| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| The Red Walker |
Posted - 14 Sep 2012 : 16:37:30
Hoping for a few tweaks myself. For me when the lifespan was changed to around 200 years....Elves stopped being Elves...while still a very long time compared to avg humans, it is nowhere near long enough for Elves to have this extemely long view(like most of a millenium) of things I envision in elves. In my mind it is just not a big enough difference to account for the differences between tham and the shorter lived species. Id prefer going back to 750 at minimum....really like to see 800-ish, with some very long lived outliers of closer to 1600. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Markustay |
Posted - 08 Oct 2012 : 19:20:43
Yup.
A lot of the 4e lore appeared to be stuff out of someone's home game that they decided needed to be in everyone's game. The Realms are designed to be an all-purpose (sand box) setting, and when you try to steer something like that too hard, it feels forced. The Realms needs a more natural flow.
The problem comes in when a single individual can make a decision about the Realms, and no-one bothers to edit that decision. The Realms are not something individuals should be making world-changing decisions about - there needs to be a 'captain', and there needs to be a consensus. 4e seems to have been a victim of the, "Too many chiefs..." syndrome.
I have ideas that I thought were amazing - everyone does. Then when I tried to implement them (my 'FR meets Old West' fiasco comes to mind) people thought they were bad. I tried to explain to them how good it was, but they wouldn't agree. Sometimes you just have to recognize that all your ideas aren't gems - you can't force them down the throats of 7 billion people. The problem with 4e is that no-one was filtering those ideas - they all made it through, good and bad (and its a known phenomena that folks only like to talk about the bad).
EDIT: Also very important - FOCUS GROUPS!!! What happens in a 'contained environment' (ie, a small office of about thirty friends) is that your friends won't be honest, or they want support for their own ideas (its called patronage - politicians do it all the time) so they support yours, however bad. So when you you say, "Wow! Super-smurfs with lasers on their heads definitely belong in the Realms!", what you are really thinking is, "man thats awful... but I need him to agree on my deep-sea, man-eating leprecauns". |
| Lord Bane |
Posted - 08 Oct 2012 : 10:54:17
It is bold to overthrow established lore with new one, yet it was done in a "flip of the coin" style, mind you 3e was also WOTC and it did not take out a hammer and smash the world to pieces like 4e did basicly, it incorporated the old lore and it made a, to take the example of see, perfect picture, 4e is a painting with different painters having different ideas on how a painting should look like and if you picture such a picture in your mind, do you find it appealing?
Though i have to disagree with this fresco as it was supposed to be a restoration and restoration of things should always be made look like itīs original appearance which in this case was not the case and therefore, for historic accuracy, should be "erased".
It is no competition, according to Ed Greenwood in Dragon Magazine, Bane and the Hells get along, though WOTC made with Asmodeus a similar move like it was done with Cyric in 2e and trying to make a new "baddie" on the main stage among the gods, personally for me, uneccessary  |
| see |
Posted - 08 Oct 2012 : 03:18:04
Yeah, the boldness to take things in your own direction, like Cecilia Giménez did with that fresco of Jesus.
But, hey, the new fresco's attracted fans, so rather than restoring the old, we're going to paint a compromise replacement. And after all, she put a lot of effort into her repainting; it would be disrespectful to simply erase her contribution. |
| Chosen of Asmodeus |
Posted - 07 Oct 2012 : 22:41:20
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Bane
Violation of continuity is a no-go for myself, you basicly spit on the efforts of others, one should have the modesty to work out how the change can be tied into the lore established with a valid explanation on how and why things changed for the specific thing.
4e is nothing more than forcing core setting onto the realms. Reducing the amount of content is never a winner if you aim to sell a product.
If someone dislikes the amount of lore which constitutes the realms then the person can houserule it out or simply ignore it for his campaign if it is not needed and who says in your home campaign you canīt wipe the hells with Asmodeus corpse, make Eldath the new deity of war or turn Elminster into a worshipper of Cyric? Itīs your campaign and your rules but the continuity is nothing more than guidelines to help you along and you can say due to certain events things are like that and you enrich the world with history.
