| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Lord Bane
Senior Scribe
Germany
479 Posts |
 Posted - 18 Sep 2012 : 20:07:40
|
Not to step on peoples toes and i am sorry for going a bit offtopic, but i always got the impression with the eldarin on toril issue and other things, that it was the move of the company to force CORE aspects into the Realms in order to have people buy stuff to enhance their character which otherwise wouldnīt effect them if those things didnīt exist in the realms.
If i am wrong i apologize for my wrong perception but i see no other explanation to suddenly have things "pop" up in the realms who were not there in first place and the spellplague being the cover to have these things to be put into place. Some moves do seem like they were done by people alien to the FR setting and oblivious to lore(not talking of the current eladrin discussion) otherwise i canīt explain the inconsistancy of some things who wreaked things up and i do believe that people working on CORE products who have an impact on other settings when it comes to monsters/npcs should keep in mind that they effect multiple settings.
Of course now realeasing a sourcebook only for FR which negates effects who would screw up lore for example and which says "thatīs who it is in CORE but not in the realms and here is why and if you play a FR setting use these rules etc" would help the issue and give settings itīs own destinct flair.
I am not attacking people who worked to give the realms new life after the distaster of the spellplague and i appreciate their effort to repair damage done where it occured, i see it as an issue of company policy where the realms have to bend a knee to. |
The driving force in the multiverse is evil, for it forces good to act. |
 |
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 18 Sep 2012 : 20:13:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
The assumption here is that 4e players were expected to be illiterate (I am not insulting them - the 4e team did that... just look at the 'lore light' approach).
Wow, MT. As a 4e FR designer, I take personal offense to that.
That was not at all the intention. And I'm getting really, really tired of people shoveling that same misconception over and over.
The "lore light" approach is all about offering players the option of playing without a lot of lore to inform the game (particularly helpful if they're new, don't have the time to do all the research, or aren't really interested in all of it), or delving in to make it a really rich, really deep experience (like hardcore FR wonks). It's about choice.
Also, I think I'm done with this thread. Best wishes to all involved.
Wow - talk about being taken the wrong way. 
My whole point was that MUCH MORE should have been produced, which means more of everything guys like you and Matt were doing. You never wrote a "lets blow up the planet!" story, which is deconstructive to the setting. your stories were designed at giving us glimpses into small corners of the realms - an approach it appeared they wanted to move away from.
And we were told - via podcasts and by a prominent 4e designer (some time ago, who is no longer with the company) - that the 4e Realms was designed to be very un-detailed, in order to rid FR of the perceived entitlement; that anyone could pick up the Realms and just play in it.
I fully understand the sentiment - I've seen it myself. I just think they came up with the totally wrong solution (produce less, and erase what has gone before, so no-one need learn anything about the setting). That is what I was driving at - the 4e setting was designed to fit into the core concept of 'light gaming' (points of light) - that people could just get together for quick games sometimes without all the time-investment (and once-again, I fully understand and agree with that sentiment).
So maybe 'illiterate' was a bit harsh - more like "don't have the time to read tons of books". Thats what I was going for, and obviously over-shot the mark.
Apologies all around. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 18 Sep 2012 20:15:35 |
|
|
|
Matt James
Forgotten Realms Game Designer
USA
918 Posts |
Posted - 18 Sep 2012 : 20:40:52
|
| It old Mark in PMs that I kinda get what he was saying. I'm crabby today, too. So I apologize. |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 18 Sep 2012 : 20:47:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I wasn't bashing what little lore was produced, I was bashing the attitude that such a small amount should have been produced - I would hope that the freelancers would agree with me - that many, many more such articles should have been published.
...
I have no idea why you took offense to a comment aimed directly at the '4e approach', which you (and every other freelancer) had absolutely no hand in tailoring.
I absolutely think more articles should have been published and more lore should be created/revealed. That's not the point. And it really doesn't matter if we're in-house or not. You are bashing my colleagues and (in many cases) friends, and there's no way I for one am going to join you in doing so. It's unprofessional and undignified.
