Candlekeep Forum
Candlekeep Forum
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Members | Private Messages | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Forgotten Realms Journals
 General Forgotten Realms Chat
 Minsc is back!

Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!

Screensize:
UserName:
Password:
Format Mode:
Format: BoldItalicizedUnderlineStrikethrough Align LeftCenteredAlign Right Horizontal Rule Insert HyperlinkInsert Email Insert CodeInsert QuoteInsert List
   
Message:

* HTML is OFF
* Forum Code is ON
Smilies
Smile [:)] Big Smile [:D] Cool [8D] Blush [:I]
Tongue [:P] Evil [):] Wink [;)] Clown [:o)]
Black Eye [B)] Eight Ball [8] Frown [:(] Shy [8)]
Shocked [:0] Angry [:(!] Dead [xx(] Sleepy [|)]
Kisses [:X] Approve [^] Disapprove [V] Question [?]
Rolling Eyes [8|] Confused [?!:] Help [?:] King [3|:]
Laughing [:OD] What [W] Oooohh [:H] Down [:E]

  Check here to include your profile signature.
Check here to subscribe to this topic.
    

T O P I C    R E V I E W
hashimashadoo Posted - 08 Nov 2014 : 11:44:37
Don't get me wrong, I love the addled rashemi ranger but listen to how he is alive again in the modern Realms:

The statue of him briefly mentioned in Murder in Baldur's Gate (which I already had a problem with since it assumed the CRPG rather than the novel was the canon story) is struck by a spell cast by a wild mage of little ability. The statue transforms into both Minsc and Boo - memories, persona, brain damage and all.

So a random magical flux creates not one, but two living, breathing individuals who have both been dead for what must be at least thirty years, in the prime of their youth, from an inanimate, nonmagical statue that sort of looks like them.

As you can probably tell, I am having trouble suspending my disbelief.
30   L A T E S T    R E P L I E S    (Newest First)
Delwa Posted - 08 Apr 2015 : 01:49:22
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas

quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas

quote:
Originally posted by hashimashadoo

Don't get me wrong, I love the addled rashemi ranger but listen to how he is alive again in the modern Realms:

The statue of him briefly mentioned in Murder in Baldur's Gate (which I already had a problem with since it assumed the CRPG rather than the novel was the canon story) is struck by a spell cast by a wild mage of little ability. The statue transforms into both Minsc and Boo - memories, persona, brain damage and all.

So a random magical flux creates not one, but two living, breathing individuals who have both been dead for what must be at least thirty years, in the prime of their youth, from an inanimate, nonmagical statue that sort of looks like them.

As you can probably tell, I am having trouble suspending my disbelief.



Quit thinking like a Christian. Think like a Rashemi for a second. Minsc died. Minsc became what? NOT A GHOST!!!! Minsc became a TELTHOR. A TELTHOR is an incorporeal type of fey. Fey can be petrified, and I don't believe there's anything that prevents an incorporeal being from being petrified. I haven't a single problem with this story.



/facepalm

for some reason, I crossed Fyodor and Minsc in my head (both being Rashemi guardians of witches?). Forget what I just said.



You had me confused there for a minute. I never played Throne of Bhaal, so I was wondering what in the world I'd missed.

In other Minsc related news, I just got done playing around in Neverwinter. You learn through some dialogue that Minsc was indeed petrified (how, we're not sure) but he was petrified, and that his petrified form became the statue mentioned in the MiBG adventure.
sleyvas Posted - 08 Apr 2015 : 00:33:10
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas

quote:
Originally posted by hashimashadoo

Don't get me wrong, I love the addled rashemi ranger but listen to how he is alive again in the modern Realms:

The statue of him briefly mentioned in Murder in Baldur's Gate (which I already had a problem with since it assumed the CRPG rather than the novel was the canon story) is struck by a spell cast by a wild mage of little ability. The statue transforms into both Minsc and Boo - memories, persona, brain damage and all.

So a random magical flux creates not one, but two living, breathing individuals who have both been dead for what must be at least thirty years, in the prime of their youth, from an inanimate, nonmagical statue that sort of looks like them.

As you can probably tell, I am having trouble suspending my disbelief.



