it as giving in to paranoia and fear, and just aren't willing to sacrifice companionship and society for a may-come-to-pass. There's lots of different worldviews that don't necessarily lead to the conclusion you see as the ideal, some in quite the opposite direction really. Something to consider...
Also worth considering is that you're thinking of it as a rational and sane person (with a particular way of reacting to the world), when its a well known fact you can't be completely rational or sane to mess around with the things archmages do... ;)
He'd learn to hide from real evil, not the silly TSR / WotC evil. He'd learn that real fast, if he wanted to hold onto anything he loves...
That's the problem with villain's these days, they're wimps.
What ever happened to the good classics. You capture the hero's child / lover, cut off a finger each day and have it sent to the hero. Make sure they know all the evil things you've done to them, forcing the hero into a confrontation with you... which they know is a trap... but they do it to save the one you have, who will forever be mentally and physically scarred for what they endured at your villains hands...
Classic evil villain. :P
What I mean is: Elminster has a lot of enemies, and many of those enemies are his equal or greater in power. Thus, by living in Shadowdale he is inviting the wrath of those enemies upon innocent people.
-John F. Kennedy knew where Nikita Khrushchev lived, and Nikita Khrushchev knew where John F. Kennedy lived. This example is slightly different from Elminster and, say, Manshoon, but the base point is the same: Just because intimate details like this are known doesn't mean that they are going to be acted upon, in any way.
-Manshoon knows where Elminster's Tower is. He doesn't know what sorts of wards and protections it has. He's the only one in the Zhentarim powerful enough to possibly break through them. Is he going to take the chance?
-Mind you, I don't like Elminster all that much, but...
Old El has too much joie-de-vivre (especially if he is any bit as funny as Flanders) to abandon Fearun for a planar realm where he has to carve out a lonely existance on some desolate layer in a plane.
Fascinating. Archmages planning to lay contigencies that thwart (or utterly destroy) the opposition if they start blasting their resources. My guess would be for a catburglar old El's tower is one the most terrifying place to break and enter in.
-Well, he does have those signs, so they'd get what's coming to them, if they do break in.
He stayed because of further threats to the area (the rising Zhentish power), and because of the proximity of the Elven Court (which he is one of the protecors over, along with the Knights of Myth Drannor).
It is a central location with various things he is interested in (the Netherease ruins, now the nation of Shade, and the development of Cormyr, just to name two more), without it being in a city (which would endanger even more people, and also find him constantly being interrupted in such an environment).
I think Shadowdale is IDEAL.
As for his use - I would have to agree with Artifact on this one. His use in source material is perfect; the novels not so much. I think he was better portrayed in the FR comics then he is in most novels (not that Ed doesn't know what he is doing, but by showing his shear 'uber-ness', you create that bizarre hatred some folks get for characters more powerful then their own).
Read the comic A Grand Tour of the Realms, and you will see EXACTLY how Elminster should be handled - he has seen so much, that he knows anything he 'fixes' today could come back and be much worse down the road, and therefore does very little in the way of 'big things'. Elminster understands the Butterfly Effect all too well.
Read the comic A Grand Tour of the Realms, and you will see EXACTLY how Elminster should be handled - he has seen so much, that he knows anything he 'fixes' today could come back and be much worse down the road, and therefore does very little in the way of 'big things'. Elminster understands the Butterfly Effect all too well.
If I recall correctly, I was given a copy of that comic as a freebie by the clerk at Waldenbooks. I picked up 3 comics that day actually, all labled "limited edition" carrying the TSR logo.
One was a story for Forgotten Realms (very nice), another for Dragonlance (I had no interest in Fifth Age stories), and Birthright, a story entitled "The Serpent's Eye".
I've always been curious: How many people have actually seen these? Small print in the book indicates printing circa '96. Have they ever been reprinted or appeared elsewhere? Are they worth anything or just "collector items"?
That's the problem with villain's these days, they're wimps.
Well, unfortunately you're dealing with WotC and not Black Dog Games, so get over it. :P ;)
That example is like comparing apples to oranges. Sure, they're both fruit, but...
Considering that there -are- VASTLY more powerful individuals out there than Elminster, many of them not even on the material plane, I'd be worried. We know it's possible (because of novels) to manipulate the tears of Selune. I wonder how Elminster would feel to see one of them fall on his house... and the Dalelands. Physic's seems to work different in the Realms, but I'm pretty sure that Shadowdale at the very least and everyone and everything in the area is going to be dead.
Or there is that interesting epic spell that lets you create a volcano in an area...
None of that's really creative though. Assuming that you have enough power to actually defeat Elminster rather easily, or at least have it an uneven fight in your favor, I'd go after the people he associates with. Friends, associates, family, neighbor's... I know that'd make him mad and force him into a confrontation.
Really, again, it's not so much for Elminster's safety as those around him. Elminster has a pretty good chance of surviving most things, but at the end of the day its the people around him who are most at risk.
That example is like comparing apples to oranges. Sure, they're both fruit, but...
-Not particularly, no. JFK, Khrushchev, both powerful men. Both "enemies" (ideologically, at least). Both with capabilities to annihilate one another. Neither side, with one exception where it came pretty close, ever pressed the button to hit the other, knowing retaliation would be catastrophic. Elminster, Manshoon, both powerful men. Both are enemies. Both have capabilities to annihilate the other. Neither actively go after each other, because (A) they have other things to do, and (B) it could definitely mean mutual destruction.
-Can there be people out there who we don't know about, as you alluded to, who can pulls stars from the sky and crash them onto Elminster? Or, turn Shadowdale into a massive volcano? Sure. When we're making up theoretical examples, we can do/have anything. Likewise, with those people, there are entities "higher up" than them, that prevents them from doing things, because of the specter of destruction. And them, the same thing, with a group above them...Continue ad nauseum.
The terrorist acts and thinks the way he does based upon ideology. They are more dangerous than any leader of government, because in many cases mutual self-destruction is not a deterrent.
The fact of the matter is, such people exist, just as there are many NPC's out there VASTLY more powerful than Elminster who'd sell their souls to see him destroyed utterly.
Those two thigns combined pretty much means everyone and anyone around him is in a great deal of danger.
The problem with your example, Lord Karsus, is that all of those individuals are leaders of governments. They have other things to do, as you said, and other loyalties that bind them. The vast majority of powerful individuals appear to be free agents, and if you want to use a real world example: It's like a government vs a terrorist.
-Elminster is/was a leader among the Harpers. Manshoon is/was a leader among the Zhentarim. Neither organization is a world government but both the Harpers and the Zhentarim can be considered NGOs- Non-Government Organizations. NGOs certainly have a great deal of political influence and activity- among real-world NGOs include the Red Cross, Doctors without Borders, Human Rights Watch, among others.
The fact of the matter is, such people exist, just as there are many NPC's out there VASTLY more powerful than Elminster who'd sell their souls to see him destroyed utterly.
Those two thigns combined pretty much means everyone and anyone around him is in a great deal of danger.
-Like I said, speaking in theoretical possibilities, the same situation will play out when the metaphorical tier is raised: Opposing "Higher Entities" will be 'contained' to a similar system of checks and balances with each other. The Demon Lords are opposed by the Archdevils (Chaos v. Law). The Slaadi Lords are opposed by Primus, the One and Primary (Chaos v. Law). And so on (I can't think of any other diametric opposites. I always forget all the 'Angelic' people, with the exception that the Eladrin are CG.)
I just thought like sharing. I was in a discussion about it but it really wasn't the main topic.
Do you like Elminster? Do you dislike Elminster? Why/Why not?
Me, personally, I like the idea of Elminster, a powerful and old Wizard who acts like a champion of the goddess of magic. Elminster: The Making of the Mage, The Temptation of Elminster and Elminster's Daughter, I liked those. The other two, Elminster in Myth Drannor and Elminster in Hell I didn't like so much. I never read the Shadows of the Avatar books either.
I dont like the character of Elminster, though. I think that he is extremely overexposed. Keep the character to those novels, and to a few sourcebooks, and I think he is fine. When it seems like Elminster had a hand doing nearly every important thing to take place during his lifetime- Myth Drannors mythal, Mystra's holy energy during the Time of Trouble, raising the Seven Sisters, training Cormyr's Royal Magician, or giving Alias and Dragonbait the Finder's Stone, or helping forming the Harpers, and this and that and this and that, I get a bit frustrated. He seems to be everywhere, doing everything, doing everyone.
Is it just me? I know it's not "his" fault, since he is just a character and authors just write about him, but does anyone else share my opinion on him?
I thought Elminster was a great character. Perhaps not as well-rounded as characters like Gromph or Alustriel, but he was suited to his sort of poster-boy role for Forgotten Realms. I loved almost everything about 2nd and 3rd edition Forgotten Realms, which is why I find the new FR so distasteful. My brief perusal of the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting left me with a terribly sour taste in my mouth, and I vowed never to run a 4E campaign, let alone a 4E FR campaign. What happened with Elminster was perhaps the final straw, too.
Let's observe the drastic change in this amazing character, who -- for the most part -- represented the Realms.
His 2nd/3rd Edition picture:
His 4th Edition picture:
(I capped this from the FR Campaign Guide, I hope nobody minds.)
Let's examine the difference. His previous edition pictures were strong and confident. He exuded power. His 4th edition picture depicts him as an old man in a dress with an exceedingly embittered expression (which is supported by the text that goes along with his entry in the FR Campaign Guide).
Here's the Sage of Shadowdale, the trademark character of Forgotten Realms. Look how far he's fallen.
I want nothing of it.
Certainly the 4e Realms probably has greater appeal to a more modern audience, but the previous editions of the Realms I think had more appeal to those with a greater appreciation of historical sociology and how it might apply in a world filled with magic.
Take note I don't mean this as an insult, or mean to imply that the 'uneducated masses' simply can't appreciate the subtleties of the Realms. My point is that the previous Realms had greater appeal to a different audience, and did things that don't necessarily resonate or make sense to an audience more grounded in the here and now. Its a difference in interest, not education or intelligence, that I'm getting at here.
Your argument about theoretical possibilities is fallacious due to the fact that any such argument is going to deal in theoretical possibilities for or against my view on the matter. It will always be theoretical until it actually happens.
However, to address your specific point it is entirely based upon a system of checks and balances. It is flawed because it assumes that every individual of power has an equal or greater check to balance them out, and thus to keep them perpetually paralyzed from taking any direct action. That simply isn't true and has never been true for anyone.
What is true is that it's often been explained that way, but that explanation only existed to explain away the logical problems that exist.
Which brings me to Stigger's post.
Stigger-
You might be correct if we were dealing with things as they were in the historical real world. Yet, the reality is, outside of token gestures - which basically goes to some architectural styles, swords, and armor... that's pretty much where the parallel ends.
The Realm's certainly isn't as connected as the real world is with the Internet, but when you reach Elminster's level of power - the level of power you'd need to be to at least be a threat to him... well, it's an entirely different ball game. You can travel vast distances faster than you can in the real world right now. You can communicate at least as good as you can over the telephone, even sending images to others - all through the use of magic.
I'd argue that where we've advanced in the modern world with technology, the Realms has advanced (and in some cases even surpassed) with magic.
So I think your notion is mistaken. Keep in mind you're not keeping your identity hidden from the common people. Even if you're world famous, and everyone knows your name from Waterdeep to Eltabbar they might not know your face. However, your enemies have spies who likely could identify you easily, especially if you are an individual like Elminster. I would not be shocked that if every Red Wizard or Zhentish Agent of reasonable and sufficient rank did not have enough knowledge about his appearance to potentially identify him on sight.
So, while he could for example, wander the streets of Waterdeep without much worry at first, he would not know that the merchant he has just purchased something from is really a spy for the Zhent. And then that Merchant watches him deal with another individual, and take that individual into a tavern to speak privately. Then that spy goes back and tells his superior, who then passes that information to the person who is keeping tabs on Elminster.
The end result? Whoever he was ducking into the tavern with is in serious danger.
That's how I play it, at least. I'm not saying doing it differently is right or wrong, I just think it's reasonable and believable based upon how magic works in the Forgotten Realms, at least prior to 4th Edition. In 4E, I'd say it's slightly different and less worrisome because magic is not quite as powerful even if it is more prevalent.
Just like someone could go after the President's mother quite easily... but does anyone bother?
Not the current president of U.S., mind you... since she's a an ex-first Lady, but you get the idea...
Why would someone go after someone close to a powerful person? That only happens in movies and drug cartels. :P
And if you want a RW analogy of Elminster, Oprah is as close as we get. ;)
As to your Zhent & Elminster example... how do they identify the person he was with? Its not like their going to whip out digital cameras and take some surveillence photos, or make a quick call to Minions R' Us. Really, unless they tailed the person home, or overheard a name used, are they really going to tell their minions to kill everyone who's west of this tavern on the Way of the Dragon who's got blonde hair, blue eyes, fair skin, with brown leather pants and a linen shirt, and maybe a brown cloak? Might work in a small town, maybe, but in a city? But in the small town with a society not as prone to anonymity, you're running whole other risks by exposing yourselves for what you are, and ruining whatever long term operations you have going on there.
If you're familiar with the old WoD stuff from White Wolf, and from a modern perspective, I'd tend to look at most wizards the same way one would a kindred from the Rennaisance in the modern world. Immensely powerful, but generally slow in their thoughts and reactions to anything but the immediate, except most aren't going to have the benefits of several centuries of existing behind them... and the ones who do are probably going to be just as spidery and elusive. In that sense, I would think most of El's enemies wouldn't actually want him truly dead, for fear of the contingencies that might be unleashed should that happen... and that horrible uncertainty that maybe they didn't really succeed and its just another elaborate plot on his part. The devil you know and all that.
Like I said before, its a difference in perspective on the conceits of the Realms, their basic level of sophistication and such. Its not right or wrong, as we both thankfully agree, just different, but at least maybe we can see where the other is coming from better and get a better understanding of perspective. With your view of the Realms, I'm not suprised you're not overly fond of the balance of power, I wouldn't be either in your place, so don't think I'm trying to debate the issue, I'm just trying to present my perspective.
Your argument about theoretical possibilities is fallacious due to the fact that any such argument is going to deal in theoretical possibilities for or against my view on the matter. It will always be theoretical until it actually happens.
-Point was, you can't use theoretical examples as evidence, because, as it is all presupposition, I can just as easily make up an example that negates what you say as you can make up an example that supports it.
However, to address your specific point it is entirely based upon a system of checks and balances. It is flawed because it assumes that every individual of power has an equal or greater check to balance them out, and thus to keep them perpetually paralyzed from taking any direct action. That simply isn't true and has never been true for anyone.