Blame the executive decisions if you want to (which were pivotal in shaping the Realms), bash the company if you like, but it's inappropriate to accuse the design team of such awful motives. There's no validity to your speculations.
quote:
Originally posted by Razz
Um, eladrin are not, and never were, elves. They've always been chaotic good celestials of the more chaotic upper planes. Been that way for decades. Let's not encourage WotC's mangling of many familiar terms in their 4e
Yes, they were. Chaotic Good celestials that are to elves what humans are to angels. This was made clear during 3.5, before 4e ever hit the stands. Under certain circumstances, mortal elves can transcend their mortal forms and become eladrin, much like humans becoming devils, demons, or angels. It's entirely possible that's where ALL eladrin come from--where do elves go when they leave the mortal world?
All WotC did in 4e was clear up the connection between eladrin and elves. It's not mangling, and there's really no contradiction.
quote:
Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
I would go with Caolin's take on this one. I never understood the need for a new name either. In fact, like many here, I came in already knowing that eladrin were supposed to be the "celestial" elves from Planescape and were the Outer Planar beings that elves either became after entering Arvandor, or were created from. I always leaned toward the idea that eladrin were the "ascended" elves, servants of the Seldarine after their (likely heroic) deaths.
And there's no reason to think that isn't the case. You could certainly play it that way in your games. 4e just offers you a mechanical tool (the eladrin race) to let you play those eladrin. 4e FR applies that mechanical tool to a pre-existing canonical concept (moon/sun elves), with the suggestion that they have become "more like" their extraplanar cousins due to the proximity of the Feywild.
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
@ESdB: I don't mean to offend anyone with this, but having lore to choose from is about offering choice; not having lore for 'freedom' (which you can easily have anyway) is about simplifying choices. Canon can easily be circumvented also when you have to choose to ignore something that is there, not only when you have to ignore some event that destroyed something you hold dear.
They could've come up with modules at that point, instead of doing what they did: that would've been about offering choices...
Oh, I'm totally with you there. You and I understand that, but look at the Realms from the lay-person's perspective. The perception was that you had to the research and be an expert--you couldn't just pick it up and play. This is a misconception--you and I both know that, but that's you and me. That's not legions of potential players, or people on these boards, or people who stand up in the middle of sessions and say "nuh-uh! that's not how it works in the book!" (And yes, I know DMs are supposed to root out such behavior.)
For better or worse, the 4e FR execution was about sending a message that this wasn't the case. The fact that WotC did it does not mean they agree with the misconception--only that they acknowledge it's there.
I think a far better solution is to just spell it out, word for word, that how much of the canon you use and how much you ignore or revise is strictly up to you as the DM. This is what needs to be in the introduction to the FR Campaign book.
quote:
Originally posted by Caolin
Well, I remember when 4E first came out and I saw the name Eladrin and then I saw pictures of them with their pupiless eyes. My first thought was that they made some sort of celestial elf as a playable character, much like the Deva. But then I started reading about how they were always in the Realms and people just didn't understand the differences between the elves. I didn't quite get it and I could never find a definitive answer. I just thought, "this is BS so I'll ignore it". But then they start popping up in the novels, crazy eyes and all.
I guess my main issue is that there was never an sensible explanation from the top that explained where they came from.
There totally was. Rich Baker explained it in his Ask the Designer thread years ago, before the 4e FRCG even came out. It's the same explanation I have been stating over and over again.
quote:
I mean, if they were always here why did we never noticed the crazy eyes? Why not just simply say that they are here now because the Feywild has come much closer to the Realms and it is now much easier to cross to and fro.
That's pretty much the way it is. High elves in the Realms have the "crazy eyes" because the Feywild is closer to the mortal world. The proximity of its energies have changed at least some elves into being more like their ancestors.
quote:
There may have been a few Eladrin travelers in the Realms before the Spellplague. But there are no Eladrin born in the Realms, otherwise they would be elves with normal eyes and all. Being from the Feywild makes them Eladrin.
Being from the Feywild or being "touched" by the Feywild, yes. Eladrin born in the Realms now are more likely to have the eyes than eladrin born before the Spellplague, because the planes are closer together.
Some but not all high elves in the Realms have the eladrin eyes; some of them have "normal" eyes.
