| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
 Posted - 03 Jan 2012 : 15:20:14
|
I'm wondering the same. To what signs of incompetency and inability to "cover their tracks" are you referring, Dennis?
It seems to me we've hardly seen the Harpers in novels since the end of the Harpers series. (Which sounds like pretty good track coverage to me!)
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
 |
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7969 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jan 2012 : 15:31:03
|
quote:
Therise
I preferred the original Harpers, and didn't care for the introduction of the Moonstars.
Just my personal take, in the late 80s it seemed like people were begging for Harper novels. They delivered, and honestly some of those were excellent novels (remember Danilo and his trusty half-moon elf companion?). The problem, I think, was in giving players a somewhat one-sided view of the Harpers without painting the true villany and underhanded evil of groups they were meant to stand against, like the Zhentarim. That's more a problem of the era, and policy at the time, where true evil wasn't ever really seen - and bad guys (by company policy) were always soundly defeated.
If we had seen in novels some of the bad-guy groups winning from time to time, the existence and purpose of the Harpers would have been better. In turn, people wouldn't have come to think "oh they always win, they're MarySues", etc...). People had the same exact problem with the Seven Sisters (never seeing real evil oppose them, or sometimes win), and frankly it's also true with Elminster and Mystra.
So, the combination of company policy (at that time) and the clamor by fans for novels featuring the Sisters, or the Harpers, or even Khelben, etc... that was the real problem. If you used both the Harpers and the Zhents as originally intended per 1E, there was no problem.
What we see in 4E, unfortunately (in my view), is that they do have better "counterpart" enemies but they're not enemies I really like. I've never liked the Shades, or the shadowvar, so the fact that a splinter group of Harpers oppose them is rather irrelevant for me.
If they really want to do the Harpers justice, and this is true for ANY character not just groups, they need a complex and devious enemy that can match them. Politically, not just in spells and swords, because that's how they were intended originally.
Succinct, insightful, eloquent. Damn.
The only thing I could possibly add is that I misliked Harpers in 1E, and thus consequently found little merit in the Harpers novels. My disgust at the depiction of Red Wizards far outweighed my mild amusement at buffoons like Danilo. Of course, that's just my preference, I've never outgrown my "these meddling Harper heroes suck" first impression. Similar to your opinion of the Shadovar, Therise. Both of these groups are immensely popular, regardless what we think.
I agree wholeheartedly that we really needed more depth in the villains. Zhentil Keep in particular seems to have gotten rammed by the short end repeatedly - there's something wrong when readers who favour the underdog begin to pity the viper's nest of villainy.
The 4E enemies (which you don't like) aren't really better described than they were in previous editions. The fiction tends to focus on the heroes of course, not the villains. The more recent (circa-4E) trend seems to be antagonists with noble but destructive and misguided morals, protagonists with tainted and compromised backgrounds, a bit of drama as they all explore perceptions while briefly switching roles ... but in essence the emphasis on the bad guys is really on their powers, their toys, their sinister glowing eyes, not so much on the deeper layers and purposes and nasty business on their agendas. I happen to like the Shadovar, but I can agree that they were very contrived and forced, and I can understand why people would disapprove. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jan 2012 : 16:12:02
|
As for the concept of "Why Harpers?" Because they are a springboard for adventure... doesn't anyone GET THAT? 
You use them precisely the way you would use the Pathfinder Society in Golarion. or The Princess Ark in Mystara, or in my own HB version of Greyhawk, the Wayfarer's Guild.
They are there for training (something you needed in earlier editions), advice (mentors), direction (sponsorship), and even help (but used sparingly, and only in desperation). They aren't supposed to replace the Heroes, they are a support group for their activities. Weather they want to join the Harpers or not is arbitrary, and up to the players, but either way, the Harpers have always 'used' local heroes, and vice-versa. Thye are a tool to be used, nothing more. The novels have brought too much attention to them, when it was the heroes that were supposed to shine.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
I'm wondering the same. To what signs of incompetency and inability to "cover their tracks" are you referring, Dennis?
