| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| silverwolfer |
Posted - 23 Apr 2014 : 18:46:24
So to put it simply seems that WOTC wants to make the realms simpler, and am not sure who to blame. In the Hunters book around page 45, Milliki goes off and basically says, kill all the goblins by default, because you know they are evil by default.
An it is seriously looking like that Many Arrows is going from a sort of chaotic neutral stance, to either being wiped out or going for pure generic evil orc kingdom.
I don't know, seems we are going way retro, where if they are green, they are evil. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 27 Apr 2014 : 18:01:43
I do appreciate the re-release of old adventures and rulebooks, and you're right that it's partially addressing that point but I didn't mean simply continuing to make old books available. Selling the old rules/adventures in new wrapping paper is a pretty empty gesture because (in the case of the "special edition" rulebooks at least) they're charging your firstborn for each book, and it's not new material. But I do like seeing the old books available again. It's just that I can probably find decent copies of the old books on Amazon for less than the new versions. I will be pleased when everything from previous editions is available as well-OCR'd pdfs for $2.99 apiece. Until then it's a "meh" for me. Even if it's cheap, it's still a continuing revenue stream from out of print items which WotC wouldn't have otherwise, so it's a good deal for everyone.
I agree that a new character which mirrors an old character is a letdown. This should basically never be done. Each character needs to stand out; otherwise they're pointless. The Star Trek analogy is apt; we still want to see stories involving Khelben, Shandril, and others. You don't need to invent stupid excuses to keep characters alive for hundreds of years if you keep an era-neutral attitude with the setting; you can write stories about any character at any time, while continually adding new unique characters with their own strengths and weaknesses. Azoun IV dies and there's a new king on the throne... but fret not, fans of Azoun IV, because this doesn't mean there will never be another story about him. But now we have a new king to talk about, too. Right?
Of course that can be taken too far, but right now we have a situation where the setting is nuked every few years, smaller changes are made even more quickly, and every death is final... nobody gets to revisit a character who is dead in the "present" unless they're bringing that character back and still moving into the future. Fail.
It is totally possible to continually enrich the setting with new material while also declining to remove old favorites. If you show no favoritism and remain wide open to publishing stories set in any/every year on the timeline. This simple commitment would have a profoundly positive impact on our enjoyment of the setting as well as WotC's pocketbook. |
| Ateth Istarlin |
Posted - 27 Apr 2014 : 17:37:30
quote:
Originally posted by MagniThorson
For me the 100 year jump doomed my involvement or appreciation of 4E Realms. I wasn't a fan of the game mechanics but I could have lived with it and some of the large changes that came post SP. Having been a fan of the Realms for 2 decades, through gaming, compute games, and novels the complete loss of all my favorite NPC's and all of their untold stories caused me to be come detached. In any kind of serial fiction, the reader or viewer becomes emotionally invested in the characters and that is what the Realms had been up to that point.
It is why there are hundreds of Star Trek novels written around James T. Kirk or Star Wars novels around Luke Skywalker. Why so many Marvel and DC comic characters are iconic in society. It why so many tune in daily to Soap Operas or weekly to their favorite TV series. I won't speak for all but I think for many, that serial aspect to FR lore, stories and characters and the familiarity it breeds provides a great sense of immersion in the fiction and a greater emotional experience as things happen to the characters.
QFT |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 27 Apr 2014 : 17:35:00
quote:
Originally posted by Delwa
The novels remain to be seen, and I'd honestly be surprised if they did a novel set in the past given the talk of moving forward.
Anyway, there's another copper. 
They have revisited a couple of older novels series, republishing them in omnibus format... I'm quite curious about some of their choices, there, but I'd love to see them do more of that. |
| MagniThorson |
Posted - 27 Apr 2014 : 17:09:35
I like a lot of what xaeyruudh says here. I agree the characters live with the authors and that is what made them great. I think introducing new characters is great and I am sure I would like them.
I would be disappointed if they didn't take this opportunity to revisit them. Take Mirt for example, there were probably many stories to be told as its clear from the broad strokes that he really has had some life. Some stories we saw only the broad strokes but there were more than a few we got an intimate look at his character. What was established and what exists in Ed's head could probably feel many, many novels. Why wipe him out with a 100 year time jump? Why not revisit the past?
If a story is written with a "Mirt" like character, at least for me that will cheapen the experience because I will immediately feel that is just a facsimile of something else. It would be like casting a new Star Trek series utilizing a captain that embodies all of the same attributes as James T. Kirk but an entirely different character named Jackson Roykirk. It would be an imitation. Even though the Star Trek timeline has moved on in TV, Movies, and Fiction people still want to see stories around Kirk, Spock, and the classic era.
I think there is a lesson to be learned there for WotC. There is the commercial aspect of it but in serial fiction, fans never want to see their favorites laid to rest and it seems are always ready and want to revisit the characters. |
| Delwa |
Posted - 27 Apr 2014 : 16:46:57
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
1. Full support for previous editions. Simply continue publishing game sourcebooks set prior to the Spellplague for a while, to ease the transition. This is a no-brainer.
2. More novels, and more of them (say 20%?) set in the past. A few of the initial novels should have been set in the 1375-1475 gap, and gradually we'd get more of that time filled in as we go, while also pressing into the post-apocalyptic future.
If they'd done those things, then pfftt the time jump is no biggie because (1) we can easily continue playing in the pre-Spellplague setting, and (2) we're being brought up to speed with gripping novels filled with new characters who are just as awesome as the ones we know and love.
My 2 coppers, hopefully a little shinier this time.
A small bit of polish for those coppers. They are partially doing number one through DnD Classics on DrivethruRPG. More and more old edition PDFs are becoming available weekly. They have done actual print runs of the core books for every rules set, so you can play whatever edition you want.
The novels remain to be seen, and I'd honestly be surprised if they did a novel set in the past given the talk of moving forward.
Anyway, there's another copper. |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 27 Apr 2014 : 16:17:25
I'll chime in again because this time I can be relatively positive. And brief. Two things I'm sure everyone appreciates.
I agree, Magni, that the time jump caused detachment. I applaud your willingness to deal with some of the 4e changes in the Realms... I won't accept a single one. 