And ultimately, speaking non-mechanically in basic terms, I suspect it was at least partly an artistic decision to distinguish between the races of elves and eladrin in the Nerath/PoL setting. Faerunian elves were never intended to be actually broken up into elves and eladrin--they're all elves. But inevitably, some of that bled through, in part due to the direction of making all things core usable in the Realms. They could have shoved the eladrin in as something entirely different, so that we had one race with 5-6 different subraces (elves) and one obviously related but not connected race (eladrin) in the Realms, but instead they decided to make eladrin the mechanical depict to depict moon/sun elves, and so we have a little more diversity in our elves' appearance and abilities. If anything, the move to make moon/sun elves into eladrin is to PREVENT more canon weirdness. It really shouldn't be such a huge deal.
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" |
Edited by - Erik Scott de Bie on 18 Sep 2012 20:59:18 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4430 Posts |
Posted - 18 Sep 2012 : 21:24:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I wasn't bashing what little lore was produced, I was bashing the attitude that such a small amount should have been produced - I would hope that the freelancers would agree with me - that many, many more such articles should have been published.
...
I have no idea why you took offense to a comment aimed directly at the '4e approach', which you (and every other freelancer) had absolutely no hand in tailoring.
I absolutely think more articles should have been published and more lore should be created/revealed. That's not the point. And it really doesn't matter if we're in-house or not. You are bashing my colleagues and (in many cases) friends, and there's no way I for one am going to join you in doing so. It's unprofessional and undignified.
Blame the executive decisions if you want to (which were pivotal in shaping the Realms), bash the company if you like, but it's inappropriate to accuse the design team of such awful motives. There's no validity to your speculations.
I understand where Markus is coming from, though the term "illerate" wouldn't be the correct word (as he noted) for the situation. The fact is, I feel the designers wanted to start fresh and the thousands of hours needed to read the books, supplements, and articles of previous lore was not a driving point for a new player to start in the Realms. That doesn't mean that it's still not useful (heaven knows I still use v3.5 stuff in my 4E games) or that it isn't a great read (because it is). It just means that new players and new DMs aren't going to want to shell out MORE money for books to suppelmeent their 4E games when those mechanics don't fit like LEGOS.
Thus, the Spellplague and time-jump were created. I think it was less "being lazy" and more "perspective of potential customers".
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
quote:
Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
I would go with Caolin's take on this one. I never understood the need for a new name either. In fact, like many here, I came in already knowing that eladrin were supposed to be the "celestial" elves from Planescape and were the Outer Planar beings that elves either became after entering Arvandor, or were created from. I always leaned toward the idea that eladrin were the "ascended" elves, servants of the Seldarine after their (likely heroic) deaths.
And there's no reason to think that isn't the case. You could certainly play it that way in your games. 4e just offers you a mechanical tool (the eladrin race) to let you play those eladrin. 4e FR applies that mechanical tool to a pre-existing canonical concept (moon/sun elves), with the suggestion that they have become "more like" their extraplanar cousins due to the proximity of the Feywild.
Which is pretty much how I viewed their inclusion to the Forgotten Realms. When people buy the PHB, they're going to create characters (Tieflings and Eladrin for example). Then the DM puts them into the Forgotten Realms setting. Now what? Before, there was really no way to fit them in without some sort of "fall from heaven" scenario due to Eladrin (celestial elves) being the only ones in their setting. Thus, it was transposed with the Moon/Sun elves to make it more inclusive to the setting. I'm not saying it was the best fit, far from it, but I actually like the whole "high-elf" style Eladrin mechanically speaking than just a few bonuses and physical description (which is always at the player's discretion anyways) as any sort of differentating factor. It even says in the book that most of the people in the world would refer to them as Moon or Sun elves.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
@ESdB: I don't mean to offend anyone with this, but having lore to choose from is about offering choice; not having lore for 'freedom' (which you can easily have anyway) is about simplifying choices. Canon can easily be circumvented also when you have to choose to ignore something that is there, not only when you have to ignore some event that destroyed something you hold dear.
They could've come up with modules at that point, instead of doing what they did: that would've been about offering choices...
Oh, I'm totally with you there. You and I understand that, but look at the Realms from the lay-person's perspective. The perception was that you had to the research and be an expert--you couldn't just pick it up and play. This is a misconception--you and I both know that, but that's you and me. That's not legions of potential players, or people on these boards, or people who stand up in the middle of sessions and say "nuh-uh! that's not how it works in the book!" (And yes, I know DMs are supposed to root out such behavior.)
