WotC has designed 4th Edition D&D to be points of light, and despite many things I dislike about 4E Forgotten Realms there is at least one good thing about it: freedom.
I've been a lover of Realmslore for years. The Balder's Gate Games brought me into the Forgotten Realms. I've always tried to be as close to "The Vision (tm)" as possible, changing things only where I absolutely could not stand it. I've always hated the novels - most of which I think are poorly written and boring - and their impact on the setting. I refuse to buy them because I do not want my perception of the Realms to be 'tainted' by the events and characters within.
The 4E Realms and the subsequent time jump gives me room to use my own creative imagination. I already know I am not going to use some of the stuff in the setting, and will make modifications to what I do use. At best, I'll be using the maps - and only if they are good - and drawing ideas and inspiration from the setting. I don't see myself using anything in the setting as is.
I never felt I could do that in the 3E Realms. There was just so much there, that I literally wanted to use it all. Anytime I tried to cut out something I disliked, I ran into a host of continuity issues.
The 100 year time jump, and WotC not filling it in, allows me to make the Realms into what I always wanted it to be - without running into continuity problems. I feel as if they are giving me a construction kit for world building, rather than a setting. I no longer have to worry about what X or Y NPC is doing, because I can simply wave my hand and they'll be dead. I then don't have to worry about A, B anc C NPC's power growing unchecked because of that death, or the consequences to an entire city (or nation) being destroyed without said NPC.
The 3E Forgotten Realms felt to me as if I was sharing a world with other people. It felt as if I had to accept their modifications to the setting and there was a strong pressure (in my mind) to remain "cannon". Not everyone felt this way, of course, but I know I'm not the only one that felt the pressure.
With the 4E Realms, this pressure does not exist and I feel as if I will be in total control. I can take what I like and disregard the rest. If I want Mystra back, or another deity to take her place, I have 100 Years to make it happen. If I want the Zhent's to actually become a real threat, I have 100 Years to make it happen. If I want the Shades to disappear and go away, I have 100 years to make it happen. If I want Cormyr to turn into a theocratic feudal kingdom, I have 100 years to make it happen.
I know there will be a lot of flames by anti-4E people saying stuff like: "You could have changed the 3E Realms into whatever you wanted!" Sure, I could have, and I did make changes. I often focused on areas that got little attention, because it was easier to shape and mold them into what I wanted and I knew some novel wouldn't come along and blow it up. The point is 4E Forgotten Realms seems to go out of its way to make it easy for us to do what we want with the setting.
The anti-4E people will say: "You could have always just did your own time jump!" Sure, I could have, but then I would have invalidated all the upcoming source books, something I mostly enjoyed and even loved (in most cases). There will be no source books like the Unapproachable East for the 4E Realms. Because of this, WotC has given me a permission slip to do my own thing with the setting.
I enjoy world building and I enjoy the Realms. I want a chance to merge the two together. I am not very enthusiastic about many of the changes to the Forgotten Realms. I am more enthusiastic about the 100 year time jump, which gives me the ability to mold the Realms. I do not have to worry about WotC coming along and screwing it up with new cannon material, no more mini-moons (Tears of Selune) smashing into my Realms that does not result in an apocalyptic event that more-or-less kills every living thing on the planet.
I am even contemplating on making a wiki so that I can share -my- version of the 4E Realms with others, as a way to extend the "cannon" Realms beyond what WotC intends to do.
There feels like there is some potential here. I understand the anti-4E haters, in my Realms the Abeir crap isn't happening along with many other things. This seems to be the biggest benefit of 4th Edition: Whatever you don't like, doesn't need to happen, and what ever happened that you don't like you can fix. You no longer have to worry about continuity issues due to the 100 year time jump.
Your post is about how in the 3rd Edition Realms you felt like you couldn't be imaginative because it was a shared setting and you had to remain in line with the canon. This changed in the 4th Edition Realms for you because it's more open, apparantly.
In my opinion that's stupid, and rather contradicts the advice given in the FRCS. Why wouldn't you make the world your own? The fact you feel that you need a permission slip from WoTC to do so is sad.
Edit: Ah, the ad hominem argument. Nice!
Oh man. Todesherr, I love you for that. :D
Sorry. I am grammatically speaking, very **** retentive. I have even seen university papers with such things. Maybe I am just getting old. I don't know, but it matters little, for I as an individual will always bewail the loss of the past participle in subjunctive constructions.
He could have done so much better.
Please get the thread back on topic. Thread disruption is a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code here: http://forums.gleemax.com/community_coc.php.
Sorry. It was not a disruption, merely an observation. You do not think that good grammar is important? Would WOTC publish books riddled with errors?
There should be more of them!
For myself, I will enjoy weaving new plot elements into the Realms, although my case is a little different as a Dragon Coast Admin for Living Forgotten Realms, rather than a DM for a home game.
What changes have been made to the Dragon Coast have been overwhelmingly positive, imo, despite losing a bunch of territory to Cormyr.
Joe
I think the loss of territory to Cormyr is actually one of the more exciting changes, although I would have rather Cormyr annexed Sembia. I think it made little sense for them to send all their military folk down that direction, with Sembia right next door. Especially right after a war.
That being said, I do think it opens up some fun opportunities. Hey, you get to play a rebel freedom fighter! I wonder how the Harper's feel about Cormyr's most recent actions, they want to keep kingdom's small, so I can only imagine how things are going in that regard.
It allows you to throw in a little more moral ambiguity into your game, as you are no longer going against some obviously evil guy. Its a battle for independence and freedom.
I hope that more people will come around to accepting 4E FR so that we all can build an even stronger (online and offline) community around it, to our mutual benefit and enjoyment.
I hope that you will come to post your custom material on the new "Running the Realms" FR Sub Forum, so that we can all enjoy it and maybe even make use of it in our own Realms campaigns.
:D
It allows you to throw in a little more moral ambiguity into your game, as you are no longer going against some obviously evil guy. Its a battle for independence and freedom.
Agreed. The difference, as I see it, between annexing Sembia and pushing south into the Dragon Coast was independant nature of the city-states (and that the Netherese had their eyes on Sembia as well).
I could see the chaotic, immediately post-spellplague years signalling enough disruption to local economies (lifeblood of the Dragon Coast) that some citizens would welcome the stabilising influence that Cormyr no doubt offered them. Once one fell to their overtures, it is easy enough to see a few more following suit.
Of course, Westgate, being the top dog, was able to maintain independence. If you're interested in seeing how the traditional rivalry between the Obaskyrs and certain exiled Cormyrian families continues, may I recommend the first few LFR Dragon Coast adventures? ;)
Joe
Back on topic: Does anyone actually have anything to say based on the contents of my original post without falling into negative attacks?
I actually agree with you in your content. I was just saddened by a major point of grammar.
I know that sounds silly, but really, I felt like I was 'betraying' the setting and Ed, somehow. Now, I can give a rat's behind about what I do, because I couldn't possible make it worse. :D
When I think of 4e, I think of Braveheart -
So say what you want about 4e, but I will go gentle into that good night.
Ha. Yes, I felt exactly the same way. Although, I didn't necessarily feel 'bad', I felt more like I was 'wasting' or somehow 'diminishing' what was published. I made changes - there were some things I simply could not abide - but even then I always felt somewhat treasonous. Almost like I had killed a sacred cow.
However, with the 4E Realms I really don't feel that way at all. I feel like WotC is giving me a template to do what I want with it, and that they have no wish to impose an entire setting on me. I feel like they're telling me, "Here are some ideas on what COULD happen. You can take this idea, and modify it somewhat, or you can perhaps go an entirely different direction."
With the 100 Year Time jump the Spellplague and stuff is in the far distant past, and not really relevant to the current era that we're playing in - a bit like the Empire of Imaskari - sure there are remnants here and there, but not really relevant. It's something you can gloss over, despite the large impact that it's had on the setting as a whole.
-----
From my prospective: I've hated just about every novel ever published for the Forgotten Realms. I've hated the impact it has had on the cannon. In my mind, the Realms was constantly being mutilated by others. The 4E Realms is just one last final act of mutilation, but it was an act that finally freed it from years of torture under the hands of others. Now it's mine, and I can work to repair it and restore some dignity to the setting.
I will sum up this post with this single sentence: "It's YOUR world now!"
It was my world before 4E was even announced. If you feel "free" though, the more power to you.
Bel
Back on topic: Does anyone actually have anything to say based on the contents of my original post without falling into negative attacks?
You mean you want a "white comment" for your "white-ish assessment" instead of a "negative black comment"? There are pretty few 100 % black & white, pro or contra opinions. So categorize people into such groups don't help in a discussion like this.
In any case, your header is something I would start working with. You see, nothing would have prevented the designers from changing Maztica into a new Realms setting, usable with the 4E rules because of some - up till now - unknown phenomena. Or some of the various terrae icognitae on the map. These were barren wastelands and could have been a harbour for umpteen points of light stuff. For example, turn them into gateways to the Hells or splashing pools of the Aboleth Empire, waking sarrukh evils and what have you and send heroes galore in there to prevent the rest of the Realms from that fate.
But no. They nuke the setting as such and place points of light into an apocalyptic Realms. That is bound to antagonize many and you cannot sensibly demand that those people simply stop thinking on the Realms they love/d and debate the good that will come with the 4E Realms. And I'm not even talking about DMs and players who play in regions that essentially no longer exist.
1) So changing things about the 3rd Edition Realms made you feel like you were betraying Ed, yet using the 4th Edition Realms, which has nothing more then a passing resemblance to Ed's Realms is fine?
2) I think it's pretty moronic that you feel like you need permission from WoTC to change things about the Realms. I mean, it's not like the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting had any paragraphs like this in it.
This campaign setting is packed with details about Faerún and the world of Toril, but the book provides only a broad sampling of the people, places, and the things the world contains. The real details are left up to you. Make additions as you see fit. For example, if you need a village, a small town, or a dungeon in some locale to make an adventure work out right, go right ahead and add it.
Likewise, the details in this book reflect what the people of Faerún know about their world, but only you know the truth. So if your players read this book and try to dictate details of the world for you ("No, the river runs through Silverymoon!"), stand firm. It's your world. Don't be a slave to the map or book, and don't be afraid to alter anything you want to.
If only it did! I mean, then all of you would have the permission from WoTC to change things, and everything would be right in the world!
Back on topic: Does anyone actually have anything to say based on the contents of my original post without falling into negative attacks?
You want opinons as long as they agree with you?
Personally, I think it is important that a setting has enough detail so as to make it interesting. It is the details that make it come alive. The 3rd edition FRCS was fine. Enough detail, history, plothooks, some NPCs (could have done without the statblocks though). I hope the new FRCG will be like that.
So far, the excerpts have not all been excellent in providing that detail. But we'll know if they succeeded once we have the actual FRCG.
I definitely disagree what a setting should be as empty as possible to enable you to add what you want. A setting should have detail and history and a background extensive enough that you can toy with it.
If you want an empty setting, you should imo make your own world.
Another note: There is basically nothing wrong with change. However, change for change's sake is, imo, a bad idea. Some changes in FR feel like that - we HAVE to change something, so let's get radical...
I'll add btw that what is most challenging with FR was not the cacmpaign setting or the expansion books. It was -and are - the novels, whih basically change the world while you are playing in it. And THAT is not going to change - there may not be FR splat books, but you bet there will be plenty of FR novels.
You want opinons as long as they agree with you?
You can have disagreements without negative or flaming comments.
Personally, I think it is important that a setting has enough detail so as to make it interesting. It is the details that make it come alive. The 3rd edition FRCS was fine. Enough detail, history, plothooks, some NPCs (could have done without the statblocks though). I hope the new FRCG will be like that.
As do I. I thought stating every major NPC and Deity was stupid and unnecessary. Espically when the edition changed (I mean to 3.5) and lots of the stats became incorrect (Elminster's DC saves and Drizzt's Ambidexterity for examples) or non-existant. And I'd rather not get into Deity statistics. IMO, that's for the DM to decide and write up if the PCs are going to encounter them for combat.
So far, the excerpts have not all been excellent in providing that detail. But we'll know if they succeeded once we have the actual FRCG.
I definitely disagree what a setting should be as empty as possible to enable you to add what you want. A setting should have detail and history and a background extensive enough that you can toy with it.
If you want an empty setting, you should imo make your own world.
Same here, but a little wiggle room can be a breath of fresh air too. Though we won't know how much wiggle room is in the new FRCG until its released, I'm hoping that theres more than what was given to us in 3e.
Another note: There is basically nothing wrong with change. However, change for change's sake is, imo, a bad idea. Some changes in FR feel like that - we HAVE to change something, so let's get radical...
I'd have to disagree with you somewhat here. For example, the death of Mystra wasn't needed (though I could really care less) to change magic. A 1 page blurb on how Mystra altered the Weave to combat the Shadow Weave could've been the reason given as to why magic is the way it is in 4e. But the introduction of Dragonborn and Sun/Moon/Star elves changing to Eladrin are going to need some explanation besides a "Dragonborn were always there and those elves were always like that." retcon. The setting had to change IMO to introduce radical changes to the rules. I for one have accepted the changes and moved on to bigger and better things with 4e.
I'll add btw that what is most challenging with FR was not the cacmpaign setting or the expansion books. It was -and are - the novels, whih basically change the world while you are playing in it. And THAT is not going to change - there may not be FR splat books, but you bet there will be plenty of FR novels.
Aye, canon will always be FR's crutch as Rauric has mentioned.
1) So changing things about the 3rd Edition Realms made you feel like you were betraying Ed, yet using the 4th Edition Realms, which has nothing more then a passing resemblance to Ed's Realms is fine?
2) I think it's pretty moronic that you feel like you need permission from WoTC to change things about the Realms. I mean, it's not like the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting had any paragraphs like this in it.
And that sword has a double edge. Nothing is stopping you from making changes to your 4e Realms. Many people have stated that it really isn't that hard to set the 4e rules into the pre spellplague years. That is of course your totally against the 4e rules to begin with. If thats so, well then theres really no help.
You want opinons as long as they agree with you?
Personally, I think it is important that a setting has enough detail so as to make it interesting. It is the details that make it come alive. The 3rd edition FRCS was fine. Enough detail, history, plothooks, some NPCs (could have done without the statblocks though). I hope the new FRCG will be like that.
So far, the excerpts have not all been excellent in providing that detail. But we'll know if they succeeded once we have the actual FRCG.
I definitely disagree what a setting should be as empty as possible to enable you to add what you want. A setting should have detail and history and a background extensive enough that you can toy with it.