I contend, though, that the time jump didn't have to be as damning as it was. Picture a fan who's never read a story involving Mirt the moneylender. He doesn't figure into a lot of stories, so there are probably a few Realms fans who've heard the name but never seen him in action. So one of these fans picks up... I think Crown of Fire is the novel I'm thinking of, but really any book that introduces us to Mirt's character. I don't think it matters what century Mirt is set in... he could have lived in 900 DR, and we're going to like him. If Mirt's not your favorite, pick another character. Does the time frame matter? Nope... the character is just awesome.
So yes, we have a whole ton of characters in 1357-1375 that we know and love... but the authors are the life of those characters, and we still have (or potentially have) those authors, and they can be the life of other characters too. The political boundaries would might look a little different in the future or the past, but that's just artwork on the map. The Realms can come alive in any time frame.
If WotC lets it. Which is why, though I agree that jumping forward 100 years was stupid and they should have foreseen that just as clearly as we see it in hindsight, that wasn't actually what caused sales on the 4e Campaign Guide to stink like a dead leucrotta. If they hadn't broken everything else that they broke, and if they'd introduced 1479 with several "whooaaaa" novels, we would have been more okay with the fast-forward.
Two key decisions would help us acclimate to hopping around the timeline:
1. Full support for previous editions. Simply continue publishing game sourcebooks set prior to the Spellplague for a while, to ease the transition. This is a no-brainer.
2. More novels, and more of them (say 20%?) set in the past. A few of the initial novels should have been set in the 1375-1475 gap, and gradually we'd get more of that time filled in as we go, while also pressing into the post-apocalyptic future.
If they'd done those things, then pfftt the time jump is no biggie because (1) we can easily continue playing in the pre-Spellplague setting, and (2) we're being brought up to speed with gripping novels filled with new characters who are just as awesome as the ones we know and love.
My 2 coppers, hopefully a little shinier this time. |
| MagniThorson |
Posted - 27 Apr 2014 : 15:13:24
For me the 100 year jump doomed my involvement or appreciation of 4E Realms. I wasn't a fan of the game mechanics but I could have lived with it and some of the large changes that came post SP. Having been a fan of the Realms for 2 decades, through gaming, compute games, and novels the complete loss of all my favorite NPC's and all of their untold stories caused me to be come detached. In any kind of serial fiction, the reader or viewer becomes emotionally invested in the characters and that is what the Realms had been up to that point.
It is why there are hundreds of Star Trek novels written around James T. Kirk or Star Wars novels around Luke Skywalker. Why so many Marvel and DC comic characters are iconic in society. It why so many tune in daily to Soap Operas or weekly to their favorite TV series. I won't speak for all but I think for many, that serial aspect to FR lore, stories and characters and the familiarity it breeds provides a great sense of immersion in the fiction and a greater emotional experience as things happen to the characters. |
| Kyrel |
Posted - 27 Apr 2014 : 13:05:43
The whole "Orcs are inherrently evil" discussion is the perfect example of why I absolutely LOATHE objective morality and the alignment system. It's fine for 10-year old kids and novice gamers, but I find that the older and more experienced I become as a gamer, the less I appreciate this garbage.
With sentience, self-awareness, and a capacity for morality comes the capacity for making decisions about how you are going to behave. You are ruled not just by instincts and the needs for food and procreation, but rather by conscious decision making. Objective good/evil/morality flies flat in the face of this, and that just bothers me to hell and beyond. With objective morality, a female baby Orc playing with a doll in a playpen is evil by default, becaust the alignment says so, and therefor by default, it is perfectly fine for any mass-murdering "good-aligned" adventurer to come along and hack them to pieces with abandon, and then go and have lunch and feel good about themselves for eliminating an evil creature from the world. It's flat, boring, idiotic, and it doesn't lend itself to complex moral questions, which I personally find far more interesting and entertaining than a classic "hero goes forth to slay the evil sorcerer" story.
As for the changing of the Realms again, Wizards are in a bit of a fix, in my view. The 100 year time jump in 4th ed. was made in order to make some sweeping changes that addressed a number of things that Wizard's perceived to be detrimental to the sales of the game. Result: Spell-plague, gods disappearing, NPC's dying, nations changing, stuff disappearing, and old/new stuff showing up. Some liked it, but I'm guessing that a greater than anticipated portion of the customer base disliked it. And thus Wizards are now once again trying to make changes to the game, in the interest of maximizing sales. They have listened to some of the complaints of the fans, and now they are trying to find a way to give the players what they believe they are asking for. Their challenge thus becomes how to make these changes in a way that the fans will accept. And no matter how they do this, they will annoy some of their fans, because there simply isn't a concensus as to what is good, and what is bad and should be changed, nor how it should be done. Some fans were miffed that their favourite NPC's were killed off, so Wizards try and bring some of them back. Which result in various more or less idiotic explanations for how this can be achieved. Same things with larger changes. |
| Baltas |
Posted - 27 Apr 2014 : 11:16:59
quote:
Originally posted by Zireael
About Mielikki's words, this is a good point:
quote:
Ed or THO recently stated some of the gods may be acting a bit extreme or outside their normal bounds while the Sundering is going on. And I believe it has been referenced here and there, that the gods WILL lie to get something to benefit them. They will even lie to their priests and divine agents etc.
What if Mielikki told Catti-brie to relay that information to Drizzt knowing it was a lie, or a stretch of the truth.
quote:
Hm. My Monster Manual says orcs are "Often chaotic evil." This is clarified in the back: "The creature tends toward the given alignment, either by nature or nurture, but not strongly. A plurality (40-50%) of individuals have the given alignment, but exceptions are common."
Even if it said they were always evil, there's still room for exceptions deliberately put into the rules.
I think I prefer this one to the black/white polarity.
Good observations Zireael, I've completely missed this out, and can explain Mielikki really strange behavior.
quote:
Originally posted by Aldrick
After all, if you're dealing with innately Evil beings, then it's no different than slaughtering hordes of demons. The fact that these demons happen to wear Orc faces is irrelevant - slaying them is a Good Aligned Act, because it ends their reign (or soon-to-be reign) of terror, and brings the Realms more in line with the Upper Planes.
Wait, are you sarcastic here, or saying this seriously? If you mean this, you said earlier yourself in this post that orc children aren't evil. Not to mention, fiends are much, much more evil than orcs or goblins, they are souls of damned, galvanized in their malevolence by the lower planes, or beings literally born from evil.
|
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 27 Apr 2014 : 04:03:47
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
Once the first retcon is here, any "no retcons" claims are no more than a childish elusion insulting the readers' intelligence. It's either going with the first retcon or retconning it back.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels insulted. WotC rewrites history and handwaves at will, and then pretends their hands are tied when we want things fixed without another RSE. We can't be expected to take them seriously when they whine that retconning would destroy everything. I'm just not quite dumb enough to accept that.