-Untrue. Individuals do not need to have equal or greater power. Individuals need to possess equal or greater political power. The Zhentarim is just as hesitant to "take out" Elminster as they were to "take out" Maalthiir, from Hillsfar. Doing a side-by-side comparison, Elminster and Fzoul/Manshoon/Sememmon (pick either, all of whom having been leaders of the Zhents at one point or another) are all superior in terms of "raw" power to Maalthiir (who isn't a slouch, of course). The Zhents never do anything about Maalthiir in Hillsfar because of his political power, and his ability to make things uncomfortable on the Zhents should they do make an attempt on him.
-Likewise, using a real-world example, Cuba is a relatively minor nation, as compared to the United States, an enemy of Cuba's government. The United States, in all this time, never made a full, dedicated attempt to remove Cuba's communist regime. Why? Because, in doing so, Cuba could exert some political force by asking for aid from the Soviet union (in the past), from China, from anti-American South American states...
The Zhent agent decides to get one in for the Zhentarim, and follows the girl home, stabbing her to death in a rather messy affair, and then making off scott-free.
The next day Elmisnter teleports in Zhentil Keep and brings the whole thing crashing down upon their heads.
Now, not only do the 'good guys' have it in for you, but your own organization is after "whoever was stupid enough to piss off the old geezer".
True, the Zhents are pretty dumb (as portrayed in novels), but even they know you don't play with fire. Killing Elminster is one thing, but making him mad is just plain stupid.
True, the Zhents are pretty dumb (as portrayed in novels), but even they know you don't play with fire. Killing Elminster is one thing, but making him mad is just plain stupid.
I am not really getting into this because as a novel-only participant my opinion is likely to be just about as welcome as a hornet swarm at a picnic. Still, MT's idea resonated with me for one reason.
By assaulting the 'dale you wouldn't just be bugging Elminster. Someone who has lived that long and been friends (and lovers) with that many people, you would be inviting pretty much anyone who knows and/or cares about him and his assumed home to visit you with Wrath.
Assuming, in this case, that you started picking off people in the 'dale associated with him (or even the whole dale). How long exactly do you think it would take for the place to be nigh on swarming with Chosen, Archmages and the like? My guess is Not Long. So as a first strike move? Picking on people (or even the entire dale) might seem like a good idea, but as a long-view game plan it smacks of suicide unless you have the ability to either a) make sure that everyone involved will never find out you did it ever... and these are some long-lived an patient people or b) to take out the, likely, exponentially increasing number of people beating a path to (and possibly through) your door c) not be sane enough to care.
Well, just an idea.
That only happens in movies and drug cartels. :P
Correction: That only happens in movies, drug cartels, novels and D&D Games. :P
Certainly Faerun has some advantages over modern society, for certain individuals anyway, however, something I don't think you're taking into account is modern thoughts and practices with communication, and by extension how that has shaped the perception of the world for most people. Modern society sees a fast, immediate world where the world can change in a matter of minutes, if not seconds... life just isn't that fast on Faerun, simply because for everyone else beyond a relatively scarce few, the world changes in months, if not years. Most people are going to think in terms of that, not the rapid, fast paced way of looking at things... their expectations are just fundamentally different from most people.
This is simply a change in perception, not a change in reality. Things only seem fast pace because we're all plugged into the world. To give an example, if a nuclear explosion were to go off in New York City we would know immediately due to the internet and 24 Hour News Cycles. However, if a magical explosion were to happen in Waterdeep, taking out the entire city, it may be months before some commoner over in Thesk hears about it.
Both events are comparable to each other. Yet, due to the way our world works we'd know immediately and be able to watch the fall out and reactions in real time.
The only major difference is globalization, but of course when you can teleport to a place on a whim, what happens across the world may very well be of interest to a powerful wizard on the other side of it.
That magic can be used in modern ways is undeniable, however, I would argue that without a modern society, a lot of things that would seem painfully obvious to us, would never even occur to most folks in the Realms, even those elite few who could actually pull them off. Not within their scope of thinking is a good way of putting it.
The benefits of magic allows Wizards, pretty much mid-level onward, to be plugged into events in a similar way. They may not be able to watch them real time, such as we can, but more powerful wizards could certainly peer backward in time to view those events using divinations and the like. It would also not take months for them to find out, perhaps hours in some cases if their attention was focused upon the area, or days - but the end result is that they'd find out rather quickly.
In any event, I'm not really sure how it is relevant except for your last point. There would certainly be things that are painfully obvious to us that would not even occur to someone living in the Realms, but the converse is also true, and what is more I do not think the flow of information is one of them. Knowledge is power, after all, and when you're dealing with an archwizard, especially one who is evil, power means a lot. Knowing about events as soon as possible is extremely important and beneficial, as well as the ability to pass that information along to your underlings.
As to your Zhent & Elminster example... how do they identify the person he was with? Its not like their going to whip out digital cameras and take some surveillence photos, or make a quick call to Minions R' Us. Really, unless they tailed the person home, or overheard a name used, are they really going to tell their minions to kill everyone who's west of this tavern on the Way of the Dragon who's got blonde hair, blue eyes, fair skin, with brown leather pants and a linen shirt, and maybe a brown cloak? Might work in a small town, maybe, but in a city? But in the small town with a society not as prone to anonymity, you're running whole other risks by exposing yourselves for what you are, and ruining whatever long term operations you have going on there.
I'll go back to the example you're referring too. In that example Elminster was walking the streets of Waterdeep. He purchased something from a street Merchant, who happened to be a secret Zhent Agent. This Agent was able to identify him on sight. This was made possible by sending him a message and this message included an illusion (basically think 3D Hologram) of Elminster, "This man is of great importance to me, and he is known to frequent Waterdeep. You are instructed to keep an eye out for him." So, he spots Elminster, and then he notices Elminster chatting up with a guy on the street, someone Elminster obviously knows. It could be a friend or a contact.
Elminster and this mysterious other individual then go into the tavern (located across the street). Now, how does the Zhent spy locate Elminster's associate? Simple. Since he's a street merchant he'll have at least two chances to view the individual. The first chance was when he was talking with Elminster and entered the tavern with him, and the second was when he and Elminster left.
After they leave, he waits and then slips across the street for a drink at the Tavern. He is likely known in this place since it's across the street from his market stall. So, he goes in for a drink and chats it up a bit, and then casually mentioned to the waitress who knows him, "Hey, did you see that guy who came in here awhile ago? You know, the one with the white beard, pointy hat, and had a funny accent?" And then he works around to fishing for the right information, to learn more about who he was with.
Even if he learns nothing he has seen the guys face and should be able to identify him, thus allowing him to keep an eye out for the guy should he be seen around the area again. Which he then finds a way to stage a chance encounter with him to learn more.
In that sense, I would think most of El's enemies wouldn't actually want him truly dead, for fear of the contingencies that might be unleashed should that happen... and that horrible uncertainty that maybe they didn't really succeed and its just another elaborate plot on his part. The devil you know and all that.
That is based on the assumption that all of Elminster's enemies would think and act in a certain manner. It's an attempt to explain away something that could logically happen. Out of the centuries Elminster has been alive, can anyone truly believe that in all that time he's not angered either directly or indirectly someone more powerful than himself who'd be willing to do almost anything to ensure his destruction? I haven't even lived half a century, and I'm pretty sure I've made one or two such enemies like that. :P
Like I said before, its a difference in perspective on the conceits of the Realms, their basic level of sophistication and such. Its not right or wrong, as we both thankfully agree, just different, but at least maybe we can see where the other is coming from better and get a better understanding of perspective. With your view of the Realms, I'm not suprised you're not overly fond of the balance of power, I wouldn't be either in your place, so don't think I'm trying to debate the issue, I'm just trying to present my perspective.
I don't have anything wrong with the alternative prospective. I don't think it's right or wrong, I just don't see the Realms functioning in that sort of way. I guess it's because of my prospective on the Realm's that I had such a problem with ultra-high level NPC's in 3rd Edition. They could do all the things that I listed and much more. They were never just static individuals in my game, kept in perfect balance by opposing forces. They were active and had their own agendas, which may or may not impact the PC's, even though the PC's could be half way across the world. (Distance is pretty irrelevant to someone who can teleport and build portals.)
Point was, you can't use theoretical examples as evidence, because, as it is all presupposition, I can just as easily make up an example that negates what you say as you can make up an example that supports it.
Yes, being theoretical that is the case, however what I am arguing is based upon what could logically happen. I am interpreting, correctly or incorrectly, you telling me that my theory is not logical. You then put forward the following argument:
Like I said, speaking in theoretical possibilities, the same situation will play out when the metaphorical tier is raised: Opposing "Higher Entities" will be 'contained' to a similar system of checks and balances with each other. The Demon Lords are opposed by the Archdevils (Chaos v. Law). The Slaadi Lords are opposed by Primus, the One and Primary (Chaos v. Law). And so on (I can't think of any other diametric opposites. I always forget all the 'Angelic' people, with the exception that the Eladrin are CG.)
An argument that I disagreed with, and called illogical, because it was based upon the notion that all powerful individuals have opposing forces that hold them in balance, thus paralyzing them from performing the action I laid out.
You also gave various examples using real world leaders. That's fine. However, I think a better example, to how you view things would be to speak about nuclear weapons.
Russia and the United States both have large nuclear weapon stockpiles and both have weapons pointed at each other, even now after the cold war, ready to launch at a moments notice. Neither side launches because they know in doing such a thing would result in mutual destruction.
My argument is this: Under certain circumstances one side could be persuaded to use their weapons on the other, even knowing that mutual destruction, and perhaps world destruction would be possible. This is theoretical as it has not happened (thankfully!), but it is certainly within the realm of possibility.
I am interpreting what you are saying to me, as saying, it would not and could not happen. Which is why I see it as incorrect.
Untrue. Individuals do not need to have equal or greater power. Individuals need to possess equal or greater political power. The Zhentarim is just as hesitant to "take out" Elminster as they were to "take out" Maalthiir, from Hillsfar. Doing a side-by-side comparison, Elminster and Fzoul/Manshoon/Sememmon (pick either, all of whom having been leaders of the Zhents at one point or another) are all superior in terms of "raw" power to Maalthiir (who isn't a slouch, of course). The Zhents never do anything about Maalthiir in Hillsfar because of his political power, and his ability to make things uncomfortable on the Zhents should they do make an attempt on him.
If I am not mistaken, the Zhents did eventually take over Hillsfar. I am not sure if Maalthiir escaped or is dead, but I believe it happened in one of Paul Kemp's novels.
Likewise, using a real-world example, Cuba is a relatively minor nation, as compared to the United States, an enemy of Cuba's government. The United States, in all this time, never made a full, dedicated attempt to remove Cuba's communist regime. Why? Because, in doing so, Cuba could exert some political force by asking for aid from the Soviet union (in the past), from China, from anti-American South American states...
Again, this has to do with governments and completely ignores free agents. There are hundreds (thousands?) of powerful wizards on Toril who could absolutely crush Elminster, and that does not count the wizards on other worlds he has visited or the planes. In all his many centuries of life is it so impossible to believe that he has not earned the anger of at least one individual who not only desired to see his total and complete destruction, but also had the means and ability to carry it out?
Assuming, in this case, that you started picking off people in the 'dale associated with him (or even the whole dale). How long exactly do you think it would take for the place to be nigh on swarming with Chosen, Archmages and the like? My guess is Not Long. So as a first strike move? Picking on people (or even the entire dale) might seem like a good idea, but as a long-view game plan it smacks of suicide unless you have the ability to either a) make sure that everyone involved will never find out you did it ever... and these are some long-lived an patient people or b) to take out the, likely, exponentially increasing number of people beating a path to (and possibly through) your door c) not be sane enough to care.
I was considering B and C. :P Then again, let's say Elminster angered someone like Larloch. Is he really going to care if all the Chosen show up? Not really, he'd likely laugh in their face and wipe them completely from existence. At least according to how powerful Ed has described him to be, and according to Ed Larloch has pretty much enough power to destroy the entire world.
Obviously, anyone picking a fight with Elminster is either going to be crazy or going to have enough power (or at least believe they'll have enough power) to handle whatever he and his allies can throw at him. That was pretty much the basis of my original assumption. :P
EDIT: I should also point out that in my assumption it is pretty much irrelevant why the person does it, so long as they had the ability to do it. It also does not matter if Elminster defeated them in the end.
The basis for my point was that Elminster, in having powerful enemies, places those he interacts with in danger.
If you want to use LK's example of world leaders: It's the same reason the President's children gets secret service protection. Why? Because someone might try and harm them because their father is the President.
The same is true in the Realms. How many people would love to get their hands on Elminster's Children? If they couldn't do that, snatching away his friends, close associates or even his neighbor might be the next best thing for such an individual.
18DELTA (Chosen of Cyric, who MUST be stopped!!!!!!!) :P
Show
Facing Elminster is a daunting task in itself; wasting time terrorizing villagers before getting to him is practically suicidal. Not only do you **** him off, but you also warn him and give him the initiative. Oh, and since Elminster is afaik usually not doing something incredibly monumental against either the Zhents, the Red Wizards or whoever else, I'd think that neither of these groups wants to attract his full and baleful attention. It is a dubious honor, after all. Besides, it's not nearly as effective - if you want to seriously attack Elminster you would want to do it when he's away from his home (which is probably quite well protected) and if you want to go after his power network - the Harpers - they are spread out, so an attack on Shadowdale would have a limited effect.
I admit, sure, some won't be detained and they might harm innocent bystanders in their way - though even they (Sharrans, I'm looking at you) are more likely to go after Elminster himself, not waste time trying to terrorize those near him. Also, there are probably plenty of more mundane foes - from bandits to regular zhent mooks - who might have given Shadowdale a fair bit of trouble if Elminster wasn't there. For the regular peasant, being killed by a meteor storm or a rusty sword has the same net effect imo.
As for the uber-powerful ones such as Larloch or whoever that level-25 wizard dracolich was, they tend to be a lot more circumspect as they are - they haven't gotten so old by taking risks. If he did want to kill Elminster, he probably could plow through them and still be able to handle El. However, he can most likely kill Elminster one way or another (most other ways would offer a better chance), and as far as I know fluff-wise has little reason to - Elminster and the other Chosen generally don't mess with his plans, and they are one of the very few creatures facing whom might be risky for him, silver fire and all. Plus, if anyone really goes out of their way to mess with Elminster, they get on the toes of a very powerful network, including Grand Mommy Mystra herself. Given how most of El's foes are powerful arcane casters, that possibility can be a serious deterrent all in itself.
I admit, sure, some won't be detained and they might harm innocent bystanders in their way - though even they (Sharrans, I'm looking at you) are more likely to go after Elminster himself, not waste time trying to terrorize those near him. Also, there are probably plenty of more mundane foes - from bandits to regular zhent mooks - who might have given Shadowdale a fair bit of trouble if Elminster wasn't there. For the regular peasant, being killed by a meteor storm or a rusty sword has the same net effect imo.