If you want an empty setting, you should imo make your own world.
Another note: There is basically nothing wrong with change. However, change for change's sake is, imo, a bad idea. Some changes in FR feel like that - we HAVE to change something, so let's get radical...
I'll add btw that what is most challenging with FR was not the cacmpaign setting or the expansion books. It was -and are - the novels, whih basically change the world while you are playing in it. And THAT is not going to change - there may not be FR splat books, but you bet there will be plenty of FR novels.
I have to agree with your last paragraph. Without the novels, there'd be a lot less things that change. Of course, this isn't an opinion everyone shares.
Where I agree less is that it's the details that make the world come alive. Some, yes, but an awful lot of the "detail" that has been created for FR comes at the expense of information that's actually quite important. If I want to know about what typical buildings in perhaps Cormyr look like, how the legal system functions in Calimshan, what people wear in Unther, etc. then it isn't always easy to find this. I probably can find the names of a few taverns and inns, but fundamentals of the society are overlooked. As you can probably tell, I really wasn't a fan of the various Volo's Guides.
And that sword has a double edge. Nothing is stopping you from making changes to your 4e Realms. Many people have stated that it really isn't that hard to set the 4e rules into the pre spellplague years. That is of course your totally against the 4e rules to begin with. If thats so, well then theres really no help.
Uh... what's your point? Of course it's not hard to change anything in any home game. That's not what the OP is arguing. He's saying that he needed permission to change things in the Realms. Others have said that they felt like they were betraying Ed. I said that was silly, and that you can change anything in your home game at any time.
Good lord,
1) So changing things about the 3rd Edition Realms made you feel like you were betraying Ed, yet using the 4th Edition Realms, which has nothing more then a passing resemblance to Ed's Realms is fine?
2) I think it's pretty moronic that you feel like you need permission from WoTC to change things about the Realms. I mean, it's not like the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting had any paragraphs like this in it.
If only it did! I mean, then all of you would have the permission from WoTC to change things, and everything would be right in the world!
Ahhh...
misinterpretation of what someone said... how nice.
I find it BIZARRE that the pro-4e crowd is more upset with my decision to use it then then the anti-4e crowd.
Don't like "being in bed with the devil", eh? ;)
Anyhow, I come on here and relate how I feel (or felt), and I am attacked for it (moronic?
). I'm sorry - I will be sure to check with you before I form any opinions or emotional attachments. YES, the designers were RIGHT , and if there is one thing I have come to realize the past few months is that there really is 'sense of entitlement' among the 'hardcore' fans (and by hardcore, I mean those of us who bother to study the minutia of the setting). We may not like to admit it, but we've come to regard the realms as "ours" in a way, and thats why we got so upset when someone decided to change "our" setting. By the same token, many of you who took umbrage at our library-like FR knowledge also took a PERVERSE joy in WotC destroying what we've worked so hard to obtain - a wonderful expertise into a subject we love.
Anyhow, in my most recent epiphany, I realized that the shear weight of all that lore was tying my hands in many respects - try writing an article and you will see what I mean. No matter how thorough a job you do, some know-it-all will come along and call you on stuff you either got wrong, or were unaware - I know, becuse I have done it PLENTY of times myself.
I may not care for the lack-luster way in which they handled (bungled?) a lot of the 3e-4e transition, and I think a greater effort should have been put into keeping old fans happy (by providing LOGICAL explanantions for stuff), but whatever... whats done is done.
The new setting doesn't hold me back the way the old one did because I am free to do what I want. Now, before both sides of the fence jump on me - I am WELL aware that was always the case, but its far easier making up your own stuff for something when there is NO pre-existing material for it.
before, I felt like I was breaking an 'unspoken taboo' when I altered canon - even though I did so quite a bit. Uzzy seems to think that made me 'Moronic' (:ahem
, but when you know every little detail about something, you start to see all the repercussions that changing one little thing has on everything else. Ask ANY of the official Writers and designers working for WotC - I'll bet they all tell you how they cringe when they hand in their final draft version of something, just knowing hundreds of rabid fans (loremasters?) are ready to jump down their throats every time they got the slightest bit of continuity out of whack.And the same thing happens here, and at the LGS, or at the conventions or even at the Gaming table. You make a change and someone notices, and all of a sudden you get embarrassed and say "welll... errrr... I had to shift stuff slighlty North to make it work... sorry..."
Ive seen it! Hundreds of times and on Dozens of fansites! People apologizing for changes they made to canon! What the hell? There is definately something wrong when you can't feel comfortable changing parts of a setting to fit your style of play.
When I first started doing my maps, they were 100% canon, but as time went on, I've been adding in 2 or 3 things on each one to personalize them (some of which, strangely, have made it into canon). I used to feel guilty as hell doing that, but now I don't. Now I feel like I'm adding to the Realms, not defiling it!
And thats the way it should be - we should ALL be able to add to the Forgotten Realms - the fans, not just the designers and authors.
And now we can. The slate has been wiped clean, and we can talk about and create all sorts of things without anyone jumping all over us.
WotC did us a favor by destroying that which we loved. You know the old saying (I know it's kinda 'gushy') -
"If you love something, set it FREE..."
For the first time, the Forgotten Realms truly belongs to us, the fans, and for that small favor I can thank (and hate, a little) WotC. 4e FR's lack of detailed lore allows us to take the setting in any direction we want.
So I say goodbye to the Realms that has given me so much pleasure in the past, and say hello to the new Realms, where I can make that pleasure my own.
I wonder if people realize that Ed himself uses a version of the Realms that's quite different from the canon one? In Ed's Realms (where he sets his games), the ToT didn't happen. Apparently, his group takes a vote on whether or not to implement certain changes, and they voted no on the ToT.
-And hence no Spellplague. Unless Shar found another dupe to do her
bidding!
18DELTA
-And hence no Spellplague. Unless Shar found another dupe to do her
bidding!
Yes, most likely, no Spellplague in Ed's campaign.
So I say goodbye to the Realms that has given me so much pleasure in the past, and say hello to the new Realms, where I can make that pleasure my own.
Until you change your mind again.:P
On a more serious note: I agree with your basic sentiments, truly, but I still wouldn't agree that the Realms had to change "for my sake" because as I said I'm not as attached to canon as I used to be. If I dislike something, I won't put it in my Realms just because it's "canon".
Then I wanted to RP years later and the only game that my firends were playing was an Eberron game. So I reluctantly joined. I got into the setting after reading some of the sourcebooks that I read and started up my own game and felt tremendous freedom to do whatever I wanted to the setting. This was the sense of freedom I think you talk of now.
So I feel they may have tried to take EBs approach to things in some cases.
The OP has not stated he needed permission but felt an odd restraint when he wanted to change or fix something. As I said I can relate but I am not sure why I used to feel that way.
As for the statement about the designers, well, if I had the honour and privilege of designing something official for a well loved setting, I'd make damn sure my work fitted in right.
There is exactly nothing wrong with an experienced gamer sharing HIS views of what he found wrong with the Realms and discussing why the 4E Realms seems better to him.
Nothing whatsoever.
Open, personal expressions like what the OP wrote take courage and are subjective by nature, in part because they deal with personal perception.
This means you can’t challenge the OP’s statements as factually flawed.
I know for a fact several of you seriously want to combat the idea that the Realms is overloaded with claustrophobic quantities of lore, which turns people away from the setting.
But that desire is not an excuse to rudely twist the OP's words around in order to make personal attacks against him and openly call him names.
The OP's opinion stands and it's entirely valid. I’m proud of the OP for sharing his opinion and I respect him for doing it.
He deserves that respect even if some of us happen to disagree with him.
Yup, calling a person a moron for feeling the way they do is just rude, IMHO.
Some of us respected what Ed built enough to feel guilty about changing it, and thats it. Several posters, like Rauric, see what I and the OP are trying to say here - a low-lore setting is like the best of both worlds - you get all the fun of a homebrew with only half the work.
Actually, I'm with you in that I don't recall people apologizing whenever they deviated from "canon" (although, I'm often the first to point out that personal experience and memory are unreliable).
I've seen quite a bit of it when people are sharing their own versions of the Realms - even if they don't say it right off, its there. You can tell, because a lot of people feel the need to explain WHY they made the changes - and they shouldn't have to. Just the fact that most of them feel they need to explain themselves (and on these boards DEFEND themselves at times) proves my point - you should never have to explain yourself if you did nothing wrong.
I spend a lot of time looking for FR maps, and those include Homebrew versions. I find in nearly every single case the person finds they have to explain why they made the changes to the map - I myself do that all the time.
And you be surprised by just how many PMs I get on multiple sites asking my WHY I added something, or moved it around a little - and I ALWAYS get defensive and explain why I think my version is an improvement over the original (usually having to do with discrepencies between text and the original placement). About once a day I find I am explaining myself to someone - and I do so gladly, since I put myself into that position.
I think if I do any 4e maps, no one will question anything. :D
Running a Eberron game for me was easier than running my first FR game. I was never certain why until recently. I was a fan of the novels for so long when I became a gamer fan I had such a problem deviating from canon it was maddening. It was nuts. I still cannot give a decent reason other than it felt really difficult for me to figure out how to run a game in FR. Odd.
After running a successful game in another (liberating for some reason) setting I feel like I can revisit FR and really make a kick butt game anywhere I choose to run it from.
It is a feeling, it does not have to make sense. It is not moronic, it is human emotions playing tricks with ones head and they are really odd and quirky things sometimes. High level NPCs do not have to ruin a FR game but after talking to many gamers they have and they seem to be happy they are gone.
Yes we could have not used them but people wanted them "away". So maybe
more will buy the books and there will be more fans involved with FR.
I could care less. All I care about is my enjoyment and my gaming group. Simple emotions at work again. ;)
But no. They nuke the setting as such and place points of light into an apocalyptic Realms. That is bound to antagonize many and you cannot sensibly demand that those people simply stop thinking on the Realms they love/d and debate the good that will come with the 4E Realms. And I'm not even talking about DMs and players who play in regions that essentially no longer exist.
The OP was saying that if he wants this or that to happen, he has 100 years to set it up in the setting. Presumably, that also means that if we want the Realms back the way it was, we have 100 years to make that happen also?
- a low-lore setting is like the best of both worlds - you get all the fun of a homebrew with only half the work.
-Thats the 'Points of light Setting'. ;)
I think if I do any 4e maps, no one will question anything. :D
-:D
18DELTA
-Thats the 'Points of light Setting'. ;)
Actually, PoL is more a concept than a setting. There are some tidbits of fluff presented throughout the books so far, but that's nowhere near what is necessary to run a campaign, imho.
You have no maps (baring Nentir Vale), no organizations or guilds, no cities and towns (baring Fallcrest and perhaps Winterhaven), no NPCs, no realms or kingdoms or empires, no metaplot, no adventure hooks, no history or timeline, etc.
You still have to do all that yourself, and PoL is not really helping with that because it only offers vague hints instead of tangible facts.
Anyway, I guess I just have an entirely different mindset. I certainly respect Ed's creation, and have great admiration for it, but I feel no shame whatsoever for changing things to fit MY Realms. If it works for you and your group, you certainly shouldn't feel like you have to apologise for it. It's bizarre that anyone would think that's needed.
Now, if you were to publish said work on the Internet, then you should expect questions. It's part of what makes the internet such a good thing. I've had an idea for an article on Lliira pottering around in the back of my mind for a while, and if I completed it, published in on Candlekeep and got asked questions about it, I'd feel quite honoured that people cared enough to respond and ask about my ideas. I'd feel really honoured if people used it!
-When WotC released the Worlds and Monsters Book, they gave everything that one would need to create a Setting in that book. Its all the bare bones of a setting. Which I do like. I like Fallcrest, and the Netir Vale.
18DELTA ;)
Now, if you were to publish said work on the Internet, then you should expect questions. It's part of what makes the internet such a good thing. I've had an idea for an article on Lliira pottering around in the back of my mind for a while, and if I completed it, published in on Candlekeep and got asked questions about it, I'd feel quite honoured that people cared enough to respond and ask about my ideas. I'd feel really honoured if people used it!
You should - we can always use a new lore over at the Keep.
It takes courage to post anonymously on a forum about some silly game that we all play?
I use my real name - always have.
But you were probably referring to the OP. ;)
I think if I do any 4e maps, no one will question anything. :D
I would! My question would be: Can I have a copy!:D
The OP was saying that if he wants this or that to happen, he has 100 years to set it up in the setting. Presumably, that also means that if we want the Realms back the way it was, we have 100 years to make that happen also?
Why would you not be able to? It has never, ever been said that you HAVE to use their changes, you just wouldn't be (uh-oh!) canon (yikes!).:D
That being said, I plan on trying to do a 4E game (when it comes out) and continuing my 3.x game (w/ some different players -- I still have a few who refuse to even try 4E, but hey, that's fine.).
Yup, calling a person a moron for feeling the way they do is just rude, IMHO.
There was rudeness on both sides. Several rude posts early in the thread were deleted for it.
Some of us respected what Ed built enough to feel guilty about changing it, and thats it.
Can we please not bring "respect for Ed/his Realms" into this? When "respect for Ed/his Realms" comes into the picture, tempers flare. In this case, you seem to be saying that those who don't feel "guilty" when they change stuff in their home campaigns don't respect Ed or his work as much as you do. Is that what you really meant to say?
Ed respects people's desires to change the setting to suit their games. I know that from reading so many of his comments. One of his most recent comments mentioned something to that effect.
I've seen quite a bit of it when people are sharing their own versions of the Realms - even if they don't say it right off, its there. You can tell, because a lot of people feel the need to explain WHY they made the changes - and they shouldn't have to. Just the fact that most of them feel they need to explain themselves (and on these boards DEFEND themselves at times) proves my point - you should never have to explain yourself if you did nothing wrong.
The person in question might not feel they've done anything wrong. Questions asked and answers might be simply to suit people's curiosity (after all, people are more familiar with the canon Realms than any one fan version, so questions are bound to come up). All that might have nothing at all to do with hostility or defensiveness.
You say you ALWAYS get defensive when people ask you questions? Perhaps at times there's no reason to, and the question someone asked you was more innocent than you took it to be. I don't know, but you did say you "always get defensive".
The OP was saying that if he wants this or that to happen, he has 100 years to set it up in the setting. Presumably, that also means that if we want the Realms back the way it was, we have 100 years to make that happen also?
Well, if one doesn't like the changes, they can simply have them not happen at all in their game.
you should never have to explain yourself if you did nothing wrong.