Quit thinking like a Christian. Think like a Rashemi for a second. Minsc died. Minsc became what? NOT A GHOST!!!! Minsc became a TELTHOR. A TELTHOR is an incorporeal type of fey. Fey can be petrified, and I don't believe there's anything that prevents an incorporeal being from being petrified. I haven't a single problem with this story.



/facepalm

for some reason, I crossed Fyodor and Minsc in my head (both being Rashemi guardians of witches?). Forget what I just said.
sleyvas Posted - 05 Apr 2015 : 14:01:41
quote:
Originally posted by hashimashadoo

Don't get me wrong, I love the addled rashemi ranger but listen to how he is alive again in the modern Realms:

The statue of him briefly mentioned in Murder in Baldur's Gate (which I already had a problem with since it assumed the CRPG rather than the novel was the canon story) is struck by a spell cast by a wild mage of little ability. The statue transforms into both Minsc and Boo - memories, persona, brain damage and all.

So a random magical flux creates not one, but two living, breathing individuals who have both been dead for what must be at least thirty years, in the prime of their youth, from an inanimate, nonmagical statue that sort of looks like them.

As you can probably tell, I am having trouble suspending my disbelief.



Quit thinking like a Christian. Think like a Rashemi for a second. Minsc died. Minsc became what? NOT A GHOST!!!! Minsc became a TELTHOR. A TELTHOR is an incorporeal type of fey. Fey can be petrified, and I don't believe there's anything that prevents an incorporeal being from being petrified. I haven't a single problem with this story.
Delwa Posted - 03 Apr 2015 : 20:42:48
I'm hoping they do explain Minsc's return, but it doesn't look like it. Unless I'm mistaken, the Legends of Baldur's Gate series featuring Minsc and Boo wrapped up with issue #5. They didn't explain Minsc's reappearance in the comics.
However, this article seems to indicate that it wasn't just "Wild Magic."
quote:
Following their conflict with Jon Irenicus, Minsc and his companion form Justice Fist and eventually travel across the Realms never to be heard from again…

Until, that is, a statue seemingly memorializing the duo becomes the duo! After the undoing of some errant magic from long ago, Minsc and Boo are back in the Forgotten Realms.


Note it states that the Wild Magic undid the magic of long ago, not the wild magic animated the statue. I guess we'll have to wait until you can dialogue with Minsc in the MMO to get anymore details.
hashimashadoo Posted - 03 Apr 2015 : 20:15:20
Read yesterday that Minsc is going to be an NPC in the Neverwinter MMOs new Elemental Evil expansion. I don't know how that will affect the Legends of Baldur's Gate comic (which still hasn't come up with a reason for Minsc being there other than "wild magic surge").

In the Rise of Tiamat expansion, they shoehorned Elminster in there so he could teleport people to the Well of Dragons. I hope they're going to at least give Minsc a reason to be there that isn't "Minsc and Boo are funny".
Dark Wizard Posted - 25 Nov 2014 : 23:48:36
The recent Realms is sorely lacking in new 'iconic' characters. About the only character who has developed into an ongoing series is Erin Evans' Farideh, who was the only firmly established 4E era character to feature in the Sundering. Drizzt and Elminster are old characters from the dawn of the published Realms, Vasen is a new character with ties to a popular 3E era character, both Anton and Kleef were new characters created for the series, AFAIK.

Even the characters from the Sundering cast line-up and modules are composed of a mix of old (Storm, Malik, Coran) and brand new (Isteval). Most of the newer characters are minor in comparison to the main characters and the well known support cast. Wizards hasn't done as much to push new characters during the 4E era as the old days, it seems. While the contributors to the Sundering may have creative reasons for opting with new characters, there are also other authors with established 4E era characters who should be called on to support the Sundering with books about their characters during the event. Those characters may not have been breakout during 4E, but the Sundering may have been the stage for them to get noticed.