For better or worse, the 4e FR execution was about sending a message that this wasn't the case. The fact that WotC did it does not mean they agree with the misconception--only that they acknowledge it's there.
I think a far better solution is to just spell it out, word for word, that how much of the canon you use and how much you ignore or revise is strictly up to you as the DM. This is what needs to be in the introduction to the FR Campaign book.
Agreed. Also, think about all the newer players that had quesitons about the Realms. They ask "How prominent are the Zhentarim?" and you'll get suggestions for hundreds of hours of reading from novels to supplements detailing their intricate motivations and sub-plots, not to mention divisions within the organization and the whole Manshoon thing. So in the context of the latest edition, I'm assuming the devs wanted to get the DM and player the "gist" of what the organization was about and how best to use them in your games as fast as possible. What I feel they SHOULD'VE done was reference certain supplements from other editions that might help them flesh it out better at your leisure, but that flies into the face of removing the PDFs and what-not that they did.
As a new DM (perhaps with new players) you want to get them hooked fast. That often doesn't happen with a detailed history of organizations, places, and the setting itself that might not be pertinent to the setting.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
quote:
Originally posted by Caolin
Well, I remember when 4E first came out and I saw the name Eladrin and then I saw pictures of them with their pupiless eyes. My first thought was that they made some sort of celestial elf as a playable character, much like the Deva. But then I started reading about how they were always in the Realms and people just didn't understand the differences between the elves. I didn't quite get it and I could never find a definitive answer.
If anything, the move to make moon/sun elves into eladrin is to PREVENT more canon weirdness. It really shouldn't be such a huge deal.
Cheers
Yep, just like Tieflings, Deva (aasimars), and Gensai most of the artistic things were just that, art. Perhaps they were given free reign over how to do it or whatever but I don't think the changes to their appearance really needed any sort of "in-setting" explination *shurggs*. |
|
|
|
Caolin
Senior Scribe
768 Posts |
Posted - 18 Sep 2012 : 21:26:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
quote:
Originally posted by Caolin
Well, I remember when 4E first came out and I saw the name Eladrin and then I saw pictures of them with their pupiless eyes. My first thought was that they made some sort of celestial elf as a playable character, much like the Deva. But then I started reading about how they were always in the Realms and people just didn't understand the differences between the elves. I didn't quite get it and I could never find a definitive answer. I just thought, "this is BS so I'll ignore it". But then they start popping up in the novels, crazy eyes and all.
I guess my main issue is that there was never an sensible explanation from the top that explained where they came from.
There totally was. Rich Baker explained it in his Ask the Designer thread years ago, before the 4e FRCG even came out. It's the same explanation I have been stating over and over again.
quote:
I mean, if they were always here why did we never noticed the crazy eyes? Why not just simply say that they are here now because the Feywild has come much closer to the Realms and it is now much easier to cross to and fro.
That's pretty much the way it is. High elves in the Realms have the "crazy eyes" because the Feywild is closer to the mortal world. The proximity of its energies have changed at least some elves into being more like their ancestors.
quote:
There may have been a few Eladrin travelers in the Realms before the Spellplague. But there are no Eladrin born in the Realms, otherwise they would be elves with normal eyes and all. Being from the Feywild makes them Eladrin.
Being from the Feywild or being "touched" by the Feywild, yes. Eladrin born in the Realms now are more likely to have the eyes than eladrin born before the Spellplague, because the planes are closer together.
Some but not all high elves in the Realms have the eladrin eyes; some of them have "normal" eyes.
And ultimately, speaking non-mechanically in basic terms, I suspect it was at least partly an artistic decision to distinguish between the races of elves and eladrin in the Nerath/PoL setting. Faerunian elves were never intended to be actually broken up into elves and eladrin--they're all elves. But inevitably, some of that bled through, in part due to the direction of making all things core usable in the Realms. They could have shoved the eladrin in as something entirely different, so that we had one race with 5-6 different subraces (elves) and one obviously related but not connected race (eladrin) in the Realms, but instead they decided to make eladrin the mechanical depict to depict moon/sun elves, and so we have a little more diversity in our elves' appearance and abilities. If anything, the move to make moon/sun elves into eladrin is to PREVENT more canon weirdness. It really shouldn't be such a huge deal.