Had a bad flashback to math class, and my teachers saying "show your work". Sometimes the explanation is necessary to show the thought process that got you to that point. Not all questions are negative after all, and some might show something your idea lacked or missed.
There was rudeness on both sides. Several rude posts early in the thread were deleted for it.
Hardly. The rudeness I was referring to pretty much stood on its own, uninvited and mean as it was.
:::::::::::::::::::
I look forward to people sharing anything from their games, regardless of what rules edition they use or timeframe they play in.
Here’s to hoping WotC’s seemingly minimalist approach to 4E FR invites more creativity by Realms Dungeon Masters and more questions from them posted to these forums involving how to go about fleshing the 4E Realms out.
It’s way past time the canon-lock preventing open discussion was broken and discarded.
Or do you pay them for the idea to make a 100 years timejump and say that everything that happened during those 100 years is up to you alone?
Or do you pay them for leaving out 50% of the content which FR was? Like killing Eilistraee and a bunch of others so they can can use the FR for their all new and shiny (and of course REVOLUTIONARY) Chaos vs La... uh... lawful good vs chaotic evil warhammer ripoff?
If you dont like playing in a world in which everything is well documented in like hundreds of novels, then WHY THE HECK DO YOU WANT TO PLAY FR!?
People LIKE FR as it was because it is a world with a lot of story in it... everyone reads a few novels and then he plays in FR and its exactly the same frigging canon world like in the novel he just read! Just read Cunninghams novels about the elves and then you play an elf in FR... it will never be the same for you again!
If you dont want a world in which there is a lot of canon, well, guess what, dont play in one but PLEASE dont demand the world to be changed so it fits your demands. Just go and play in Greyhawk. Greyhawk is exactly the setting youve been looking for. It has a bit of story but there is no huge canon timeline and no huge amounts of books in which everything you ever wanted to know was described by detail.
So the next time you feel encouraged to give anyone money for giving you almost nothing, feel free to mail me. Ill deliver in no time!
Its not only an emerassment what the 4th edition has done to the legacy of D&D (and yes I play not since Original D&D, but since the 1st edition and I never felt any grief for 3.0 or 3.5 because it made it actually BETTER without loosing too much of the original idea and style) and becoming the worlds premier capitalism kiddy RPG, but also its an emberassment to see with which people you shared your game with.
Thats the best thing about the 4th edition. I will never ever run across anybody with these mindsettings anymore when im searching for people to group up with for playing D&D 3.5 (or 3.75).
So kiddy on and pew pew lazer beam arrows.
[...] So kiddy on and pew pew lazer beam arrows.
These are sooooo 3.5. :P
Campaign Settings have come and gone, be they TSR, WotC or 3pp and I stuck with the Realms, carved out my little corner of the Delimbiyr Vale and am still there. FR4E may change that, but it's still closer to what I like than some other CS. I'll be looking at each new one that comes out, maybe I'll find a better fit.
Bel
We will meet new heroes and villians in the new realms, and we don't know all the history (or at least a 100 years worth) but that just puts the mystery back in. That has been a failing of the realms for a while, everyone knows too much, we know who leads the bad guys, we know their motivations and we know their plans. This is what I think they tried to get rid of, to make it so a player can't just buy the book, and instantly know what his DM is planning just because Manshoon is the villian. Too much of the accumulated lore makes some DMs (especially new ones) feel railroaded, so they find a less lore intensive setting to set their adventures in.
I am not paying WoTC for nothing, I am paying them to give me ideas and inspiration, and a set of core rules (that I am free to change) in order to have a way of sharing the stories in my head with others like me.
The lore we have is still valid, the world hasn't changed completely in 100 years, just enough to keep us graybeards from becoming complacent.
Seriously, you cannot expect a setting to stay the same for decades. The market changes, and you either have to adapt to the new customers or just disappear. Simple evolution - adapt or die out.
Yes... settings evolve. Like FR did. Look at FR during D&D and then AD&D... and during 3rd. Its different. But basically the same.
Now they just take out the big hammer and streamline everything beyond recognition. Why do they still call it FR?
Because people like you will buy it because of the name. Not because it has anything in common with FR anymore.
Also, this statement is highly fallacious. People may like the FR for other things than the immense amount of novels.
Because...
of things like the cool gods? Oh... half of the cool gods are dead now for no reason except to make their universe more like warhammer.
of the cool epic heroes around? Oh... most of them were killed for no reason...
of the landscape? Oh... Halruaa was blasted to hell and all other parts also have major differences (yet to be explained)
of the cool maps? Oh... the new maps look crappy and have no feeling at all. We are not playing World of Warcraft Offline here. Maps should look like maps.
of it is a REAL world, with history, real alliances which evolved over the time in a realistic way? Wait... no history anymore? To give you FREEDOM.
of the High Fantasy setting with mages flying around and teleporting and stuff? Oh... wait... we are playing 4th now
So what are the reasons people play in the FR if its not for the FR?
Hardly. The rudeness I was referring to pretty much stood on its own, uninvited and mean as it was.
I stand by what I said, as it is the truth. Now, back to the actual topic?
Not all questions are negative after all...
Precisely. That was exactly what I was trying to say.
Yes... settings evolve. Like FR did. Look at FR during D&D and then AD&D... and during 3rd. Its different. But basically the same.
Do you really know what you want? Either it is the same, or it's not the same. It's like how you can't be "basically pregnant" or "basically dead".
Now they just take out the big hammer and streamline everything beyond recognition. Why do they still call it FR?
So, the FR before, during, and after the Time of Troubles were the same?
Because people like you will buy it because of the name. Not because it has anything in common with FR anymore.
People like me?
Ok, tell me, what am I like? Why do I play in the FR? How many novells do I have at home? Tell me, please. I'm really interested how you define "people like me". Because...
of things like the cool gods? Oh... half of the cool gods are dead now for no reason except to make their universe more like warhammer.
of the cool epic heroes around? Oh... most of them were killed for no reason...
of the landscape? Oh... Halruaa was blasted to hell and all other parts also have major differences (yet to be explained)
of the cool maps? Oh... the new maps look crappy and have no feeling at all. We are not playing World of Warcraft Offline here. Maps should look like maps.
of it is a REAL world, with history, real alliances which evolved over the time in a realistic way? Wait... no history anymore? To give you FREEDOM.
of the High Fantasy setting with mages flying around and teleporting and stuff? Oh... wait... we are playing 4th now
You know why I'm going to play in the FR? Because of the adventures my players and I can make happen. Because of the stories my players and I can tell with our games. Because of the influence my players and I can have on the world in our campaign. Because of the fun my players and I can have in the setting.
And not because we must place everything some author or another wrote in a novell on the holy altar of unreflected worship.
So what are the reasons people play in the FR if its not for the FR?
You changed your statement. Please don't do that, it makes you look silly. ;) Your first claim was that people who weren't interested in the novells (= lore and histroy of the FR according to you) shouldn't play in the FR. So, according to your definition you are only allowed to play SAGA Star Wars if you've read the EU novells. Interesting.
These are sooooo 3.5. :P
Because...
of things like the cool gods? Oh... half of the cool gods are dead now for no reason except to make their universe more like warhammer.
You know, I feel for you, so to speak, but that's a strawman.
You know why I'm going to play in the FR? Because of the adventures my players and I can make happen. Because of the stories my players and I can tell with our games. Because of the influence my players and I can have on the world in our campaign. Because of the fun my players and I can have in the setting.
You know, I may not care for the recent setting changes (actually, I didn't like certain changes from before 4E was even again), but what you just mentioned is the main reason I like the Realms too.
Do you really know what you want? Either it is the same, or it's not the same. It's like how you can't be "basically pregnant" or "basically dead".
???
Things can be basically the same.
If you dont know what that means: At the first look they look pretty the same, because the differences are of minor impact.
So, the FR before, during, and after the Time of Troubles were the same?
Indeed it is.
People like me? Ok, tell me, what am I like? Why do I play in the FR? How many novells do I have at home? Tell me, please. I'm really interested how you define "people like me".
I seriously dont care how many novels you have at home.
People like you: People who pay because of the name a product has and not because of the quality of the product.
The new FRCS is a shame considering how rich the setting was before. And non the less you will buy products which clearly arent made with any passion for the game anymore but passion for money.
You know why I'm going to play in the FR? Because of the adventures my players and I can make happen. Because of the stories my players and I can tell with our games. Because of the influence my players and I can have on the world in our campaign. Because of the fun my players and I can have in the setting.
And not because we must place everything some author or another wrote in a novell on the holy altar of unreflected worship.
Your argument is applyable to any campaign setting out there. So its no real reason why you play in Faerun.
The CS (at least if you pretend its your favourite) must have real advantages for you like: interesting places, interesting story of the world(lol@4th), interesting NPCs(lol@4th)...
Some author like Ed Greenwood? Valid point of yours... truly...
You changed your statement. Please don't do that, it makes you look silly. Your first claim was that people who weren't interested in the novells (= lore and histroy of the FR according to you) shouldn't play in the FR. So, according to your definition you are only allowed to play SAGA Star Wars if you've read the EU novells. Interesting.
You honestly should invest some more ranks on reading ;)
Both claims I made are the same.
If you dont understand it... well... Im not responsible for any inadequacies of yours
Ral is right IMO. Plus I am 33 and love the new edition so you wonderful theory this change is for kids is pretty much dead wrong, but everyone around here (even sane people who dislike the changes and new edition) already knew that.
Being kiddish is no attribute you gain or lose with your real age... it's a mindsetting...
And defining yourself as sane and then stating, that everyone not complying to your point of view must be insane is quite circle argumentation ;)
I also know many people a lot older than you who are addicted to stuff like WoW and much worse things
You know, I feel for you, so to speak, but that's a strawman.
They had a good alignment system which represented the conflict of law vs chaos (which is much more reasonable than this old good vs evil ******** btw.) rather good while still having the good and evil stuff all people seem to like out of reasons unknown to me. And it was replaced by a much more mainstream alingment system having only one axis. Good vs Evil. While lawful, of course, is good and chaos is evil.
Warhammer utilizes that system for quite a while now... so I think its a legal to compare those.
Having like, 4 concepts in a single race like the drow (which were always the favourite of the ... uuuhhhh... I'm so evil... or uuuuhhh... im so special type of players anyway) was by far too much for their new simplified and mainstreamed alignment system, which the world is supposed to work like.
So they killed/threw them out of the race everyone who was standing in the way.
And they just made a good and an evil part of the drow. Good vs evil, remember? Not bother about the conflicts of different mindsettings, people wont like them anyway. They want a streamlined world. Just if you play a computer game. Everything is made to work out just smooth.
In this case, you seem to be saying that those who don't feel "guilty" when they change stuff in their home campaigns don't respect Ed or his work as much as you do. Is that what you really meant to say?
Just... WOW.
There's taking something out of context, and then there's flying through a wormhole and taking it to the other end of the Universe.
How does the way I feel have ANY bearing how other people feel?
I, and others here, have already explained that our 'guilty feelings' over making changes makes no logical sense, and we can't really explain why we feel that way (or even the exact 'uneasy' feeling we get when we do make changes).
Trust me, I'm sure there are plenty of pro-4e FR people here who have a greater respect for ED then I do. I don't want to get into that, but I was describing how it felt to me, which is very hard to put into words. 'Guilt' and 'respect' are not entirely acurate, but we only have the English language to work with when we are trying to express our feelings - however mis-guided they may be - into words.
Trying to imply that my respect (if thats even the right word) somehow diminshes that of others is just putting words into my mouth.
Had a bad flashback to math class, and my teachers saying "show your work". Sometimes the explanation is necessary to show the thought process that got you to that point. Not all questions are negative after all, and some might show something your idea lacked or missed.
EXCELLENT point - you are right, and obviously I may be seeing something where it is not.
I've always had a problem with that, because I felt like someone was calling me a liar. :embarrass
Precisely. That was exactly what I was trying to say.
And yet, I understood it when Naex said it...
Maybe because HE didn't put me on the defensive. ;)
You say you ALWAYS get defensive when people ask you questions? Perhaps at times there's no reason to, and the question someone asked you was more innocent than you took it to be. I don't know, but you did say you "always get defensive".
For some reason, only certain people evoke this response in me time and time again.
See above....
You know why I'm going to play in the FR? Because of the adventures my players and I can make happen. Because of the stories my players and I can tell with our games. Because of the influence my players and I can have on the world in our campaign. Because of the fun my players and I can have in the setting.
Someone who 'gets it'. :D
I don't like 4e FR, and theres a lot I don't care for in the 4e rules - that being said, I plan to use them for the exact same reasons you just gave above.
You managed to put into few words what many of us have been trying to get at here for awhile.
I'll have to think twice before I allow my players to use the Pew Pew Lazer beam Arrows, though.
I am done with this argument though since we can all see where it is going.
Basically nowhere. :D
???
Things can be basically the same.
If you dont know what that means: At the first look they look pretty the same, because the differences are of minor impact.
Heh, tell that to the people who still dont like the Time of Troubles, the extinction of Spheres, and the other major changes between 2e to 3e. Not so minor IMO.
People like you: People who pay because of the name a product has and not because of the quality of the product.
The new FRCS is a shame considering how rich the setting was before. And non the less you will buy products which clearly arent made with any passion for the game anymore but passion for money.
Considering quality is purely objective, I like most (if not all) of the changes to FR and will use those in my campaigns. I don't pay for "Just the name" but the content there-in and how it will make my game better for everyone at the table. You can say it's a sham and believe the designers made it without passion but I'd have to disagree. It's ok, we can disagree here as long as people respect other's opinions.
The CS (at least if you pretend its your favourite) must have real advantages for you like: interesting places, interesting story of the world(lol@4th), interesting NPCs(lol@4th)...
Once again, purely objective. I don't think Ra-Tiel or anyone else for that matter has to clarify his/her reasons for liking a setting to anyone else. I believe 4eFR has MORE interesting places now and the story of the world hasn't changed one darn bit. It's still there and barring time travel, it won't change. But it's the future i'm looking foward too, not the past. I'm anxious to see what has happened in the last 100 years of LORE and adapt that to my campaign. And as for interesting NPCs, considering the fact that 4e has only been out for a month and FRCG isn't even out, we won't know about any NPC until then so i'm biding my time until it does.
Some author like Ed Greenwood? Valid point of yours... truly...
It's very vaild. As people have said and something I agree to, canon is a crutch. Just because some author (Ed or otherwise) wants to change the Realms based on what his/her view is, it would be published as fact. To me that's stupid because the Realms should be a community not someones personal campaign. For me, it's not an issue because I throw canon out the door. If it's something I like, I keep it, if not, either it didn't happen or I allow my PCs to stop it.