As for the Iconics, the designers who felt their efforts were better spent slyly fight marketing's push for Regdar really didn't end up accomplishing much. They probably sunk the Iconics concept before it had time to gain traction like the Pathfinder Iconics did, where Paizo also used the generic white male fighter, but embraced the trope and as a whole helped support the diversity of their entire iconics ensemble. I'd even say their actions unintentionally delayed diversity making it into the forefront of RPG marketing. Consider this hypothetical, if the 3E Iconics were as well regarded as Paizo's (if Regdar was as likeable and ubiquitous as Valeros), then when it came time for Paizo to create their Iconics in this alternate reality environment, Paizo would likely make a different choice for an iconic fighter.
Wooly Rupert Posted - 25 Nov 2014 : 23:17:12
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan

quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

Someone once suggested the idea of using non-novel, non-high level, average adventurers as a public face for the setting...



Iconics seem to work well for Pathfinder. However that's not really what I'm talking about. Basically you have to ask: How did ____ get (in)famous to be a staple point in the setting? Whatever it was, just do that with someone new. Erevan is a pretty good example of someone who has recently been seen as a anti-hero character and has received some strong popularity in the setting yet I don't really recall him ever being a "thing" prior to 3rd edition.

Showcasing the characters in novels is a must and tie that into the setting plots and adventures will also help carry over their growing presence. It's how charactesr like Mirt and Wulfgar and Danilo and Arylin all gain notoriety within the setting. Books detailed their adventures and they were references in other places in supplements and even games. I don't see why they can't do that now?

I'm also not opposed to Iconics for D&D (and the Realms specifically) and think the writers/artists of 3e/3.5 who hated them (especially Regdar) were pretty childish and immature.



My point wasn't to not have novel characters, it was to have a recurring cast of faces that people could learn about without having to read 23 novels. We've had some Realms products that proudly slapped novel characters on the cover, even though the product in question had nothing to do with that product.

I'm all for new characters in novels, but I'm also down with the idea of putting easily accessible characters on source material, so if someone decides they want to know about the character on the cover, they can quickly and easily get all of the relevant material -- which would ideally serve as another hook to get the person wanting to get more into the Realms.
Diffan Posted - 25 Nov 2014 : 23:07:45
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

Someone once suggested the idea of using non-novel, non-high level, average adventurers as a public face for the setting...



Iconics seem to work well for Pathfinder. However that's not really what I'm talking about. Basically you have to ask: How did ____ get (in)famous to be a staple point in the setting? Whatever it was, just do that with someone new. Erevan is a pretty good example of someone who has recently been seen as a anti-hero character and has received some strong popularity in the setting yet I don't really recall him ever being a "thing" prior to 3rd edition.

Showcasing the characters in novels is a must and tie that into the setting plots and adventures will also help carry over their growing presence. It's how charactesr like Mirt and Wulfgar and Danilo and Arylin all gain notoriety within the setting. Books detailed their adventures and they were references in other places in supplements and even games. I don't see why they can't do that now?

I'm also not opposed to Iconics for D&D (and the Realms specifically) and think the writers/artists of 3e/3.5 who hated them (especially Regdar) were pretty childish and immature.
Wooly Rupert Posted - 25 Nov 2014 : 22:14:59
Someone once suggested the idea of using non-novel, non-high level, average adventurers as a public face for the setting...
Diffan Posted - 25 Nov 2014 : 21:32:08
quote:
Originally posted by hashimashadoo

They tried making new iconic NPCs during the DnD Encounters seasons. They failed miserably. You may have heard of Sir Isteval if you went on the WotC website or gave some of the later seasons a look but do you actually know much of anything about his life? Do you know the names of any of his former adventuring party who appeared in other seasons? No, because the designers didn't write all that much and what they did was poorly disseminated.

Much easier to bring back old fan favourites than develop a new crop of characters properly.



That's not necessarily the best place to create such characters. For one, not everyone is going to play Encounters. NPCs need a bigger platform from which to gain popularity and notice. I agree with Kyrel, the Realms needs to move on from 1370's and into the new era. And that means different, new, and exciting characters to write about. Otherwise it's all just window dressing that will, frankly, please no one.

One way is the novels and another is using the same characters in adventures, games, and comics. I love Minsc and I'm glad to see him back but it should showcase other characters too. It's why I was somewhat thankful Salvatore was forced to go outside his comfort zone with Drizzt. Because by the 20th book with Wulfgar, Regis, Cattiebrie, and Breunor, things get old and repetitive. And it's like your reading the same story just told with a slight change over and over again. The fact that the Spellplague forced Drizzt to accept new companions (Jarlaxle, Dahlia, and Co.) which made for a more interesting read IMO.