As for the uber-powerful ones such as Larloch or whoever that level-25 wizard dracolich was, they tend to be a lot more circumspect as they are - they haven't gotten so old by taking risks. If he did want to kill Elminster, he probably could plow through them and still be able to handle El. However, he can most likely kill Elminster one way or another (most other ways would offer a better chance), and as far as I know fluff-wise has little reason to - Elminster and the other Chosen generally don't mess with his plans, and they are one of the very few creatures facing whom might be risky for him, silver fire and all. Plus, if anyone really goes out of their way to mess with Elminster, they get on the toes of a very powerful network, including Grand Mommy Mystra herself. Given how most of El's foes are powerful arcane casters, that possibility can be a serious deterrent all in itself.
Yes, being theoretical that is the case, however what I am arguing is based upon what could logically happen. I am interpreting, correctly or incorrectly, you telling me that my theory is not logical.
You then put forward the following argument:
An argument that I disagreed with, and called illogical, because it was based upon the notion that all powerful individuals have opposing forces that hold them in balance, thus paralyzing them from performing the action I laid out.
-Yes, it is an argument that means very little. Like I said twice, when speaking in theoreticals, you and I can both make up whatever examples we want to back and support whatever it is that we want. You mention that powerful entities other than the ones we are familiar with exist, and can kill Elminster anytime they want, and that it's illogical that they haven't. To counted, I mention that such entities themselves have even greater entities that can kill those entities any time they want. It's a circular argument that doesn't prove anything. Any theoretical example you make up, I can counter with a theoretical made up argument of my own, and any theoretical example I make up, you can counter with a theoretical made up argument of your own.
You also gave various examples using real world leaders. That's fine. However, I think a better example, to how you view things would be to speak about nuclear weapons.
Russia and the United States both have large nuclear weapon stockpiles and both have weapons pointed at each other, even now after the cold war, ready to launch at a moments notice. Neither side launches because they know in doing such a thing would result in mutual destruction.
My argument is this: Under certain circumstances one side could be persuaded to use their weapons on the other, even knowing that mutual destruction, and perhaps world destruction would be possible. This is theoretical as it has not happened (thankfully!), but it is certainly within the realm of possibility.
I am interpreting what you are saying to me, as saying, it would not and could not happen. Which is why I see it as incorrect.
-Is it within the realm of possibility? Of course. There being an infinite number of planets with an infinite amount of clones of ourselves doing the exact same thing is also within the realm of possibility. Is it something- what we are talking about, concerning Elminster- that is likely? No, for the reasons already mentioned.
If I am not mistaken, the Zhents did eventually take over Hillsfar. I am not sure if Maalthiir escaped or is dead, but I believe it happened in one of Paul Kemp's novels.
-After Maalthiir had already left the city. Maalthiir escaped death, to parts unknown.
Again, this has to do with governments and completely ignores free agents. There are hundreds (thousands?) of powerful wizards on Toril who could absolutely crush Elminster, and that does not count the wizards on other worlds he has visited or the planes. In all his many centuries of life is it so impossible to believe that he has not earned the anger of at least one individual who not only desired to see his total and complete destruction, but also had the means and ability to carry it out?
-And, again, we are back to this circular argument. Even with enemies all across the multiverse that can theoretically exist, these theoretical entities can theoretically have reasons for not extracting their revenge, such as other theoretical entities waiting in the wings to do something. Take Nergal, for instance. He got humiliated, to a degree, by Elminster, Mystra, and the Simbul. Why hasn't he done anything about it? Extracting revenge on any of the three would have net him an even more humiliating defeat.
If you want to use LK's example of world leaders: It's the same reason the President's children gets secret service protection. Why? Because someone might try and harm them because their father is the President.
The same is true in the Realms. How many people would love to get their hands on Elminster's Children? If they couldn't do that, snatching away his friends, close associates or even his neighbor might be the next best thing for such an individual.
-And, as we can see, this has never happened, as of yet. The problems of determining who his children are aside, the reason is because of the "political pressure" that is suddenly thrust upon whatever group does the kidnapping because Elminster (and allies) are suddenly roused from their proverbial slumber, and angry.
"It's Mine!"
"No, it's mine!"
"I shot it first!"
"But I spotted it first and chased it your way!"
"So what? My arrow struck first, so it's mine!"
"Well, MY DAD says the spotter gets dibs..."
"Who cares WHAT your dad days..."
"Elminster does... they have drinks at the tavern all the time..."
"Oh... ohhhh... errrr... you know what? I think maybe your arrow was the better shot anyway, and thats what killed it. You can have it... SEE YA!" :D
Correction: That only happens in movies, drug cartels, novels and D&D Games. :P
Also Comic Books - thats a main staple of Comics... and the biggest reason for secret identities. ;)
-Maalthiir left Hillsfar. It was in the Last Mythal Series by Richard Who MUST be stopped Baker.
NOW who's rabble-rousing?
This is simply a change in perception, not a change in reality. Things only seem fast pace because we're all plugged into the world. To give an example, if a nuclear explosion were to go off in New York City we would know immediately due to the internet and 24 Hour News Cycles. However, if a magical explosion were to happen in Waterdeep, taking out the entire city, it may be months before some commoner over in Thesk hears about it.
Both events are comparable to each other. Yet, due to the way our world works we'd know immediately and be able to watch the fall out and reactions in real time.
The only major difference is globalization, but of course when you can teleport to a place on a whim, what happens across the world may very well be of interest to a powerful wizard on the other side of it.
Ah, but that perception is what makes up reality. :P
Seriously though, that's a huge difference to me. The news cycle is measured in days, if not weeks or months for most people, rather than seconds, and is sporadic for the most part. This is going to be true for 99% of the population, and its from that 99% that the future wizards are going to be coming from from the most part, and that's going to shape their expectations. Certainly that changes as they grow in level, but every spell they prepare to know what's going on and for communicating is one less they have for when trouble arrives... crystal balls and the like are possible, sure, but they have to know how to make one first, and its not like they can pop over to the local store and pick one up or grab the recipe from the library. All of them basically have to reinvent the wheel when they want something like that, and the various power groups, as paranoid as they've been portrayed, don't really seem the sorts to dole out stuff that could be turned against them or useful in plotting coups.
The benefits of magic allows Wizards, pretty much mid-level onward, to be plugged into events in a similar way. They may not be able to watch them real time, such as we can, but more powerful wizards could certainly peer backward in time to view those events using divinations and the like. It would also not take months for them to find out, perhaps hours in some cases if their attention was focused upon the area, or days - but the end result is that they'd find out rather quickly.
In any event, I'm not really sure how it is relevant except for your last point. There would certainly be things that are painfully obvious to us that would not even occur to someone living in the Realms, but the converse is also true, and what is more I do not think the flow of information is one of them. Knowledge is power, after all, and when you're dealing with an archwizard, especially one who is evil, power means a lot. Knowing about events as soon as possible is extremely important and beneficial, as well as the ability to pass that information along to your underlings.
If they thought to look, or had enough resources to put towards it to make the effort worthwhile. Or were even aware enough to look, presuming they had an interest... you have to know something happened, or have someone watching to find out anything, and if you or your agent misses it, as far as your concerned, it didn't happen. You can't rely on a newspaper to tell you, and even if it is covered in a broadsheet, you can't rely on the facts being completely correct, given the sensationalism that seems to permeate broadsheets. Even with spies, you're still often dealing with the same problems that come up in a game of operator.
And those benefits of magic very much depend on the library one has available. In order to research a spell, you have to either heard of it from somewhere, or come up with the idea on your own. From all impressions I've gotten of the Realms, its not like you sit down at a table at the end of 'levels' and choose spells out of a great catalogue... you get what you think of or stumble across, which aren't always going to be well suited to what you're interested in. Much like life, there isn't as much control over what happens during the course of your career as one would wish for or try for, at least from the way I look at things.
I'll go back to the example you're referring too. In that example Elminster was walking the streets of Waterdeep. He purchased something from a street Merchant, who happened to be a secret Zhent Agent. This Agent was able to identify him on sight.
You raise a good point there about tracking down the guy's identity, and in fact I'm fairly sure I've used that one myself. I suppose however its a very different approach in what would happen next. I'd think the contact would be watched and used to root out others, under the presumption they would be Harpers. However, knowing how cagey Elminster actually is, I'd also be worried it was a trap of some sort and that it was a wild goose chase... move and counter-move and all that.
That is based on the assumption that all of Elminster's enemies would think and act in a certain manner. It's an attempt to explain away something that could logically happen. Out of the centuries Elminster has been alive, can anyone truly believe that in all that time he's not angered either directly or indirectly someone more powerful than himself who'd be willing to do almost anything to ensure his destruction? I haven't even lived half a century, and I'm pretty sure I've made one or two such enemies like that. :P
Well, yes, it is based on certain assumptions... that's a given anytime we make projections of what we think a certain group or NPC might do in a given circumstance. Mine are mostly based off of Ed Greenwood's writings, as I interpret them, and the general paranoia and second guessing that seems to go on with his wizards... I seem to recall you not being overly fond of his writing, so its reasonable to presume you're not going to make the same assumptions. ;)
As to your point about enemies... I'm fairly sure I have no such enemies like that. In fact, I can't even think of a serious enemy I have who I'd wish real harm upon. Abstract "enemies" (which is really just dislike), sure, but someone I actually know and have met, whom I have real hatred for... no one alive that I can think of. I'd be curious to know how you were behaving that you made 'friends' like that though... :P ;)
I don't have anything wrong with the alternative prospective. I don't think it's right or wrong, I just don't see the Realms functioning in that sort of way. I guess it's because of my prospective on the Realm's that I had such a problem with ultra-high level NPC's in 3rd Edition. They could do all the things that I listed and much more. They were never just static individuals in my game, kept in perfect balance by opposing forces. They were active and had their own agendas, which may or may not impact the PC's, even though the PC's could be half way across the world. (Distance is pretty irrelevant to someone who can teleport and build portals.)
I don't view them as static set-piece players on the board either actually... nor do I see the balance as perfect, just for the most part stable. Move, counter-move, a gain here, a loss there, a cycle of victory and defeat as all sides probed for weakness and made their moves. The difference is that I don't see there only being two sides... I see there being hundreds of sides, from governments to merchants to wizards to cabals to rogues to guilds, all making sure that they lose as little as possible, which in turn maintains something of an equilibrium to the world, because there's more of those little guys than there are of the big guys (from our perspective anyway). My point of view is that its usually the 3rd party who wins more often than not, who comes in when the dust begins to settle and profits from the mess left behind by both sides being exhausted...
You raise a good point there about tracking down the guy's identity, and in fact I'm fairly sure I've used that one myself. I suppose however its a very different approach in what would happen next. I'd think the contact would be watched and used to root out others, under the presumption they would be Harpers. However, knowing how cagey Elminster actually is, I'd also be worried it was a trap of some sort and that it was a wild goose chase... move and counter-move and all that.
Very good point.
Ed has stated many times that El quite often 'goes incognito', and by the same token, has had other people impersonate him.
In my earlier scenario - suppose that Zhent agent followed the girl home... and it turned out SHE was Elminster, and the El-double was really the girl?
Wouldn't that Zhent be surprised?
The point is, with magic - and especially concerning Elminster and his 'quirky' personality - you never really know who or what your dealing with.
Suppose the 'young lass' was really a vampire El is friends with? (and yes, he does have 'evil' friends)
Can you imagine the Zhents surprise when he goes to slit her throat, and she turns around and says "oh.. good... dinner. I'm starved..." :D
Ed has stated many times that El quite often 'goes incognito', and by the same token, has had other people impersonate him.
That is generally how I've envisioned him acting, as well as almost every other powerful and (reasonably sane) person with enemies. It is part of the paranoia of knowing that you have a horde of enemies who'd want to kill you and anyone who deals with you.
Which is why I don't understand the logic about him living in Shadowdale, where he's basically going, "Welcome to my home, here are my friends, oh and over there is Bob, my neighbor. All of them are good people that I regularly have a drink with down at the local tavern."
-----
Rather than answering each post individually, I think I'll just cut to the root of what I think the disagreement is...
First, in the terms I am speaking in - I am thinking of Elminster in terms of a PC and not a NPC and myself as his DM. I think it's important to treat NPC's in a similar manor that you'd treat PC's for the world to make sense.
Second, I think I hold the good D&D alignment to a very high standard. I generally don't like people assigning themselves a good alignment without just cause. Being good IMO, is the hardest alignment to play and play well. It denotes a certain level of willingness for self-sacrifice and altruistic tendencies that simply goes against basic human nature.
In short, it's like having your face stomped on by a boot, repeatedly, forever. Being good to me is more than simply tossing a few coins to the peasants, or helping someone out who needs it. Like evil it takes a concerted effort over time to not only obtain but maintain. Most of the world is neutral with leanings one way or another. I know this is not how it is commonly portrayed, but this is the way I handle it because I feel it makes the most sense.
Good people generally don't lead good lives. They get good afterlives, mostly because they inevitably die trying to save or protect someone who probably doesn't deserve it. The world is almost completely rigged to draw a person toward neutrality.
Fairness doesn't really factor into things. Just like the real world, the game world isn't fair, either. Bad things happen to people all the time, and most of the time this goes doubly true for good people. Being good generally means you're willing to sacrifice yourself for whatever goodly cause you are promoting.
Unless you're from one of the alignment based planes, being either good or evil -all- the time is extremely difficult. True good and evil people are the exception, not the rule.
The same is true for the evil alignment, really. In my opinion, it takes more than just torture and constant murder to be evil. A soldier who carries out his orders, which involves torture and murder, is not evil. Lawful? Yes. Evil? No. However, if that soldier takes pleasure in those orders. If he goes the extra mile to make the torture particularly painful and horrific, if he goes out of his way to make sure the murder is slow and just generally awful, and he takes a great deal of pleasure out of doing this... then yes, he would definitely be evil.
I view good and evil as extreme ends of opposing alignment scales, with the bulk of everyone gravitating toward the middle. It is why, as I said in one of my earlier posts (my first I think), that I said I viewed Elminster as True Neutral. Like most people he has both good and evil tendencies. He is pragmatic and rational. There is nothing pragmatic or rational about someone of good alignment. Certain things are acceptable and certain things are not, period.
Torture, for example, is never acceptable to someone of good alignment. As a result of this, even if it meant that they themselves would be tortured and killed as a result, they would refuse to commit the act. They would do this even knowing that the person that they'd torture and kill would be tortured and killed anyway. They might also fight back or try and rescue this person, but ultimately such things are irrelevant to the decision.