As for the alignment of 4e, it doesn't change much in my campaign or our (my groups) views on playing D&D. Besides, I honestly dont' think it's that hard to add in Law or Chaos into the scheme of things. Unaligned was more for the True Neutral
crowd anyways and is pretty easy to adapt for alternative alignemts.[...] Indeed it is. [...]
I'd say certain individuals, like for example Bhaal, would beg to disagree.
[...] People like you: People who pay because of the name a product has and not because of the quality of the product.
The new FRCS is a shame considering how rich the setting was before.
And then there's people like you: People who know everything better. People who are the world's best financial manager, soccertrainer, goal keeper, and libero, all in one person combined on the couch. People who write hatemail to Nightwish because they think they're the only ones who can decide which singer fits the band best. People who go out of their way insulting the designers and owners of some IP because they changed something of "their" game. ;)
And non the less you will buy products which clearly arent made with any passion for the game anymore but passion for money.
:D Welcome to the real world.
Honor won't feed my belly nor shoe my horse.
Your argument is applyable to any campaign setting out there. So its no real reason why you play in Faerun.
The CS (at least if you pretend its your favourite) must have real advantages for you like: interesting places, interesting story of the world(lol@4th), interesting NPCs(lol@4th)...
Counting only fantasy settings, I've been playing in
- The Forgotten Realms
- Greyhawk
- Dark Sun
- Eberron
- Planescape
- Dragonlance
- Norrath (Everquest - yes, there's a d20 version for this ;))
- Azeroth (Warcraft - yes, for that too :P)
- and at least half a dozen homebrew settings
and my points were always the important things I cared about. If a setting didn't give us the opportunity to tell interesting stories (*cough*Rebellion Era Star Wars*cough*) we moved on. And the same will be true for 4E FR.
Some author like Ed Greenwood? Valid point of yours... truly... [...]
Talk about the "altar of unreflected worship" again. I guess you'd take Ed saying "Abeir is a cube, the ground is made of marchpane, and Ao is a level 5 kobold psion" as the best thing since sliced bread?
"Ed said it"... sounds similar to "a wizard did it".[...] Good vs evil, remember? Not bother about the conflicts of different mindsettings, people wont like them anyway. [...]
Because that's the only thing morality cares about. Whether you torture some guy because you have a masterplan or because it just struck your fancy is completely irrelevant - you're performing an evil act.
Heh, tell that to the people who still dont like the Time of Troubles, the extinction of Spheres, and the other major changes between 2e to 3e. Not so minor IMO.
The extinction of the spheres is no change in the FR setting.
The extinction of he spheres was a change of a rule of the system of the game. They were replaced by the domains.
Or did FR have to suffer from the changes they did to the attribute system, too?
Considering quality is purely objective, I like most (if not all) of the changes to FR and will use those in my campaigns. I don't pay for "Just the name" but the content there-in and how it will make my game better for everyone at the table. You can say it's a sham and believe the designers made it without passion but I'd have to disagree. It's ok, we can disagree here as long as people respect other's opinions.
The point here is that people actually LIKE that the developers do LESS for them. Thats pretty weird. The FR were always one of the best CS because there were people like Ed, who made things for the FR with passion.
And now people praise the fact that it is becoming a second greyhawk. Just with the FR tag on it.
It's very vaild. As people have said and something I agree to, canon is a crutch. Just because some author (Ed or otherwise) wants to change the Realms based on what his/her view is, it would be published as fact. To me that's stupid because the Realms should be a community not someones personal campaign. For me, it's not an issue because I throw canon out the door. If it's something I like, I keep it, if not, either it didn't happen or I allow my PCs to stop it.
As for the alignment of 4e, it doesn't change much in my campaign or our (my groups) views on playing D&D. Besides, I honestly dont' think it's that hard to add in Law or Chaos into the scheme of things. Unaligned was more for the True Neutral crowd anyways and is pretty easy to adapt for alternative alignemts.
Author(s) (like) Ed CREATED the FR. Whether you like it or not. He started it at the age of 8. If Ed stated anything in any novel I take it as a fact. Its his baby after all.
Well congratulations... then you are the casual evil vs good axis players. We always considered that part boring and rather unlogic. Law vs Chaos is something you can find even in this world and it has some interesting parts.
And they just abandoned it for the good old red vs blue team. Evildoers vs Paladins. Angels vs Fiends. The system everyone out there understands.
And I dont give any developer any money if the CORE RULES of his systems are that bad that i have to change them.
We also first started out trying to fix system we liked but which were seriously flawed. But then we just threw all that bull**** out of the window and made a homebrew one. It may not be perfect, but it fits our needs. And at least its for free.
So if I buy a new car I dont want to have to put it into my garage for 3 weeks because I have to overhaul it first before I can drive it. Thats not what i pay money for.
I'd say certain individuals, like for example Bhaal, would beg to disagree.
As I said. Basically the same. And as I said: CS evolve and change a bit... because they live.
It is just like you say that because of Jergal went over his ubergod status and gave his powers to myrkul, bane and bhaal. Its a living system overall.
But stacking up killing deities, with the sole purpose of getting rid of them all to make the system slimer for all the kiddies to be happy with it is a different matter. They didnt even bother putting a Time of Troubles Fluff around it. They just said: uhm well... they fought for millenias... but now... somehow... they found the GREAT WEAKNESS of their enemy deity and well... they went there... and... uhm... killed it... YAY! GREAT STORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111
Bhaal didnt die because they were sick of him and tried to streamline anything. They killed Bhaal because they thought it was cool and fitting the CS as it should be.
Thats a HUGE difference.
And then there's people like you: People who know everything better. People who are the world's best financial manager, soccertrainer, goal keeper, and libero, all in one person combined on the couch. People who write hatemail to Nightwish because they think they're the only ones who can decide which singer fits the band best. People who go out of their way insulting the designers and owners of some IP because they changed something of "their" game.
Well, thanks alot. I always knew im cool... but that cool... thanks.
Welcome to the real world.
Honor won't feed my belly nor shoe my horse.
Somehow Ed seems to be still alive with combining passion and profession...
Counting only fantasy settings, I've been playing in
* The Forgotten Realms
* Greyhawk
* Dark Sun
* Eberron
* Planescape
* Dragonlance
* Norrath (Everquest - yes, there's a d20 version for this )
* Azeroth (Warcraft - yes, for that too )
* and at least half a dozen homebrew settings
and my points were always the important things I cared about. If a setting didn't give us the opportunity to tell interesting stories (*cough*Rebellion Era Star Wars*cough*) we moved on. And the same will be true for 4E FR.
If the only thing that satisfies you and your buddies is being the greatest and very very very very greatest heroes in the CS of all times, well... then FR may really be a bit unfitting for you
But I heard about people who just want to play some reasonable characters which they build up over years and just have fun with them in a living world which not only bends to what they want and do. You cant raid Shadowdale because Elminster will kick you ass to Elunes Tears and back? So be it
Talk about the "altar of unreflected worship" again. I guess you'd take Ed saying "Abeir is a cube, the ground is made of marchpane, and Ao is a level 5 kobold psion" as the best thing since sliced bread?
"Ed said it"... sounds similar to "a wizard did it".
If Ed says something like said i guess Pun Pun really is Ao. It at least would explain a lot
Because that's the only thing morality cares about. Whether you torture some guy because you have a masterplan or because it just struck your fancy is completely irrelevant - you're performing an evil act.
Never mistake morality for ethics. Bad move.
It may not be ethically correct to torture something. But it may be perfectly conform to morality.
See... not even good vs evil is that easy. And you just learned the first part why.
Well congratulations... then you are the casual evil vs good axis players. We always considered that part boring and rather unlogic. Law vs Chaos is something you can find even in this world and it has some interesting parts.
And they just abandoned it for the good old red vs blue team. Evildoers vs Paladins. Angels vs Fiends. The system everyone out there understands.
Actually the whole law vs chaos idea was much more illogical... If you go that route, then dwarves and devils (both lawful races) should be teamed up against elves and demons (both chaotic). Law vs chaos is still part of 4e, just without all the variations, and no neutral, since neutrality implies inaction. In fact they went closer to the real world with the alignment system. Good and evil people exist, but true proponents of law and chaos are few and far between. Most of even those who claim to be on the side of law allow a certain level of lawbreaking, since the only way to eliminate it is to remove all freedoms from everyone. And there is almost nobody who is a pure anarchist, most still believe in some form of rules, they just don't necessarily believe those rules should apply to them. True chaotic types most likely are suffering from some form of mental illness which doesn't allow them to control their behavior.
And I dont give any developer any money if the CORE RULES of his systems are that bad that i have to change them.
We also first started out trying to fix system we liked but which were seriously flawed. But then we just threw all that bull**** out of the window and made a homebrew one. It may not be perfect, but it fits our needs. And at least its for free.
So if I buy a new car I dont want to have to put it into my garage for 3 weeks because I have to overhaul it first before I can drive it. Thats not what i pay money for.
If you are playing a home brew game (which I have no problem with) what is your purpose in disparaging the creators of the new system? It sounds to me like you have already left the D&D ranks. The next obvious step is to do as many others have done, take the stuff you like from the books and use it in a homebrew realms campaign. Nowhere is it written that you have to run the realms the way it is in the books, nor that everything in every book is absolutely true, some could just be rumors and folklore, and therefore not pertinent to your game.
And a new car can't just be taken off the lot and driven at full speed, you have to break in the engine for the first several weeks. Otherwise it ends up breaking down and spending a lot of time being fixed. So what we are in right now is the breaking in phase, and until that is done, we won't know how good (or bad) it all is.
[...] Never mistake morality for ethics. Bad move.
Sure, because by definition morality and ethics are more or less the same. ;)
See... not even good vs evil is that easy. And you just learned the first part why.
Something from the good olde days of 3E" aka "Why it's a crap idea to measure ethics and morality in DnD
You are a paladin of . An utterly depraved and evil god has hidden an immensly powerful artifact in the body of an innocent 5 year old girl. The artifact will activate in 6 seconds and utterly destroy all of creation - every world, every being, every soul. You don't have enough time to pray for divine intervention, and the only way to stop the artifact is to kill the child. The only weapon you have at hand is your holy avenger. You must act now. What do you do?
-When were you not able to use your "creative imagination". To "make modifications"? To not use "anything in the setting as is"?
-You say that now, you can do this, whereas, in the past, you ran into a host of continuity issues. Changing things now, this will still happen. You will still run into continuity issues. You just don't seem to "care" about them, anymore. Is it the new Forgotten Realms that did this, or is it you who have changed? Ponder that...
Ra-Tiel's situation: Kill the girl. The life of one child is not worth more than that of two others. Utilitarianism (which, as has been discussed, doesn't work in D&D, going by the RAW) in it's basest form. Simple.
-I always chuckle when people say that the new Forgotten Realms have "freed" them. Meldread, you're a smart guy: How so?
-When were you not able to use your "creative imagination". To "make modifications"? To not use "anything in the setting as is"?
-You say that now, you can do this, whereas, in the past, you ran into a host of continuity issues. Changing things now, this will still happen. You will still run into continuity issues. You just don't seem to "care" about them, anymore. Is it the new Forgotten Realms that did this, or is it you who have changed? Ponder that...
Ra-Tiel's situation: Kill the girl. The life of one child is not worth more than that of two others. Utilitarianism (which, as has been discussed, doesn't work in D&D, going by the RAW) in it's basest form. Simple.
It is just a feeling. It never meant people couldn't have done the things you say, but sometimes people get a feelling of restraint about something that they cannot explain. Sometimes the thing we enjoy becomes so big that we feel we cannot add to it or even play in it for some reason. I got over that after a couple of years of gaming but some people I know have not. I think this "reboot" will do the trick. Perception is reality.
It is just a feeling. It never meant people couldn't have done the things you say, but sometimes people get a feelling of restraint about something that they cannot explain. Sometimes the thing we enjoy becomes so big that we feel we cannot add to it or even play in it for some reason. I got over that after a couple of years of gaming but some people I know have not. I think this "reboot" will do the trick. Perception is reality.
You mean the wizard's first rule "they will believe because they want to believe"?
You mean the wizard's first rule "they will believe because they want to believe"?
I thought it was "people are stupid"? ;) I liked that book but the rest
.I thought it was "people are stupid"? ;) I liked that book but the rest
Same difference... I only got through the first book as well. It made me long for Drizzt.
It is just a feeling.
-Right. That doesn't mean that Meldread doesn't want to discuss the points I raised.
IIt never meant people couldn't have done the things you say, but sometimes people get a feelling of restraint about something that they cannot explain.
-Which is illogical (especially when considering the parts in the FRCS that say the world is yours to do with as you wish, and the fact that, as we all know, no one is going to hunt you down for changing things), hence me pressing him on the issue for more information. If he takes exception to the notion (and, I don't think he will/would), he wouldn't post his thoughts for "public consumption".
Perception is reality.
-Incorrect.
More correct to say my perception determines my reality.
-Yes, that is more correct. But, even still, there are loopholes.
-Yes, that is more correct. But, even still, there are loopholes.
Only because you can perceive them.
--Which is illogical
Not it's not.
Not at all.
It's their (subjective) opinion on how they perceive the Realms.
So either take it or leave it, but always respect it.
We can’t have peer to peer conversations if every other person is busy trying to undermine someone’s personal opinion on how they view the Realms.
There’s a difference, I think, between discussing personal viewpoints and directly challenging them.
Claiming “illogical” falls in the latter category and not the former.
Not it's not.
Not at all.
-Yes, yes it is. Would you expect to be shocked when you see a sign that says "Don't Touch: Electric Fence"? Would you expect to be admonished for asking a question, when someone says that you can ask them anything? Then why should someone feel "locked up" when it is expressly stated to 'do with this as you wish', in multiple places, be it in the FRCS, any of the other old Forgotten Realms campaign guides, from previous editions, Ed Greenwood's own words? You expect to be shocked, and you expect not to be admonished. Thus, logic follows that you should not feel "locked up". To do something against the grain of logic is the opposite of logic. Illogic. It's a definition.
-That said, Meldread is a big boy.
-Yes, yes it is. Would you expect to be shocked when you see a sign that says "Don't Touch: Electric Fence"? Would you expect to be admonished for asking a question, when someone says that you can ask them anything? Then why should someone feel "locked up" when it is expressly stated to 'do with this as you wish', in multiple places, be it in the FRCS, any of the other old Forgotten Realms campaign guides, from previous editions, Ed Greenwood's own words? You expect to be shocked, and you expect not to be admonished. Thus, logic follows that you should not feel "locked up". To do something against the grain of logic is the opposite of logic. Illogic.