This is an opportunity to actually move things along and give other characters a window to shine rather than yet another set of books involving Elminster, the Simbul, Manshoon, Mirt, and Drizzt.
hashimashadoo Posted - 25 Nov 2014 : 18:45:48
They tried making new iconic NPCs during the DnD Encounters seasons. They failed miserably. You may have heard of Sir Isteval if you went on the WotC website or gave some of the later seasons a look but do you actually know much of anything about his life? Do you know the names of any of his former adventuring party who appeared in other seasons? No, because the designers didn't write all that much and what they did was poorly disseminated.

Much easier to bring back old fan favourites than develop a new crop of characters properly.
Kyrel Posted - 24 Nov 2014 : 17:36:44
I'll admit that I haven't read the comic in question, so I won't comment on it, though I will say that the Minsc character never did anything for me, besides driving me nuts, which caused me to dump the NPC in the BG games I played, as soon as I basically could.

Bringing back a character through the use of some freaky Wild Magic that cause a statue to turn into the characters it portrayed is somewhat silly, but peace be with it. It's Wild Magic, and dumber things have happened in the Realms setting.

What annoys me though, is how 5th ed. is bringing back one character after another from the previous editions. Fair enough that they bring back a couple of very iconic ones that have survived for one reason or another. Fair enough that characters to whom a century or two isn't a big deal, are still around. But could we please give it a rest with the characters that were either killed or disposed of in various ways, or who should have died decades or more ago! I hated that 4th ed. killed off a bunch of cool NPC's etc., but having already done it, at least take the opportunity to make some new ones for us to become fans of. Bringing back dead and gone NPC's through various more or less "believable/idiotic" methods is not enhancing the setting.
deserk Posted - 24 Nov 2014 : 15:36:06
Personally I loved this comic, hope they make many more of it.
Delwa Posted - 23 Nov 2014 : 16:48:16
quote:
Originally posted by Zireael

It's a comic, don't expect too much sense from a comic. Especially if it's about Minsc!


Aye. Issue two came out Wednesday and I'm still enjoying the story. I'm really curious as to how the next issue plays out. I'm kinda liking the fact that they're being purposefully vague about Minsc's return. They do ask how it took place, but the reply is essentially a "my best guess is a magic surge, I dunno" type of answer. It leaves me free to add more detail should I ever design an adventure that fills in the details, and at the same time it makes the story more believable to me because the characters shouldn't know exactly how it happened, and their best guess isn't necessarily correct.
Zireael Posted - 23 Nov 2014 : 16:27:42
It's a comic, don't expect too much sense from a comic. Especially if it's about Minsc!
Dark Wizard Posted - 10 Nov 2014 : 04:15:10
I've no problem with a Minsc and Boo comic (I welcome it in fact) or the way in which they've returned (stranger and sillier things have happened in this setting and in comic books).

What I find 'bothersome' is this comic shows one of the most popular and identifiable characters from the setting is essentially a sidekick from a computer game now over 15 years old. As much as a fan of this game/character and the era from which he arose, it's almost like they're catering to my generation of fandom. It's like the last decade didn't matter in terms of expanding the fan base of the setting, despite fantasy being more popular than ever.

It's fine to dip into history and lore for interesting characters and breathe new life into them, but the setting is expansive and Wizards should develop the setting with new characters if they have any hope it will stand on its own. That was in large part of why the 4E setting relaunch fell short of expectations. They started with a clean slate, but then didn't follow up with the cool new stuff or bent themselves out of shape to make awkward references to old lore and characters. This is not to say there aren't good new aspects of the current era, but things need to be kicked up a notch (and I don't mean by tapping the RSE spigot).