I think the bottom line is that WotC's sales strategy has been (we'll see if it still is) a variation on "sex sells" which says "RSEs sell." They get bored every so often, and they assume that means we need to jolted awake too. And much like the 4e Realms not precisely being the problem (the problem is the plotlines that have twisted the 1e Realms into the 4e Realms) it's not that "catastrophes sell" is such a terrible marketing strategy in general. It's just an epic fail when used on a lore-rich setting.
Use "ASEs sell" to sell Dark Sun. That setting is ideal for blowing stuff up every few years. But if you don't see the difference, or don't want there to be a difference, between Athas and Toril then you don't belong in the Realms steering/creative/marketing departments. 
Aaannd back to trying to keep my mouth shut in this thread. |
| TBeholder |
Posted - 27 Apr 2014 : 01:54:05
quote:
Originally posted by sfdragon
quote:
Originally posted by Tanthalas
yet it's looking like they want to put everything to how it was all those years ago.
and taking them out without any rhyme or reason like they did was any better.
Yup, that's the problem. Once the first retcon is here, any "no retcons" claims are no more than a childish elusion insulting the readers' intelligence. It's either going with the first retcon or retconning it back. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 26 Apr 2014 : 23:54:06
Zhentil Keep was nuked -- not the Zhentarim. They still have the Citadel of the Raven and all their various outposts and agents. |
| sfdragon |
Posted - 26 Apr 2014 : 20:31:48
quote:
Originally posted by Tanthalas
It's silly because the Zhents have been, for the most part, wiped out. And it makes no sense, that after Shade is gone, they'll suddenly crop back up with likely the same power they had 100 years ago, when it would make a lot more sense for the current evil forces to fill the void that's going to be left by Shade.
This is the problem with how the Sundering is being handled, they're bringing stuff back with no rime nor reason. It's been 100 years since the Spellplague happened, stuff should have changed yet it's looking like they want to put everything to how it was all those years ago.
and taking them out without any rhyme or reason like they did was any better. |
| MagniThorson |
Posted - 26 Apr 2014 : 16:06:58
I think the Realms could support both gaming and novel material pre SP or even time of troubles. I think of the Star Wars Expanded Universe as example of a multiple era platform and think of how successful they have been at having movies, games, comics, cartoons, span so many eras past, present, and future.
I am hoping that this is the template and it doesn't preclude a game accessory or novel from being set in classic realms era or post sundering or even ancient Faerun for that matter. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 26 Apr 2014 : 13:46:09
quote:
Originally posted by Tanthalas
It's silly because the Zhents have been, for the most part, wiped out. And it makes no sense, that after Shade is gone, they'll suddenly crop back up with likely the same power they had 100 years ago, when it would make a lot more sense for the current evil forces to fill the void that's going to be left by Shade.
This is the problem with how the Sundering is being handled, they're bringing stuff back with no rime nor reason. It's been 100 years since the Spellplague happened, stuff should have changed yet it's looking like they want to put everything to how it was all those years ago.
You don't know how the the Zhent will be be back, or if Shade will be removed, tho. Things could be restored w/o the situation you describe happening.
Bringing back interesting/iconic/flavorful elements of the setting could be a middle ground for the people who dislike end 3E-4E changes and the ones who like them, so that both could see new lore/stories about things they like.
Also, the Realms have endured many cheesy changes, with poorly developed events and explanations, one last to 'fix' them won't be so bad. When I heard about the Sundering being 'Ao snaps fingers, things are ok' (also 'lol, allowing deaths and cataclysms to teach a lesson to the gods'), it was a big let down to me, but hopefully it will be the last of the little sense-making events we see.
One could say 'write in the past', but I don't see it as a real alternative atm. Considering WotC recent pace in releasing lore/novels, I'd say that it is unlikely that they will actually be able to support all eras with new material.
Besides, it wouldn't work for some topics, because one may want to see how some character's quest proceed and evolves, but already knowns that it is destined to fail. Such a case is what happened to Eilistraee/Vhaeraun. They were removed from the setting in a miserable, even nonsensical way, with a giant deus ex machina that was unfitting to their characters, while accomplishing nothing for their goal. And with them, the depth they added to the drow was taken away for no reason at all. It is one of those situations that shold never be 'resolved', because of all the story opportunites they can provide (and not necessarily focused on them, maybe simply showing how they interact with the world). Those two need to be back in order for authors to be able to write something about meaningful progress on their side. |
| TBeholder |
Posted - 26 Apr 2014 : 11:44:37
quote:
Originally posted by Aldrick
Not really. Evil is Evil. It's not even dirty business to kill them - it's a Good aligned act.
[...]
This means that, in my Realms, if you encounter someone who is Evil then you know with 100% certainty that it's kosher to kill them. You don't even have to ask questions. The moment you have that information, you know all you need to know.
Which reminds me. What is the typical punishment for murdering a noble in Cormyr? |
| Tanthalas |
Posted - 26 Apr 2014 : 11:12:09
It's silly because the Zhents have been, for the most part, wiped out. And it makes no sense, that after Shade is gone, they'll suddenly crop back up with likely the same power they had 100 years ago, when it would make a lot more sense for the current evil forces to fill the void that's going to be left by Shade.
This is the problem with how the Sundering is being handled, they're bringing stuff back with no rime nor reason. It's been 100 years since the Spellplague happened, stuff should have changed yet it's looking like they want to put everything to how it was all those years ago. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 25 Apr 2014 : 21:14:35
quote:
Originally posted by Tanthalas
I get it that people think that the geopolitical status of the Realms changed too much with the Spellplague, especially if you liked one of the regions that ceased to exist after it, but I'm the kind of guy that likes the Realm as a whole, so losing some parts and gaining others doesn't ruffle my feathers much. I get it when you say that they changed the Realms for no reason, but I think that what they're doing with 5E is worse. It's bad enough that they're tossing out everything concerning the Spellplague, good and bad, but they're also tossing stuff out that wasn't even related to the spellplague (Many-Arrows, Myth Drannor, Shade). And for what? Just to return the Realms to the same status quo it had 100 years ago? It's going to be silly to have the Zhents being the big bad guys again.