-That said, Meldread is a big boy.
And yet, some idiot out there will touch the fence, not believing the sign. People do not act logically a lot of the time, otherwise these boards would be a much nicer place. So yes, we can keep saying they are your realms, but some of them are going to be afraid to change anything for one reason or another. Even I have to think about any changes to the realms, because I don't want the story line drifting too far from cannon. For example, what if I had spent years of game time becoming a hidden lord of Waterdeep, and along comes some new bad guy in a book who summarily kills off all of them? Now I have to decide if I want to ignore the book, which will be cannon, or lose my character due to forces beyond my control?
There is no "wrong" with that.
However, based on the mode of questioning used, I believe the "wrong" is what you (Karsus) are looking for.
The flaw in such an approach lay in the attempt to apply a standard based on what's written in the 3E FRCS.
However, that standard doesn't outweigh (and can never outweigh) personal opinions and experience. Some words in a book never can do that. Ed Greenwood can’t do that.
A Realms DM's viewpoint is his or her viewpoint, period.
Now of course one can ask "why". No problem with that. In fact, that’s probably the best thing one can do.
But questioning someone with the intent of trying to prove them wrong is, again, defeating the purpose of a peer to peer conversation.
As though one were jumping in to say, “Ahhh....come on. You didn’t really feel that way, did you?”
Nobody is better than anyone else when it comes to how any of us personally view the Realms.
There are no thought leaders or main ideas that everyone must accept.
With respect, it simply doesn't work that way and never has.
The best value of conversation that can come from these forums will only happen when people are willing to accept that others have differing viewpoints with regard to the Realms and the body of published materials written about it.
Any questioning of the validity of people’s motives and beliefs about the Realms only serves to intimidate people from sharing their views and detracts from the value of these forums to the community at large.
People do not act logically a lot of the time, otherwise these boards would be a much nicer place.
-Indeed. Which is why, I made the point known, and asked Meldread in a clear, concise way to share the points raised.
So yes, we can keep saying they are your realms, but some of them are going to be afraid to change anything for one reason or another. Even I have to think about any changes to the realms, because I don't want the story line drifting too far from cannon. For example, what if I had spent years of game time becoming a hidden lord of Waterdeep, and along comes some new bad guy in a book who summarily kills off all of them? Now I have to decide if I want to ignore the book, which will be cannon, or lose my character due to forces beyond my control?
-Right. And, my point to Meldread is that, nothing inherently existed to prevent him from arbitrarily changing whatever he wanted in the past, to suit his campaign, and nothing was inherently changed to..."promote", for a lack of better words, arbitrarily changing things to suit his campaign. What really changed? He changed, not anything else.
-Concerning your own point...Do whatever you want to do. There's a plethora of ways to get around that. One, for instance: The evil guy (or good guy, if you look at it like that), thinks he killed all of the Lords of Waterdeep. He did not. He might have killed a few, but he also killed the body doubles of some others, leaving the actual Lords alive, and hence, that character.
I said it before: that is a problem is that was not caused so much by game accessories (many of which were excellent), but by novels. Pretty soon, new novels will come out, and the same problem occurs again. The 'new' Realms will get cluttered just as fast as the old one, and you get the same problem.
This is why I feel the 'clean slate' argument is not particularly strong. The fresh and new crowd of today are the grumpy crusty liches of tomorrow.
Gomez
People say that the 'New' Realms are fresh and clean, and the 'Old' Realms were too cluttered with details.
This I don't get. All the old details are still there (if dead or ruined now) and there are new details added. It's just another layer of ruins and history added.
Yes, technically there's still tons of lore out there linked to the 4E Realms that's perfectly valid.
However, pushing the timeline 100 years into the future will pretty much kill the idea that this older lore is relevant.
If' it's not relevant, there's no need to go looking it up.
Thus, DMs 'feel' they have more free reign, when in fact they're really playing in a setting that's still chock full of lore.
It's all in their (our) heads.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
As an active Realms DM with one campaign in each era (3E and 4E) of the Realms, I can say openly and honestly that I like some of the sweeping changes, because I don't feel I have to read up on every place outside of Cormyr, Waterdeep, Myth Drannor and the Moonsea (where my campaigns primarily take place).
There’s no great lore shadow. I can truly make it up without worry of overlap.
And yes I know everyone won't feel the same way I do.
But that's fine. I don't need anyone else to agree with me first before my opinions and views can be considered valid.
They stand on their own, legitimate and real.
The only people I answer to are my players. And frankly they seem quite happy with my work.
That's the only standard that will ever truly matter.
This I don't get. All the old details are still there (if dead or ruined now) and there are new details added. It's just another layer of ruins and history added.
Some new players want this to be true, that somehow all of the old books will simply vanish when 4e CG comes out, so they will be on a level playing field, and never have to learn all that history that made the realms the best campaign setting there ever has been.
Not logical, but there it is...
The reality is that nothing is going to stop a player from picking up a copy of an older novel or an older supplement and contaminating the purity of the DMs vision. And enough new comers to the realms will want to know more of the history, so LK and the other lore-keepers here will still be explaining it all to them for years.
Actually the whole law vs chaos idea was much more illogical... If you go that route, then dwarves and devils (both lawful races) should be teamed up against elves and demons (both chaotic). Law vs chaos is still part of 4e, just without all the variations, and no neutral, since neutrality implies inaction. In fact they went closer to the real world with the alignment system. Good and evil people exist, but true proponents of law and chaos are few and far between. Most of even those who claim to be on the side of law allow a certain level of lawbreaking, since the only way to eliminate it is to remove all freedoms from everyone. And there is almost nobody who is a pure anarchist, most still believe in some form of rules, they just don't necessarily believe those rules should apply to them. True chaotic types most likely are suffering from some form of mental illness which doesn't allow them to control their behavior.
Elves and Dwarves dont like each others view of how things should be done. And they never have. But the forged an alliance. Pretty interesting to see alliances between opposite alignments, huh?
I guess you wont see that one between good and evil that soon ;)
Neutrality doesnt imply inaction. It just means that you dont care about whether it is good or it is bad. You are in the middle of it.
Good and evil persons exist? Wow... good to know
I bet Bush is the good guy and the iranians are the bad ones? At least if we are speaking from your point of view... cause if we change the point of view slightly towards the iranians they are the good people and bush is the evil one.
Good and evil are relative.
Nobody is really COMPLETELY lawful? Maybe we are not Modrons after all :/. Sad but true.
And nobody is really anarchistic and chaotic? Damn... I always thought we were slaads... made out of chaotic energy stuff
If you are playing a home brew game (which I have no problem with) what is your purpose in disparaging the creators of the new system? It sounds to me like you have already left the D&D ranks. The next obvious step is to do as many others have done, take the stuff you like from the books and use it in a homebrew realms campaign. Nowhere is it written that you have to run the realms the way it is in the books, nor that everything in every book is absolutely true, some could just be rumors and folklore, and therefore not pertinent to your game.
And a new car can't just be taken off the lot and driven at full speed, you have to break in the engine for the first several weeks. Otherwise it ends up breaking down and spending a lot of time being fixed. So what we are in right now is the breaking in phase, and until that is done, we won't know how good (or bad) it all is.
Im actually playing Pathfinder A3 most of the time at the moment.
Well... that purely depends on how long the manufacturer did let it run inside the factory. By default its not needed to do that anymore with high quality cars.
Thats why i pay them a lot of money for a good car, after all.
Sure, because by definition morality and ethics are more or less the same.
Not really. Morality is just a big field of research in ethics.
Morality doesnt have to ethically correct to be a morality. But there are ethically correct moralities which the ethic defines.
A Paladin running around in the streets and killing every infant he can get his hands on may be perfectly correct by morality. But not by the terms of ethic.
Trying to measure "alignment" in mechanical terms is prone of falling into the trap of constructing loose-loose situations. The less of a mechanical aspect and the more it becomes a fluff element the better for the game.
Thats why removing the alignment all together by mechanical terms would have been by far better.
Alingment should be fluff after all. Somebody is a bad person in the eyes of a certain community because he does bad things to them and not because he has the neutral evil tag on him.
-I always chuckle when people say that the new Forgotten Realms have "freed" them. Meldread, you're a smart guy: How so?
-When were you not able to use your "creative imagination". To "make modifications"? To not use "anything in the setting as is"?
Thats my point. You were always free to make changes as you wished. Of course bad changes which suck will make your group hate you... but its always like that with houserules
And it wont be any different with the "open history" of the FR in 4th. You make the history suck, people will be dissapointed.
3rd just had the advantage of aleady having a cool history which didnt suck. So if you just felt that the country XY shouldnt be at war with country XZ, or hero YZ shouldnt be dead or should be dead, because it doesnt fit your campaign the way it is... GO FOR IT!
-You say that now, you can do this, whereas, in the past, you ran into a host of continuity issues. Changing things now, this will still happen. You will still run into continuity issues. You just don't seem to "care" about them, anymore. Is it the new Forgotten Realms that did this, or is it you who have changed? Ponder that...
Idd. New books will be published because its $$ for wotc. They would be dumb if they dont do it. So you now have a 5 year advantage
. Then it will be crowded with nonsense again.For example: We never liked drizz or RA Salvatore in general. Most of the changes he introduced just didnt happen in our games. A city full of Deep Gnomes which can summon hundreds of pwning Earth Elementals and did even summon a GOD themselves were crushed by a puny army of summoned Tana'Ri? Sound ridiculous and did never happen for us. Continuity problems? Probably. If we run into one we just change it for good. Thats why it is our campaign in the end.
And elves and dwarves are not opposite alignments, just a little apart in terms of personal freedoms. Dwarfs see duty to family and clan as more important, Elves see personal freedoms as being as important if not more important than family and community. And Dwarfs and Elves do not have any animosity in the realms (or very little), that is a hold over from Tolkien that has been mostly gotten rid of in D&D. Never was very logical since the two groups don't interact a lot and don't share living spaces. But yes, they would unite against an evil foe that threatened them both. Not so much against a lawful or chaotic foe.
Personally I don't use alignment much, a few beasties (mostly outer plane types) are truly evil, everyone else is unaligned (individuals are free to act in a manner of their choosing) and subject to their societal norms.
neu·tral /ˈnutrəl, ˈnyu-/ Pronunciation Key - [noo-truhl, nyoo-] –adjective
1. not taking part or giving assistance in a dispute or war between others: a neutral nation during World War II.
2. not aligned with or supporting any side or position in a controversy: The arbitrator was absolutely neutral.
3. of or belonging to a neutral state or party: neutral territory.
4. of no particular kind, characteristics, etc.; indefinite: a neutral personality that made no impression whatever; a sex-neutral job title.
5. (of a color or shade)
a. gray; without hue; of zero chroma; achromatic.
b. matching well with many or most other colors or shades, as white or beige.
6. Botany, Zoology. neuter.
7. not causing or reflecting a change in something: It is believed that the new tax law will be revenue neutral.
8. Chemistry. exhibiting neither acid nor alkaline qualities: neutral salts.
9. Physics.
a. (of a particle) having no charge.
b. (of an atom, molecule, collection of particles, fluid, or solid) having no net charge; electroneutral; not electrified.
c. not magnetized.
10. Phonetics. (of a vowel) pronounced with the tongue relaxed in a central position, as the a in alive; reduced.
–noun
11. a person or a nation that remains neutral, as in a controversy or war.
12. a citizen of a neutral nation during a war.
13. Machinery, Automotive. the position or state of disengaged gears or other interconnecting parts: in neutral.
14. a neutral color.
[Origin: 1400–50; late ME < L neutrālis grammatically neuter. See neuter, -al1]
—Related forms
neu·tral·ly, adverb
—Synonyms 2. impartial, disinterested, dispassionate, uninvolved, unbiased.
Implies not taking sides which would be inaction.
[...] Ra-Tiel's situation: Kill the girl. The life of one child is not worth more than that of two others. Utilitarianism (which, as has been discussed, doesn't work in D&D, going by the RAW) in it's basest form. Simple.
Congratulations.
You've defeated Good and gave Evil a larger victory than it could have ever hoped to attain by destroying Creation. With your murder you've subverted everything for what Good has ever fought. You have allowed to let Evil dictate your actions, and spoil a holy weapon dedicated to the defeat of Evil with the blood of an innocent. If you had allowed creation to be destroyed, at least you wouldn't have allowed Evil to pervert the last bastion of Good into commiting an atrocity worthy of the vilest of Evil.
Yes, you did "save" Creation. However, from now on Creation owes its existance to your murder of an innocent. Creation can only continue to exists because Evil was powerful enough to coerce a paragon of Good into commiting an Evil - no, a Vile, act.
4. of no particular kind, characteristics, etc.; indefinite: a neutral personality that made no impression whatever; a sex-neutral job title.
...
Also note that while you are a neutral nation in the WW II you can be active in a war in Africa just at the same time ;)
Congratulations.
You have allowed to let Evil dictate your actions, and spoil a holy weapon dedicated to the defeat of Evil with the blood of an innocent. If you had allowed creation to be destroyed, at least you wouldn't have allowed Evil to pervert the last bastion of Good into commiting an atrocity worthy of the vilest of Evil.
Yes, you did "save" Creation. However, from now on Creation owes its existance to your murder of an innocent. Creation can only continue to exists because Evil was powerful enough to coerce a paragon of Good into commiting an Evil - no, a Vile, act.
Thus evil is stronger, you can do a good act in the name of a greater evil, but not an evil act in the name of the greater good
Thus evil is stronger, you can do a good act in the name of a greater evil, but not an evil act in the name of the greater good
Really? I am fairly sure that I have heard several current world governments making exactly this kind of justification. I am not debating the situation (here) that lead to it arising, but I am pointing out that people do try and use it... often.
Really? I am fairly sure that I have heard several current world governments making exactly this kind of justification. I am not debating the situation (here) that lead to it arising, but I am pointing out that people do try and use it... often.
Just because they justify it doesn't make it a good act, it still furthers the cause of evil. And also, just because they state their intentions are good doesn't mean they are. I can say it is an act of good to steal a car, because it keeps the owner from having an accident in it and hurting himself or others, but I am still stealing.
Just because they justify it doesn't make it a good act, it still furthers the cause of evil. And also, just because they state their intentions are good doesn't mean they are. I can say it is an act of good to steal a car, because it keeps the owner from having an accident in it and hurting himself or others, but I am still stealing.