Cheers
Sorry, I missed the Rich Baker article. But I kind of figured that there were explanations out there. I just felt that it should have been explained in bold letters in the FR source book. As for the concept of High Elves and Low Elves, I guess I really don't like that idea. I also don't like the idea of High Elves turning into Eladrin because the Feywild got closer to the Realms. It just seems silly. I'd rather see FR elves return to how they originally were. An elf was an elf except for the racial and cultural differences. But now with the Eladrins it turns out that some elves are more "elvish" than others. Of course, this is just all my opinion though. If I played the game I probably wouldn't mind because I could make my elves however I wanted them to be. But I am a novel reader only so I kind of don't have a say in how the elves are portrayed in the Realms. |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 19 Sep 2012 : 00:16:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
@ESdB: I don't mean to offend anyone with this, but having lore to choose from is about offering choice; not having lore for 'freedom' (which you can easily have anyway) is about simplifying choices. Canon can easily be circumvented also when you have to choose to ignore something that is there, not only when you have to ignore some event that destroyed something you hold dear.
They could've come up with modules at that point, instead of doing what they did: that would've been about offering choices...
Oh, I'm totally with you there. You and I understand that, but look at the Realms from the lay-person's perspective. The perception was that you had to the research and be an expert--you couldn't just pick it up and play. This is a misconception--you and I both know that, but that's you and me. That's not legions of potential players, or people on these boards, or people who stand up in the middle of sessions and say "nuh-uh! that's not how it works in the book!" (And yes, I know DMs are supposed to root out such behavior.)
For better or worse, the 4e FR execution was about sending a message that this wasn't the case. The fact that WotC did it does not mean they agree with the misconception--only that they acknowledge it's there.
I think a far better solution is to just spell it out, word for word, that how much of the canon you use and how much you ignore or revise is strictly up to you as the DM. This is what needs to be in the introduction to the FR Campaign book.
Yes, they should have done that. But was it worth to wreak havoc in a setting just to state the obvious (especially considering what doing so would naturally mean to old fans) instead of simply stating it?
|
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
|
|
|
kysus
Learned Scribe
USA
106 Posts |
Posted - 19 Sep 2012 : 00:28:04
|
| It feels like two different conversations are taking place here and it is starting to confuse me now as to what is going on with the whole eladrin lore. Most of the lore i know on eladrin come from planescape for 2nd edition including a book called warriors of heaven, am i correct in this knowledge was used as well for Forgotten realms during 2nd edition or was there some stuff that was slightly different that was forgotten realms specific that i may have missed? |
Edited by - kysus on 19 Sep 2012 00:29:07 |
|
|
|
Shemmy
Senior Scribe
USA
492 Posts |
Posted - 19 Sep 2012 : 04:41:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
I would go with Caolin's take on this one. I never understood the need for a new name either. In fact, like many here, I came in already knowing that eladrin were supposed to be the "celestial" elves from Planescape and were the Outer Planar beings that elves either became after entering Arvandor, or were created from. I always leaned toward the idea that eladrin were the "ascended" elves, servants of the Seldarine after their (likely heroic) deaths.
I like the idea that the Seldarine created mortal elves in the image of the eladrin celestials of Arborea (or alternatively that the eladrins created mortal elves, and over the eons mortal worship created the Seldarine in the image of their recollections of the eladrin celestials). Either way it seems very likely verging on absolutely that the eladrin celestials (2e/3e) existed prior to the Seldarine within the continuity of the Great Wheel at least (4e's cosmology being its own thing).
Hopefully 5e will retcon or otherwise explain away the conflation of the CG celestials with mortal elves. |
Shemeska the Marauder, King of the Crosstrade; voted #1 best Arcanaloth in Sigil two hundred years running by the people who know what's best for them; chant broker; prospective Sigil council member next election; and official travel agent for Chamada Holiday specials LLC.
|
|
|
|
Shemmy
Senior Scribe
USA
492 Posts |
Posted - 19 Sep 2012 : 04:48:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by kysus
It feels like two different conversations are taking place here and it is starting to confuse me now as to what is going on with the whole eladrin lore. Most of the lore i know on eladrin come from planescape for 2nd edition including a book called warriors of heaven, am i correct in this knowledge was used as well for Forgotten realms during 2nd edition or was there some stuff that was slightly different that was forgotten realms specific that i may have missed?