I agree with you when you say that not all new lore is to be thrown away (for example, I like Shade, even if it was overplayed/overtuned IMO. Also Many Arrows), but old lore and characters, nations or deities were pointlessly thrown away and need to be back.
Why is it silly that an iconic factions like the Zhentarim can make a comeback? Why is it silly that nations like Halruaa -that were simply LOLNUKED- make a return? Why is it silly that flavorful and interesting deities -especially those who were removed in nonsensical, nerve-grating ways- are back?
And no, 'something something change' is not a valid justification, as change for its own sake is outright stupid. Nor is 'too much deus ex machina needed for such returns', the Realms are ridiculous from that standpoint. Interesting, cool or unique/iconic elements that add depth and story opportunities to the setting deserve to be brought back IMO.
Also, sorry for the OT. |
| Tanthalas |
Posted - 25 Apr 2014 : 20:43:10
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
This is false, imo. Or rather, it's off-target. Even if the Realms stopped changing for a while, it wouldn't necessarily become a dead world. You know what they could do, instead of writing another book about Cormyr, followed by another book about the Dalelands, followed by another book about the "western heartlands?"
Cropped your text a bit so I wouldn't be reposting it all.
In my opinion your suggestion, while helpful, wouldn't solve the problem. You'd just be leaving behind "dead regions" when you start focusing on the underdeveloped regions and leaving those behind. It's also completely useless to people who want to see more stories in the same region(I don't include lore here since there's only so much lore you can cram into a region).
As an example. While I love Drizzt, I consider the Icewind Dale region to be pretty boring because it's been the same place since RAS introduced it years ago. The Sword Coast and the Silver Marches? Those areas are interesting since stuff actually happens there.
I get it that people think that the geopolitical status of the Realms changed too much with the Spellplague, especially if you liked one of the regions that ceased to exist after it, but I'm the kind of guy that likes the Realm as a whole, so losing some parts and gaining others doesn't ruffle my feathers much. I get it when you say that they changed the Realms for no reason, but I think that what they're doing with 5E is worse. It's bad enough that they're tossing out everything concerning the Spellplague, good and bad, but they're also tossing stuff out that wasn't even related to the spellplague (Many-Arrows, Myth Drannor, Shade). And for what? Just to return the Realms to the same status quo it had 100 years ago? It's going to be silly to have the Zhents being the big bad guys again. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 25 Apr 2014 : 19:05:57
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
There seems to be two topics going on here:
Yea we're jumping around, and I'm not helping.
Meh, it's cool I like discussing multiple things and it cuts down on having to enter multiple scrolls. 
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Basically put, Realms fans like that Canon occurs with Novels and setting books.
By this definition, I'm not a Realms fan. I love the setting. I've been playing here since about 1987. However, if being a fan involves liking WotC's decision to make the TOT and the return of Shade and the Spellplague canon events in the setting rather than campaign options available to DMs who want to use them and completely rejectable by those who don't want to use them, then I'm not a fan. In fact I really hate the Realms, if that's how we're defining it. Consequently, I have to regard this as a bad definition.
Perhaps I should clarify that some fans of the Realms like the fact that novels and game supplements are applied to the Canon fiction of the setting. It's always been that way and I think changing that direction would be bad for the setting, probably not good.
That being said, I don't know of any DMs that feel forced into accepting these changes for their own individual campaigns. For example, I didn't like what happened to Eilistraee and therefore, didn't include that into my games. I accept that it happened in the "published" Realms, but my Realms are different from canon by it's very nature. The thing is, canon effects no one so long as they don't choose it to effect them. I'm pretty sure the majority of people here don't play in the 1480 DR Realms or haven't incorporated the Spellplague as-is OR even incorporated things like Shade's Return or even the Time of Troubles. All of these things happened and effect the setting in some way, but that doesn't mean it isn't easy to ignore or alter their effects in positive ways for home-campaigns.
Besides there's SO many novels out there that I doubt ANYONE who runs Realms campaigns has adhered to the canon of every single one. I find even the notion pretty much impossible. So suffice to say I feel people need to look at the canon of the setting and treat it like a buffet. Take and use what you enjoy, leave and forget what you don't. It's pretty much that simple. It does stink for those who don't play the game and just like the setting, because books reflect what's happening in the world but I feel those are in the minority for a setting specifically designed to be used in conjunction with a gaming product.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
I would like us to be able to separate the setting from how the setting is managed. I like the northwest quadrant of Faerun... I just don't want to read about that to the exclusion of everywhere else on Toril. I would like the northwest quarter of Faerun to get roughly 1/4 of the pagecount spent on Faerun. I would like the previous century to get equal development time compared to the next century, and the century before that to get an equal share too. That's a difference in development priorities, not a failure to like any particular part of the setting.
I think it's a failure of the setting's designers that they only focus on a few main areas of an entire world. It undermines how extensive and detailed the setting truly is AND how fun adventures can be outside the "norm". Further, different areas of the world can often lead to different styles of adventure. While I don't like Mulhorand OR Maztica, interesting stories can be told there that cater to different styles. For exmaple, I could see a really fun and interesting Indiana-Jones style story set in Maztica or Chult. It would use Realms lore and the setting and magic, but be catered to a different style altogether. Similar to Rich Baker's Heroes of the Moonsea trilogy, which started out as a sort of "Western" and flowed into a sort of Pirates of the Caribbean feel. It was ALL Realms, but also interesting and not just medieval feel D&D novels often assume.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
as a fan of the Realms we accept Canon (at least, acknowledge it's presence if not wholly welcome it into our specific games) for better or worse. That's just the nature of the beast.
This saddens me. The beast sucks, and there's no legitimate reason why it can't improve to become a better beast.
What do you propose? The Realms have always been a changing, evolving setting that has it's canon based on a myriad of supplements. Short of the books saying "Hey, you don't need to incorporate the changes this book details into your home campaign." I don't see how the Beast can change. Further, being Improved Upon is a completely subjective element. What's great for me, isn't great for others. And what others want might not be what I want. I felt the Reclamation of Myth Drannor was awesome and I wish they explored it's details more, but others wished it remained a dangerous adventuring area. I loved Shade's return however a lot of people hate the idea of Shade and Shadows being the new, popular thing now-a-days. The point is, none of us are ever going to agree with that is "best" for the Realms because we all have different likes and dislikes. |
| Aldrick |
Posted - 25 Apr 2014 : 19:05:06
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
As I said, if they're not shown to behave in an evil manner, then you don't have the evidence upon which to conclude that they are evil. There needs to be a record of many such acts which demonstrate a sufficient pattern to be able to generalize about the race/species. Until then, a goodly character would refrain from violence, for fear of wantonly killing an innocent.