I save the good alignment for the true heroes of the world. It is an honor and a privilege to be good, because in order to have that alignment involves making certain and important sacrifices throughout ones life. Generally, it involves sacrificing your well being and general happiness.
Thus, through my eyes a good aligned Elminster would not live in a place such as Shadowdale, knowing full well that innocent people may get hurt because of his presence. Yes, a good aligned Elminster in my eyes would rather cut himself off from the rest of the world and live a lonely life in solitude than invite the wrath of his enemies upon innocent people, in particular those he cares about.
However, that is not how I actually see Elminster played, which is why I regard him as more true neutral and pragmatic than anything else.
Elminster has no problem working with evil individuals, he has no problem with sacrificing others should it be necessary for the greater good. He's not willing to sacrifice his happiness or well-being for the happiness and well-being of others. He is sometimes selfish and focuses on what he wants above the wants and needs of others.
If Shadowdale were to be attacked and destroyed, Elminster would be angry, not necessarily for the innocent people who died (though that would make him angry as well), but because someone did it to screw with him. He would seek vengeance for that fact primarily, not to seek retribution for the harm done to those who are innocent.
In fact, having lived so long, Elminster has seen more people die than would even be reasonable to understand. Watching people die is probably something that would not affect him too much. After a certain point, you become numb to it, and I think that this is perhaps what Elminster hates the most about immortality. The fact that almost anyone he lives and cares for is going to die, and that he will be left alone. So he seeks the fleeting pleasures in life, things that are short and fast, taking joy and happiness where he can because he knows it will never last.
Does that make Elminster evil? No, but it doesn't make him good, either.
I know that I am not the only person who places such a heavy burden upon someone with good alignment, which is why I think a lot of people had trouble with Mystra being good aligned and still allowing evil people access to the Weave. I tried to imagine what it would be like, to allow someone to use your metaphorical (or perhaps literal) body for evil ends. The closest I could come to was being raped, again and again, repeatedly, endlessly, every day, all day. However, to make matters worse, not only were you being raped, you were also involuntarily being forced to commit horrific deeds against others.
Something like this would just never be acceptable to a good aligned individual. Could you justify it, pragmatically? Yes, you could. Yet, I do not view pragmatism as being compatible with being good, because by the nature of being good (and trying to promote goodness in the world) you in turn had to be both idealistic and altruistic. Pragmatism is something only someone who is neutral can truly afford, because by the very nature of pragmatism it means you must compromise some essence of what you believe to be important.
If you are sacrificing some of what it means to be good, in order to do what you think is good (therefore acting in a pragmatic manor), does that mean you are still good? My answer has always been a resolute no.
It is for the same reason I do not consider a well known character such as Darth Vader to truly be evil. People liked Darth Vader because they saw redeemable qualities in him. Darth Vader, in my view, would be Lawful Neutral. Did he do evil things? Yes. However, he was both manipulated and controlled by someone else, and on top of that his motivations were not all that evil. He truly believed that a strong and unified Empire would be better for the galaxy.
Being evil often seems easier than being good, because being evil you are often given direct, tangential and immediate rewards. Whereas, being good, you're often shafted, screwed over, and ultimately killed only to receive your rewards in the end.
Good people are talked about and revered even long after they are dead. They are true heroes, that the world weeps for when they die. Evil people are talked about and reviled, their name spit upon, long after they are dead. They are true villains, that the world breaks into spontaneous celebration when they die or are defeated. No one weeps for a villain, anyone with a heart weeps for a hero.
That's the root difference I think we have here. I am holding Elminster to a higher standard than everyone else, and I am thinking in terms of DM and PC. Were I to look at Elminster's character sheet and see Chaotic Good written on it, I would immediately set out to test him, constantly and endlessly.
This testing would inevitably result in one of three things: his death, his becoming neutral, or a change in the character himself (to be more in accord with his alignment).
I envisioned him being more True Neutral, than Chaotic Good.
Something I never really understood was the visibility of Elminster. Pretty much any enemy he has would know that his home is located in Shadowdale. How does a good aligned NPC justify that?
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law
He realized that this would still allow someone like Adolph Hitler to masacre millions, because a robot would be unable to harm him. Hence, the Zeroth Law -
0. A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm
and then added to the end of the first law - "except where such orders would conflict with the zeroth Law.
Which would allow a robot to stop a mass murderer, even if it meant doing him harm.
Now, apply that to the Chosen - there is a certain level of morality there, but as the old saying goes, "If you want to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs."
Unfortunately, those 'eggs' are more accurately called 'Collateral Damage', or even worse, 'exceptable losses'.
When you're one person trying to fight the good fight, you can afford to keep to high moral standards, but when you have the power of a god (or nation) at your fingertips, "the needs of the many out-weigh the needs of the few". King Azoun was a good man, but he sent his own people to die fighting the Horde, just to protect millions of people who coudn't be bothered to protect themselves.
He knew he was making the world a better place, but his wizard tried to talk him out of it, because he felt it could cause a political backlash within Cormyr.
And yet, he was willing to die being a hated man, as long as he knew he did the right thing. And it that case, it was sacrificing thousands of Cormites.
I remember when I was younger someone asked me if I would like to be president... I said "Not on your life". I wouldn't be able to sleep at night, and I don't envy anyone with power.
Now imagine being a thousand-year-old man, who has had to watch more friends die then years he has lived, and think about how unhappy he must be when he finds himself still waking up every morning.
This is why I never understood people's vehement hatred for El - he should be pitied for having that power, not envied.
As to the last part of your post there MT, from "Now, apply that to the Chosen", I can wholeheartedly agree with that.
Though it should be 'acceptable losses'. ;)
I like him insofar as he is a distant, strange guide in a huge, unwelcoming world.
My first experience with him was on the cliffside road to Candlekeep. He was out there; every once in a while he would check up on me, say "hi" and take off just as quickly as he showed up. I got a little older, some elf kidnapped my sister, I found out I was one of many of the children the god Bhaal spawned, and even then, all he ever did was stop by, ask a few questions, drop a few riddles, and give the offhand piece of advice, he never stepped on my toes.
To me Elminster immediately had the feel of Tom Bombadil about him - this guy that was old when your great grandma was young, and so immensely powerful that it was mind-boggling, and he was content to sit in his own little haven, and watch the world turn.
As time marched on I learned more about, and subsequently began to dislike him: the irreverent and more often than not, contrived people calling themselves Harpers (which is a whole other thread in and of itself), the "Creepy sex I wish I could have so I write about it instead" novels by Mr. Greenwood, and the icing on the cake, that damned 3Edition statblock of his catapulted him from "cool character" to "absolute tripe" in about a year flat.
Recently his return to a backdrop character has improved my opinion of him greatly, even if he is salty as hell now, that's something I can deal with, or even alter to my tastes as a DM.
As an aside (and a matter of fact, as well) the realms new take on "Hero" NPCs being unstatted story tools, and "Villain" NPCs being vicious final bosses of long campaigns is a step in the right direction for the realms.
Long story short? I'm very happy with Elminster as he is right now.
That is how I view Elminster and the Chosen. Which is why I say that Elminster looks for the simple, fleeting pleasures in life, because that is all he really has.
---
I generally hate alignment discussions, because I think the majority of people want to see themselves as good. Then I whip out my extreme version of alignments, and some people seem to subconsciously take offense. :p
It really would not have been such an issue had the alignment scale been set up in such a way to be extreme. There are only nine alignments, and I think if everyone really steps back and looks at the scale itself and thinks about it... my way of viewing it makes sense.
For example, you have demons and devils, the incarnate forms of chaotic and lawful evil respectively. Then in typically D&D you have greedy merchants which may also be Lawful or Chaotic Evil. In which way does greed measure up to the things a demon or a devil might perform? Can an individuals greed really be so bad that they become evil? Why not neutral? Can a neutral person not be greedy?
I view alignment on a bell curve. My view of alignment is so extreme almost everything on the prime material plane is going to be neutral. That is the way I like it, because it makes sense. Neutral is the most human of alignments. It allows you to have flaws, it allows you to strive to be good, but still fall short.
It is the difference between actually being good and being "merely good."
I realize my view on good is extreme, but I also take an equally extreme view of evil. It takes more to be evil than to simply be greedy and kill a few innocent people. You really have to be consumed by it, to not only embrace your greed and be willing to do anything to achieve it, but to find enjoyment in killing innocent people to satisfy your greed.
In the end, what is the difference between neutral and good?
That has been something that always bothered me by individuals who did not take the extreme approach. Most people would consider themselves good, but fall short because they themselves are forced to make compromises. If you make compromises, by the very definition of the term, you are compromising your alignment. To me that says a character is neutral. To me there is nothing wrong with neutrality. The same would be true of someone who began to compromise their evil alignment, because they had certain moral qualms about doing certain things.
That doesn't mean you couldn't be regarded as good or evil by others. I am pretty sure there are more than a handful of individuals who see Elminster and King Azoun as evil men. How would you feel as a parent of a child that Elminster or King Azoun identified as an "'acceptable loss" for the greater good? I do not imagine you'd have a very favorable opinion of them.
It is why good people are not often leaders, because they cannot be forced to make the pragmatic choices for the greater good (and indeed often the survivability) of all.
I suppose my extreme view of D&D alignment explains why I have always seen the Realms as too overly cliche and bright. Even in 4E I don't see much darkness or points of light. I just find lots of gray and suggestions of shadow, but no real or actual darkness. When I read the 4E FRCG, I felt like someone should be standing behind me saying, "Ooga-booga! Be frightened by the evvvvvviiillll!"
In a world in which almost everyone is going to be neutral, it becomes more pragmatically acceptable to allow certain things to go on or exist. It creates a slippery slope... for when do you draw the line? When does pragmatism become complacent acceptance?
I find those types of games, where someone is attempting to be a hero, in an imperfect world, surrounded by imperfect people, more interesting than someone who just slaps a good alignment on their character sheet. Then either proceeds to ignore said alignment, or alternatively, acts in ways that make no sense for their character to preserve the alignment.
If you are going to pick a good or evil alignment, (or lawful or chaotic) I think you should be able to give clear examples from your character's past that demonstrate the actions they've taken to get those alignments. Then, heading forward into the actual game, continue performing good (or evil or lawful or chaotic) actions to keep that alignment. And I don't think the occasional donation to the orphanage is enough. A character must take and perform actions above and beyond that of what a neutral character (who is striving to be good) would perform.
I'm not taking offense to it. You're entitled to your view on the matter, as I am to mine, but I have a feeling the two aren't going to meet anywhere in the middle. Agreement to disagree is the best I think either one of us can hope for, and I suspect we're already at that point, so I suppose it isn't so much a debate as an elaboration on our viewpoint.
See, for me, the whole shades of gray thing works in all directions. You have varying degrees of good, you have varying degrees of neutrality, vary degrees of evil, and the same for the lawful and chaotic spectrum. I agree most folks are going to fall somewhere in the middle of that spectrum on both axes, but its a reasonable assumption in the Pre-Spellplague Realms that with the considerable majority of gods of an upper planar persuasion in the setting, more folks are going to fall on the side of good than would be the norm for most other worlds. How realistic that may be from a certain point of view is certainly debatable, but that's neither here nor there at the moment. Just as a side note, I'd also agree that most folks would consider themselves 'goodly' and probably be very wrong about that label. As they say, lack of evil doesn't mean the presence of good.
And speaking of planar persuasions, I'm a bit dubious of the use of celestial and fiendish creatures as an example... could be that Planescape influence, but I tend to see them as extremes in and of themselves, paragons that very few mortals could truly live up to the standards of, for good or evil. But they're not really supposed to, at least as far as I'm concerned, since those entities are personifications of their various alignments, and somewhat beyond mortal measure. But if we go back to Planescape's Faces of Evil book, we also see that not all fiends are created equally in terms of their level of commitment to their alignment, at least as far as Baator is concerned, and that each 'rank' of devil corresponds to the 'purity' of the devil in question, with each rank having a distinct lesson to learn before it can purge itself on its path towards diabolic perfection. That right there says to me that there are indeed those degrees of shade, even among those personifications of an alignment. If its true of fiends, I see little reason why it wouldn't be true of mortals as well.
Honestly, I see little inherent conflict with pragmatism and a good or evil alignment. The alignment simply shades the degree and form of that pragmatism. The only way that doesn't work is in a world of absolutes, and the sheer existance of something Chaotic and Good sort of toss that idea out the window for me from the start. Sure, I could see lawful types dealing in absolutes, but certainly not chaotics. And even within that spectrum of lawful good, you get varying shades, depending on what virtue is stressed and through which all others are viewed, which can lead to some fairly varying interpretations of what the best course of action might be in any given situation.
How that relates to compromise with evil is a good question though. I can see several circumstances where even an exalted might reach some accord with an evil being to be honest, especially if there is some hope in their heart of influencing the evil party through their deeds and pulling them that much closer to the side of goodness. To just kill them out of hand strikes me as a distinct lack of mercy and forgiveness, and denies hope that they might be redeemed. Were a paladin doing something like that in one of my games, I can assure you they wouldn't be a paladin much longer as far as I was concerned. Beyond even the good and evil aspect, a need for compromise exists for differing takes on goodness to work together for common cause. Not compromising on anything would be viewed in my book as a basic lack of respect for the rights of others to have differing points of view, which leads down a very slippery slope indeed, since it undercuts the premise of empathy.
As to the difference between neutral and good... well, as I mentioned above, absence of evil doesn't indicate the presence of good. Mostly, I'd define good as actively seeking to make the world a better place for its own sake, as defined within the basic tenets of whatever philosophy of good you might ascribe to. Neutrality, might do the same thing, might not, and if it does, its likely out of motivated self-interest rather than a sense of altruism or because its the right thing to do. They might do similar things, but its the motive behind them that counts the most. But I can see evil doing similar things as well because its in their best interests too. Ultimately, for me, its now what you do, its why you do it. And no, it doesn't matter what you say is the reason behind your actions, anyone can say anything, but that doesn't mean they're being sincere about things.
In regards to your Azoun/Elminster example up there... I'd say that how the parent felt depended on quite a few things. If they believed in the cause their child died for, I doubt they would hold much rancor towards them... if they did not believe in it, well, it depends on how much they respected the beliefs of their child, and the circumstances in which the child died. If they died saving the kingdom or a defenseless village, I see it more likely that they would mourn, but feel pride in their child sacrificing themselves for others, unless it was needless or due to the stupidity of others, presuming it was in a good cause. Were it a bad cause, well, all bets are off and they're probably upset, to say the least.