In 2e and 3e eladrin were the chaotic good celestials of Arborea. 4e adopted a new core cosmology and rather radically changed many concepts (some outsider races and whole alignments vanishing, some names being attached to different creatures, etc) including making a PC eladrin race which was explained in various places mentioned by others above. FR adopted most of the core conceits, including the appearance of the eladrin race though there were and some later attempts to rationalize the lore discrepencies that whole situation presented. |
Shemeska the Marauder, King of the Crosstrade; voted #1 best Arcanaloth in Sigil two hundred years running by the people who know what's best for them; chant broker; prospective Sigil council member next election; and official travel agent for Chamada Holiday specials LLC.
|
|
|
|
CorellonsDevout
Great Reader
USA
2708 Posts |
Posted - 19 Sep 2012 : 05:11:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Yep, just like Tieflings, Deva (aasimars), and Gensai most of the artistic things were just that, art. Perhaps they were given free reign over how to do it or whatever but I don't think the changes to their appearance really needed any sort of "in-setting" explination *shurggs*.
Ooooh I see, devas and aasimars are the same. I had wondered about that, since I've read books with tieflings but not aasimars, and I had wanted to. But if devas are the same as aasimars, I can say I have read books with them. Sorry, off topic. |
Sweet water and light laughter |
|
|
|
CorellonsDevout
Great Reader
USA
2708 Posts |
Posted - 19 Sep 2012 : 05:43:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shemmy
quote:
Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
I would go with Caolin's take on this one. I never understood the need for a new name either. In fact, like many here, I came in already knowing that eladrin were supposed to be the "celestial" elves from Planescape and were the Outer Planar beings that elves either became after entering Arvandor, or were created from. I always leaned toward the idea that eladrin were the "ascended" elves, servants of the Seldarine after their (likely heroic) deaths.
I like the idea that the Seldarine created mortal elves in the image of the eladrin celestials of Arborea (or alternatively that the eladrins created mortal elves, and over the eons mortal worship created the Seldarine in the image of their recollections of the eladrin celestials). Either way it seems very likely verging on absolutely that the eladrin celestials (2e/3e) existed prior to the Seldarine within the continuity of the Great Wheel at least (4e's cosmology being its own thing).
Hopefully 5e will retcon or otherwise explain away the conflation of the CG celestials with mortal elves.
Elaine Cunningham's Evermeet: Island of Elves novel suggests otherwise. Granted, there was no mention of celestial elves in the novel, but I think they are either the Feywild equivalent of elves, or "elven angels", because in Evermeet, and past FR editions, it says the elves were created from Corellon's blood. Maybe eladrin were created this way too, I do not know, but I do not think the Seldarine came from the mortal's recollections of the celestial eladrin.
|
Sweet water and light laughter |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 19 Sep 2012 : 07:38:07
|
Eladrin = CG outsider fey, elves = CG mortal fey. Angels = LG outsiders, paladin humans = LG mortals. Easy parallel. Eladrin (as fey) are actually more like elves than any other planar race is like humans (who can become various outsiders). Not sure why connecting the dots are hard to connect.
The realms has always had high elves (moon and sun) and low elves (wood and wild). It comes from Tolkien, basically. 4e just tried to synch up the mechanics so you had two races instead of four. If anything, it seems to have been an attempt to embrace the concept of elven subraces in a robust mechanical way. (But this is past the scope of the OP to hash out 4e's technique.)
Deva and Aasimar aren't the same. Granted, deva are the closest 4e comes to offering us Aasimar, and you certainly COULD play a reflavored deva as an Aasimar, but they aren't intended to be the same creature. I go into it in more detail in the planar races thread. Check that one.
And while Evermeet is a landmark source and I would never knowingly advocate contradicting it, let's not make the mistake of believing every race's creation myth is literally true. I happen to believe elves (a mortal reflection of eladrin) were created from the blood of Corellon in some way, but it's a myth--it's a story/parable, not a historical treatise. Who's to say exactly what happened and how?