It comes down to personal preference i guess, though Asmodeus should have stayed a fiend in the hells and not putting his nose into things where it doesnīt belong, like godhood
The realms is ultimately Wizard's product to do with what they will, and if they found it to be more cost effective to try and concentrate on making core products that could be applied to all their settings, that's their decision to make- what I'm hearing about 5e suggests they've realized this was a mistake and are going to go in a different direction, but we'll wait and see.
To me, what you call spitting in the face I call having the boldness to step up and take the thing that you're now in charge of and take it in your own direction, not walking the path set out by those who came before you. An argument can be made that they did too much too soon or went too far in the other direction- an argument I don't entirely disagree with- but I still admire the willingness to change and progress the setting.
And it's not my fault that Bane can't handle the competition.  |
| Mapolq |
Posted - 07 Oct 2012 : 21:38:13
I don't take the position that all continuity should be absolutely inviolate. I get it that, especially in a shared setting, you'll eventually end up with lore-knots that can't be untied - you just have to cut them loose before they damage the setting further.
I'm not even being anti-4e here. The majority of stuff they did was actually explained in-world, and didn't invalidate past lore (when people say past lore was "invalidated", they mostly mean it has been made moot by pushing it a century to the past). In fact, 3e was just as bad or even worse with the "it's always been this way" approach (magic television and all that).
However, I should note that many decisions haven't been made on story development grounds or because the previous lore was badly written. Hundreds of thousands of Calishites weren't revealed to be genasi in disguise because of story (there were no indicators whatsoever that something like that could happen), nor did it happen because the lore on Calimshan was particularly bad. It happened because someone thought genasi should become bigger players in the Realms, and they didn't really care how. Similarly, Talos was revealed to be an aspect of Gruumsh because they wanted less gods to describe on the campaign guide. I mean, otherwise you'd think they'd still say something about Talos, the aspect of Gruumsh, on the book. Sure, I can't prove all that, but I think most people agree that's the vibe we got from these changes. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 07 Oct 2012 : 20:42:23
@Chosen of Asmodeus: I find myself agreeing with your last post more then disagreeing. While a believe a respect for previous canon should be of the highest priority, it should not stand in the way for the setting to evolve in unexpected ways. The problem comes in when its time to decide what should stay and what should go, because everyone is going to have a different list.
I get the idea the 4e FR design team (not freelancers!!!) all had their own little lists - which I am sure they could find lots of people to agree with each of their points - and then all the lists were implemented wholesale, without much regard to the percentages of people involved in each of the changes. So what we had is not one great, big bad lump of lore, we had hundreds of small tweaks and changes - which when taken separatey didn't amount to much, but when taken as a whole they were enormous and far too much.
It took me a long time to realize that - if you look at each change individually, we can squeeze a little goodness out of them. There are probably only a couple of things I would throw out entirely. The problem was that people looked at 4e as one thing (including the rules), and thats where the shock and outrage came in.
So I agree with you that lore should be looked over one bit at a time, and weighed for its value to the setting, before moving forward and either supporting it, or getting rid of it. I think the current designer attitude that ALL lore must remain inviolate is the other end of the 4e extreme, where nothing was sacred. It is reactionary, and should be given a lot of thought before they move forward. If something is bad, then it should be modified to better fit the setting. Things don't have to be dropped completely, by minor tweaks all over the place (especially for the sake of continuity) are in order, and appreciated.
For instance, lets start with Swords of the Iron Legion. We can take the basic premise there - a war in the Erlkazar/Deepwash region - and re-tool it so its not so... ummmm... bad. There was no way of sugar-coating that. In that way, the intent of the module remains, while the details get altered to make more sense. That's what I am talking about; respect the previous lore, but don't be a slave to it.
I have recently been blessed with seeing how such a thing could be done by a noted FR designer, and only if you really looked closely at all the tiny details would you even notice the tweaks. Not every change is bad - we need to accept that some changes could be an improvement. That designer managed to respect the old lore, while creating some new (and better) out of it.