As to what constitutes actual darkness... there's a difference between evil and atrocity in my book. Certainly evil can lead to atrocity, but it doesn't have to. I have a distinct problem with dealing with atrocity in my gaming, since I see enough of it just by reading the news to fill my need to explore it, without filling my leisure time plumbing its depths. Given my past first hand experiences with it, I don't see anything fascinating or worthwhile in discussing it at length and in depth, I find it disgusting how cruel and heartless we can be to each other, especially our children. I've gotten past the cathartic use of it from my youth and just want to move on and away from it... its not something I can do to even imaginary people without feeling violated by it. I guess its just that evil isn't an abstract to me, its very real and very far from fun to experience or clean up after.
I just think it cheapens it (drawing on my own... take of things) to turn it into a form of entertainment for an evening, and my experiences motivate me more to do something about it, rather than just talking about it. That might sound critical or damning of you, but believe me, its not an attack. Its just something I can't do myself, and I'm not going to condemn anyone if they want to explore it in the safety of a game, its just not for me.
So... yeah. That brings us to Elminster kicking back and enjoying life while he can, something I can totally empathize with. As to him endangering others and staying in society, maybe he just doesn't want to be alone with the memories in his head, and just looking out the window to watching kids play in the fields is enough to keep them at bay... Seems cruel to begrudge someone that to me.
I think if you look at alignment this way:
Lawful Good, Neutral Good, Chaotic Good
Lawful Neutral (Leans Good), Neutral (Leans Good), Chaotic Neutral (Leans Good)
Lawful Neutral, True Neutral, Chaotic Neutral
Lawful Neutral (Leans Evil), Neutral (Leans Evil), Chaotic Neutral (Leans Evil)
Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil, Chaotic Evil
I think if you look at it that way, our points of view pretty much find common ground. I think -most- people, would lean away from anything that leans toward evil, for a variety of reasons.
--0--
I just find it hard to consider someone like Elminster good aligned. Sure, on the one hand he does care about innocent people and will go out of his way to ensure they are not harmed. Then, on the other hand, should he feel it is necessary for the greater good he'll sacrifice them. To me that really isn't compatible with someone of a good alignment.
--0--
I believe alignment has two parts: what you do and why you do it. You can justify anything, and that is often how most people who do bad things in the real world cope with their actions. They justify them.
--0--
I am fundamentally telling a story. I want my story to invoke emotion. In my mind evil and atrocity are fairly synonymous. Can there be atrocities on different scales? Sure, but at the end of the day they are still atrocities.
When you are playing a heroic character, I want you to feel repulsed by the evil that you face. It really should not feel sympathetic, not unless that is what you are going for in your villains. It should be repulsive enough that you want to act out through your character.
Unlike in the real world, where you are generally helpless to do anything about an atrocity, in the game world, you can play an active role in preventing it or even seeking justice for it. In essence, this is what it means to be a hero, why people look up to heroes, and why the contrasts between good and evil must be drawn.
It is certainly possible that, along the way, the hero begins to fall and slip into darkness. In battling his enemy, he ceases to be a hero and becomes what he sought to fight. This, too, is a valid story. Sure, these are stories that are somewhat cliché, but they strike a cord and intrigue us anyway despite this fact.
I like to show how small evils can lead to larger ones, and I think this fits with the concept of good and evil in the D&D multiverse. In the multiverse good and evil are in a titanic battle. Every action committed empowers one side or another. If you want to tip the scales of balance to one side, you have to consistently and ceaselessly avoid committing actions that aid the opposing side. Sure, it might not seem much on the larger scale, but individually it makes a difference.
In my games good and evil seem to have ripple effects. It just happens naturally, for example, if you are good and kind to an individual, they will almost certainly return it. Being good and kind to the right person might result in benefits or allies later. Small acts of goodness can change peoples lives, almost as if the threads of fate bend around a character.
However, on the opposite end of things the same is also true. Negativity and wickedness breeds negative and wicked people. If you are cruel to a person, even if they cannot return that cruelty upon you, they will wish it upon you. Acts of cruelty rarely lends itself to allies, but those that seek you out will certainly not be good individuals, and they will do nothing to help turn you away from your current path. And like good, the threads of fate bend for such characters, and almost never for good, unless they earn enemies who ultimately kill them.
But you never really see this with neutral aligned characters. They tend to splash around in the pond, so to speak, make a few ripples here and there, but are ultimately are washed out and then forgotten. You might make an impact on individual lives, but you don't really seem to bend history in the same obvious way.
And IMO, it is natural for this to happen. Good seems to breed goodness in others. It is kinda like smiling at someone, they cannot help but smile back.
I really don't seek to game for escapism in the same way you do. I see it more as collaborative fantasy storytelling that is part escapism. I guess it is because our real world is often so filled with bad things, that I cannot help but draw upon what I know and see. Much like I might draw ideas from a movie or a book, I draw ideas from real life.
The key to using proper and true evil in your games or stories, is really not to over use it. People become numb to it, eventually, and it ceases to have the emotional motivations that it once had. It is something you pull out of your hat occasionally, only when it is needed, to provide the proper motivations to characters. Unfortunately, the real world often does make people numb to lesser evils, so you sometimes may find yourself trying to up the anti, and in those cases you only need to avoid going over the top where it is absurd.
Stigger and I briefly discussed PETA in another thread, and how I believed in that cause.
When my sister tried to adopt a new dog from a shelter after her's died (of old age), they ran a check on her, and found out from her Vet that she had not brought the dog in for regular check-ups (she had done a few, but not every year like they want).
They told her she was "not the kind of owner they would want for their animals".
My sister - who is BIG on pets - was VERY hurt. I was there, and I turned around and said that I though people who "captured wild animals and mutilated them should have the same done to them" and walked away. You should have seen their faces. Another example; a friend of mine had found a stray cat once, and he took it in, and the first thing he had done was have it 'fixed'. I was like "so you took this happy little cat home and CUT OFF ITS BALLS, and you think you are a good person because of that?"
I never really looked at him the same way again.
He thought he was a saint - I thought HE was the animal.
Not saying I'm right or he was wrong - I'm just saying there are two completely different ways (or more) to look at the same thing.
In Marvel Comics, Dr. Doom was once attacked (for no reason) by The Thing. The Thing had caught wind of a secret lab, and he went there and smashed everything. The short story - the lab had just came up with a formula that would stop people from being able to be addicted to substances. No more drugs, alchohal, cigarettes, etc....
Dr. Doom had invented it so he could treat everyone with it once he took over the world, so everyone could be "more productive citizens".
Of course, stupid Ben Grimm destroyed the formula not knowing what it was.
In his mind, Dr. Doom is not evil - he is doing what he thinks is the right thing to do to make the world a better place (with him ruling it). Magneto is much the same - he fights to protect Mutantkind. Yet both are marvel villains (most of the time). I have other comics where both Magneto and Dracula help Sgt. Fury (later Nick Fury) fight the Nazis. Does that make the American soldiers fighting along side them evil?
Good and evil are too much based on personal biases for a clear line to be drawn anywhere, ever. The best anyone can really do is just try and do the best they can. Sounds corny, but thats the deal.
That's another reason I enjoy the extreme view on good and evil alignments. It makes it MUCH more clear cut. Everyone is pretty much going to agree that torture is wrong, selling children into sexual slavery is wrong, and fighting against those things are therefore good. When it is clear cut and extreme it is much easier to find common ground.
At least, that's been my experience.
When you know you have high expectations to live up too, it's more obvious when you begin to fall and stray away from good. There are less arguments and debate overall.
As to sacrificing others for the greater good, I see no problem with that, at least not inherently. Certainly life is sacred, but better a few die if they prevent the deaths of many more. How it really plays out, in terms of alignment, depends more on the reasons, and if those folks knew about it and did so willingly. But, my problem here, with this line of reasoning, is that it assumes that the goodly person should accept responsibility for the evil actions of others, that they should view their own lives as a provocation against evil simply by existing. I'm not going to accept that as a valid line of reasoning, at least not if its mandated as a requirement for being good.
As for justifications... depends on how that's meant really. If you're talking about the justifications folks might give to others to absolve themselves from an evil act, I'd still say it was an evil act, no matter what they said. Their reasons for committing it, the real ones inside their hearts, are what matter more than the ones they state. If you're talking about the rationalizations and justifications we make to ourselves... one is a coping mechanism, but it doesn't absolve the stain of evil, or make it any better, it just helps remove the trauma of committing something we know is wrong, or worse, to just make yourself look better in public when you really don't give a crap either way. Then there's the lie we tell to ourselves to rationalize our evil actions to make ourselves into the heroic good guy of our own story, possibly indicative of what we tend to classify as personality disorders these days, but what I tend to think of as just being f****d in the head, diagnosis of disorder or not.
As to using evil... I can respect that you use it the way you seem to, but like I said, I'm past the cathartic stage of dealing with it. I know it exists, I do what I can to act on it when its possible, and I'll leave it at the door afterwards. Is how I game escapist? Absolutely, and I wouldn't change it for the world. Besides, its much cheaper than drugs or alchohol, which would probably be the alternative to it.
I do see one problem I have though with your interpretation of things though that I haven't really addressed, which Markus lead me to. It is much more clear cut, and that bothers me. Living an extreme is much easier than wading through those degrees of moral shading. Its in those degrees, their subtle nuances, where we really define ourselves and temper our beliefs into a firmer substance... that most don't, or decide they're somewhere in the middle is irrelevant. See, to me, being good isn't really a state of being, or state of mind, its a process, a journey along life's path with pitfalls and missteps, but its in those pitfalls and missteps where we truly define ourselves, since we had what it took to get back up after a mistake and do our best to do what's right in the end. Absolutes are too easy, and teach us very little but unquestioning obedience, whereas those gray areas are where we have to make a conscious choice and decision about what we define as good and evil. Better to define things yourself, to find out why you believe what you do, why you act the way you do, than to adhere to some arbitrary set of laws or standards that don't really require much thought when it really comes down to it. Its easy to point to a standard, say your going to adhere to it, and then do your best to do so. Its much more difficult to come to those conclusions on your own, to decide for yourself that those are ideals you wish to live by, and to truly come to understand what those ideals really mean to you, personally.
Obviously its much easier to judge this from a D&D perspective than it is from a RL one, since we do have access to the thoughts and real motives of those involved... which isn't often the case with the real world. But we can do it for ourselves, which I think is half the fun of life when it comes down to it, for me anyway. And its those arguments and debates that I think are very useful, since they often make us think about what we really believe, so long as we don't stick to rote answers... its where we define ourselves, morally and ethically, in a lot of ways.
Though as an aside, as I don't recall mentioning it before, I agree with you that a lot of folks I've talked to and seen do slap that good alignment on their character sheets far too casually.
No, they should have those at any point of their careers - that is what makes them characters. Elminster, or any other NPC levels high or low, does not take away that (barring dominate spells, but that's another topic). Player characters interact with NPCs as they try to achieve their goals and further their ambitions - whether it's Elminster the Archmage, Grubmug the goblin or Iggwig the half-illithid lizardman bartender. Yes, those NPCs will have goals and ambitions of their own and try to act on them, that's what makes them characters. And yes, they will try to impose those goals and ambitions on the characters they interact with, just as the PCs do. That's how it happens in real life, as well.
I think what you said was one of the things I like least about people's perceptions of Elminster. He's a very powerful NPC - definitely. So are about 50 others, and I'm not even including dragons, elemental lords, and the like. Such NPCs should be handled carefully, especially in a game where the players are of lower level. That is obvious enough and, btw, need not be a problem. If the players don't want Elminster in their game, or don't want to work for him, and yet the DM forces them to, that's not a problem with Elminster, as a novel character or a Realms NPC. It's a problem with the DM. And if the players identify more with a famous NPC's goals and ambitions than those of their own characters, that's a problem with the players.
This is so well said; I'm just quoting it for truth.
Lame Gandalf clone who ought be dragged in chains back to middle earth to stand trial for copyright infringement.
Because there were never any wise old wizard characters before Gandalf?
I am not really getting into this because as a novel-only participant my opinion is likely to be just about as welcome as a hornet swarm at a picnic.
No, I appreciate your comments, and I think you're correct as well--attacking any powerful NPC in the Realms (good or evil) means you are going to invoke the wrath of their allies.
As time marched on I learned more about, and subsequently began to dislike him: the irreverent and more often than not, contrived people calling themselves Harpers (which is a whole other thread in and of itself), the "Creepy sex I wish I could have so I write about it instead" novels by Mr. Greenwood, and the icing on the cake, that damned 3Edition statblock of his catapulted him from "cool character" to "absolute tripe" in about a year flat.
I respect your opinion, but is it fair to characterize Ed Greenwood in such a manner? I've read a lot of his comments posted on Candlekeep, and he doesn't strike me as a creepy, "unsatisfied" man at all. Quite the opposite, in fact.
I respect your opinion, but is it fair to characterize Ed Greenwood in such a manner? I've read a lot of his comments posted on Candlekeep, and he doesn't strike me as a creepy, "unsatisfied" man at all. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Its a broad generalization, which I'm prone to make in order to paint a more colorful picture. I don't know the guy, I just know the products he puts out.
Its a broad generalization, which I'm prone to make in order to paint a more colorful picture. I don't know the guy, I just know the products he puts out.
I understand, just be careful. Part of being a writer (as far as I can tell) means writing about characters who aren't like you and who would do things you wouldn't necessarily do.
I respect your opinion, but is it fair to characterize Ed Greenwood in such a manner? I've read a lot of his comments posted on Candlekeep, and he doesn't strike me as a creepy, "unsatisfied" man at all. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Precisely.
It is more a problem the reader has with their own puritan morals and inability to accept any sexual behaviour outside of what they perceive as 'normal'.
FR isn't Earth - not even close. Without a big ol' list of "Thou Shalt NOT's", you simply can't apply RW mores to these people. In fact, having multiple spouses is fairly common, sometimes at the same time. Obviously Faerunians have no problem with divorce or polygamy, either.
I don't worship cows, have a harem, or believe in 'ritual suicide', but I'm not going to think less of a group because they do so... even one in a fantasy setting.
And placing such deviant characterizations on Ed is just plain wrong. He is able to think outside the box, not be corraled by his own code of ethics. Should we hate horror writers like Stephen King as well, because they write about things like caninbalism? Maybe SK is a closet-cannibal, according to that narrow way of thinking.
I understand, just be careful. Part of being a writer (as far as I can tell) means writing about characters who aren't like you and who would do things you wouldn't necessarily do.
I really wouldn't know, I'm not that kind of writer; poetry, opinion pieces, reviews, blogs, as-humor-and-sarcasm-injected-as-I-can-get-away-with-while-still-passing essays on subject X for final Y in class Z, terse letters to the business department of Macy's - that's my sort of thing. I'm more like a stand-up comedian who sits behind a keyboard
Precisely.
It is more a problem the reader has with their own puritan morals and inability to accept any sexual behaviour outside of what they perceive as 'normal'...