Disclaimer: This is all just in my limited observation and infinitesimally irrelevant opinion of course, lest I'm said to era bash. And I'm looking at it from a broad strokes perspective, lest I'm said to ignore X, Y, and Z character or aspect of the current era setting. Fans of the 4E setting will get variable mileage, lest I be said to discount their opinions. Et cetera and egg shells.

hashimashadoo Posted - 09 Nov 2014 : 23:59:04
If only Matt Sernett had continued lurking here after his brief foray onto the site...
xaeyruudh Posted - 09 Nov 2014 : 21:59:39
I agree, and I don't mean to come off as accusatory. I don't even know what the intent is with the comic. Maybe they're just playing with an old character, and there's no intent for it to be more than a fun little story to introduce kids and their friends to FR. If so, cool.

There was a day, not all that long ago, when novels fell mostly into that category. They're (ideally) fun stories, and they bring in new players, and behind the scenes they make money for TSR/WotC, but ignore them at will in your own games. Then the novels were increasingly considered canon, but the computer games were still in the non-canon box. That day is gone. It seems everything is now canon.

We also have this new situation, where WotC is outsourcing a lot more than they used to. And the outsourced stuff is... not up to the standards we're used to. Or maybe it's just been way too long since we've had someone overseeing continuity. But surely it must be intended that Tyranny of Dragons is canon, in spite of its wacko taking-of-liberties with lore. So does WotC remember that there's a box for stuff that shouldn't be canon?

We dunno, unless we have a specific statement on what's canon and what's not.
Delwa Posted - 09 Nov 2014 : 21:44:27
quote:
Originally posted by Eilserus

I'd never hold a comic book to the same standard as normal published lore myself. I think it's great to have Realms comics as it expands the market. If these types of venues can draw in new fans to the Realms I'll be happy.



Aye. Here locally, I've only seen old BG fans pick up the comic. But it makes a good intro to kids at my local game store that are more likely to read a comic than read a Sundering Novel.
Eilserus Posted - 09 Nov 2014 : 21:34:39
I'd never hold a comic book to the same standard as normal published lore myself. I think it's great to have Realms comics as it expands the market. If these types of venues can draw in new fans to the Realms I'll be happy.
xaeyruudh Posted - 09 Nov 2014 : 19:18:38
quote:
Originally posted by Eilserus

Comic books are a completely different beast from our normal sources and intake of Realmslore. They just don't have the space to do in depth explanations for things like other formats.


I can be fine with this, on the condition that the comic is not considered canon by WotC, and no mention of events in the comic ever appear in any source that is considered canon.

If you don't have the space to properly develop the story, but what you're doing is important to the overall storyline of the setting, then pick a better medium to tell that story.

There are plenty of stories that can be done well in a comic book. We have a whole world to play with, and 30,000+ years of history... there is no shortage of material.

Using an iconic character, and setting it in Baldur's Gate, were completely unnecessary. Much like you don't need Nicholas Cage for a treasure story. You choose him for name recognition, and maybe for his passion. Minsc and Baldur's Gate were chosen for marketability... and that being the case the comic should be aimed at fun, and avoid establishing new lore or monkeying with pre-existing fact in the Realms.

YMMV, of course. Just my grognarding I guess.
xaeyruudh Posted - 09 Nov 2014 : 19:09:51
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan

If your playing in a world with Magic and Monsters, where the base rules of physics are altered on a daily basis, wanting to force reality from that it sort of missing the point.


So... because orcs exist in the Realms we should just throw away all our definitions of what makes sense? Why shouldn't redwood trees grow out of pebbles? Why shouldn't elves eat sand and excrete filet mignon?

The concept of "that doesn't work" still exists in a world where the set of things that make sense is larger than it is on Earth.
Wooly Rupert Posted - 09 Nov 2014 : 15:59:40
quote:
Originally posted by hashimashadoo

Or a Durthan trapped their souls after returning to Rashemen, but they were freed many years later and their spirits, strengthened by their homeland, were drawn to Baldur's Gate where people, thanks to the statue, congregated and thoughts of the hero and his hamster acted as a beacon.



That is also more plausible than a wild magic effect doing tall that.
hashimashadoo Posted - 09 Nov 2014 : 15:58:41
Or a Durthan trapped their souls after returning to Rashemen, but they were freed many years later and their spirits, strengthened by their homeland, were drawn to Baldur's Gate where people, thanks to the statue, congregated and thoughts of the hero and his hamster acted as a beacon.