It seems to me we've hardly seen the Harpers in novels since the end of the Harpers series. (Which sounds like pretty good track coverage to me!)
While I find his statement inaccurate, I fully understand where he is coming from.
If you look at most of the novels - including (and perhaps especially) Ed's, EVERYONE seems to know about the Harpers, knows who they are, where they are, how to get in touch with them, etc...
You tell me how many CIA agents you know? Or Mossad, or KGB, or MI5, etc, etc?
Now, I know from being a dedicated fan that the way things appear in a novel isn't the entire situation, and that the novel characters - even the very minor ones - are 'special cases'. It may seem like everyone in town knows the Harpers, but the truth is, the story only deals with a couple of townsfolk - SPECIFICALLY, THE ONES THAT KNOW THE HARPERS!
This is where that 'false perception' comes in. Unless you read all of the sourcebooks, and allow them to override the false perceptions the novels engender, people just won't see this.
And most FR fans are novel (Drizzt) fans.  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jan 2012 : 16:26:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Succinct, insightful, eloquent. Damn.
Thanks! 
quote:
The only thing I could possibly add is that I misliked Harpers in 1E, and thus consequently found little merit in the Harpers novels. My disgust at the depiction of Red Wizards far outweighed my mild amusement at buffoons like Danilo. Of course, that's just my preference, I've never outgrown my "these meddling Harper heroes suck" first impression. Similar to your opinion of the Shadovar, Therise. Both of these groups are immensely popular, regardless what we think.
I definitely agree. One thing I had to do, starting before 2E came out actually, was decide to take my villainous groups down a truly villainous path. Often, they would achieve great things, and it made it all the sweeter for my players when someone from the Zhentarim or the Red Wizards was finally defeated.
I could have really liked the Shadowvar and Shade, except for the way they were presented in novels. Power came too easily for them, and they won their gains often because of chance or because their goddess was in ascendance. But IMO sheer power and twirling moustaches don't make great villains. One of my best villains ever was a merchant who had a few cantrips, but a network of spies and blackmail-type control over certain high level people in government, business, and even members of noble families. He wasn't powerful, but he was -smart- and used every resource (even cleverly timed cantrips) to defeat my players from time to time. They hated him, and had a hard time getting to him. But when they finally brought him down, hard, the table was happier than when they managed to bring down a dragon.
quote:
I agree wholeheartedly that we really needed more depth in the villains. Zhentil Keep in particular seems to have gotten rammed by the short end repeatedly - there's something wrong when readers who favour the underdog begin to pity the viper's nest of villainy.[/auote]
Absolutely. Zhentil Keep, the Red Wizards, the Cult of the Dragon, I'm not sure any of the old baddie groups were used to full effect. As in, portraying them as truly smart and crafty bastards. But again, that was company policy and not any real deficit of the authors at the time. Ramping up the power level was kinda the only way they could go.
[quote]The 4E enemies (which you don't like) aren't really better described than they were in previous editions. The fiction tends to focus on the heroes of course, not the villains. The more recent (circa-4E) trend seems to be antagonists with noble but destructive and misguided morals, protagonists with tainted and compromised backgrounds, a bit of drama as they all explore perceptions while briefly switching roles ... but in essence the emphasis on the bad guys is really on their powers, their toys, their sinister glowing eyes, not so much on the deeper layers and purposes and nasty business on their agendas. I happen to like the Shadovar, but I can agree that they were very contrived and forced, and I can understand why people would disapprove.
And I'll definitely agree here as well. I don't think many of the evil groups out there are portrayed any better in 4E, and that's a shame. It seems like the old company policy is gone, but it's sort of in vogue at the moment to make the heroes gray or "flawed" in some way (although, really, is a spellscar a real flaw?). Too much emphasis is still on the massive powers and crazy-powerful magic of various villains, to the point of elevating some of them to demigod or near-Exarch levels. But that's where the bloat starts, because you have to then elevate the heroes as well to become (fallen) angels or devas, or turn the villains' defeat into an academic puzzle to be solved (e.g. destroy a series of knick-knacks and their power is broken!) rather than engage the villain in a serious battle of wits.