...placing such deviant characterizations on Ed is just plain wrong. He is able to think outside the box, not be corraled by his own code of ethics. Should we hate horror writers like Stephen King as well, because they write about things like caninbalism? Maybe SK is a closet-cannibal, according to that narrow way of thinking.
Of course, we can make broad generalizations about people on the forums as well, but sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Not everyone who puts forth humorous criticism is affected by some sort of Abrahamic psychosis; nor is everyone who writes about centuries old archmages named Elminster (translated from Elvish, it comes out: Ed Greenwood) - who has kings-in-exile washing their underwear, running around turning enemies into talking carpets, bar wenches named Edwina, and attractive lamps. Not to mention smoking endlessly (whilst underwater) and having sex with the goddess of magic - really just projecting a fantasy version of themselves.
But whatev.
Edit: As far as sex with a goddess of ANYTHING, I don't exactly think that can be called 'normal' - but I'd sure as hell be willing to try it so long as she was Neutral or Good. Chaotic is a plus.
I really wouldn't know, I'm not that kind of writer; poetry, opinion pieces, reviews, blogs, as-humor-and-sarcasm-injected-as-I-can-get-away-with-while-still-passing essays on subject X for final Y in class Z, terse letters to the business department of Macy's - that's my sort of thing. I'm more like a stand-up comedian who sits behind a keyboard
You don't have to be "that kind of writer" to understand my point, though, which was that depicting something in an artistic manner is not the same thing as advocating/condoning it, or secretly wishing to try it yourself. That you write about all the other things you mentioned (reviews, poetry, editorials) suggests to me that you likely are at least aware of that.
You don't have to be "that kind of writer" to understand my point, though, which was that depicting something in an artistic manner is not the same thing as advocating/condoning it, or secretly wishing to try it yourself. That you write about all the other things you mentioned (reviews, poetry, editorials) suggests to me that you likely are at least aware of that.
Allow me to rephrase then - I've never look at it from that angle before.
Allow me to rephrase then - I've never look at it from that angle before.
Well, there's a first time for everything.;)
Not everyone who puts forth humorous criticism is affected by some sort of Abrahamic psychosis...
-Or non-humorous criticisms.
-Or non-humorous criticisms.
Depending on where one is standing, and/or how open one is to the interpretation of humor.
I told them to hold back on the air support, though - it's Christmas, and I didn't want any collateral damage. ;)
-You know the First Commandment for the Realms is "Thou shalt not criticise Ed Greenwood for any reason, lest a Zhentarim Hit Squard cometh to thine houseth and breaketh thine legs and Jaw"! :P
18DELTA (Chosen of Cyric) :D
Incorrect.
We know otherwise. From Ed:-
"He owes a little bit to the Old Storyteller of Thornton W. Burgess, a little bit to Merlin, a little bit to Gandalf, a trifle to Fagin, a trifle to the literary character Glencannon, a little bit more to the real-life (and long since sadly deceased) English comedian Michael Flanders, and so on."
And,
"He's more Merlin than he is Gandalf or Belgarath—in fact, if you look at Nicol Williamson 's portrayal of Merlin in the movie Excalibur, remove the skullcap, and change the red hair to dark brown, the result will be pretty close to Elminster's whimsical behaviour and general looks; Old El of course predates the movie, too. "
It might not be Ed who is the copyright infringer but TSR.
And I don't care what Ed says, he's Gandalf
18DELTA (Chosen of Cyric) :P
And so on, and so on...
I'm a firm believer in Chaos...
Which is weird, considering how much I HATE Cyric and Cthulhu...
Maybe I just don't like the competition. :P
"Blood and Souls for Arioch!"
-Right...Elminster. ;)
Not quite yet. The hit squad showed up, only problem was: they were statted for 3.5 - poor guys never stood a chance.
Ok... back to Elminster.
I'm still happy with his current state of being!
And I don't care what Ed says, he's Gandalf
You've Ed's own words that discount this assumption, yet you still maintain it.
How so?
Been that way since the dawn of time.
if that's the way it seems to Merrik, then that's the way it is to Merrik. Same's true of all those other unfounded characterizations folks make about the Old Goat too... proof and objective fact are not required for an opinion afterall.
he was overexposed in 2e, behind every bush
If you look at the GHotR, he gets hardly any mention at all - thats more realiustic. In the 'grand scheme of things', Elminster is really just a minor player... albeit a very powerful one.
Khelben was more of a 'meddler', and yet people didn't feel that way about him (the way they do about El), because he had less 'camera time' novel-wise.
Personally, I picture Elminster more as a "gaurdian of the Realms", then a defednder of good. That was shown in Elminster in Hell. It doesn't matter what is intruding on Toril or Realmspace - he is there to combat it... even if it means defending Zhentil Keep against Malaugrym! Elminster has a number of 'evil' friends, and he works with them as well, protecting the world and the Weave. He himself may not be neutral, but his job sure is.
If the Simbul went nuts and started attacking (and killing) all the Red Wizards of Thay (against Mystra's wishes), Elminster might have to be the one to 'put down the rabid dog'... despite his personal feelings.
Elminster tries to do his job within the boundaries of his own morals, but that is not always podssible... he even warned Mystra about Sammaster... whom he trained despite his misgivings.
People who hate El don't understand El.
He wasn't 'really' put front-and-center - that's just people's perception of him, because of the number of stories involving him, rather then others.
-Numerous stories involving the character, as well as numerous plotlines either directly involving him, or tangentially involving him in some way is "front and center".
People who hate El don't understand El.
-I understand Elminster quite well, and I dislike him all the same.
:D
He wasn't 'really' put front-and-center - that's just people's perception of him, because of the number of stories involving him, rather then others.
If you look at the GHotR, he gets hardly any mention at all - thats more realiustic. In the 'grand scheme of things', Elminster is really just a minor player... albeit a very powerful one.
Khelben was more of a 'meddler', and yet people didn't feel that way about him (the way they do about El), because he had less 'camera time' novel-wise.
Personally, I picture Elminster more as a "gaurdian of the Realms", then a defednder of good. That was shown in Elminster in Hell. It doesn't matter what is intruding on Toril or Realmspace - he is there to combat it... even if it means defending Zhentil Keep against Malaugrym! Elminster has a number of 'evil' friends, and he works with them as well, protecting the world and the Weave. He himself may not be neutral, but his job sure is.
If the Simbul went nuts and started attacking (and killing) all the Red Wizards of Thay (against Mystra's wishes), Elminster might have to be the one to 'put down the rabid dog'... despite his personal feelings.
Elminster tries to do his job within the boundaries of his own morals, but that is not always podssible... he even warned Mystra about Sammaster... whom he trained despite his misgivings.
People who hate El don't understand El.
That's the way I see Elminster as well, which is why in my original post I said I viewed him as TN instead of CG. It just made more sense.
I think that Elminster was over exposed, though, and that contributes also to some people's dislike of him. As well, I think he was built up to be too much of a hero, when his real role was more of a guardian and advice giver. He's the guy who assists the hero, not the guy who is actually one himself.
-I understand Elminster quite well, and I dislike him all the same.
What did it for me, aside from the now painful derailment from one time was also some other media, which also really shot things in the foot in terms of running a FR game. In Baldurs Gate, for example, your character runs into Elminster early on at about level 1 and a few other times. Not to mention the whole "Lets run into Drizzt several times" in BG2 (minding, you can kill Drizzt in that game. It never gets old either).
Many of the people I played with, at the time of which I didn't have the mobility, interest from people I knew or internet ability to play games as I do with 4E these days got into FR from the computer games. The use of those NPCs in the games, the novels and finally being statted really made running realms based PnP games exceptionally painful (of course, that was because of the people I was playing with as well, I'm fortunate to have three awesome groups of players now whom I really feel I can work with in my "communal storytelling" type view of PnP games).
Of course, I started reading the novels as well to keep up with my players. The worst book I have ever read to this day is Spellfire. I hated it so much, I eternally despised Elminster, Mystra, the Chosen (by extension) and everything to do with them. To call it dreck would be a compliment and unfair to other horrifically written books everywhere. Elminster was basically a casualty of some of the increasingly awful novels I read.
The only FR novels I read I ever liked (ironic in many ways) were Icewind Dale and later the Rising Tide series. After I stopped playing 3.5 ed in 2004ish I never read any more FR novels and I never ever will again.
What did it for me, aside from the now painful derailment from one time was also some other media, which also really shot things in the foot in terms of running a FR game.
-That, I cannot agree with. To say that Elminster is a problem in my games that causes me to be unable to play them is DM laziness in my opinion. That aside, that he is central or tangential to so many plots, in novels, in sourcebooks, and in already established history, is one of the reasons I dislike him, yes.
In Baldurs Gate, for example, your character runs into Elminster early on at about level 1 and a few other times.
And all Elminster does in the few times you meet him is talk to you a bit and point you in the right direction. No saving the PC from any enemies, no solving any problems for you. And the PC is not forced to be nice to him or treat him with any kind of deference.
Yes, that really "shot the game in the foot," I'm sure. The nerve Bioware had in giving some cameo roles to popular (note that word, popular) characters from the setting they used for their game.
I'm so sorry for people who have no control, in their own games, over a bunch of fictional characters.
And all Elminster does in the few times you meet him is talk to you a bit and point you in the right direction. No saving the PC from any enemies, no solving any problems for you. And the PC is not forced to be nice to him or treat him with any kind of deference.
I see the point sailed right over your head.
Yes, that really "shot the game in the foot," I'm sure.
If only I had wrote that about Baldurs Gate, which I didn't, it might make your subsequent point worthwhile.
The nerve Bioware had in giving some cameo roles to popular (note that word, popular) characters from the setting they used for their game. I'm so sorry for people who have no control, in their own games, over a bunch of fictional characters.
If only I had said that anywhere you would be making some sort of point.
Oh wait, I didn't.
Actually, Baldurs Gate and Baldurs Gate 2 are some of my favourite cRPGs and I still play both (actually I played the original through again just 3 days ago). The random "famous" NPCs they used though were fine for the context of the game (I never said otherwise), but the impression their use gave to people who played in my games was somewhat different (whose background were some of the novels and the games themselves). That was actually the specific issue and naturally, running into Elminster at level 1 can colour someones perception of how things work in the realms if it is [often] their first experience with it. I'm sure that point sailed right over your head as well.
Please feel free to respond to those points and not what you made up that I wrote (that isn't even correct).
To say that Elminster is a problem in my games that causes me to be unable to play them is DM laziness in my opinion
Your opinion is noted and it's irrelevance to what I actually wrote and lack of supporting evidence also noted. If you actually feel like responding to the point I actually made feel free to do so. Personally, I'm beginning to think I should just respond to every complaint certain people make by calling them lazy and see how they feel about it. Sounds like fun, good way of avoiding making legitimate points or responding to the actual argument made from what I can see.
Edit: However, because you have bought up this tangent (that is utterly irrelevant to what I wrote originally) is the following two points:
1) I don't run characters I don't like. What's the point of being the DM if I can't run the game to how I want? I could play Elminster or anyone else if I wanted: I prefer to write my own characters. Because contrary to the assertions of certain people who know nothing about how I DM my games, I much prefer to put the long hard work into making my own characters, with their own detailed histories, positions in the world and particular part in the stories I write. I happily use NPCs in books that have only a few details and similar that I can easily flesh out, but well established characters aren't mine and they are someone elses "property". When players start off running around after NPCs from the PC games or novels or whatever, it just derails the campaign and creates a sense of antagonism.
2) Player characters don't share my sentiments like some hive mind. I may not want to use X NPC, but when a PC is determined to find or do something with X NPC it can create major problems. See point 1 and again, this is reinforcing the point again you obviously missed.
The 'problem' as you should be aware was not "portraying the NPCs" (I couldn't give a crap frankly), it's the player in question and how they interact with the DM (and the other players) when they want to find the NPC in question to find that it is not actually that simple. This is solvable (unlike the following, which frequently isn't so solvable for the player in question), but is no less antagonising to the DM (in this case me) or the players as I'll describe below.
The opposite 'problem' is a frequent complaint of players and perhaps where yourself and Rinonalyrna are getting confused. Where X DM really likes X high level NPC and forces them upon the PCs repeatedly. This is almost like a DM using the character in a "Mary-Sue" type situation or worse, as a dues-ex machina mechanic that constantly makes the players wonder why they are bothering to play the game. This has never been an issue for me for the simple reason I've usually always been handed the DM job and the only group I could find back in the days of high school before the wonders of University, was well, mine. I've never done either and I long got over making "pet" characters that are there for no reason that to save the PCs from unwinnable situations of my own design (but that is a stylistic choice more than anything else: some DMs find such a storytelling maneuver can make for an improved sense of camaraderie with the NPC and the PCs who the NPC saved).
The last game I ran in the 3rd edition realms was a classic case of the first example (a particular player being disruptive). Eventually there came a point after the big "sit down" moment after one session (which came after the player tried the final straw derailment for me). So I took some time and wrote my own setting from the ground up, using a 2E underdark book as inspiration originally and enjoyed things far more. Contrary to popular belief, I am not the DM to take someone into another room and basically tell them they can stop being disruptive to myself and the other players or get out of my house. I didn't enjoy that (even if it was completely required). I didn't enjoy the discussion about "Well, in X novel and Baldurs Gate blah blah blah" in their defense either (which is where I had figured the attitude had come from, hence the original point you responded to). So in that sense, it did "shoot running a game in the foot" for me because I just lost all interest in ever running a game in the setting again after that campaign was finished.
I thought "Why bother? I can just write my own world and keep my blood pressure normal". And thus did I do so. It took a lot of effort, but I really enjoyed the results and so did my players. I use the 4E realms now because I don't have the time to really write my own world to my satisfaction. With luck, if they go the same 3E route and clutter the game with random NPCs again, stupid RSEs for no reason and similar I can hopefully get more than 1 other official setting to choose from (which I don't actually really like much) after the year or so it will take them to do that. Then I can assess if I need a change of pace to the likes of a revitalized Dark Sun or Planescape (by far the best setting I ever ran was Planescape).
Returning to the original two examples, having spent a long time on this forum I am well aware of both issues (there were many many threads on this throughout the years). I solved the first (for me) in a simple way ultimately as above, I killed* the whole lot of them (literally) and then told the player in question he could deal with it or leave. If Rinonalyrna would like to assert I had "no control" again, I'd be interested to hear it because I believe giving the ultimatum "they are all dead for X reason(s) and stop annoying me over this or leave as you are ruining my game and four other peoples fun" isn't, I'd wonder what is.
After that discussion no problems after that at all, though we stopped playing FR after that campaign (which went well also) and went to a homebrew campaign (a reverse underdark style campaign, where the surface was uncivilized and full of monsters compared to the safe and relatively civilized underground).