And god-willing, hopefully you will all one day be privy to that wonderful setting guide (more like a regional campaign-arc).  |
| Lord Bane |
Posted - 07 Oct 2012 : 19:40:40
Violation of continuity is a no-go for myself, you basicly spit on the efforts of others, one should have the modesty to work out how the change can be tied into the lore established with a valid explanation on how and why things changed for the specific thing.
4e is nothing more than forcing core setting onto the realms. Reducing the amount of content is never a winner if you aim to sell a product.
If someone dislikes the amount of lore which constitutes the realms then the person can houserule it out or simply ignore it for his campaign if it is not needed and who says in your home campaign you canīt wipe the hells with Asmodeus corpse, make Eldath the new deity of war or turn Elminster into a worshipper of Cyric? Itīs your campaign and your rules but the continuity is nothing more than guidelines to help you along and you can say due to certain events things are like that and you enrich the world with history.
It comes down to personal preference i guess, though Asmodeus should have stayed a fiend in the hells and not putting his nose into things where it doesnīt belong, like godhood |
| Chosen of Asmodeus |
Posted - 07 Oct 2012 : 18:48:05
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Bane
You may disagree Chosen of a Fiend
I fear you misunderstood my interpretation of my post though. I was mainly aiming at race lore to have continuity and as Markustay said, 4e disrespected the lore established before it.
You have several editions of lore building upon each other and then suddenly you have 4e poping up and building up a wall, seperating the established lore with 4e lore without a decent attempt to explain why. Mind you there are exceptions of this but WOTC failed to give a proper explanation why these changes were made and why they did "fix a problem" that wasnīt one? They created a problem by throwing the established lore right out of the window and now you have people wondering why the elves are now shorter in lifespan or why the hins are taller and so forth.
Continuity is what keeps the setting on track, the lore is what gives setting the backbone, the players give the setting life.
Continuity is not to limit creativity, it is to keep things in line to have the whole lore concept that back up the setting work, if the back up is malfunction, then the players canīt give life to the setting they love because of contradicting informations.
Of course they can houserule things, but atleast for me, the biggest appeal to the Realms is itīs vast and rich history and the details that shape the world and make it come to life. You may have a different appeal to the Realms and itīs your right to have a different opinion but iīd rather have a strict guideline as backbone rather than some people without much mind for consequences change things on a whim and everything you built your world on is useless.
I don't have a problem with continuity as a rule, it's certainly of benefit and comfort to long time fans of any shared universe.
My problem with continuity comes when it becomes so thick, so bloated, that it locks out the potential for new fans to enjoy the thing because they find the wall of products staring them in the face that they need to read up on so daunting.
My other problem with continuity is when adherence to it becomes so strict as to prevent story progression. One of the draw backs of a D&D setting such as the Realms is that there's always a certain degree of Status Quo is God in effect; the setting stays relatively the same so DM's can tell their own story within the setting. An unintended side effect is that unimaginative or overly cautious DM's inforce the status quo in their own stories, not wanting to violate "canon".
What results is something of a catch 22 for the writers/developers. If they implement big changes to the setting they'll come under fire from both fans of the story who liked the setting just the way it was and who find any major change to be in violation of canon simply because so many things had been set up to insure status quo, and they'll come under fire from those who took advantage of the intention of that status quo(telling their own stories) because their stories are now overruled by the changes.
I've seen people argue against the advent of Many-Arrows, the apotheoses of Asmodeus, the reveal that Talos was really Gruumsh, the returned Abeir situation, and numerous other changes based on arguments of continuity when really they were just story developments that they didn't like.
And sometimes, continuity violations and retcons aren't a bad thing. Like, if someone were to write a follow up to the Avatar series that contradicted everything in the Avatar series- time of troubles still happens, just different than shown there-, I would be perfectly fine with it because, I'm sorry, the Avatar series was terrible.
Oh, and I prefer "Chosen of a Greater God", thank you.  |
| Sightless |
Posted - 07 Oct 2012 : 13:55:01
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
quote:
Originally posted by Chosen of Asmodeus
Strict adherence to continuity stagnates creativity. There are always inconsistencies, always. There are inconsistencies in reality, let alone all works of fiction. Continuity should never stand in the way of having a better idea at a later date. Having these inconsistencies only gives us more options to pick and choose from, and more options is never a bad thing.