So that's why I think that the Harpers (or any group that is portrayed as goodly in novels) need to have villains that really count, who really matter if you don't bring them down. It's not a matter of edition, or who their "official" enemies might be, it's more a matter of making those villains really and truly devious, smart, and with stakes that matter.
As you said, though, it's a fine line to walk. There are a great number of fans out there who actually prefer untouchable heroes, or heroes who never get beaten. For them (and I'm not one of them), the 4E Realms must look like it's been inverted. But scratch the surface and all the old problems are pretty much still there. The window dressing of a post-apocalyptic setting is irrelevant if the heroes have been bloated up and given fake flaws, just to contend with power-bloated villains. How fascinating would it be to actually SEE the era immediately post-spellplague, when bad guys were ascendant and handing a starving villager a sandwich would be a heroic act? Instead, we have groups like the Ashmadai, who even in 4E are essentially fodder to throw at twirling blades. They aren't smart or crafty, they're just hanging around being meanies to the general populace until the "heroes" show up and cut them down without much effort.
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
Edited by - Therise on 03 Jan 2012 16:33:17 |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jan 2012 : 16:30:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis
I disagree. Why need a "police" when any number of heroes from various walks of life can do the job...and sometimes, way better.
The Harpers are a much different and more interesting conception than any kind of police.quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
If you look at most of the novels - including (and perhaps especially) Ed's, EVERYONE seems to know about the Harpers, knows who they are, where they are, how to get in touch with them, etc...
Well, their own members and allies do. Who else, in Ed's fiction? And how is this unlike any contemporary espionage novel?quote:
And most FR fans are novel (Drizzt) fans.
But were the Harper novels that widely read among the non-fans or semi-fans who had these misconceptions? I don't recall the folk who advocated for them in those many threads bringing the series up (or, often, sources at all, since they were largely pushing hearsay). |
Edited by - Faraer on 03 Jan 2012 16:42:13 |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7969 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jan 2012 : 16:38:13
|
Haha, interesting point Markus. The Harpers are, after all, a "secret" organization comprised (in theory) of smart, self-reliant, capable, subtle, and stealthy individuals.
My players tried, back in the early days, to contact the local Harpers. Their none-too-subtle efforts were rewarded with several spectacular but failed divination attempts (which cost the PCs their gold), some outlandish tales from a worldly bard (in exchange for their silvers), some even more outlandish tales from a garrulous garrison of drunkards (on which they spent their coppers), an unfortunately productive meeting in an alleyway with distinguished representatives from the local guild of thieves (who took everything else of value), and finally a rather lengthy and uncomfortable indentured detention by the local constabulary (who arrested the PCs for being troublemaking penniless scruffians who were assaulting Lady Alustriel). I then decided - in secret - that any local Harpers who had actually noticed any of these events would deliberately avoid all contact with these gullible and incompetent PCs.
The Black Network of the Zhentarim, however, was much easier to locate and join. Considerably more difficult to leave. |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 03 Jan 2012 16:44:10 |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jan 2012 : 16:52:32
|
One of the best good-aligned spies in modern fiction was the Cardassian Elim Garak of Star Trek DS9. He was pretty much "known" to the big players, and even to some commoners, and it didn't matter. He was a complex character, with a web of secrets and machinations buried so deep that you never exactly knew what his real story was, or if he might turn on the good guys in order to follow his own sense of right and wrong. But he wasn't isolated, and the things that made him truly great were his enemies (to some extent, his own father; but also his government, and Gul Dukat among others).
Harpers can be "known" by farmers and other commoners (how can they not, really, if they're helping the community?). But they'd also be undercover in the sense that passing adventurers have no clue, and their real enemies (Zhents, Red Wizards, what have you) don't really know either. So I don't think it's so much a matter of being known or suspected. It's far more a matter of whether or not -real- espionage is going on, and how deeply involved the heroes and villains actually are. Really good spy novels are a web of "is this happening?" and "OMG, -that's- their plan?!!" interwoven with villains who plan deeply with a long-view to success and backups for backups when things might fail.