I could come up with more believable tales but apparently, IDW can't.
Wooly Rupert Posted - 09 Nov 2014 : 15:41:40
quote:
Originally posted by hashimashadoo

You are correct in saying that there is no lore which unequivocally states that the statue is not Minsc and Boo's petrified remains. If that truly is the case, then I have absolutely zero problem with their return to the Realms in this way. However, all the lore we *do* have suggests that Obert Lewel commissioned the statue out of plain, ordinary stone in remembrance of his life being saved - he didn't abduct them, petrify them and put them up on a pedestal.


Another possibility that occurs to me: Obert didn't have them petrified, but someone else did, and swapped out the original statue.
Eilserus Posted - 09 Nov 2014 : 15:33:00
Comic books are a completely different beast from our normal sources and intake of Realmslore. They just don't have the space to do in depth explanations for things like other formats.

And Minsc is a classic! Always had that guy in my party during BG play.
hashimashadoo Posted - 09 Nov 2014 : 15:29:41
You are correct in saying that there is no lore which unequivocally states that the statue is not Minsc and Boo's petrified remains. If that truly is the case, then I have absolutely zero problem with their return to the Realms in this way. However, all the lore we *do* have suggests that Obert Lewel commissioned the statue out of plain, ordinary stone in remembrance of his life being saved - he didn't abduct them, petrify them and put them up on a pedestal.

If we are taking the games as canon (which I suppose we should since Minsc mentions Neera in the comic who was a character who hadn't appeared anywhere until the Enhanced Edition came out), then after the Bhaalspawn Conflict, Minsc returned home to Rashemen to become a hero of the Ice Dragon berserker lodge. He would have died of natural causes at least thirty years before the Sundering finished, assuming he hadn't met with misadventure before then.

There ARE still ways for his resurrection to make sense and I hope against all hope that IDW comes up with one but so far, Minsc and Boo's return feels LAZY and THAT'S what I object to.

I tend to side with Diffan on the changes 4e brought - that they weren't as bad as most people seem to think but I still objected to the LAZY way they were implemented. That's all I'm really saying here.

That and I'm fed up of people bagging on the wiki because they see a mistake and decide the whole site is inaccurate. We do our best to keep things accurate and the vast majority of people use our site as reference for Realms material.

If you see a problem. DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, don't just sit there complaining and judging. It's a wiki - anyone can edit it, but without more people who want to improve it, progress can only go so fast. At the very least, you can point out a mistake to us and we can fix it for you.

Thank you, rant over.
Delwa Posted - 09 Nov 2014 : 13:40:28
"In game," Minsc always was a Rashemi. Out of game, the table top character that inspired the Beloved Ranger may have started as a DS character, from what I recall. But the BG character never was in DS.
Diffan Posted - 09 Nov 2014 : 06:09:44
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh

I'm not even wholly against a wild surge bringing someone back to life... if the statue was actually made from the guy's body. I strongly favor Mirt coming back from statue form in the late 1400s, because even though it's weird it would accomplish an ironic fit with existing lore.


There's nothing in the Lore, as far as I'm aware, that suggests the statue wasn't a petrified Minsc. And, in all honestly, even if it weren't I'd still be OK with the concept because 1) I like Minsc's character, 2) It's magic, and 3) stranger things have happened and it doesn't ruin my immersion.

quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh

I'm irritated that this Minsc buffoon does not look Rashemi at all, and his tattoo/whatever looks like something from X-men or pretty much any other modern/postmodern comic book... which means it does not look Realmsian. The pic on FR Wiki suggests that previous illustrations have given him darker skin, at least. So that's just a failure on the comic's part, which the underlying story doesn't have.


Mincs looks just like he did in his original BGs Portrait. Bald white guy with a purple swirling tattoo on his head. Not only that but the FR Wiki is littered with problems of continuity and having wrong information.

quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh


The FR Wiki also says he originated in a Dark Sun game, which suggests that he's not Rashemi at all, but he should still have dark skin unless he's an albino.


Not all Rashemi have dusty or dark skin. Considering that the nation is taken from our Real world Russia/Slavic nations, one can make the easy case of whiter skin. As for him originating in a DS game, I don't know? He's always been in the Realms as early as the mid-90's from the original Baldur's Gate game. Whether or not he was "in lore" 'ported there, is a whole different matter.

quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh


In any case the preview completely turns me off to the comic, on both story and artistic levels. So no, it isn't enough that somebody says it's set in the Realms, and sprinkles a bunch of FR names in it... it's not relatable to my Realms.