I agree with this, for the most part, especially since we've seen tons of examples (*cough* 4e *cough*) where past lore was completely disrespected. There is no need to respect those they didn't respect you.
quote:
Originally posted by Chosen of Asmodeus
And we have 4' tall halflings because halfings shorter than that are implausible as a threat.
So you were taken in by the 4e argumant?
Are halflings just short humans? Because that seems to have been the 4e approach - everything is a human with a different 'skin'.
My argument? How big is a wolverine or even a badger? Those things will tear apart a full grown man. They're are NOT human, thats why.
Apes are very similar to humans (in shape and size), and yet they can also tear us apart. Looking similar does not a human make. Comparing a halfling to three year old child is akin to comparing a human to an alien... its a ridiculous argument.
I just wish someone on the 4e design team had known a little something about biology. {smirk}
Support for your argument about Halflings aren't humans can be found in the Hobbit, pages 1-3, 12, 57, and 101. In the lord of the rings, prologue, 3-5. the compaison to a child is entirely inaccurate, and I feel this evidence is perfectly viable, since the majority of halfling lore, including the name "halfling" was barrowed straight from Tolkien. the hoobits were only those that leaved in Hobbitan, just as those that lived in Bree, were called Breelanders. See Lored of the rings for an explanation on this. I wonder if the Tolkien team went after Ed for his 'five shire' work and Halflings, but I digress. |
| Lord Bane |
Posted - 07 Oct 2012 : 11:53:10
You may disagree Chosen of a Fiend
I fear you misunderstood my interpretation of my post though. I was mainly aiming at race lore to have continuity and as Markustay said, 4e disrespected the lore established before it.
You have several editions of lore building upon each other and then suddenly you have 4e poping up and building up a wall, seperating the established lore with 4e lore without a decent attempt to explain why. Mind you there are exceptions of this but WOTC failed to give a proper explanation why these changes were made and why they did "fix a problem" that wasnīt one? They created a problem by throwing the established lore right out of the window and now you have people wondering why the elves are now shorter in lifespan or why the hins are taller and so forth.
Continuity is what keeps the setting on track, the lore is what gives setting the backbone, the players give the setting life.
Continuity is not to limit creativity, it is to keep things in line to have the whole lore concept that back up the setting work, if the back up is malfunction, then the players canīt give life to the setting they love because of contradicting informations.
Of course they can houserule things, but atleast for me, the biggest appeal to the Realms is itīs vast and rich history and the details that shape the world and make it come to life. You may have a different appeal to the Realms and itīs your right to have a different opinion but iīd rather have a strict guideline as backbone rather than some people without much mind for consequences change things on a whim and everything you built your world on is useless. |
| Mapolq |
Posted - 06 Oct 2012 : 22:57:15
quote:
Originally posted by Chosen of Asmodeus
The life span thing was always a non issue as it never applied to the realms, only to Points of Light. Granted that was a point that could have been more clearly illustrated but as everyone who knew enough to get upset about it already knew the established elf lifespans, they had no reason not to just apply those.
The big stuff, the big changes- the rearranging of the planes, the merging with Abeir, the return of Netheril, the new way magic works, that was all explained.
If you want to talk about changes that weren't really explained, then there's the alterations to the tiefling and genasi races, but personally I write these off under the explaination of "the writers had a better idea and so they changed it", which works for me.
I don't know, maybe I'm just so used to continuity being a quaint idea from years of reading comics(where it's hardly existent despite several people being employed specifically to maintain it)) that I see things like that to be minor quibbles not worth getting upset over.
As far as I know, TSR and WotC always went with the idea that the game rules are a reliable (even if not entirely accurate) source of information for their campaign settings, unless the setting-specific material notes there is a discrepancy. I don't like that, but that's the way it's been.
Point in case: they felt the need to explain away the rules-driven changes in magic (even though magic didn't change all that much in the rules). If the changes to elven lifespan apply to the Realms, it would make sense to have an explanation. If they don't apply, it would make sense to state that they don't.