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" |
|
|
|
Alystra Illianniis
Great Reader
USA
3750 Posts |
Posted - 19 Sep 2012 : 07:45:31
|
| Not to split hairs, but most of the first third of Evermeet was about the Seldarine gods themselves, told mostly from THEIR point of view, rather than that of a mortal. I would tend to see it as "fact" for that reason. We get actual dialog from Corellon, Sehnine, and even Araushnee/Lolth themselves. A simple myth would probably not contain that sort of lore. Most myths are told as if from an observer from a distance, not right in front row view. |
The Goddess is alive, and magic is afoot.
"Where Science ends, Magic begins" -Spiral, Uncanny X-Men #491
"You idiots! You've captured their STUNT doubles!" -Spaceballs
Lothir's character background/stats: http://forum.candlekeep.com/pop_profile.asp?mode=display&id=5469
My stories:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/Mickeys_Comic_Tavern/index.php?showforum=188
Lothir, courtesy of Sylinde (Deviant Art)/Luaxena (Chosen of Eilistraee)
http://sylinde.deviantart.com/#/d2z6e4u |
|
|
|
Shemmy
Senior Scribe
USA
492 Posts |
Posted - 19 Sep 2012 : 08:06:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Eladrin = CG outsider fey, Angels = LG outsiders
Just to be the nitpicky 'loth.
Angels = Not exemplifying any specific alignment, but they can be any good alignment, usually but not always servitors of good gods.
Archons = LG celestials |
Shemeska the Marauder, King of the Crosstrade; voted #1 best Arcanaloth in Sigil two hundred years running by the people who know what's best for them; chant broker; prospective Sigil council member next election; and official travel agent for Chamada Holiday specials LLC.
|
|
|
|
kysus
Learned Scribe
USA
106 Posts |
Posted - 19 Sep 2012 : 11:03:56
|
| Actually ive always viewed stories in novels dealing with subjects like this to be more of a story than a fact as to me it adds that mysterious air of fantasy to it and in my opinion makes it a much better read than if it read like a history book of know facts. As far as the main topic, its not that I dont understand the parallel between them its that there are 2nd edition sources that do contradict this, the book that im reading from now warriors of heaven specifically state that eladrin are not the product of elves that move on to the afterlife but a race of nonimmortal beings native to arborea that reproduce on their own. It also gives that the reason for their fey like appearance is do to them living on arborea and not all of them look completely like elves, the coures more resemble pixies than elves and the novieres nixies ,while another i cant seem to remember the name is more like an elven giant standing at min height of 11'max of 14'. So this is where my confusion comes in, are there other books from 2nd for planescape and forgotten realms that would contradict this lore as i only own a third of planescape and 80% of the forgotten realms books from 2nd. |
|
|
|
kysus
Learned Scribe
USA
106 Posts |
Posted - 19 Sep 2012 : 11:56:04
|
| Ok after i wrote all that a thought did come to mind on a possible fix that maybe or may not be found acceptable to alot of the fans. Anyway here goes, maybe the eladrin was a sect of elves from millienium past that relocated to arborea do to reason unknown and do to the nature of arborea it changed them to what they are now after a millienium of living there though making them where they are not really elves anymore and more or less a race unto themselves. As for the term of all elves being called eladrin came from some sages coming across some fragments of this ancient sect of elves calling themselves eladrin and mistakingly thinking that all elves are called eladrin. So yeah thats my take on a possible idea to keep the eladrin as a seperate race while still allowing them to be lightly tied into the whole elven lore bit. Feel free to let me know what u think whether it sounds retarded or decent, as i dont usually write awhole lot of lore and pretty much suck at it. |
Edited by - kysus on 19 Sep 2012 11:57:37 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4430 Posts |
Posted - 19 Sep 2012 : 12:30:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Deva and Aasimar aren't the same. Granted, deva are the closest 4e comes to offering us Aasimar, and you certainly COULD play a reflavored deva as an Aasimar, but they aren't intended to be the same creature. I go into it in more detail in the planar races thread. Check that one.