I'm not aware of any evidence about the behavior of orc children outside of the scene in The Pirate King. And that scene showed completely innocent, playful kids, with nary an inkling of aggressiveness towards each other or a member of another species/race (Regis, the halfling). So I'm aware of any grand body of evidence pointing to an evil nature of orc children. All that I know of is anecdotal evidence of their goodness or neutrality.
Keep in mind that I'm not making the case that Orc children -ARE- evil. I think the scene is fine, and is likely a good representation of how most Orc children would react. My point is that, if Orc children -ARE- inherently evil (by canon), then whatever actions they may be taking at the moment are irrelevant.
Hence my tongue-in-cheek reference to Hitler loving animals. Just because you happen to bump into him while petting a cute little puppy that he rescued from an abusive home, doesn't magically erase the fact that he was actively engaging in genocide.
In D&D terms, all that matters is alignment. It matters because an Evil alignment means that you've done horrible things in the past, or that you're innately Evil (like a demon) which means you'll be doing horrible things in the future. Because Orc children are young, it's really not all that possible for them to have committed Evil actions in the past worthy of an Evil alignment. That means they'd have to be innately Evil (like a demon). If they are innately Evil, according to the rules of D&D, then it's not an Evil act to kill them. It could be a chaotic act, depending on the circumstances, but killing them would never be considered an Evil act. In fact, it wouldn't even be dirty business to kill them, and if a powerful good aligned outsider showed up it'd smite them if at all possible.
Just because they happen to look human and take the form of children... that's irrelevant. A demon could just as easily assume such a form, and it wouldn't make it any less a demon.
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
I'm leery of such magical dei ex machina. I don't get into the magical side of D&D as much as the melee side. That just seems too easy. It seems just as simplistic as treating all orcs as mere combat fodder.
It is extremely easy. Detect Evil is a first circle Cleric spell that any cleric could have access to at level 1. There is no way to resist the spell. In a D&D game where the situation of whether or not to kill Orc children came up, and someone proclaimed that they should be killed because Orcs are innately evil - this question can be answered on the spot.
And to your last point... the only reason to make all orcs Evil is precisely because you want them to be nothing more than mere combat fodder. That was the point I was making to Ayrik: The only reason you'd need all Orcs to be Evil is so you never have to consider the implications of killing them in massive numbers. Issues of what happens to innocent Orcs who might be children, women, and non-combatants is irrelevant as they'd all be equally Evil. Thus, they'd deserve to be put to the sword as well. Since people feel squeamish about butchering non-combatants, women, and children we have situations where such individuals are magically absent from all adventures. The only orcs you ever encounter happen to be adult males, trained for battle, who want to kill you.
That is extremely simplistic, as you pointed out. But if you want to tell a "story" where you never have to question your characters actions in situations where you are butchering other sentient beings, then it's necessary. As Ayrik said, you can't think about it too much, or you might come to empathize with the Orcs. If you empathize with them, it becomes harder to kill them without thought. Slapping an Evil label on something makes it easy, and makes the characters emotionally distant from their actions. They can take heart that they know they did the right thing, rest easy, and never have to question what they've done.
That's not the type of stories I like telling or want to tell, but that's what an Evil Alignment is for in D&D.
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
You see, right there is an illustration of what I'm talking about. On the one hand, you talk about how murky and slippery the idea of alignment is. And then in the next breath you turn around and say that you can use a magic spell to shortcut right through all of that and get your Magic 8-Ball answer. It's too easy!
No, it's the difference between the way *I* run the Realms, and the way things are set up in core D&D. By core D&D rules Orcs are Evil. In my Realms, most Orcs are unaligned. Even the ones who rape and pillage. I reserve Evil alignments for the worst-of-the-worst. If you have an Orc tribe acting horribly in my Realms, they either have a reason behind that action, or they're being pushed into that action by an Evil force. You'd have to, at a minimum, climb the ranks of the Orc tribe to find the "True Evil".
In my Realms, Orcs are by nature brutish, prone to aggressive behavior, and are likely to become violent. Just in the same way as Elves are naturally predisposed to song and poetry, or Dwarves are naturally predisposed to crafting. It's part of their innate beings. However, they all still have complete free will. Any of them can choose to struggle against their nature. Tribal Chieftains, and in particular Priests of Gruumsh, play upon their innate nature and lead them down darker paths. That doesn't mean they can't live another way, if given the opportunity and choice. Most simply choose not to do so, because they neither have the opportunity nor the choice.
In fact, many would probably choose to live differently if given the choice, because Orcs - like all other creatures - still have a sense of self-preservation. They have enough intelligence to realize that if they keep fighting eventually they will die, and they realize that it's mostly those at the top that benefit from their struggles. Like in the real world, though, most are either too afraid or don't believe that they can change their lot in life. They do what they're told, go where they are told to go, and do what they are told to do - all to avoid the consequences, which for Orcs is really bad.
In Core D&D the Orcs are just evil, full stop. Period. End of discussion. There may be some who are able to weasel out of their lot in life, but at best such individuals are the result of genetic defects. They are the exceptions, and not the rule. If you encounter an Orc 99.9% of the time, it's going to be Evil, and it's there precisely so you can kill it. You need to kill it to get XP and to take it's stuff. In order to feel good about doing that, it needs to be Evil. It also has to be an adult male, preferably trained for battle, who had the intent of killing you. ...which is why these are the only Orcs you ever run into or are explored in core D&D. All other Orcs are irrelevant to the 'kill them for XP, take their stuff' cycle.
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
What I was suggesting before is that perhaps orcs are not born with an evil alignment, but rather, they develop aggressive tendencies as they get older and stronger, and with mental development and self-awareness, there arises a moral perceptiveness of their own aggressiveness, and with it an evil alignment. This would make whacking the adults fine, but not the kids.
We don't know whether or not that's true in core D&D. The reason being that core D&D only focuses on adult male Orcs who exist to fight and challenge adventurers. Hence why they're all labeled as evil in the first place.
You don't become evil as a result of moral perceptiveness, though. You are either born evil naturally (as a demon), or become evil through actions. It's also unlikely that the vast majority of Orcs believe themselves to be evil - regardless of what alignment tells them. They certainly would find ways to justify their actions, at least to themselves if no one else, the same way humans do.