But then it comes down to whether you believe that the redistribution of properly is acceptable because hording wealth that could be shared among all is a sin ;).
My suggestion, is that any concept of an objective morality, especially in the realms, makes about as much sense as a DVD player manual in Klingon translated by drunk Eladrin. Saying something is wrong "because it is" is an example of this.
Thus evil is stronger, you can do a good act in the name of a greater evil, but not an evil act in the name of the greater good
As said, this was a relict from a 3E paladin thread (iirc the thread title was "if a paladin falls, does it make a sound" or something like that). I don't remember that OP's intent, but still the situation (and the occuring flamewar) shows that having mechanical consequences of alignment only leads to loose-loose situations. At the end, the conclusion of the thread was that the paladin would fall no matter what, because the paladin's CoC states that he "must not commit an evil act" and not "must not commit an evil act other than chosing the lesser of two evils".
Yes, utilitarian ethics doesn't work in DnD because Good and Evil are not only abstract concepts, but rather tangible forces. You cannot justify one away in favor of another without it coming back to bite your ass.
Therefore, imho it's a good thing that 4E has placed less mechanical importance on alignment, and I sincerely hope that 5E does away with them altogether.
As I said, I don't use alignment, I use behavior. Bad guys do good stuff and good guys do bad stuff, just like life.
Which is how I'v always played the game.
Aside for a few spells that rely on alignment, the concept is silly, because there are situations where anyone can commit horrific evil or geat good.
I ran a group of players through a Goblin Lair - one in which the Goblins weren't really bothering anybody; they were just living in a series of caves minding their own business.
The PCs came in and slaughtered them all, room by room. In the end they came to the 'kretch' where the children were housed, and the Paladin asked me if it would be evil to kill them all.
I asked him "Do you think its an evil act?"
Had he just killed them outright, he would have been fine, but becuse he questioned his own judgment (by questioning me), it meant it HE felt there was some evil in it, and thats why he was penalized later.
An act isn't evil unless you think it is evil (except for REAL obvious ones, like murdering your own family to cut down on expenses, ect). There are plenty of RW instances were 'Church folk' MURDERED innocents because they thought it was the right thing to do.
Evil is VERY subjective, and if you don't question your own decisions, you're obviously 'right', or completely amoral.
[...] There are plenty of RW instances were 'Church folk' MURDERED innocents because they thought it was the right thing to do.
But you must consider that these instances were often used as excuses or out of corruption and greed. Using shrapnel bombs against civilian areas is evil, no matter what justification you may bring to bear ("were hiding terrorists", or whatever other BS).
Evil is VERY subjective, and if you don't question your own decisions, you're obviously 'right', or completely amoral.
In real life, yes. In DnD, not so. Demons and devils are quite real, as well as the evil gods. Therefore this "it's not evil because I think it's not evil" apoproach doesn't quite work. Of course, every self-proclaimed villain will have an excuse why his actions weren't evil - that's the hallmark of villains after all. :P In other words: every selfrespecting villain will "pull a Vader" ("give the galaxy peace and justice"). ;)
In real life, yes. In DnD, not so. Demons and devils are quite real, as well as the evil gods. Therefore this "it's not evil because I think it's not evil" apoproach doesn't quite work. Of course, every self-proclaimed villain will have an excuse why his actions weren't evil - that's the hallmark of villains after all. :P In other words: every selfrespecting villain will "pull a Vader" ("give the galaxy peace and justice"). ;)
Demons and Devils are evil, I will give you that. Gods, not so much... They have portfolios that, from a subjective standpoint, are evil, but evil is not their primary goal, just a means to an end. Demons and Devils are fixed, every other intelligent species has a certain degree of free will, they just may not have a good understanding that what they do is evil. Much like church folk above, they believe they are doing good, because that is what their spiritual leaders tell them good is.
Congratulations.
You have allowed to let Evil dictate your actions, and spoil a holy weapon dedicated to the defeat of Evil with the blood of an innocent. If you had allowed creation to be destroyed, at least you wouldn't have allowed Evil to pervert the last bastion of Good into commiting an atrocity worthy of the vilest of Evil.
Yes, you did "save" Creation. However, from now on Creation owes its existance to your murder of an innocent. Creation can only continue to exists because Evil was powerful enough to coerce a paragon of Good into commiting an Evil - no, a Vile, act.
-And, as I said, Utliltarianism doesn't work in D&D, but it certainly works in real life.
Just... WOW.
There's taking something out of context, and then there's flying through a wormhole and taking it to the other end of the Universe.
How does the way I feel have ANY bearing how other people feel?
I, and others here, have already explained that our 'guilty feelings' over making changes makes no logical sense, and we can't really explain why we feel that way (or even the exact 'uneasy' feeling we get when we do make changes).
Trust me, I'm sure there are plenty of pro-4e FR people here who have a greater respect for ED then I do. I don't want to get into that, but I was describing how it felt to me, which is very hard to put into words. 'Guilt' and 'respect' are not entirely acurate, but we only have the English language to work with when we are trying to express our feelings - however mis-guided they may be - into words.
Trying to imply that my respect (if thats even the right word) somehow diminshes that of others is just putting words into my mouth.
I didn't imply that. I was puzzled by a statement you made, and then I asked you a question about it. What's wrong with that?
You could have clarified what you said rather than getting defensive about it.
People do not act logically a lot of the time, otherwise these boards would be a much nicer place.
The world would be a much nicer place.
That said, we are emotional creatures as well. If a setting just "doesn't feel right", nothing anyone says is going to change that. Notice my statement applies to everyone.;)
-And, as I said, Utliltarianism doesn't work in D&D, but it certainly works in real life.
Uhm, no. It doesn't even work in real life, that's the problem.
Imagine you had to kill X number of people to save Y number of other people. Which numbers were acceptable? Would it be ok to kill 1 for 100? 1 for 1000? 100 for 1000? 1000000000000000 for 1000000000000001? Where do you draw the line?
Imagine you're a doctor at a hospital and were preparing an organ transplantation for a 15 year old girl. Now the 60 year old president of the US is brought into your ER with a severe wound and required an immediate transplant. The organ you were preparing for the girl would fit and was compatible with the president's body. Either will die if not receiving the organ. Who do you give it?
The organ you were preparing for the girl would fit and was compatible with the president's body. Either will die if not receiving the organ. Who do you give it?
Thats not even a real question - of course the little girl gets it.
Thats what the Vice-president is for, and the President has lived a long life, while the little girl has her whole life ahead of her.
besides, I don't really like him anyway. :P
What numbers are acceptable? That depends on the exact circumstances...
There's a movie about a famous WWII conscintious objective that single-handedly took out a series of German machine-gun nests (he was an expert marksman), because he figured he would save MORE lives by killing a few Germans - including the Germans themselves, who would have eventually been taken either way, but the cost in life would have (for both sides) been incredible.
This really isn't the forum for it, but I've argued heavily on others that the Atom bombs dropped on Japan saved far more lives in the long run then they destroyed.
The Japanese, until that point, were completely unwilling to surrender, and were planning on fighting the Allies in the streets if they had to, right down to the woman and children (its a cultuarl 'Honor' thing). The Americans were prepared to do JUST THAT, and commit genocide on the entire population if they didn't surrender.
The Japanese exist today BECAUSE we dropped the bomb - how's that for a kick in the head?
How many lives are too many? It all depends on the circumstances... and I pray to god that I never have to make one of those decisions.
How does this relate to the 4e Realms? I'm sure, in all the confusion and massive loss of life during the Spellplague's outset, all the world's 'heroes' (and, perhaps, even some of the 'villains') had to make a lot of hard choices about where to go and who to help.
What do you do when thousands of people are outside your city's gates, with an Orc Horde heading their way, and you know you only have enough food for your own people, and there's a good chance you won't even be able to re-close those gates after you've opened them?
Think about the end of the Titanic, when all those lifeboats wouldn't go back and pick people up, for fear of them being swamped and capsized themselves.
Was it better for them to save those few already onboard, or risk going back to save a few more?
I picture Alustriel weeping upon her walls, as the Cerulean wave washed over the teaming refugees banging on Silverymoon's city gates...
I'm sure the screams haunted her for years.. if she even lived that long.
I picture Alustriel weeping upon her walls, as the Cerulean wave washed over the teaming refugees banging on Silerymoon's city gates...
As do I, although I see her spending time and effort (to save others beyond the walls) after seeing that the city is safe, using either of her magic (or items) should it/they not have failed her... or of herself if they have. For some reason I can see an Alustriel being... well. A noble noble.
I'm sure the screams haunted her for years.. if she even lived that long.
Are we likely to find out?
However, we may get a little sumthin-sumthin in Schend's Blackstaff Tower novel, if I'm not mistaken.
Uhm, no. It doesn't even work in real life, that's the problem.
-Sure it does. Not everyone has the 'stomach' for it, though.
Would it be ok to kill 1 for 100? 1 for 1000? 100 for 1000? 1000000000000000 for 1000000000000001? Where do you draw the line?
-Yes, yes, yes, and yes.
Imagine you're a doctor at a hospital and were preparing an organ transplantation for a 15 year old girl. Now the 60 year old president of the US is brought into your ER with a severe wound and required an immediate transplant. The organ you were preparing for the girl would fit and was compatible with the president's body. Either will die if not receiving the organ. Who do you give it?
-The President of the United States of America. He is a somebody, whereas this girl is a nobody. As such, the President of the United States of America has the capability to influence, for better (or for worse) the lives of millions. Billions, truthfully.
[...]
Let me just say that I respectfully disagree (especially on the Hiroshima and Nagasaki issue - imho it was a cheap cop out and nothing more than a ruthless and unnecessary demonstration of power) and that any further and more detailed discussion of these topics in this thread would not only be off-topic but highly inappropriate for this board. If you want, we can continue this conversation in PM, however.
[...]
See my comment above. Also, I think you didn't quite get my point. In almost all cases you can use utilitarianism to actually argue for both sides. If you can use the exactly same argument for "pro" and "contra", then something is inherently flawed in the argument itself.
Also, "yes" is not a valid answer to "where would you draw the line". ;)
-I'm a very "black and white" guy, what can I say?
That you take alignment much to serious in real life?
:PHell, I've had discussions with my sister, and I've told her that I'd kill her no problem if it would save the world. And she said the same, of me. Sibling love.
You said that any ratio of killed people to survivors is acceptable as long as there are more survivors than people killed.
Now, would you kill 300 million americans to allow 300 million and one chinese to survive? How about killing 140 million americans in order to allow 140 million and one russians to survive? How about killing 70 million americans in order to allow 70 million and one irani to survive?
If you were to decide where a "continent killer" meteor would strike, would it be Eurasia or America?
"Sacrificing yourself is easy - sacrificing those you hold dear is when true determination shows itself." -- Unknown.
However, I really think we should take this into PM. After all, this has little to do with either Points of Light or Forgotten Realms.
I'd rather not discuss the Atom Bomb, because I have beaten that subject to death on another board (and proved my point a hundred times over), and I am tired of it. Talk to a Japanese person to find out how UNwilling the Japanese were to surrender... until the bomb was dropped. The Emperor was willing to let ALL of his people die with honor - and then he saw how easily we could take that honor away - there was nothing at all honorable in the way those people died, and the 'Celestial One' was wise enough to realize this.
As for the president's life being worth more then a little girl's - you believe in 'divine right', don't you? ;)
If he was any sort of REAL leader, HE would insist the little girl get the heart. A true leader is supposed to put his people FIRST - something so many have forgotten.
I've touched upon the "How many is too many" question above - there is no set answer, because in EVERY scenario there are different variables. Suppose the Earth was going to blow-up in thirty days, and I built a spaceship that would only house two people... except for some bizarre reason the spaceship will only run on human blood, and it would require everyone's blood in order for the ship to have enough fuel to reach another habitable planet. In THAT scenario, the entire earth's population dying so that the RACE might survive (one healthy male and one healthy female) would be acceptable.
But granted, that's a truly bizarre scenario. ;)
Markus, did you receive my PM?
Yes.. and I'm contemplating an appropriate answer that won't make matters worse.
First, this conversation, although related to an FR topic (exceptable losses/sacrifices during the Spellplague in order to insure the survival of others) is touching on too many RW issues to be comforatable.
-Spellplague, spellplague, spellplague. All I ever hear is Spellplague.
-My PM isn't working. I keep getting a blank screen when I go into it (and, when I check the unread ones I have), so I'll be getting those PMs out like later tonight, I guess.
As for the president's life being worth more then a little girl's - you believe in 'divine right', don't you?
-No. I find the notion that G-d appoints a leader from the heavens a load of crock.
If he was any sort of REAL leader, HE would insist the little girl get the heart. A true leader is supposed to put his people FIRST - something so many have forgotten.
-Only in your personal opinion. What a 'real' leader is is quite subjective. Would a 'real' leader let himself die, in turn, letting someone else take over, who could in theory be detrimental to his/her people? For example, if the King of Cormyr knew that his mustache-twisting evil brother was next in line for the throne, but could do nothing about it, would be be doing everyone a good thing, or a bad thing, by prolonging his rule as long as possible?
Yes.. and I'm contemplating an appropriate answer that won't make matters worse.
-Yeah, you'd better.
On all above counts. ;)
The President of the United States of America. He is a somebody, whereas this girl is a nobody. As such, the President of the United States of America has the capability to influence, for better (or for worse) the lives of millions. Billions, truthfully.
Ahh, but you forget. The girl happens to be your daughter.
-- George Krashos
Ahh, but you forget. The girl happens to be your daughter.
-- George Krashos
-Be that as it may...Not having children, I can be selfish, in this instance.
-Only in your personal opinion. What a 'real' leader is is quite subjective. Would a 'real' leader let himself die, in turn, letting someone else take over, who could in theory be detrimental to his/her people? For example, if the King of Cormyr knew that his mustache-twisting evil brother was next in line for the throne, but could do nothing about it, would be be doing everyone a good thing, or a bad thing, by prolonging his rule as long as possible?
Look at Robert Mugabe. The man came into power in order to strengthen his country and protect it from outsider interference. Over the years, he's done many things to survive for his country's sake. And now, many would consider him as great an evil as those he was trying to protect his country from.
What would you fear more, losing the one person who could save your country, or having that person believe he is entitled to that power?
Look at Robert Mugabe. The man came into power in order to strengthen his country and protect it from outsider interference. Over the years, he's done many things to survive for his country's sake. And now, many would consider him as great an evil as those he was trying to protect his country from.
-Hence why I said it's very subjective, what a 'good' leader is. Use different criteria to determine it, and you'll get different results.