*Ok I lie. I left Elminster in hell because it seemed like a much better idea and certain others joined him when they decided to foolishly try to rescue him. I have of course decided entirely to stick with 4Es interpretation of events and pick up a Meldread like interpretation of how Elminster is living (which I thought was incredibly well thought out, though I have them in the same place as the 4E book asserts still).
Having been down this path once or twice, I'm fairly sure by now that what Aegeri is getting at isn't based in feeling compelled to use those NPCs in his games, so much as players being annoying in expecting to run to/into them, and that coloring his perception of those characters.
Yes. This is precisely the point I made.
And how horrifically crap the novels were. Oh Gods they are terrible.
Just avoid series... especially ones written by multiple authors (who have no clue how to portray the same characters the same way). I'm not talking about the 'themed' groupings, BTW, like 'Citadels' of 'Fighters' - I actually tend to like those.
Anyhow, I unerstand your point - and thats why I prefer players who know next to nothing about the setting - just so they DON'T go asking to find Elminster or Drizzt.
Most are... but not all. You can find a couple of gems in tha pack.
Oh of course, I thought Rising Tide was very good and so was Icewind Dale. What I never got was when other authors made characters from other writers just act ridiculous. Troy Denning comes to mind for some reason here, I think one of his books had Elminster running around like some bad 3 stooges parody.
Most of the novels were pretty bad. I felt after a while that every author was trying his best to one up every other author. Then they started this "let's see who can destroy the most stuff" or similar idea.
I'll never forget the reaction on the novel boards (that is before the war to end all wars on there that got all novel discussion banned) to Tilverton being destroyed. I hadn't even heard of it before then.
Anyhow, I unerstand your point - and thats why I prefer players who know next to nothing about the setting - just so they DON'T go asking to find Elminster or Drizzt.
Yeah, most of my 4E players have experience either in random 3E games or from computer games like Baldurs Gate. But it's not much of an issue now because the setting is so different from when the games/former experience was set it's like having a clean slate: so it's basically the same effect for me.
The last game I ran in the 3rd edition realms was a classic case of the first example (a particular player being disruptive). Eventually there came a point after the big "sit down" moment after one session (which came after the player tried the final straw derailment for me).
I'm curious - I guess you tried the method "Famous NPC X is not available right now, he left saying he has something important to do and we haven't seen him since". Didn't the players get the hint?
I'm curious - I guess you tried the method "Famous NPC X is not available right now, he left saying he has something important to do and we haven't seen him since". Didn't the players get the hint?
No he didn't (the players as a plural were not the issue: it's usually only ever one player in my experience).
Minding, I made the biggest mistake ever of running a realms game loosely inspired by Pool of Radiance so it was in Myth Drannor. Also it was about a daemonic invasion so there was cause for "going high level good NPC hunting" to help. The problem with that is it is utterly anathema to how I view heroic fantasy; you don't go running off to someone else to solve the problem you caused if you're supposed to be bloody heroes.
Fun fact: I wrote physical puzzles in the game that used the original gold box decoder wheel to solve them (it was an artifact that the players had which could unlock...something... I can't bloody remember what now). I still have that decoder wheel, but I couldn't tell you where that game ended up.
Oh of course, I thought Rising Tide was very good and so was Icewind Dale. What I never got was when other authors made characters from other writers just act ridiculous. Troy Denning comes to mind for some reason here, I think one of his books had Elminster running around like some bad 3 stooges parody.
At the risk of being banned,
He would be the very first author I would recommend NOT reading.
Everything he writes appears to be set on some other world, and then he goes back in and sprinkles just a tad of Realms references in so it sounds like a Realms novel.
And I honestly believe that.
Not that there is anything wrong with his story-structure or writing style, they are fine unto themselves. I just don't believe for one second he actually writes anything 'set' in the Realms. Its generic stuff with Realms-filler - nothing more.
For instance... NOTHING at all about the Twilight Giants says Realms, other then the logo on the cover. Those novels could have been placed anywhere, without changing a thing.
Avoid him and you'll avoid a lot of headaches.
*** Rant Over ***
Also, in Aegeri's specific case - ONE player was disrupting the whole group?
This is something I also can't understand... although I've seen it.
In my Bro-in-law's group, there was one player who did everything he could to disrupt every session, and usually it always came down to the party killing him - several times a session! I've never seen a game before where one player needed to have 3-5 characters already pre-rolled per session.
When I took my bro-in-law aside and asked him why they even bothered to play with the jerk, and why not just un-invite him to sessions, he answered "We can't do that... he's our friend".
All I have to say is, if the guy is show-boating and ruining it for everyone else, HE'S NO-ONE'S FRIEND!
Sometimes a game can teach you some life-lessons... and who you should keep as friends. Thats the kind of jerk who's going to get you in a barfight in RL... and then cut-out on you when the fists start flying.
Its not a problem with FR - it's a problem with people not being able to 'edit' their friends. ;)
Thanks!
I just thought like sharing. I was in a discussion about it but it really wasn't the main topic.
Do you like Elminster? Do you dislike Elminster? Why/Why not?
Me, personally, I like the idea of Elminster, a powerful and old Wizard who acts like a champion of the goddess of magic. Elminster: The Making of the Mage, The Temptation of Elminster and Elminster's Daughter, I liked those. The other two, Elminster in Myth Drannor and Elminster in Hell I didn't like so much. I never read the Shadows of the Avatar books either.
I dont like the character of Elminster, though. I think that he is extremely overexposed. Keep the character to those novels, and to a few sourcebooks, and I think he is fine. When it seems like Elminster had a hand doing nearly every important thing to take place during his lifetime- Myth Drannors mythal, Mystra's holy energy during the Time of Trouble, raising the Seven Sisters, training Cormyr's Royal Magician, or giving Alias and Dragonbait the Finder's Stone, or helping forming the Harpers, and this and that and this and that, I get a bit frustrated. He seems to be everywhere, doing everything, doing everyone.
Is it just me? I know it's not "his" fault, since he is just a character and authors just write about him, but does anyone else share my opinion on him?
You're post I think is one of many that people felt on the forums. Not just on El, but most NPC's. Especially the 'overpowered' and 'overexposed'. And honestly, like I was telling a friend of mine on these forums I think that this is part of the reason WotC did what they did with the Spellplague and timeskip for 4E. And killing off almost all the Chosen, and etc... By doing this, getting rid of these NPC's that people felt overshadowed by, you create room for people who actually play PnP to make their PC's.. 'matter'. You know what I mean? By eliminating these NPC's, players might not feel like they or their DM's are hindered by their stories and adventurers.
It makes a little sense IMO. It was the only way WotC could keep novels and fluff from source books canon, and promote more homebrew PC's to prosper. At the very least, in the minds of the fans...
DM creates story, well, yeah it's good, but El and Crew will just swipe in and fix it. Not the case anymore. I think part of the reason that on FR wiki for example they explain El has taken even more solitary measures.
Other reasons of course are marketing profits lol.. But let's not get into that.. :P
************
Please return discussion to the topic of the thread, or it may need to be closed.
It makes a little sense IMO. It was the only way WotC could keep novels and fluff from source books canon, and promote more homebrew PC's to prosper. At the very least, in the minds of the fans...
I would agree with you 100%...
IF they weren't writing novels in the current post-Spellplague era.
If they advanced the game to 1479 DR, but kept writing novels in the 'Old Realms', it would all make perfect sense -keeping the 'novel setting' and Uber-NPCs from interferring with the RPG game.
However, they will continue to write about characters that wll "make your PC look bad" in the current, post-Spellplague era, which makes absolutely no sense to me, because it will eventually cause the same exact problem in the 4e setting
But then... thats probably the point.
DM creates story, well, yeah it's good, but El and Crew will just swipe in and fix it. Not the case anymore. I think part of the reason that on FR wiki for example they explain El has taken even more solitary measures.
I really don't get what you said. NPCs are fully under the control of the DM, how can they wreck the story that s/he has set?
It makes a little sense IMO. It was the only way WotC could keep novels and fluff from source books canon, and promote more homebrew PC's to prosper. At the very least, in the minds of the fans...
Correction: In the minds of some fans. Not everyone had the problem you described.
DM creates story, well, yeah it's good, but El and Crew will just swipe in and fix it.
Only if the DM wants them to. These are fictional characters.
Its got nothing to do with the NPCs, its about bad authors and players.
-Uh-oh, Stigger. Don't say that. People will get angry at you for that. Some of that is evidenced in this thread, earlier on.
Correction: In the minds of some fans. Not everyone had the problem you described.
She's right you know.
I didn't have that problem in my 3E Realms game per se (and still don't) though just like in the recent FR Hardback adventures I've elected to remove and diminish the Chosen by various means, because the scale of the threats against the Realms that I want to challenge my players with are the kinds of things the Chosen would stand against.
Plus, showing the Simbul as fearful and even afraid can go miles towards convincing player characters that something truly, staggeringly bad is on the horizon.
That said, I don't agree with Rin's implication that you (Telagaunt) we're claiming 100% of the fans had that problem.
Whats up with that rating thing too? Why only three statrs? Is it my reasoning or someone else's or whatever?
As of this writing it's 5 votes, 3-star average.
-Uh-oh, Stigger. Don't say that. People will get angry at you for that. Some of that is evidenced in this thread, earlier on.
I seem to recall being intimately involved in that discussion... and that was essentially an argument over being a good DM or not. It still sort of is, in that a good DM would bash the person annoying them over the head with a rulebook and move on with the game over their lifeless corpse, but that's neither here nor there... :D
And all Elminster does in the few times you meet him is talk to you a bit and point you in the right direction. No saving the PC from any enemies, no solving any problems for you. And the PC is not forced to be nice to him or treat him with any kind of deference.
Yes, that really "shot the game in the foot," I'm sure. The nerve Bioware had in giving some cameo roles to popular (note that word, popular) characters from the setting they used for their game.
I'm so sorry for people who have no control, in their own games, over a bunch of fictional characters.
Great point!!
-That, I cannot agree with. To say that Elminster is a problem in my games that causes me to be unable to play them is DM laziness in my opinion. That aside, that he is central or tangential to so many plots, in novels, in sourcebooks, and in already established history, is one of the reasons I dislike him, yes.
I agree, could not have said it better myself, it unfortunate that the response to this is so condescending and irreverent.
Great point!!
Thank you.
)You've Ed's own words that discount this assumption, yet you still maintain it.
How so?
I don't believe him
although maybe I should say, the TSR Elminster is Gandalf. i don't know what Ed did earlier. But I have read several of the El books and he is very Gandalf. Just cause Ed says he is not does not change my perception
I don't believe him
although maybe I should say, the TSR Elminster is Gandalf. i don't know what Ed did earlier. But I have read several of the El books and he is very Gandalf. Just cause Ed says he is not does not change my perception
-Are you accusing him of...*gasp* lying! Heresy! Heretic! Someone, start the fire beneath the oil!
:P
-I, personally, never got that association. I mean, Galdalf, Elminster, Merlin...All three have a decent amount of things in common, the most poignant being seemingly goodly magicians of some repute and skill who have long white beards, among other qualities. I always felt all of that was too superficial for me to accuse Tolkien of making a Merlin clone, or Greenwood of making a Gandalf clone, and all of that.
-I mean, just because I'm young, good looking, and have a beautiful girlfriend doesn't mean I'm Brad Pitt*, you know.
*I realize that brad Pitt really isn't all that young, but he's the only movie star person I can think of that causes women to swoon, occasionally, that isn't Tom Cruise (who ain't no spring chicken either).
I don't believe him
although maybe I should say, the TSR Elminster is Gandalf. i don't know what Ed did earlier. But I have read several of the El books and he is very Gandalf. Just cause Ed says he is not does not change my perception
You don't believe Ed's own words? And despite the fact that Elminster is Ed's creation.
I'm confused.
-I, personally, never got that association. I mean, Galdalf, Elminster, Merlin...All three have a decent amount of things in common, the most poignant being seemingly goodly magicians of some repute and skill who have long white beards, among other qualities.
I think it's about personal and cultural familiarity and difference, closeness and distance. To a young man, all wise bearded old men may well look alike. Otherwise people would generalize together young male clean-shaven warriors, for instance, which are really no more or less similar than the old wizards.
Same as the idea of people from other races looking the same, or female singers being compared to each other in the media while the diversity of male singers is more respected.
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks
But he was always at his best adding footnotes to Volo's guides.
From what I understand in the modern Faerun, old El needs someone to play the exorcist to get rid of some demon he's got stuck in him. :D
In my last FR campaign, I had Elminister end up soultrapped in a gem in Iuz's necklace. The Simbul went nuts and torched half of Faerun before taking off for who knows where. After the dragons went rogue the Zhents and Thayans control most of Faerun with all the other important and chosen types fighting to keep their cities free.
Loviatar and Cyric pretty much run the show.
This was before the rogue dragons novels came out, and took place about five years after that, IIRC.
It was a fun campaign.
In my last FR campaign, I had Elminister end up soultrapped in a gem in Iuz's necklace. The Simbul went nuts and torched half of Faerun before taking off for who knows where. After the dragons went rogue the Zhents and Thayans control most of Faerun with all the other important and chosen types fighting to keep their cities free.
Loviatar and Cyric pretty much run the show.
This was before the rogue dragons novels came out, and took place about five years after that, IIRC.
It was a fun campaign.
-Interesting, my master is very pleased. :D
18DELTA (CYRIC, CYRIC, CYRIC) :P
-Interesting, my master is very pleased. :D
18DELTA (CYRIC, CYRIC, CYRIC) :P
Yeah, I had the write up posted here and on the web for comment when it started (this was back on the old boards). Basically I had three goals:
1) Remove all the chosen and other super-powerful good NPC's from action.
2) Rebalance the population of the Realms so humans were no longer the dominant race.
3) Have evil ruling across the face of the land - true heroism is fighting for a lost cause - sort of the Viking / Norse mythos ideal.
I had Iuz come over from Greyhawk after the deities of the two worlds got into a spat. He takes over the Southern Kingdoms, gains access to all the lore at Candlekeep and tries to invade Evermeet - thus the elves come back.
Elminister failed to recognize the difference between the avatar of a puny Forgotten Realms god and a true God in the flesh, and ended up trapped for his trouble.
The dragons go crazy, torching everywhere (which impacts humans more than anyone else since there are more of them) - now the races are balanced.
The Zhents take advantage of the situation and move to conquer most of the north. The Thayans become everyone's friend during both events by selling or even giving magic items and aiding in the protection of towns and cities. After that, it was a simple political maneuver to gain control. - thus Loviatar's influence. And with The Simbul gone, Sembia no longer stood in their way.