Now, if you wanted to be permissive with Evil alignments, as in core D&D - you could say that Orcs become evil as a result of their raping and pillaging. However, that doesn't solve the problem of the fact that there are an even larger amount of Orcs who are basically behind the scenes supporting the rapers and pillagers. Namely, non-combatants (at the very least crafters), women, and children. Maybe some of them become evil as a result of their actions as well, but most would struggle to obtain an evil alignment. There simply isn't a lot they could do that wouldn't result in the total collapse of the Orc Tribe to get that alignment via actions. And of course, you eventually reach a tipping point where you have the unaligned working against Evil... which is a Good aligned action, even if their motives weren't Good...
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
"Evil"..."evil". "Tomayto"..."tomahto", to me, oh.
I don't think there's much practical difference, when you're in the middle of a situation. Philosopher sages might be able to afford the luxury of splitting such hairs back in their towers and chambers. But in the field, adventurers need clearcut rules of engagement. Natural hyper-aggressivenes/violence = dangerous creature. Natural hyper-aggressiveness/violence + self-aware intelligence = evil. So whack it!
If you're in the field and something is attacking you it's not an Evil action to kill it. The only exception to this rule is if the being is Good aligned. However, in order for it to maintain that Good alignment, it wouldn't be just willy-nilly attacking you - it'd have to have a justifiable reason (such as you being Evil)...
There is also a great deal of difference between evil (lower case E) and Evil (capital E). It's the difference between a neutral character and a Good aligned character. The neutral / unaligned character can commit evil acts, so long as their evil acts don't outweigh their Good acts, or their evil acts are minor enough as to not be overly significant.
In my Realms, I use the Planes as the standard for alignment. This means Fiends are the incarnation of Evil - they're the standard you have to rise too in order to be Evil. In order to rise to the standard of a Fiend, it takes work, and it takes consistent effort. If you aren't capable of keeping consistent effort, then you're likely to slide back to unaligned over time.
That's because mortals can't (and shouldn't) be defined by single acts or even a series of acts. Free will grants them the ability to change, and to even be redeemed. You can't redeem a fiend without changing it's nature. A mortal who sees the error of their ways will repent, and seek to make amends for the evil they've caused. Such repentance will never occur to a fiend - it's unthinkable. The moment it becomes thinkable it's no longer a fiend.
Beings of the Upper and Lower Planes, just like deities, seek to sway mortals toward Good and Evil, because such beings have the ability to tilt the scales of the multiverse one way or another. It's not merely a single Good or Evil individual alone that tilts the scale, though, it's all the unaligned people that they also influence directly and indirectly.
In my Realms, it's quite possible - if one side should gain a significant upperhand long enough to completely destroy any possibility of balance - that the Realms could fall into the Lower Planes or the Upper Planes. It would totally reshape everything.
This is the entire mission and purpose of a being such as Gargauth. He wants to make the Realms the Tenth Layer of Hell. To achieve that goal he has to destroy any semblance of balance between Good and Evil, and make sure Lawful Evil is the dominant alignment after unaligned. If he achieves that, then the Realms falls into the Nine Hells - becoming the 10th Hell. As a result of being in the Lower Planes, and the Hells specifically, every being on Toril would slowly be corrupted toward Lawful Evil. Free will will start to disappear, and basically in a few (so horrific that it's unimaginable) generations, every sentient creature on Toril will become devils.
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
But isn't that kind of flippant disregard for the killing of innocents not a "Good"/"good" thing, at all?
It is if you're Good aligned. It isn't if you're neutral / unaligned, which is the alignment of most people - even in canon. However, the issue still isn't black and white. A Good aligned individual could technically (accidentally, unknowingly) slay someone who is unaligned AND completely innocent. If they realize what they've done they would have to atone for their action in some way. It's only evil if they slay someone Good aligned - knowingly or unknowingly. In which case, it would require a massive atonement.
These things aren't really that big of an issue for Good aligned characters, though. If 99.9% of all Orcs were innately evil, and they were slaughtering them all... and they knew that there was a small or tiny chance they might end up killing a non-evil Orc then they're seeking atonement before hand. They're praying to the gods for guidance and forgiveness. They're asking for signs and whatever else can be offered to avoid hurting innocents. They're taking all the necessary precautions to the best of their ability.
It's likely that they would receive that assistance as well, and so they'd receive the necessary sign when they encountered that ONE good aligned Orc out of the millions of others they've slaughtered. They'd allow that one orc to live.
The unaligned / neutral ones, though... it becomes more tricky, and it is likely up to the Gods whether or not they want to suffer them to live. But of course, it isn't an evil act to kill them unless they're completely innocent of any evil deed ever or haven't atoned for such deeds, so... heh.
Sucks to be a non-good aligned Orc if the Crusaders for Justice and Goodness show up. Once they kick down your door, they're going to kill you, kill your wife, and then kill your children. ...and the Heavens will pause for a brief moment to judge you based on how much your death upset the balance of good and evil. If it brought the Realms more toward the side of good (meaning that you were on the darker side of unaligned), the Heavens will rejoice. If it is a wash then the Heavens may momentarily shed a single tear for your death, forgive their just crusader who has already pre-atoned, as he's actively slaughtering your father, brother, sister, mother, aunts, uncles, cousins, and your best friend.
Meanwhile, Sam the Cowardly, the single Good Aligned Orc with a heart of gold who only wants to learn how to read will light up like a Christmas Tree, making the sign clear to the Crusaders for Justice and Goodness that this one is the good one... so they spare Sam, leaving him the last of his soon to be extinct race.
After all, if you're dealing with innately Evil beings, then it's no different than slaughtering hordes of demons. The fact that these demons happen to wear Orc faces is irrelevant - slaying them is a Good Aligned Act, because it ends their reign (or soon-to-be reign) of terror, and brings the Realms more in line with the Upper Planes. |
| Renin |
Posted - 25 Apr 2014 : 19:03:09
wheeeee....this topic has really taken off!
I'll simply sum it up with a paraphrased quote from 'Frailty' starring Matthew Mcconaughey.
"Now, destroying <orcs> is a good thing. Killing people is bad. You understand?" |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 25 Apr 2014 : 17:59:12
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
There seems to be two topics going on here:
Yea we're jumping around, and I'm not helping.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Basically put, Realms fans like that Canon occurs with Novels and setting books.