Best to just ignore it then...
Diffan Posted - 09 Nov 2014 : 06:01:53
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh

quote:
Originally posted by Diffan

What "makes sense" is wholly subjective


This is true, but it only goes so far.

My objections (to everything I object to) are deeper than whether or not the storyline makes sense to me, so while I resist your characterization I'm sure others will think it applies perfectly well.

It's my opinion that the best fantasies are the ones which are most approachable from reality. I don't mean that fantasy shouldn't include fantastic things, but... hm, examples.

Compare two hypothetical dreams or daydreams.

  • You're a vampire. You can charm and dominate the men and women of your choice. You can turn yourself into a bat or a cloud of vapor, fly even without changing your form, and mentally summon wolves who will do your bidding. And because it's a dream, let's say you're not vulnerable to garlic or sacred symbols. This is a fun dream.


  • You're fantastically wealthy. You can buy whatever you want, go wherever you want, and in most situations the rules everyone else has to obey don't apply to you. You're not addicted to drugs, alcohol, or anything else... you're intelligent and your judgment is never impaired. Also a fun dream!


  • I contend that the second one is a "better" fantasy. Both are great, while you're asleep or daydreaming, but the second one brings less disappointment when you wake up and confront the real world. The first one sucks, in the sense that it will never come true, no matter what you do. The second one... there are steps you can take to begin making it real.


    I'll just chalk it up to different strokes because the second one sounds boring as heck to me. There's nothing "fantastic" about it, it's something that people every day here in real world have and do. Color me unimpressed. Nor, in all honesty, do I even want to make the second dream a reality. For what it's worth, I look to fantasy to escape reality, so when Reality is thrust into Fantasy on many levels, it lessens the fantastic for me, rather than enhancing it.

    quote:
    Originally posted by xaeyruudh

    Read some books on investment;


    I'd rather not

    quote:
    Originally posted by xaeyruudh

    even without a ton of initial capital there are small-scale things you can do to grow your money. Make a budget and stick to it, to eliminate wasteful spending. Listen to interviews and read the advice of people who are successful, and apply the changes in thinking-about-money that they talk about.

    Save the money you've been blowing on fast food, soda, and concert tickets, and instead invest it in something with a payoff... even low-interest loans to friends and coworkers you can count on to pay you back.


    What does any of this have to do with anything about this thread?

    quote:
    Originally posted by xaeyruudh

    The first dream, above, just depresses you in the long run. If it's a recurring dream, or something you think about a lot, your life sucks more every time you wake up. That's a horrible way to live.


    Except that the first dream is fun yet something I'd never actually want to happen. Sort of like playing Paintball or First Person Shooters, they're fun but in in way would I actually want to be in a fire-fight in Iraq. I use fantasy to escape, not as something to aspire for.

    quote:
    Originally posted by xaeyruudh

    The second one can actually come true, and along the way it might inspire you to change your life in positive ways. This will attract higher-caliber people to you, who will encourage you rather than weighing you down, and who will --when you eventually succeed-- also be doing great things with their lives so they won't be mooching off of your success.


    Again, I look for fantasy (and in this vein, the Realms) to have fun with and escape real life for a time. Real life is ALSO fun and I enjoy it many ways. Not really sure why I'd want to only have fantasies that are based in reality when I'm happy where I am already?

    quote:
    Originally posted by xaeyruudh

    Relevance: the more believable the campaign setting is, the better the campaign setting is.


    Subjectively false. If your playing in a world with Magic and Monsters, where the base rules of physics are altered on a daily basis, wanting to force reality from that it sort of missing the point.

    quote:
    Originally posted by xaeyruudh

    Stories that don't ring true don't contribute to the setting. They detract from it. They make it suck.


    Then why are you reading the Realms, which to my knowledge, has LOTS of stories that have contradicted it throughout it's history?

    Candlekeep Forum © 1999-2024 Candlekeep.com Go To Top Of Page
    Snitz Forums 2000