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jan 2012 : 17:06:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
Instead, we have groups like the Ashmadai, who even in 4E are essentially fodder to throw at twirling blades. They aren't smart or crafty, they're just hanging around being meanies to the general populace until the "heroes" show up and cut them down without much effort.
I'm wondering where you get this impression. Is it from RAS's Gauntlgrym novel? Because the Ashmadai as I designed them in the NWCS *ARE* secretive, smart, and/or crafty, rather than just moustache-twirling bad guys. (Unless, of course, that's what your game demands.)
Maybe it's a question of perspective. As a writer and reader, I abhor one-dimensional villains, and I have always strived to write complex characters with depth, be they good or evil. That's just good writing. I'm not saying everyone does it, but I really don't see NO ONE doing it.
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jan 2012 : 17:18:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
Instead, we have groups like the Ashmadai, who even in 4E are essentially fodder to throw at twirling blades. They aren't smart or crafty, they're just hanging around being meanies to the general populace until the "heroes" show up and cut them down without much effort.
I'm wondering where you get this impression. Is it from RAS's Gauntlgrym novel? Because the Ashmadai as I designed them in the NWCS *ARE* secretive, smart, and/or crafty, rather than just moustache-twirling bad guys. (Unless, of course, that's what your game demands.)
Maybe it's a question of perspective. As a writer and reader, I abhor one-dimensional villains, and I have always strived to write complex characters with depth, be they good or evil. That's just good writing. I'm not saying everyone does it, but I really don't see NO ONE doing it.
Cheers
My impression of the Ashmadai really come from the new RAS novels in Neverwinter. When first reading them in action, I couldn't help but think, "this is what they meant by 1-hp minions". And I've played 4E, some; not extensively, but some. I haven't read the NWCS in enough detail to really comment on it.
But considering the NWCS or any other game materials, I think you're (unfortunately) going to run up against the same problem as previous designers did with the 2E-3E Harpers. Once an impression is set in the novels, it's incredibly hard to shake it for the game.
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7969 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jan 2012 : 17:19:45
|
| Garak. He was the only redeeming quality on that horrid little show (aside, perhaps, from Avery Brooks' hyper-Shatner exaggerated overacting style). A gloriously redeeming quality - lively pleasant tailor one moment, ruthless spy assassin the next, known and unknown all across the quadrant for being able to offer competitive prices and style whether removing stains or removing adversaries. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jan 2012 : 17:28:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Garak. He was the only redeeming quality on that horrid little show (aside, perhaps, from Avery Brooks' hyper-Shatner exaggerated overacting style). A gloriously redeeming quality - lively pleasant tailor one moment, ruthless spy assassin the next, known and unknown all across the quadrant for being able to offer competitive prices and style whether removing stains or removing adversaries.
Heh, yeah I hear you about Avery Brooks and DS9 in general. That show had some serious issues to say the least (curse you, Ronald D. Moore and your penchant for stupid Deus Ex Machina endings!). =Ahem=
But yeah, Elim was one of the best Trek characters ever. Delightfully devious, even to the point of stabbing himself in the back to create an alibi or draw allies into his net. 
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
|
|
|
Old Man Harpell
Senior Scribe
USA
495 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jan 2012 : 20:13:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Garak. He was the only redeeming quality on that horrid little show (aside, perhaps, from Avery Brooks' hyper-Shatner exaggerated overacting style). A gloriously redeeming quality - lively pleasant tailor one moment, ruthless spy assassin the next, known and unknown all across the quadrant for being able to offer competitive prices and style whether removing stains or removing adversaries.
Heh, yeah I hear you about Avery Brooks and DS9 in general. That show had some serious issues to say the least (curse you, Ronald D. Moore and your penchant for stupid Deus Ex Machina endings!). =Ahem=
But yeah, Elim was one of the best Trek characters ever. Delightfully devious, even to the point of stabbing himself in the back to create an alibi or draw allies into his net.