By this definition, I'm not a Realms fan. I love the setting. I've been playing here since about 1987. However, if being a fan involves liking WotC's decision to make the TOT and the return of Shade and the Spellplague canon events in the setting rather than campaign options available to DMs who want to use them and completely rejectable by those who don't want to use them, then I'm not a fan. In fact I really hate the Realms, if that's how we're defining it. Consequently, I have to regard this as a bad definition.
I would like us to be able to separate the setting from how the setting is managed. I like the northwest quadrant of Faerun... I just don't want to read about that to the exclusion of everywhere else on Toril. I would like the northwest quarter of Faerun to get roughly 1/4 of the pagecount spent on Faerun. I would like the previous century to get equal development time compared to the next century, and the century before that to get an equal share too. That's a difference in development priorities, not a failure to like any particular part of the setting.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
as a fan of the Realms we accept Canon (at least, acknowledge it's presence if not wholly welcome it into our specific games) for better or worse. That's just the nature of the beast.
This saddens me. The beast sucks, and there's no legitimate reason why it can't improve to become a better beast. |
| Zireael |
Posted - 25 Apr 2014 : 17:52:30
About Mielikki's words, this is a good point:
quote:
Ed or THO recently stated some of the gods may be acting a bit extreme or outside their normal bounds while the Sundering is going on. And I believe it has been referenced here and there, that the gods WILL lie to get something to benefit them. They will even lie to their priests and divine agents etc.
What if Mielikki told Catti-brie to relay that information to Drizzt knowing it was a lie, or a stretch of the truth.
quote:
Hm. My Monster Manual says orcs are "Often chaotic evil." This is clarified in the back: "The creature tends toward the given alignment, either by nature or nurture, but not strongly. A plurality (40-50%) of individuals have the given alignment, but exceptions are common."
Even if it said they were always evil, there's still room for exceptions deliberately put into the rules.
I think I prefer this one to the black/white polarity. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 25 Apr 2014 : 17:37:14
There seems to be two topics going on here:
1.) All green-skinned humanoids (ie. Goblins, Orcs) are irredeemably evil and must be slaughtered by the "goodly races" (a belief held by both the genre and setting for a while, at least until 'modern' thinking and game-design came about).
2.) The Realms changing to keep it alive (a thought-provoking idea, but off-target as someone put it).
Ok...
1.) I never liked the idea that humanoids were given a 100% predisposition of being inherently evil (or good). When I truly started playing D&D (when 3E debuted) most monster Alignment descriptions left a certain amount of leeway for areas outside the norm. This was seen when a creature's alignment said "Usually Chaotic Good" or "Usually Neutral". This worked, IMO, for humanoid races. Other races, those of the Outsider, Celestial, Demonic natures are far more rooted in the cosmos and created with those planes energies, thus having an "Always Chaotic" or "Always Neutral Evil". Now this could be a failing of the alignment system itself OR perhaps people put too much emphasis on how strong alignment is playing in the game, but who's to say?
In the case of Orcs / Goblinoids, I think it's important to look at the narrative of their race as a whole and how it's reflected in the setting and what sort of stories can they tell. With the idea of them being irredeemably evil, a story of one of their kind fighting against the norm, being different, and finding purpose is impossible. Luckily that's not really the case now-a-days and hasn't been for quite some time. I remember reading a short-story written by RAS called The Dark Mirror in which Drizzt captures and, sadly, brings in a run-a-way Goblin who's then executed by a town. At first Drizzt thinks he's doing good (aren't all green-skins evil?) but reflects that at certain points those races can come to a realization that perhaps evil isn't always the way it should be. Further, this belief of inherent evil isn't expressed in all genres. For example World of Warcraft AND Magic: The Gathering both paint goblins as more civilized race, even inventors and those that work strongly with magic. There are also Orcs in Warcraft who have only fought the humans at the behest of Demons. And once the demons were gone, the Orcs were tired of war and wanted to go their own separate ways (which is the entire premise of Thrull and Warcraft III storyline).
So while I agree that the majority of a particular race can be evil and the expectations of encountering them will most likely result in conflict, I never want there to be ABSOLUTES that the game and/or setting rests itself on. At least at the Humanoid-level.
Now...
2.) The changes to the Realms were pretty drastic, however I'll agree with Tanthalas that I never felt the Realms were "different" in tone or feel. I will also agree that a game NOT changing can have a stagnant feel ONLY WHEN the game has had changes in the past. The Forgotten Realms, as an example, is a setting that is ALWAYS shifting and has throughout most of it's history. Sure, the changes were often minor but then *BOOM* RSE. And then for the duration of X-Edition the changes here and there were minor, then *BOOM* another RSE. The fact is, if there wasn't an RSE it would cease to be Realms-like. It's gotten to the point that it's an expected event within Realms Canon, esepically after these 15 or so years.
Basically put, Realms fans like that Canon occurs with Novels and setting books. This creates an atmosphere for immersion for it's fans. So when the setting changes, it feels like it's more alive rather than a setting that never changes like Eberron (something their fans enjoy as well). The only problem I see here is that no one's desires for change is the same. I, for one, loved the 4E changes AND Shade's return AND the reclamation of Myth Drannor AND the 'destruction' of Luskan AND certain gods dying AND the destruction of the Weave (at least, as it's role with funneling ALL magic into Realms-space goes). Others, however, feel these change the setting TOO far and make it totally different. There really is no compromise, however, because as a fan of the Realms we accept Canon (at least, acknowledge it's presence if not wholly welcome it into our specific games) for better or worse. That's just the nature of the beast.
|
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 25 Apr 2014 : 16:46:36
quote:
Originally posted by Tanthalas
We don't need the bad guys to always win, but they do need to win sometimes, otherwise they'll never be a credible threat.
This I completely agree with. I'm done with the idiot Zhentarim. Give me a Zhentarim that terrifies Zhentil Keep's neighbors and justifies its continued existence.
I'm going to try to reply selectively here. Ignoring your belief that the 4e Realms is the same Realms as the 3e Realms, or that the time jump was the only problem with the changes, does not constitute agreement. Just trying to keep my cool. 
And it's not about resistance to change. It's about the stupidity of screwing around with a lore-rich setting just for the sake of screwing around. That's what the 4e changes were. Nothing was improved; nothing was clarified; nothing was fixed. There was only one reason for changing things... to make them different. And screwed up. And as stated elsewhere, I'm not necessarily bashing the 4e Realms... it's the transition from 3e to 4e.