What would you fear more, losing the one person who could save your country, or having that person believe he is entitled to that power?
-Me, personally, the former.
-Hence why I said it's very subjective, what a 'good' leader is. Use different criteria to determine it, and you'll get different results.
-Me, personally, the former.
I'd just let him fix the country, kill him, and then take control, and if people are smart, they'll kill me before I get too corrupt, and eventually all the killing would cease and a stable democracy would form.:D
Politicians are like dipers, you have to change them regularly before lest they get too dirty.
-Good thing you're not in charge.
Look at Robert Mugabe. The man came into power in order to strengthen his country and protect it from outsider interference. Over the years, he's done many things to survive for his country's sake. And now, many would consider him as great an evil as those he was trying to protect his country from.
What would you fear more, losing the one person who could save your country, or having that person believe he is entitled to that power?
Wow, that sure is one way to analyse Mugabe's reign. The constant human rights violations, election rigging, murder and corruption aside, I agree with you.
Joe
I think, over all, people have largely missed my point.
I encourage anyone here to go and make sweeping changes to the 3rd Edition Forgotten Realms. Completely change Cormyr, blow up Waterdeep, have the Zhents implode - go crazy. Then post your changes here. Now, you have a choice. You can ignore how your changes retroactively impact hundreds of ongoing storylines, not to mention the completed ones, or you can take those into consideration.
Now, I speak for myself personally here: I have a great deal of respect for the Forgotten Realms. If that wasn't the case I wouldn't spend as much time as I do here on these forums, or playing with and learning about the setting. However, there are many things I dislike about the third edition Forgotten Realms. I've been over some of them many times on these forums before. There are also many things I like about it. The same is true for 4th Edition. There are some things I like and some things I dislike.
There is a major difference however: I'm given unprecedented freedom with a one hundred year time jump and a major RSE. WotC has made clear they have no intentions in filling in the blanks, and even if they do that's irrelevant from my standpoint.
If I wanted to blow up Waterdeep, I can do so in those 100 years, and have it be perfectly consistent with my version of the Forgotten Realms. Any change I want to make to the setting will be in perfect harmony, and the entire setting will be internally consistent with itself. Even the cannon setting, because of its vastness, was at times internally inconstant.
Now, post any sweeping change you make in third edition, and anyone on this forum can no doubt find one hundred different reasons why it wouldn't work, or alternatively, things you overlooked. Some individuals here took my original post out of context.
I've never needed WotC's, Ed's or anyone else's permission to make changes to the setting. However, when the 3rd Edition Setting is put before you it is something entirely different than the 4th Edition Setting. You are looking at something that has already been formed and shaped. You are looking at something that is constantly in flux and changing, with a dozen different hands molding it - not just your own. When you look at the 4th Edition Setting, you are seeing raw clay - there for you to shape to your desires.
My previous edition material is not useless, because I can use that to help progress the timeline in a way that I feel is most appropriate. WotC may put out novels, but I've always made clear that I've had a strong dislike of the novels and their being turned into cannon. I've always largely ignored them, but a major problem I've had with that is that the events that took place in them are placed in future sourcebooks, thereby "encouraging" me to adopt them by shoving them down my throat.
In third edition I've spent more time trying to cut out things I disliked than adding things that I liked. I've spent more time trying to think about how to FIX the setting (to suit my personal desires) than PLAYING in it.
If I had it my way, the setting would have been reboot to a period before the Time of Troubles, the time line would have been frozen, and the world would have been clearly sketched out. All of the non-Realms part of the setting would be removed as if they never existed, and we'd spend endless hours arguing over various obscure bits of lore. We'd constantly debate over various churches and deities, over politics in one area of the setting or another - those are all things I enjoy.
However, I've come to settle for something different. Many people here might look at the 4th Edition Realms and see the setting destroyed or ruined, but in my eyes the setting has undergone repeated torture with each novel since the beginning. The events that heralded the 4th Edition changes, in my eyes, were simply the last of many, many injustices done to the setting, but in the end this final injustice "freed" it. No longer will people be focused upon cannon as they once were, as I believe few people will adhere to it, and on longer will I have to watch a setting that I care for suffer.
Now, I will take pleasure in sharing my Realms with others. I will take pleasure in enjoying other peoples Realms. I will take pleasure in learning how people approached the timeline differently, and the changes they make to the setting as a whole and using my knowledge of Realmslore to help them.
When I get the 4th Edition Realms in my hands, I'm going to look it over then I am going to determine what I like and dislike. I'm using what I like, discarding the rest, then opening my old lore books and getting to work. I'm going to use the 4th Edition Realms as a template for my Realms, but there is no doubt in my mind that my Realms will differ dramatically.
I could never differ dramatically from the canonical Realms in 3rd Edition without spending countless hours trying to repair and fix the endless amount of problems it created. Making sweeping changes, and trying to keep the setting internally consistent (without a major RSE as done to herald in 4th Edition) was almost impossible.
To those that disagree with me I challenge you to this: Go back to the year 1345 DR, and have the Zhents conquer the Dalelands, Cormyr and Sembia. You cannot use a RSE. You must account for every major NPC in the area. The changes must be organic and everything must be internally consistent with the setting. When you are done, post it here, and I will poke at least a dozen holes in it explaining why it can't work or things that you overlooked - thus making it internally inconsistent.
Then, I encourage you to use the Spellplague and a 100 Year Time jump to accomplish the same thing. You'll notice how much easier it becomes, and then understand the meaning of this thread.
It was my world before 4E was even announced. If you feel "free" though, the more power to you.
If you want complete freedom, then don't use the Realms. If you want to feel apart of a vast living breathing history filled world then use the Realms.
'course now they have destroyed that.........
If you want complete freedom, then don't use the Realms. If you want to feel apart of a vast living breathing history filled world then use the Realms.
'course now they have destroyed that.........
Yes, because of course history always walks a straight path, and you never get any unexpected surprises. Oh wait...
So what you want is a world that grows and changes, but only within a limited set of guidelines? If change does not occur, then history is fixed, you and everyone here could spend the next 20 years adding more to what is already known prior to 1385. But at some point there would be no more to add, unless like a few people here, you want to know every last persons name and birthday who lives in the realms.
Accept that the living, breathing history of the realms just took a unexpected turn, and do what some of the rest of us are trying to do, come to terms with it, and start exploring what those changes mean to the world.
So what you want is a world that grows and changes, but only within a limited set of guidelines?
-So long as those parameters make sense, in conjunction with the the rest of rules, laws, and maxims already established in the setting, yes. This only limits you in the sense that it "constricts" you to keeping within a set continuity, which should be strived for to begin with.
-So long as those parameters make sense, in conjunction with the the rest of rules, laws, and maxims already established in the setting, yes. This only limits you in the sense that it "constricts" you to keeping within a set continuity, which should be strived for to begin with.
But that implies b always follows a, which is not necessarily true. It is 99% of the time, but occasionally someone gets things out of order. CBA still contains the elements of the alphabet, just not in the order that seems right. Add in a variable like magic, and you start getting effects that have no logical basis in accepted reality. Look at the Netherese... If you follow the logical path of development, they would have been just one more of hundreds of realms that developed on Faerun, but they discovered the scrolls and their development took a rather different course than expected.
Anywho, I was a huge proponent/repository of Old World of Darkness canon, the way that many here are of the Realms. I could tell you Jan Pieterzoon's lineage back to Caine, and go on about how Samuel Haight was the worst thing to happen to any RP game, ever. So when they ended the OWoD (which, in retrospect, shouldn't have been a surprise considering that Gehenna/the Apocalypse/Ascension had always hung over the games), I was ******, and, for a while, refused to touch the newer WoD because it had less emphasis on canon and more on STs(DMs) modifying the world to fit their games and their tastes. And then I saw the potential for doing what I wanted with my game, and fleshing out a pre-existing base of a world to suit me.
So...that's my long-winded and probably flameable way of saying that I like the freedom. I like the 3e/3.5e Realms, and I have an incredible amount of respect for the setting - it's by far the most "real" fantasy setting, to me. I like having the frame of an incredibly rich history and world to build upon. I like the gods. I like Halruua. I like the oppressive feel of Thay. But I never liked Cyric, so, in my setting, that punk got knifed in a fight before the ToT, and Bhaal still sits on the throne of Murder. And Cormyr is a wreck, torn apart by civil wars after Azoun died.
That's why I'll be able enjoy the 4e of the Realms. Sure, the events leading up to it were rather dumb, but - as it's been said - the developers have left us with a lump of clay and 100 years to mold it. If you want your Realms to have never had the Spellplague, and Halruua and Thay to still be around, go for it; it's your Realms. If my friend wants to stick strictly to post-3e canon, well, that's hisRealms.
And a darker Faerun, with a sprawling, despotic Cormyr, that's going to be my Realms. My WoD-playing players and I have the freedom to do it that way.
Flame on.
Accept that the living, breathing history of the realms just took a unexpected turn, and do what some of the rest of us are trying to do, come to terms with it, and start exploring what those changes mean to the world.
People can do that, but they certainly don't have to.
But that implies...
-It implies that events within the setting make sense in relation to the setting itself, which is all I ask for. And, really, is that that difficult? Like I said, that's something that settings should strive for. Using your example of the Nether Scrolls: They were written by the Sarrukh, and contained a boat-load of information about magic and magical practices. The Netherese discovered them, and extrapolated the information within, building a highly magical culture. I have no problem here:
(A) The Nether Scrolls exist
(B) The Netherese people read the Nether Scrolls
-Now, I wouldn't like the situation if you replace the Nether Scrolls with, say, A UFO from Planet Eberron, a planet located in Abeir-Toril's solar system. We know that Eberron is not a planet that is located in Abeir-Toril's solar system. That it was the Nether Scrolls that "created" Netherese society as we know it is consistent with the setting itself. That it was a UFO from Planet Eberron, a planet located in Abeir-Toril's solar system is not consistent with the setting itself.
-So long as those parameters make sense, in conjunction with the the rest of rules, laws, and maxims already established in the setting, yes. This only limits you in the sense that it "constricts" you to keeping within a set continuity, which should be strived for to begin with.
Therein in lies the biggest problem with 4e realms, the designer fail to realize that the constriction is actually the beauty of the setting and its greatest strength
-It implies that events within the setting make sense in relation to the setting itself, which is all I ask for. And, really, is that that difficult? Like I said, that's something that settings should strive for. Using your example of the Nether Scrolls: They were written by the Sarrukh, and contained a boat-load of information about magic and magical practices. The Netherese discovered them, and extrapolated the information within, building a highly magical culture. I have no problem here:
(A) The Nether Scrolls exist
(B) The Netherese people read the Nether Scrolls
-Now, I wouldn't like the situation if you replace the Nether Scrolls with, say, A UFO from Planet Eberron, a planet located in Abeir-Toril's solar system. We know that Eberron is not a planet that is located in Abeir-Toril's solar system. That it was the Nether Scrolls that "created" Netherese society as we know it is consistent with the setting itself. That it was a UFO from Planet Eberron, a planet located in Abeir-Toril's solar system is not consistent with the setting itself.
What about spells from GH, there has been outside influence on the realms since it's inception, Mordenkainen, Bigby, and all the rest are names that are used in Faerun all the time, and are in fact cannon. Is it logical that all the standard named spells are from wizards that may have never walked the realms? We are talking about 20 years of retcons here, and many of them were trying to provide consistency in an inconstant world. You want things to make sense in relation to the setting. I don't believe anything they have done doesn't make sense if you expand the setting to include the entire multiverse that it is connected to.
Therein in lies the biggest problem with 4e realms, the designer fail to realize that the constriction is actually the beauty of the setting and its greatest strength
-Indeed, so it seems.
Is it logical that all the standard named spells are from wizards that may have never walked the realms?
Well, with all the world-walking wizards do (especially considering that connections to other worlds is a theme of the FR), it's possible and even probable that the wizards in question have walked the Realms.
I know that the 3E cosmology messed that up, but the spells in question predate 3E.
Well, with all the world-walking wizards do (especially considering that connections to other worlds is a theme of the FR), it's possible and even probable that the wizards in question have walked the Realms.
I know that the 3E cosmology messed that up, but the spells in question predate 3E.
thus my "may have never walked...", in fact we know from FR7 that Khelben and Bigby had at least one face to face, and didn't play well together. Also there is the meetings between Elminster, Mordenkainen and Dalamar (with the Symbol showing up at least once). Of course those took place here on Earth, but still, they have an impact on the Realms.
What about spells from GH, there has been outside influence on the realms since it's inception, Mordenkainen, Bigby, and all the rest are names that are used in Faerun all the time, and are in fact cannon. Is it logical that all the standard named spells are from wizards that may have never walked the realms?
-Never walked in the Realms? Perhaps, but those who have the information have. Elminster and various others are extraplanar travelers. Via these extraplanar travelers, or via the aforementioned individuals traveling to Realmspace (We know that Elminster, Khelben, Mordenkainen, Bigsby, and bunch of others all have met), these spells have "breached" Faerûn. That's completely consistent with the setting being one filled with portals to other places, some of them on the same planet, some of them to other planets, and some of them to other planes of reality all together.
We are talking about 20 years of retcons here, and many of them were trying to provide consistency in an inconstant world. You want things to make sense in relation to the setting.
-All true, but unrelated to the crux of the problem with many of the current and/or upcoming (you decide) problems.
I don't believe anything they have done doesn't make sense if you expand the setting to include the entire multiverse that it is connected to.
-Ho, ho, here's where we differ. Let me just think of one thing, of the many that I feel do not make sense in regards to the setting: Magicians being able to utilize magic in this world without the Weave, where Raw Magic kills mortals who "tap" it.
-Ho, ho, here's where we differ. Let me just think of one thing, of the many that I feel do not make sense in regards to the setting: Magicians being able to utilize magic in this world without the Weave, where Raw Magic kills mortals who "tap" it.
And that is one of the very things that most annoyed me about the realms... In no other D&D world (except Dragonlance) did you need a firewall between magicians and magic. I always saw her as interfering with the flow of magic rather that helping wizards use it. It also ensured that every wizard was, in the grand tradition of Dragonlance, a priest of Mystra, since without her they couldn't cast spells, and every spell they cast or created benefited her, even if your patron was Bane, who would have been less than thrilled that his followers were aiding his enemy.
And that is one of the very things that most annoyed me about the realms...
-Which, regardless of your personal feelings towards it, still needs some 'splaining to make it consistent with the parameters that have already been set.
I always saw her as interfering with the flow of magic rather that helping wizards use it.