But I don't even know if they have explained that one, so I'm not taking out on it specifically, I'm just using it as an example of what I think people expect from the writers of a fictional setting. |
| Chosen of Asmodeus |
Posted - 06 Oct 2012 : 22:30:00
The life span thing was always a non issue as it never applied to the realms, only to Points of Light. Granted that was a point that could have been more clearly illustrated but as everyone who knew enough to get upset about it already knew the established elf lifespans, they had no reason not to just apply those.
The big stuff, the big changes- the rearranging of the planes, the merging with Abeir, the return of Netheril, the new way magic works, that was all explained.
If you want to talk about changes that weren't really explained, then there's the alterations to the tiefling and genasi races, but personally I write these off under the explaination of "the writers had a better idea and so they changed it", which works for me.
I don't know, maybe I'm just so used to continuity being a quaint idea from years of reading comics(where it's hardly existent despite several people being employed specifically to maintain it)) that I see things like that to be minor quibbles not worth getting upset over. |
| Mapolq |
Posted - 06 Oct 2012 : 22:12:40
quote:
Originally posted by Chosen of Asmodeus
All stories set in the real world take varying degrees of liberty with reality, whether due to ignorance or misinformation on a given subject, convenience of the story, or simple bias on the part of the writer. Not to mention the fact that even recorded history is the subject of vast amounts of debate in relation to what actually happened due to conflicting accounts, inconclusive evidence, and the unknowable personal motivation of individuals in question.
The difference between a novel set in the real world and a novel set in the Realms is that the second is not fiction as far as the Realms are concerned, it is rather a primary source of information, a peek into the "reality" of the Realms.
That being said, this would only be a significant problem had we come anywhere close to describing the entirety of the Realms. Since doing that is basically impossible, I don't think people should worry too much about it. For example, if we had a complete census record describing every household in Waterdeep in 1372 DR in detail, as well as its owners and inhabitants, that would stifle creativity. So I hope WotC won't do that (I'm pretty certain they won't). And still, it would only be a problem if you wanted to write a novel set in Waterdeep around 1372 DR.
People take varying degrees of liberty with reality in novels set in the real world, of course. But they still need to keep a sense of believability to their story, so they don't change anything major unless that's the point of the story, to do a "what-if" scenario. If someone writes a novel which seems to be set on Earth, but they change the maximum lifespan of humans from ~100 years to ~30 years, any reader will expect an explanation (as well as logical consequences of the change).
|
| Chosen of Asmodeus |
Posted - 06 Oct 2012 : 21:46:08
I'm not saying continuity should be thrown out the window and ignored completely. It has a place, and it is important. But there's respecting continuity and then there's mindless adherence to it simply for the sake of it. Continuity should be a friendly, flexible tool to help us enjoy the story, it shouldn't be bars and shackles meant to preserve some sort of idealistic vision. Because the realms, like all shared fictional universes, is a living, growing, ever changing and evolving entity. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 06 Oct 2012 : 21:42:31
quote:
Originally posted by Chosen of Asmodeus
Strict adherence to continuity stagnates creativity. There are always inconsistencies, always. There are inconsistencies in reality, let alone all works of fiction. Continuity should never stand in the way of having a better idea at a later date. Having these inconsistencies only gives us more options to pick and choose from, and more options is never a bad thing.
I agree with this, for the most part, especially since we've seen tons of examples (*cough* 4e *cough*) where past lore was completely disrespected. There is no need to respect those they didn't respect you.
quote:
Originally posted by Chosen of Asmodeus
And we have 4' tall halflings because halfings shorter than that are implausible as a threat.
So you were taken in by the 4e argumant?
Are halflings just short humans? Because that seems to have been the 4e approach - everything is a human with a different 'skin'.
My argument? How big is a wolverine or even a badger? Those things will tear apart a full grown man. They're are NOT human, thats why.
Apes are very similar to humans (in shape and size), and yet they can also tear us apart. Looking similar does not a human make. Comparing a halfling to three year old child is akin to comparing a human to an alien... its a ridiculous argument.