Oh, I dunno.. I agree about Garak, but I did like Quark (alone among Ferengi...couldn't stand any of the others). He had the widest range of personality and story ideas behind him, more so than Garak or anyone else.
But anyways - I would select the Harpers over the Moonstars any day. Despite my disappointment at Laeral's passing (along with her sisters), Khelben Arunsun was pretty much alone among the 'classic' personalities I shed no tears for. I didn't like him, I didn't like the concept behind him, and I certainly won't miss him. Him being behind the Moonstars simply made me dislike him all the more. And this from someone who grew up playing spellslingers almost exclusively in his tabletop games.
The Moonstars were (in my opinion) a bad idea, and if 4th Edition Realms has -any- sense remaining, the entire idea will be ashcanned and never see the light of day again. Different factions of Harpers would have served much the same purpose without the goofy 'Moonstar' name (which I loathe) - much like the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing, and that's assuming there's more organization than the 'cell' concept (which is what I always assumed was the case anyways).
-OMH |
Edited by - Old Man Harpell on 03 Jan 2012 20:13:55 |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7969 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jan 2012 : 20:33:13
|
I'm not sure Harpers are organized in cells, exactly. To me they seem to be hordes of lowbies scattered all across the landscape, all reporting (when idle or summoned) to a handful of superiors like Lady Alustriel or Khelben Blackstaff. These superiors seem to pretty much divine their own agendas and assign "agents" to the field as they see fit; I suspect they communicate about things of import but largely don't bother to trouble their peers with information about all the little operations and agents they're constantly deploying. The masses of lowbies (who pretty much consist of any Good-aligned sort who did a good deed and earned his boy scout Harper badge) are only aware of their immediate teammates and other Harpers they meet through their superiors. Some of these superiors employ intermediate "handler" types, some even maintain contacts of some useful standing (such as druids hierophant or master bards) but still their operation is very "small", improvised day to day, and almost amateur - or at least they're constantly forced to deal with amateurs.
Then again, other people envision the Harpers as a massive paramilitary intelligence organization with multiple departments, access to huge caches of magic, weaponry, resources, personnel, and safehouses in every city, and a complex tier of ranks and functions. I suppose both models are valid. |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 03 Jan 2012 20:34:03 |
|
|
|
althen artren
Senior Scribe
USA
780 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jan 2012 : 21:52:10
|
Interesting how Dennis hasn't come back
to back up his arguement.
|
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jan 2012 : 21:54:50
|
| I should like to point out, for those that dislike the Moonstar name, that the actual name of the group is the Tel Teu'Kiira. Moonstars is just a loose translation that's easier to say. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jan 2012 : 00:15:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by althen artren
Interesting how Dennis hasn't come back
to back up his arguement.
Dennis likely has his own reasons for seeing the Harpers as he does.
I'm simply curious to see whether I might have missed something about the Harpers that proves his claim about their overall incompetence. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jan 2012 : 01:20:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
Oh, I dunno.. I agree about Garak, but I did like Quark (alone among Ferengi...couldn't stand any of the others). He had the widest range of personality and story ideas behind him, more so than Garak or anyone else.
Quark wasn't bad. I also liked Jadzia (though not her relationship with Worf). My beef with DS9 had more to do with it having some really cheesy plots, Vic Fontaine singing, and the way they handled the outcome of the "Emissary" plot. But anyways...
quote:
...Khelben Arunsun was pretty much alone among the 'classic' personalities I shed no tears for. I didn't like him, I didn't like the concept behind him, and I certainly won't miss him. Him being behind the Moonstars simply made me dislike him all the more. And this from someone who grew up playing spellslingers almost exclusively in his tabletop games.