So much for selective reply, right? What I'm really aiming at is this:
quote:
Originally posted by Tanthalas
The reason why the world needs change is because if it never changes then it becomes a dead world.
This is false, imo. Or rather, it's off-target. Even if the Realms stopped changing for a while, it wouldn't necessarily become a dead world. You know what they could do, instead of writing another book about Cormyr, followed by another book about the Dalelands, followed by another book about the "western heartlands?"
They could write a book about Delzoun, followed by a book about Aryvandaar, followed by a book about Jhaamdath. They could write a book about Larloch, followed by a book about Halaster, followed by a book about the princess Amnestria. They could write a whole series of books about another continent, followed by another whole series of books about another continent, followed by... right?
As long as you're developing the world, it is changing and it is not stagnating, and in a certain easily understood perspective it's continually rewriting what we already know about that actually makes the setting stagnate.
The future is not the only place for development. We have 35,000 years of history to explore. How is continually increasing that number inherently superior to developing dozens of entire campaign settings out of the stupendous amount of timeline we already have?
Sure, it's the "past" but what difference does that really make? If it feels "dead" because most of the NPCs who were around back then are dead "now" then the point has been entirely missed.
A good writer brings the setting alive regardless of what time frame he's writing in. If Ed writes a novel or five set in -20,000 DR, I guarantee that a bunch of us are gonna want to roll up characters and adventure there.
A not-so-good writer doesn't inspire that, even when he writes in the future, so where does that leave us?
Sitting on our thumbs, yawning and staring at a gold mine, because somebody keeps piling more dirt on top of it instead of giving us picks and shovels. I'm not saying there aren't a few quartz crystals and even gold nuggets in the new stuff. I'm saying we have every reason to believe that there's a vastly larger amount of wealth in the mine, and the future isn't going anywhere; it's always going to be there.
You could argue that the past will always be there too, but that's a meaningless statement when WotC refuses to go into the past. They had Arcane Age, which was potentially brilliant, but they stupidly shut the door on that for whatever reason, and now the only glimpses we get of the past are scattered bits certain authors can slip into their novels and source material.
The perspective needs to change. It doesn't have to be all delving into the past, but it also doesn't have to all pushing into the future.
Seriously, WotC... all it would take is a trilogy from Ed and you could be selling campaign expansion boxes again, along with all your wacko ideas for the future. And don't even bother saying that nobody wants to write, or read, about the past. How many copies have been sold of the Grand History since it came out? Right, a bunch. So take the idea that nobody cares about the past, and blow it out your ears. Respectfully yours... |
| Baltas |
Posted - 25 Apr 2014 : 16:23:18
Dunno about Mielikki opinion on goblinoids, it seems a bit hypocritical, seeing how she has a drow ranger under herself, and drow and goblins have statistically/technically the same capability to evil. And generally the drow do a lot more vile things than your common orc or goblin.
But let's get back to sources of modern goblinoids, meaning Mr. J.R.R. Tolkien. Tolkien himself was disturbed that he created an evil race/species, and latter tried to explain that goblins behave as malevolently as they because of the influence of various dark lords, like Morgoth, or latter, Sauron. The Great Goblin from the Hobbit, might also have been an fallen Maiar, and it's suggested that orcs/goblins are compelled to search evil Ainur to lead them, and this might been one of the reasons they were accumulated in Moria. It was even suggested orcs would become a lot less aggressive without the presence of evil Maiar in Arda. in This actually makes them more similar to Darkspawn from Dragon Age, rather than most depiction of orcs, like the one in Forgotten Realms.
Meanwhile, Torrilian goblinoids seem to be natural, pretty much free willed 'normal' beings, with believes, religion, culture. Eldath, Mielikki's closest friend even had/has an orc subrace under her care, the Ondonti, which makes the hunter-goddess stance even weirder. And the Anauroch desert was created in a extremely unnatural way, with even possible Far Realm influence because the Phaerimm. Not to mention, the re-desertification of Anauroch would cause death of very large numbers of animals and plants. I start to have doubts if Mielikki isn't shifting towards the true neutral alignment.
But I think that the situation of goblinoid ‘inborn’ evil, and if they should be irredeemable should depend on the DM and group who play their campaign, I just don’t think that it’s Goblinoids/Orcs being just evil drones matches what we saw previously in the materials related to Faerun.
|
| Mournblade |
Posted - 25 Apr 2014 : 16:23:08
quote:
Originally posted by silverwolfer
Books sell, that is why Faerun gets so much attention. You have the , we game here crowd, and you have the;we read it because it is a growing and changing world. Those clash, deal with it.
I would be interested to see where the novels lead the reader to the spellplague changes. What the players got was an arbitrarily changed world for new Players. What the readers got was an arbitrarily changed world that abruptly changed.
People were not reading the realms to follow the change to the NEW!realms with extra SHINY!.
The spellplague was not handled any better for readers than it was for players. Probably worse for readers.
|
| Mournblade |
Posted - 25 Apr 2014 : 16:16:32
quote:
Originally posted by Tanthalas
The reason why the world needs change is because if it never changes then it becomes a dead world. In a world that never changes, we know from the start that all threats are doomed to fail because the world is unchanging. We don't need the bad guys to always win, but they do need to win sometimes, otherwise they'll never be a credible threat.
I agree that excellent novels can be written without changing the world, but excellent novels can also be written that change the world.
People complain a lot about the spellplague, but to me the only real problem with it was the huge timeskip that automatically killed off most of the known NPCs in the Realms. That was the real problem with 4E. I disagree completely that the tone of the setting changed from 3E to 4E, it still feels like the same old Realms to me.
Talking about Eberron is meaningless to me since I've had no contact with it and have no idea about the complaints that do or do not exist with the setting. What I do know is that there are always people out there resistant to change.
Indeed many people are.
Just as many people accept change for changes sake. 4e was a change for changes sake. It was no advancement of story, just a developer changing the game realm.
At least this change is being done right with Ed Greenwood and RA SAlvatore at the helm. SO I can get on board with this change. |
| silverwolfer |
Posted - 25 Apr 2014 : 15:39:52
Books sell, that is why Faerun gets so much attention. You have the , we game here crowd, and you have the;we read it because it is a growing and changing world. Those clash, deal with it. |
|
|