-Without Mystra (the Weave, technically, but A=B, so...), magicians would not be able to utilize magic, period. They'd die.
-
-Without Mystra (the Weave, technically, but A=B, so...), magicians would not be able to utilize magic, period. They'd die.
Or so everyone thought. ;)
Or so everyone thought. ;)
I can go with this view.
1. This thread seems to have moved slightly off track.
2. You cannot throw logic into the mix. You know why? Because if I allowed logic to dictate the Forgotten Realms, absolutely everything and everyone - right down to the blades of grass - would be dead in a cataclysmic event. Remember the Rain of Fire? Explain to me how logically the world survives being impacted by what amounts to a mini-moon. Flip on the Science Channel and watch a show about comets and asteroids impacting the Earth. Multiply that by a thousand and you have more-or-less what would have happened had that worked "logically". "Logically" the Rain of Fire should have made the Spellplague look like a walk in the park. Not only was the event more-or-less irrelevant in the large scheme of things, the worst of it was magically isolated to a single nation.
The point is this: There are plenty of stupid and illogical things in the Realms cannon as a result of years and years of contributions from various individuals. The Spellplague and everything introduced by 4E is just another example, but it is not even the most egregious offender, merely the offender that produced the most change.
3. Here is another fact: Mystra was an over hyped deity. There was only one retcon involved in killing her. That recon was the removal of the importance of the Weave to the land, which really did not make sense anyway. Supposedly if the Weave was destroyed then the land should slowly decay and die. That is the only retcon, but in the large scheme of things it is pretty minor and irrelevant.
Different types of magic have always existed in the Forgotten Realms, magic independent and separate from the Weave AND Mystra. If you do not believe me, you can ask Ed yourself. The Weave was simply the most popular and most accessible. It made magic "easy".
With the absence of the Weave, things like rituals in the 4E Rules make perfect sense. The magic being used in the 4E Realms would simply be the new and popular magical traditions that came into existence post-Spellplague.
Many different magical traditions have ALWAYS existed in the Realms, and after Mystra's death they would have just kept on working as they always did completely unaffected.
4. The killing of Mystra is the most believable thing that happened. No details are given, but I am saying this: Shar took the Karsus Stone, which still had a strong connection to the Weave, and infected it with the lingering essence of Moander. Since the body of Mystra and the Weave were the same, Moander would have infected her, driving her insane. The corruption would have flowed through the Weave to infect those who used it. An insane Mystra would have then been easy pickings for Cyric to take out without any real trouble.
All of this is completely believable and based in the lore previously established lore. Shar had the Karsus Stone in her possession, and the essence of Moander was still imprisoned in the ruined city of Tsornyl (now called the Darkwatch). His essence was waiting for a sliver of divine energy that it could latch onto so it could return Moander to life. Shar could have easily provided exactly what he needed with the Karsus Stone.
This makes the death of Mystra completely plausible. The only implausible thing involved in the whole 4E transition is the Abeir situation (which is nothing but a retcon). Even the Spellplague has its roots in cannon lore, as the idea was germinated from a blurb in the old 1E Forgotten Realms boxed set.
-Indeed, so it seems.
so it does indeed. Its very sad that the designers don't get it
Or so everyone thought. ;)
-Omniscient sources don't lie. It's impossible for them to.
so it does indeed. Its very sad that the designers don't get it
-Apparently so.
Omniscient sources don't lie. It's impossible for them to.
You got his point. You're just arguing for the sake of it.
In my opinion this answer of yours explain very well, why people feel so suddenly free with the new edition.
You got his point. You're just arguing for the sake of it.
-Which doesn't change the act that it's incorrect, since omniscient sources do not lie.
-Which doesn't change the act that it's incorrect, since omniscient sources do not lie.
Your argument does fail though, if you, as I said earlier, include the realms in the larger multiverse. Since cannon in the multiverse is that there is no weave, and that wizards and the like tap into magic directly, then Faerunian wizards would be destroyed the first time they cast a spell on any other world besides Faerun, not being buffered by the weave and all. Also no other wizards magic, or spelljammers not built on faerun, would work in the realms since they aren't trained to draw magic from the weave. If the realms were isolated from the rest of the multiverse I would believe that the weave could act as you say, but since I play in the whole multiverse (mostly in Faerun though) I go with the larger picture of magic. (And yes I am aware that specific beats general in terms of rules).
Since cannon in the multiverse is that there is no weave, and that wizards and the like tap into magic directly, then Faerunian wizards would be destroyed the first time they cast a spell on any other world besides Faerun, not being buffered by the weave and all. Also no other wizards magic, or spelljammers not built on faerun, would work in the realms since they aren't trained to draw magic from the weave. If the realms were isolated from the rest of the multiverse I would believe that the weave could act as you say, but since I play in the whole multiverse (mostly in Faerun though) I go with the larger picture of magic. (And yes I am aware that specific beats general in terms of rules).
-We know that Wizards who travel to other Crystal Spheres and planes have the ability to utilize magic. Their magical training, obviously, extends such that they are able to adapt to places without magical Weaves, like Realmspace. We know that Wizards who travel to Realmspace, from other Crystal Spheres and planes have the ability to utilize magic. Their magical training, obviously, extends such that they are able to adapt to places with magical Weaves, like Realmspace. And, the same goes with magical items, both going from somewhere else to Realmspace, and Realmspace to somewhere else.
-We know that Wizards who travel to other Crystal Spheres and planes have the ability to utilize magic. Their magical training, obviously, extends such that they are able to adapt to places without magical Weaves, like Realmspace. We know that Wizards who travel to Realmspace, from other Crystal Spheres and planes have the ability to utilize magic. Their magical training, obviously, extends such that they are able to adapt to places with magical Weaves, like Realmspace. And, the same goes with magical items, both going from somewhere else to Realmspace, and Realmspace to somewhere else.
No, their training did not extend to casting without the weave, since it was stated as part of the spellplague that they had to relearn to use magic, thus we get Spellblades.
They just call them retcons these days. ;)
If someone has the power to change ANYTHING in previously published material, it obviously means we must assume (for sanity's sake) that the information we had is faulty, and subject to change whenever "new facts come to light".
Thats what a retcon is - we have suddenly become 'more enlighted' as to what was really going on.
Of course I know what a retcon REALLY is (and I usually flush that), but for the sake of the game, and the story, we have to believe that the old information was in error.
Or should we try counting how many times the Shadoweave was retconned?
No, their training did not extend to casting without the weave, since it was stated as part of the spellplague that they had to relearn to use magic, thus we get Spellblades.
-This is incorrect. Were this not the case, then, as you say, spellcasters from Faerûn would never be able to use their magics outside of Realmspace. And yet, they do.
Omniscient sources LIE all the time -
They just call them retcons these days. ;)
-This doesn't mean they are lying. This means that a designer, at some point, decided to change the rules of reality.
From Countdown to the realms 1/30/2008:
The Spellplague was a potent direct agent of change, but it also set off a string of secondary catastrophes.
Effects on the Weave
For eons, the use of magic in Faerûn was focused through a god of magic, most recently Mystra. Except for certain Netherese wizards of ancient days who learned the truth, most believed that no magic would be possible without such a deity. However, with the death of Mystra and jealous Shar suppressing the ascension of a new deity of magic, it became common knowledge that magic is accessible without a god to control and codify it. Now when a spellcaster speaks of the Weave, she is just using another term for magic.
Effects on the Shadow Weave
Just as Mystra controlled the Weave, the goddess Shar controlled the Shadow Weave. Not satisfied with her portion, Shar plotted to seize control of both. She miscalculated. When Cyric murdered Mystra, the Weave collapsed so completely that Shar not only failed to gather up the fraying threads, she also lost control over the Shadow Weave.
Just as magic persists without Mystra, so does the dusky power of shadow endure without Shar acting as an intermediary. Powerful necromancers have developed their own unique methods for accessing the dim energies of the Shadowfell.
Effect on Spellcasters
Many creatures that learned to cast spells and channel magic with Mystra’s Weave found themselves powerless in the Spellplague’s wake. Some never regained their power. Others worked to attune themselves to the new magical environment. Many required years to regain this facility, while others never regained the knack. Others took shortcuts to reaquire the power they’d lost, swearing questionable pacts to enigmatic beings in return for the ability to utilize arcane powers.
So, there, cannon directly countering your arguments. It doesn't quite explain why spellcasters can use spells on other worlds, but that may be a property of the magic they use to travel between worlds, and lacking the ability to use magic, couldn't immediately apply those effects in the aftermath of the spellplague.
-And, the canon I provided counters that argument (specifically, the ability to utilize magic outside of Realmspace by natives, and vice-verse, by others). Now what?
Well, the above article is newer cannon, so it trumps older cannon, just as new testament trumps old testament.
-Hence, it only "trumps" when those who want it to trump want it to trump. We're still dancing around, here, in the metaphorical sense. And, not specifically you and I, either.
-Them's fightin' words, there, boy. I have less than savory things to say about the "New Testament".
-Hence, it only "trumps" when those who want it to trump want it to trump. We're still dancing around, here, in the metaphorical sense. And, not specifically you and I, either.
I agree, it comes down to what you want to believe. I dislike the weave and am glad it is gone, it removes a layer that was the idea of one or two people, and didn't really serve any purpose other than as a story element. It actually makes me think I might play a wizard again, since now my spells wouldn't be subject to direct divine intervention, and there is no anti-weave that I have no ability to defend against.
And I am not a member of any religion, but the New testament/ old testament argument was the best one to make my case. I maybe should have used law, where the passing of a new law overrides any existing law
on the same subject (or at least clarifies or expands on the older law).
There. It's perfectly in line with cannon because Ao can do anything he wants, even alter the laws of reality itself.
And I am not a member of any religion, but the New testament/ old testament argument was the best one to make my case.
Not really.
Especially considering that LK is Jewish.Which doesn't change the act that it's incorrect
Not incorrect.
Doesnt matter if AO changed reality, if Mystra was lying all the time, or if some designer just wanted it to change.
It was said that most magic and even life were dependent on the weave,
Clearly that is/was not the case.
"Or so everyone thought." Very appropriate.
I dislike the weave and am glad it is gone, it removes a layer that was the idea of one or two people, and didn't really serve any purpose other than as a story element. It actually makes me think I might play a wizard again, since now my spells wouldn't be subject to direct divine intervention, and there is no anti-weave that I have no ability to defend against.
-I agree, in so much as it removes Mystra. The Weave, I am ambivalent towards, but it's a nice story element to see something explaining magic, instead of "Uh...It's magic!"
I maybe should have used law, where the passing of a new law overrides any existing law
on the same subject (or at least clarifies or expands on the older law).
-A better example.
Ao changed it.
There. It's perfectly in line with cannon because Ao can do anything he wants, even alter the laws of reality itself.
-And, being as that there's no evidence of Ao doing this (especially since, as per Rich Baker, Ao will be minimized, and have very few, if any, mentions in 4e, as a way to "cover him up"), one can just as easily say that Ao hasn't done anything. Theoreticals can be negated by theoreticals. Now I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing, though.
-And, being as that there's no evidence of Ao doing this (especially since, as per Rich Baker, Ao will be minimized, and have very few, if any, mentions in 4e, as a way to "cover him up"), one can just as easily say that Ao hasn't done anything. Theoreticals can be negated by theoreticals. Now I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing, though.
If Ao changed the way reality worked, how would you know? Dun, dun, dun! ;)
No, but seriously my point was that it isn't hard to explain away major changes like this so that it all stays cannon. Just like they could have explained away the changes to the magic system by saying, "Mystra changed it", rather than killing her and destroying the Weave.
But oh well, the only retcon I can find is the fact that it was said that if the Weave was destroyed life would slowly die out (think along the lines of the Dark Sun Campaign Setting). The Weave and the world were closely linked together. However, since that's never come up in the past, it isn't hard to ignore the retcon. Besides, it didn't make sense anyway.
Mystra is descendant from a Netherese deity, and in the beginning there were many non-Weave using magical traditions. It wasn't until after the fall of the Netherese Empire that Weave based magic became widespread and prevalent. It was a disservice to the community to ignore the other magical traditions, but just because they were ignored didn't mean they didn't exist.
However, I've always ignored that so it doesn't affect me, and as you pointed out, Dead Magic Zones exist.
The "Life could not exist without the Weave" was when the Weave was trying to be the Force.
-Feh, we know that that's not even true, anymore.
I've come around to your idea Sith are Lawful Evil rather Chaotic Evil.
The Spellplague wiped out the midi-chlorians in the universe?
-Now, if only it wiped out other things from the universe, we'd be good.
I've come around to your idea Sith are Lawful Evil rather Chaotic Evil.
-Glad to hear. And, the reason for this is...?
Total control is what he lives for.
-Exactly. Regardless of who said it (Bruce Cordell, Rich Baker, Steve Schend, Ed Greenwood), if it doesn't make sense in the context of the setting, which it doesn't, it doesn't make sense in the context of the setting.
QFT.
As an aside, this also applies to threads trumpeting Ed's word as Law in the setting. I've never understood defending the good ol' days while simultaneously mocking inconsistent and/or poor elements from previous editions.
Mostly, I think that it boils down to the fact that Palpatine's characterization comes off as much more Darkseid than calculating "A God am I/Pseudo Overman."
Total control is what he lives for.
-Good that you've seen the proverbial light. ;)
QFT.
As an aside, this also applies to threads trumpeting Ed's word as Law in the setting. I've never understood defending the good ol' days while simultaneously mocking inconsistent and/or poor elements from previous editions.
-While he seems a nice guy, Ed, he's far from bulletproof, in my personal opinion. Like I've said many times before, were the Forgotten Realms to revert back to the setting he, himself, first envisioned, it'd be a huge step backwards, in the wrong direction . The setting has grown and evolved since "then", and for the better.
--While he seems a nice guy, Ed, he's far from bulletproof, in my personal opinion. Like I've said many times before, were the Forgotten Realms to revert back to the setting he, himself, first envisioned, it'd be a huge step backwards, in the wrong direction . The setting has grown and evolved since "then", and for the better.
I agree with you completely. Though if given the choice between Ed's 1360s Realms and what we are getting is no contest
But the setting is a much better place thanks to RAS, Ms Cunningham, Steve Schend, Eric Boyd, etc etc
But the setting is a much better place thanks to RAS, Ms Cunningham, Steve Schend, Eric Boyd, etc etc
-Right. Plenty of people often forget that. Or, don't think of it, whichever.
The Spellplague wiped out the midi-chlorians in the universe?
-:embarrass
18DELTA ;)