Agreed. I liked the original idea behind Khelben, but with 2E and 3E they ended up giving him way too much power and too many toys. I really didn't like his relationship with Laeral, and their involvement in almost everything that went on in Waterdeep. Both were over-used, I think.
quote:
The Moonstars were (in my opinion) a bad idea, and if 4th Edition Realms has -any- sense remaining, the entire idea will be ashcanned and never see the light of day again. Different factions of Harpers would have served much the same purpose without the goofy 'Moonstar' name (which I loathe) - much like the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing, and that's assuming there's more organization than the 'cell' concept (which is what I always assumed was the case anyways).
Tel'Teukiira is somewhat better, but even so the "I need better Harpers than the actual Harpers" was a strange addition.
If he really needed his own private network of agents, they should've been totally separate from the original Harpers, IMO.
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
Edited by - Therise on 04 Jan 2012 01:25:06 |
|
|
|
Dennis
Great Reader
9933 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jan 2012 : 01:54:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by althen artren
Interesting how Dennis hasn't come back
to back up his arguement.
Dennis likely has his own reasons for seeing the Harpers as he does.
I'm simply curious to see whether I might have missed something about the Harpers that proves his claim about their overall incompetence.
Indeed. I'd like to be as objective as possible. I would have to quote some scenes (or paraphrase them) from the Harpers novels, the sourcebooks, and Ed's novels where the Harpers made some glaring, stupid appearances. That may take some time, as I am away from my library right now.
Meanwhile, what stands out to me at the moment is their fiasco in Red Magic. If that's what they call "covert," then Szass Tam must have been laughing. |
Every beginning has an end. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jan 2012 : 03:15:46
|
Dennis doesn't have to prove his point because he is relaying his own perception of things.
MY POINT was that misconceptions engendered by novels - like the Ashmadai being so much fodder for the Drizzt Meat grinder - comes from the novels using villains (and heroes/Harpers) incompetently.
However, I can't blame the authors entirely, since they are not independent and write 'on contract' in a shared world, which means much of the great backdrop we might have gotten is lost on the cutting-room floor due to space constraints. You won't see the hundreds of townsfolk who know nothing about the Harpers, or the dozens of competent Ashmadai, simply because they are not important to the story at and.
This is why we must study the sourcebooks, so we know that the scenes we see in the novels are skewed in such a way to tell the story the most economically, and not necessarily the most plausible (because we do not see the millions of common things happening all around the characters all the time).
If those Ashmadai seemed ineffective, it was because they were, which is why they were so weak and apparent. You can't judge the rest of the group against one portion of them. The same would go for any group of intelligent beings.
For instance, if met an alien who was trying to eat me, I would assume the entire alien race were cannibals (okay, I now technically thats not cannibalism, but you get the idea). What could have happened was I had the misfortune to run into an escaped convict from an interstellar prison - the Jeffrey Dahmer of his planet. My limited experience allowed me to misjudge the entire group.
Thats what the novels do.
And BTW, I tried to come up with a better RW example, and realized no matter how I spun it, someone might have taken offense. With my luck, there will be an alien reading this and it'll report me.
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis
Meanwhile, what stands out to me at the moment is their fiasco in Red Magic. If that's what they call "covert," then Szass Tam must have been laughing.
EXCELLENT example.
After reading that novel (I think the first solo FR novel I read), I hated all Harpers - to the point I still refuse to read ANY Harper novel (including Elaine's) - AND thought the Red Wizards highly incompetent, and the Zulkirs most especially.
It didn't help that Centaurs are my favorite mythological creature, and they turned them into whip-bearing overseers.
I think I just threw up a little.... again. 
In retrospect, it was a creative spin on them, despite my horrid dislike of it. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 04 Jan 2012 03:44:01 |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7969 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jan 2012 : 03:33:23
|
| Blackstars would've sounded much cooler than Moonstars. The very name suggests less goody-two-shoes and more Khelben's-private-supercommando-army. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jan 2012 : 03:41:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Dennis doesn't have to prove his point because he is relaying his own perception of things...
I don't think anyone, least of all Sage, was asking for "proof" of anything, just some clarification on why Dennis has that perception.
After all, "incompetence" is the opposite of the more common perception of the Harpers as "always being winners who can't fail."