I just wish someone on the 4e design team had known a little something about biology. {smirk} |
| CorellonsDevout |
Posted - 06 Oct 2012 : 21:18:48
I see both points here. History is full of biases, and for ancient history, our sources are limited. A group of people who experience an event may see and record it differently. But that doesn't mean the event -didn't- happen, and we can piece it together through various accounts. Does this work all the time? No, because as I said, some resources are lost to us. It's like the dinosaurs. Yes, there is some evidence on what they looked like based on archeological findings, but we can't really know how they lived or what they looked like. That said, with something like the Realms, I think you need continuity. Suddenly changing the lore and having something contradict something else just leads to confusion, especially in regards to the novels. I have read some great FR novels, but some do not always blend well with others. I do think Wizards needs to map everything out so that events are clear. Historians can have their views and biases on the events, but we should still know whether the event happened or not. It's not stagnating creativity, it's teamwork. |
| Chosen of Asmodeus |
Posted - 06 Oct 2012 : 20:37:57
All stories set in the real world take varying degrees of liberty with reality, whether due to ignorance or misinformation on a given subject, convenience of the story, or simple bias on the part of the writer. Not to mention the fact that even recorded history is the subject of vast amounts of debate in relation to what actually happened due to conflicting accounts, inconclusive evidence, and the unknowable personal motivation of individuals in question. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 06 Oct 2012 : 20:27:23
quote:
Originally posted by Chosen of Asmodeus
quote:
What we need is someone who sits down and ties all lore into one big consistant thing to make sense, otherwise you have to deal with illogical parts all over it AND you NEED to have a strict and precise ruling on the races for the setting that ONLY applies to the setting it was created for and no other to avoid someone throwing established law out of the window again.
Completely disagree. Strict adherence to continuity stagnates creativity. There are always inconsistencies, always. There are inconsistencies in reality, let alone all works of fiction. Continuity should never stand in the way of having a better idea at a later date. Having these inconsistencies only gives us more options to pick and choose from, and more options is never a bad thing.
And we have 4' tall halflings because halfings shorter than that are implausible as a threat.
Why? What is so bad about continuity? Saying that sticking to continuity stagnates creativity means that no one could set a story in the real world, in modern times, because the whole of recorded history prevents their creativity. |
| Chosen of Asmodeus |
Posted - 06 Oct 2012 : 20:23:45
I will say I partly agree on the elf lifespan issue(though I think most people underestimate just how long 200-300 years is, that's another issue), and it isn't something I strictly adhere to in my games.
By that same token I don't adhere to the longer lifespan= greater skill concept, at least when it concerns martial pursuits, though not necessarily magical ones. There's a certain point in skill development where you stop getting better and your skill plateaus, and from that point on all one can do is maintain their skills. I don't hold elves as being any exception to this; player characters of all races are meant to be exceptional individuals, but the average elf isn't going to be better than the average human or dwarf by any great margin simply by virtue of having lived longer. |
| Chosen of Asmodeus |
Posted - 06 Oct 2012 : 20:12:22
quote:
What we need is someone who sits down and ties all lore into one big consistant thing to make sense, otherwise you have to deal with illogical parts all over it AND you NEED to have a strict and precise ruling on the races for the setting that ONLY applies to the setting it was created for and no other to avoid someone throwing established law out of the window again.
Completely disagree. Strict adherence to continuity stagnates creativity. There are always inconsistencies, always. There are inconsistencies in reality, let alone all works of fiction. Continuity should never stand in the way of having a better idea at a later date. Having these inconsistencies only gives us more options to pick and choose from, and more options is never a bad thing.
And we have 4' tall halflings because halfings shorter than that are implausible as a threat. |
| Euranna |
Posted - 06 Oct 2012 : 19:46:34
quote:
Originally posted by Thauranil
An elf that lives just 200 years is just plain ridiculous. I mean whats the big deal then, a human wizard can easily reach that age. Hope they change it back to a more reasonable number like 700 to 800.
My husband and I were just talking about this. In fact, I have a character in a game he is running at the moment who is an elf, her parents are both still alive and well, and youthful. She is 135..so her parents are at least 250ish..by the rules, they should be venerable..but that does not make sense. My parents were not venerable when I became an adult. The shorter lifespan does not make any sense.