The orcs swoop down from the north, bands of kobold monks and sorcerers pop up everywhere - in short the evil humanoids control pretty much all unclaimed land - this ties down the remaining chosen, like Alustriel, to the defense of their own cities, with no resources left over for anything else.
Also somewhere in here the Harpers get blamed for the troubles, so that group is effectively removed from the picture as they are all hunted and killed on sight by the common folk.
There were a lot of other details to flesh it out, but I think those were the main points. Hard to remember now, it's been a while (it was a 3.0 campaign)...
As I said, once they nerfed Elminster and took away his psionics, the Realms started to go downhill into a carebear playground. I fixed that :D
-This is more than visual clues and such, however. I mean, I'm 99.9% that Merrik has read the Elminster novels. I'm a little less sure that he's read Lord of the Rings, or the Arthurian legends. Either way, though, even if he hasn't, I think everyone here, through osmosis, knows the three, and is somewhat familiar with them as a reader.
Or you can say he is Belgareth from the Belgariad series, or Dumbledore from Harry Potter, or Alamar of the Mithgar novels, or any of the other 10,000 'wiley old wizards' with beards and pointy hats (going all the way back to the Celtic Math).
People see an old guy with a beard that casts spells and likes to wink at young lasses and right away they are seeing dopplegangers.
Saying that everyone that has the same general outward appearance and a few of the same personality quirks sounds a lot like racism to me, or at the very least, 'profiling'.
You need to dig deeper with each character to find the differences (they're there - you just need to look).
As for me, I think the seven sisters are a bunch of 'clones', and I've had people (VERY informative people) tried to disuade me of that notion.
You know what? I own the Seven Sisters tome, but have never read it, and I've never read any novels with them as them as a main character (just a few small cameo's in other novels).
You see, obviously it's my own ignorance and lack of reading that has lead me to those conclusions, but I realize that, and until I do decide to do more research on them (which I doubt - they bore me to tears), I will continue to think that way, even though I klnow it's innacurate.
And thats why I think people get false impressions about El, or Gandalf, or Merlin, or whoever else they pre-judge.
I used to think much the same thing of Elminster myself, until I realized he is much more of the tragic Faustian-style character underneath.
Elminster is at his best, when things at at their worst.
And aye... I've shed a tear or three for the man, ficticious though he may be...
Elminister does fit the archetype. But he doesn't end there any more than Gandalf (or Dumbledore, or Merlin, or any other wise old sage) did. The archetype is the starting point for character development, not its ending.
Yeah, I had the write up posted here and on the web for comment when it started (this was back on the old boards). Basically I had three goals:
1) Remove all the chosen and other super-powerful good NPC's from action.
2) Rebalance the population of the Realms so humans were no longer the dominant race.
3) Have evil ruling across the face of the land - true heroism is fighting for a lost cause - sort of the Viking / Norse mythos ideal.
I had Iuz come over from Greyhawk after the deities of the two worlds got into a spat. He takes over the Southern Kingdoms, gains access to all the lore at Candlekeep and tries to invade Evermeet - thus the elves come back.
Elminister failed to recognize the difference between the avatar of a puny Forgotten Realms god and a true God in the flesh, and ended up trapped for his trouble.
The dragons go crazy, torching everywhere (which impacts humans more than anyone else since there are more of them) - now the races are balanced.
The Zhents take advantage of the situation and move to conquer most of the north. The Thayans become everyone's friend during both events by selling or even giving magic items and aiding in the protection of towns and cities. After that, it was a simple political maneuver to gain control. - thus Loviatar's influence. And with The Simbul gone, Sembia no longer stood in their way.
The orcs swoop down from the north, bands of kobold monks and sorcerers pop up everywhere - in short the evil humanoids control pretty much all unclaimed land - this ties down the remaining chosen, like Alustriel, to the defense of their own cities, with no resources left over for anything else.
Also somewhere in here the Harpers get blamed for the troubles, so that group is effectively removed from the picture as they are all hunted and killed on sight by the common folk.
There were a lot of other details to flesh it out, but I think those were the main points. Hard to remember now, it's been a while (it was a 3.0 campaign)...
As I said, once they nerfed Elminster and took away his psionics, the Realms started to go downhill into a carebear playground. I fixed that :D
-That sounds bad***. I like the idea of Harpers getting lynched by the common folk. That gave me warm fuzzies on the inside. (No Markus I do not have gas tonight). I was thinking of having the 7 sisters become Lord Cyric's Harem in my game.
18DELTA (LORD CYRIC WILL HAVE THE LAST LAUGH. HIDE AND WATCH) ;)
-That sounds bad***. I like the idea of Harpers getting lynched by the common folk. That gave me warm fuzzies on the inside. (No Markus I do not have gas tonight). I was thinking of having the 7 sisters become Lord Cyric's Harem in my game.
18DELTA (LORD CYRIC WILL HAVE THE LAST LAUGH. HIDE AND WATCH) ;)
I never did like the Harpers much...
If I find the timeline, I'll post it somewhere.
Or you can say he is Belgareth from the Belgariad series, or Dumbledore from Harry Potter, or Alamar of the Mithgar novels, or any of the other 10,000 'wiley old wizards' with beards and pointy hats (going all the way back to the Celtic Math).
-Right. As I said earlier, Brittney Spears, Christina Aguilera, Jessica Simpson, the Backstreet Boys, NSync, 98 Degrees, underneath it all, they are their own independent entities despite so many overwhelming similarities.
I guess I need to re-watch that episode of Robot Chicken...
Enter: "The Fat One!" :D
-That sounds bad***. I like the idea of Harpers getting lynched by the common folk. That gave me warm fuzzies on the inside. (No Markus I do not have gas tonight). I was thinking of having the 7 sisters become Lord Cyric's Harem in my game.
18DELTA (LORD CYRIC WILL HAVE THE LAST LAUGH. HIDE AND WATCH) ;)
I posted it in the gameworlds forum here:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=17618906#post17618906
Let me know what you think.
-This is more than visual clues and such, however. I mean, I'm 99.9% that Merrik has read the Elminster novels. I'm a little less sure that he's read Lord of the Rings, or the Arthurian legends. Either way, though, even if he hasn't, I think everyone here, through osmosis, knows the three, and is somewhat familiar with them as a reader.
I have read most of what you indicate. What I am saying is this? Ed may deny the influence and he may even believe that they are similiar, but they are. And again, I was never present for one of Ed's games to see how he was "in-game". I can only base my perception on the TSR version of the character which they should have just named Eldalf. And Ed's books where I see a heavy Gandalf influence
Since I don't know if this is kosher here or not please someone remove this question if its not allowed. I just want to know who people think would win between Elminster and Raistlin. Agiain if its not proper to ask that here then tell me and I will edit and delete
Those kinds of debates (X vs. Y) might not be strictly against the CoC, but they are widely considered to be bad form, yes--mainly because they're about an unanswerable question.
Raistlin would have stats in Dragonlance sourcebooks (which I'm not familar with).
Since I don't know if this is kosher here or not please someone remove this question if its not allowed. I just want to know who people think would win between Elminster and Raistlin. Agiain if its not proper to ask that here then tell me and I will edit and delete
-See the last issue of DRAGON magazine. The real, published, DRAGON magazine.
But again, it's bad form, much akin to the Batman vs. Superman debate. Whomever the debater like better will be the victor.
*Meaning, they did a complete write-up for low-level Raistlin, then just gave an abbreviated level code for higher levels.
The end.
;)
Well, Elminster still wins, because his name is on the thread. :D
-Mind you, his name is on the thread as to point out the posters problems with Elminster. So, it's not necessarily a good association.
Elminster is Loki.
Every setting, in my humble opinion, needs a Trickster figure and Elminster is run pretty much as my Trickster figure. I haven't managed to yet successfully run a 4E Realms Elminster but my version has always been a juggler. He attempts to keep the balls of human freedom from the divine and all powerful wizard's influence running while also respecting the humanity of the individuals involved.
I always played Elminster as a comedian when dealing with the player characters because he enjoys laughter and screwing with people. One of my most famous quotes is to answer the age old question of why Elminster didn't do a quest himself. "I've lived nine hundred years lad. Do you why? By sending people like YOU to do all this sort of dangerous stuff!"
One of my favorite scenes was where the player characters had recovered a rod to control Dragons (like in the D&D movie). Elminster literally then popped into their camp, took it, said "Yoink" then teleported away. The character was part Gandalf and part Bugs Bunny, which reflected a light hearted take on the Forgotten Realms.
Why does Manshoon hate Elminster in the Realms? Because Elminster refuses to be lured into the view that being an arch-wizard means that you have to be apart from the people. Khelben is the "serious" Chosen One and I may never play 4E in part because Elminster is never really funny without him to work as a straight man. Elminster has the Clark Kent quality of being a super hero that is nevertheless still one of the guys.
Is Elminster a Deus Ex Machina in my games? Oh, absolutely. I use him whenever I need to drop critical information in my games. The player characters were once lost in another dimension (part of design) and Elminster then appeared wearing a yellow raincoat, yellow hat, galoshes in the perpetually storming domain of Talos before offering them a lift home. He then teleported them to the next adventure hook.
Really, I think what actually turned me against 4E was NOT any of the major changes. It was the fact that they didn't include Shadowdale as the Default homeland for PCs with a description of it but an entirely new story. Because there's nothing more iconically Forgotten Realms than starting in Shadowdale and being able to walk up to Elminster's House, knock on the door, and ask "So, got any adventure notices?"
Elminster would then invite them for tea and biscuits. Accidentally open a t-pot that he'd have to beat down an Eldrich Horror he'd kept imprisoned there, then tell the 1st Level PCs there's an infestation of evil Velsharoon cultists over by Daggerdale. Please go take these +1 swords and +1 suits of armor. Yes, don't mind the blood or the fact that they have tags to say "if users are eaten, mail to Elminster."
And that, my friends is Elminster to me. The character for the guys who don't take their realms too seriously.
Elminster is Loki.
I love that you totally get Elminster. Not many use him to full effect, and I love it when people really do.
Charles Phipps' Elminster
Why does Manshoon hate Elminster in the Realms? Because Elminster refuses to be lured into the view that being an arch-wizard means that you have to be apart from the people. Khelben is the "serious" Chosen One and I may never play 4E in part because Elminster is never really funny without him to work as a straight man.
Heh, you should read the Elminster vs. Khelben scene in The Sword Never Sleeps.:D
-slapped Elminster for his insolence. Mystra, too. Long live the Blackstaff, the best Chosen of Mystra.-Khelben should have
(Emphasis mine)
Sorry, it's not really funny that's he's dead, but the bold part did elicit a chuckle out of me...
Heh, you should read the Elminster vs. Khelben scene in The Sword Never Sleeps.:D
I adored that scene. I couldn't stop chuckling all the way through it. Certainly an example of why I continue to read and enjoy Ed's works. Classic El and classic Khelben (and classic Dove....). Of course, if memory serves, Laer wasn't there, but that would just have made it better (I swear, if they have killed her off I will be peeved).
...Fee still steals the book for me though ;).
I'd have rather had her on the Dragon Throne over Alustriel actually...
I'd rather not have had the Dragon Queen off the throne, actually...
Um... and wasn't it Alusair on the Dragon Throne, not Alustriel? ;)
[EDIT: And I was rather fond of the Steel Regent née Princess, truth be told. Even though I thought Tana didn't really deserve the writing she got.]
-Khelben should have
I know, you told me in person.
I adored that scene. I couldn't stop chuckling all the way through it. Certainly an example of why I continue to read and enjoy Ed's works.
Yes, same here.
As for Alusair, I have to say I am very fond of her as a character.
in my forgotten realm game he was the perfect npc.
out of the way enough that he didn't interfere,
a perfect quest giver,
made the characters feel important because he was invovled with them.
if the game needed to be slavaged for one reason or another it was elminster that helped.
i didn't trust myself enough to actually use him as much as i wanted, which is why i raided my used bookstore for hi books. and thats when i liked him even more. he started as almost nothing and because somthing.
again i mentioned the drizzt hate was usually not based on any thing logical elminster has the same problem.
Some people "hate Drizzt" simply because they don't like the character or don't think he's written well--it need not have anything to do with the cited problem of NPCs "ruining" games.
Original Drizzt was good, but he got too... unbelievable... for lack of a better word.
And RAS is probably laughing all the way to the bank.
Seriously... A Thousand Orcs? It was about Drizzt... killing a thousand Orcs!
Yeahhhhhh... I don't know if even ol' El could handle that...
So I guess I reserve my strongest ire for the real villains - the Fanbois who turned him into that whiney one-man wrecking machine.
Seriously... A Thousand Orcs? It was about Drizzt... killing a thousand Orcs!
Yeahhhhhh... I don't know if even ol' El could handle that...
-Ioulaum did...Elminster could very easily as well.
A twit with a few wands of fireballs probably could if they could avoid the arrows...
-Like Cattie-Brie?
Same is true with El though really.
Oh, I agree. I've read tons of criticism regarding how Elminster is written, and to be honest, it doesn't bother me. What bothers me is when people act like they have no control over what NPCs do in their own games.
So I guess I reserve my strongest ire for the real villains - the Fanbois who turned him into that whiney one-man wrecking machine.
It's really RAS who made Drizzt what he is (for better or worse)--fans aren't the ones writing the stories.
Hello! He dual wields scimitars because he is a DROW, not because he is a ranger.
-Like Cattie-Brie?
Sure, that works... but any other twit would do.
Some of them HAVE to have said no.
Khelben is awesome and Elminster is, while cool, a little too pervy for my taste. I mean, it wouldn't be so bad if there were actually women who found him loathesome, but the fact that he's slept with nearly all of his apprentices bothers me.
Some of them HAVE to have said no.
Wait. There are women in Faerun he hasn't slept with?
Seriously, though, I'd think a regular guy who's lived that long and remained able and willing would have a comparable amount of love affairs.
Khelben is awesome and Elminster is, while cool, a little too pervy for my taste. I mean, it wouldn't be so bad if there were actually women who found him loathesome, but the fact that he's slept with nearly all of his apprentices bothers me.
Some of them HAVE to have said no.
-That's one of my problems with him, among a few others.
Seriously, though, I'd think a regular guy who's lived that long and remained able and willing would have a comparable amount of love affairs.
I would tend to agree.
sure. If I were to compare him to anyone from DL(which I know is bad form here but using this a reason to make point not to start a debate as to whos better) it would be Rastlin.
Ok back to Elminister.
Has anyone spoken or heard from Ed if future novels pertaining to El will be written.
Has anyone spoken or heard from Ed if future novels pertaining to El will be written.
-Presumably.
Has anyone spoken or heard from Ed if future novels pertaining to El will be written.
Unknown at this time.