Is it wrong to ask someone why they have a particular perception?
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7969 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jan 2012 : 03:50:17
|
True, statements qualified as opinion are self-evident admissions of subjective bias. Their validity may be challenged, but not the fact that they are opinions.
I would love to label Harpers as "incompetent", and no doubt some of them certainly are. But, alas, as much as I dislike them I have to admit that overall they have been a persistently effective bunch. I might use all sorts of wonderfully demeaning and critical vocabulary to express the churning nausea Harpers can invoke within me, but I certainly wouldn't describe level 20+ characters or Chosen (of Mystra, of course) as "incompetent". |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jan 2012 : 03:56:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
Is it wrong to ask someone why they have a particular perception?
Nope. I thought he was being asked to prove that they were incompetent.
It doesn't matter why he thinks it, what matter is that something caused him to think that way. I'd prefer to analyze the ailment, rather then the symptom. 
I agree with Ayrik - almost any name would have been preferable, to me, at any rate. 'Moonstars' sounds like a 5-year-olds pronunciation of 'monsters'. Too bad Black Staves was taken (by two different things). 'Darkstars' sounds too cartoony... Darkstaves... hmmm.. was that used yet? Is that what Mystra uses? Or was that Shadow Staves?
Its official - the well has run dry. There is no such thing as something new. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 04 Jan 2012 04:17:07 |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7969 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jan 2012 : 04:10:15
|
| Some wells run deeper than others, and more fonts of creativity can be readily discovered by those practiced at mental dowsing. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jan 2012 : 04:38:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
...It doesn't matter why he thinks it, what matter is that something caused him to think that way. I'd prefer to analyze the ailment, rather then the symptom.
Oh, I don't know. I think asking "why" is one of the more interesting things that one can do in a discussion. Otherwise, there tend to be lots of assumptions involved in the "analysis".
Not that there won't be a lot of assumptions anyway, but you know, the fewer the better IMO.
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
Edited by - Therise on 04 Jan 2012 04:39:14 |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jan 2012 : 04:43:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Blackstars would've sounded much cooler than Moonstars. The very name suggests less goody-two-shoes and more Khelben's-private-supercommando-army.
Alternate names for the Tel'Teukiira were presented in Cloak & Dagger -- two of which, include:- the Silverstars [and one of the alternates I did like] and Twelvestars. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jan 2012 : 04:44:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Dennis doesn't have to prove his point because he is relaying his own perception of things...
I don't think anyone, least of all Sage, was asking for "proof" of anything, just some clarification on why Dennis has that perception.
Indeed. I'm simply curious to see how Dennis interprets the prior exploits of the Harpers in the fiction, in order to better understand how he sees it as incompetence. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jan 2012 : 05:29:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
If he really needed his own private network of agents, they should've been totally separate from the original Harpers, IMO.
Well, from a Harper standpoint, they were totally separate. And not all members of the Tel'Teukiira were Harpers, either. Pretty sure, for example, that there were never any vampire Harpers. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jan 2012 : 06:12:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Pretty sure, for example, that there were never any vampire Harpers.
There was Asraf yn Malik el Kahaman yi Manshaka, the LE vampire, who had joined with the Moonstars and was a deepcover Harper agent. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
Edited by - The Sage on 04 Jan 2012 06:12:45 |
|
|
|
Artemas Entreri
Great Reader
USA
3131 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jan 2012 : 14:19:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Pretty sure, for example, that there were never any vampire Harpers.
There was Asraf yn Malik el Kahaman yi Manshaka, the LE vampire, who had joined with the Moonstars and was a deepcover Harper agent.
Was this character a true vampire feeding off of humans or a vampire more like Louis from Interview with the Vampire where he initially only feed on animals? |
Some people have a way with words, and other people...oh, uh, not have way. -Steve Martin
Amazon "KindleUnlimited" Free Trial: http://amzn.to/2AJ4yD2
Try Audible and Get 2 Free Audio Books! https://amzn.to/2IgBede |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Moonstars vs. Harpers