Maybe the Sundering will fix this. I was reading in Coromanthyr: Empire of the Elves that before the Weave was abused, elves lived longer because of their connection to the Weave. Perhaps the Weave will be repaired and strengthened and elves will return to their natural lifespan? |
| Euranna |
Posted - 06 Oct 2012 : 19:34:19
quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout
You're welcome :) the Last Mythal is a good trilogy. In the Anthology of the Elves, the last story is about an elf named Daried, and while he is not mentioned in the Last Mythal, he is a part of the army, and he makes an appearance in Blades of the Moonsea trilogy, which is also by Richard Baker and I recommend it :)
I read the Realm of the Elves before I started this series. I will look into Blades of the Moonsea. Thank you for the suggestion. :D It is greatly appreciated.
Sorry this is Off Topic (still about elves at least. :D) |
| Lord Bane |
Posted - 06 Oct 2012 : 17:16:49
What we need is someone who sits down and ties all lore into one big consistant thing to make sense, otherwise you have to deal with illogical parts all over it AND you NEED to have a strict and precise ruling on the races for the setting that ONLY applies to the setting it was created for and no other to avoid someone throwing established law out of the window again. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 06 Oct 2012 : 16:41:22
And in FR, people tend to live a bit longer then here on Earth (taking into account that many folks die a violent death in The Realms). Women are even fertile for a longer period (so FR years are either shorter then earth-years, or the people are just a lot healthier).
In FR, there is at least one woman (in canon) who was pregnant in her fifties. In our RW, most women in the Middle-Ages were dead long before their fifties.
So yeah, when humans can live naturally to a 100+ years, then a 200 year lifespan for a wood elf is a little short. This is what happens when you get several groups of people over the years trying to get fantasy to shoe-horn into a game system and have it all make sense (because there should be no such thing as 100-year-old level 1 elf). Each group keeps fudging things (more and more) to make more sense, until we have something that loses all it wonder.
Its also why we now have 4' tall halflings. Eventually every race will be just like humans (Dragonborn with boobs, anyone?) |
| Thauranil |
Posted - 06 Oct 2012 : 15:35:19
An elf that lives just 200 years is just plain ridiculous. I mean whats the big deal then, a human wizard can easily reach that age. Hope they change it back to a more reasonable number like 700 to 800. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 05 Oct 2012 : 18:14:45
But the 4e lore completely nerfs that article and lore. If an elf and an Eladrin are both Elves, then a Celadrin is just an elf, nothing more. Its a very fancy name for an elf who has one planer parent, and one Prime material one. The race remains the same.
I feel an etymology article coming on.... |
| kysus |
Posted - 05 Oct 2012 : 06:07:46
Encase no one has read it yet, there is a forgotten realms article for 3rd edition in dragon magazine #350 by Eric L. boyd on varies planetouched one of which is called Celadrins which is a descendant of a eladrin and a elf. Just thought it would be somewhat dealing with the topic on hand, pretty interesting read if u use eladrins alot in your games. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 04 Oct 2012 : 20:42:47
I don't think anyone is arguing that point.
Its the fact that they couldn't come up with a new name (or just go back to 'Grey Elves'). Eladrin was already in-use for something else.
The whole "kill them and take their stuff" concept was a very, VERY BAD idea. It forces disparate bits of lore to merge, and causes numerous continuity conflicts. |
| Chosen of Asmodeus |
Posted - 04 Oct 2012 : 20:34:09
Personally liked the eladren/elf split. Thought it was a nice simplification for mechanics purposes, and I'll probably keep it in my game after the next edition rolls around. |
| CorellonsDevout |
Posted - 04 Oct 2012 : 20:32:07
You're welcome :) the Last Mythal is a good trilogy. In the Anthology of the Elves, the last story is about an elf named Daried, and while he is not mentioned in the Last Mythal, he is a part of the army, and he makes an appearance in Blades of the Moonsea trilogy, which is also by Richard Baker and I recommend it :) |
|
|