Hm, I distinctly remember the FRCG saying something about Devas in the Realms and how they're often called Aasimars in certain areas of Faerûn. It was in the chapter of supporting cast if I'm not mistaken. |
|
|
|
Matt James
Forgotten Realms Game Designer
USA
918 Posts |
Posted - 19 Sep 2012 : 13:31:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Deva and Aasimar aren't the same. Granted, deva are the closest 4e comes to offering us Aasimar, and you certainly COULD play a reflavored deva as an Aasimar, but they aren't intended to be the same creature. I go into it in more detail in the planar races thread. Check that one.
Hm, I distinctly remember the FRCG saying something about Devas in the Realms and how they're often called Aasimars in certain areas of Faerûn. It was in the chapter of supporting cast if I'm not mistaken.
A mortals misunderstanding.  |
|
|
|
Sightless
Senior Scribe
USA
608 Posts |
Posted - 19 Sep 2012 : 13:56:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Eladrin = CG outsider fey, elves = CG mortal fey. Angels = LG outsiders, paladin humans = LG mortals. Easy parallel. Eladrin (as fey) are actually more like elves than any other planar race is like humans (who can become various outsiders). Not sure why connecting the dots are hard to connect.
The realms has always had high elves (moon and sun) and low elves (wood and wild). It comes from Tolkien, basically. 4e just tried to synch up the mechanics so you had two races instead of four. If anything, it seems to have been an attempt to embrace the concept of elven subraces in a robust mechanical way. (But this is past the scope of the OP to hash out 4e's technique.)
Deva and Aasimar aren't the same. Granted, deva are the closest 4e comes to offering us Aasimar, and you certainly COULD play a reflavored deva as an Aasimar, but they aren't intended to be the same creature. I go into it in more detail in the planar races thread. Check that one.
And while Evermeet is a landmark source and I would never knowingly advocate contradicting it, let's not make the mistake of believing every race's creation myth is literally true. I happen to believe elves (a mortal reflection of eladrin) were created from the blood of Corellon in some way, but it's a myth--it's a story/parable, not a historical treatise. Who's to say exactly what happened and how?
Cheers
Woooow hold it there cowboy, analogy is off there. High and low elves had more to do with who did, versus who didn't go to the undieing lands in original Elven language, but then it got blurred to discuss those that lived closest to the taint of the necromancer, or rather those that lived in the wilder woods. So, there's kind of a distinct difference here. Not to sound like a egotistical Guntshnit. |
We choose to live a lie, when we see with, & not through the eye.
Every decision, no matter the evidence, is a leap of faith; if it were not, then it wouldn't be a choice at all. |
|
|
|
Sightless
Senior Scribe
USA
608 Posts |
Posted - 19 Sep 2012 : 14:11:44
|
I'm going to attempt to be as deplomatic as possible, hopefully I shall succeed in stateing this, but given my difficulties when I first started the only lore I had was from Elminster the making of a mage, and what was in the Srd. they way I handled it was, that while the rich history of FR existed, my characters new little about it. this made since, as my characters were usually porr and only given basic educations. as a consequence, my DM didn't expect me to know these things, but provided many of hooks if you will to find these things out. Other players that had access to little amounts of the lore were treated the same way. We played many sessions where lore never really came up. So, what I'm trying to say, that the presence of lore doesn't neccesitate that players have to know that lore in order to have a fun time.
Now, here comes the part that might get into rouble, even though it is not my intention to do so, but it seems that there was a long running implicit assumption that players were often aware of previous lore, for instance listening to the Silver Marches, after listening to some of the Guide to the North, one get's the feeling that the latter was meant to build upon the former, and if one wasn't aware of both, then one would not have as clear a picture. Has anyone else gotten that perception?
Note: this is not a blame comment, I understand that editing and printing, and cost are all issues on producing something of this sort, so please, please, don't take this as a sort of blame or bash on anyone. |
We choose to live a lie, when we see with, & not through the eye.
Every decision, no matter the evidence, is a leap of faith; if it were not, then it wouldn't be a choice at all. |
|
|
|
Lord Bane
Senior Scribe
Germany
479 Posts |
Posted - 19 Sep 2012 : 15:50:00
|
| Guide to the North was released before Silver Marches so the latter one builds upon the lore of the former one. |
The driving force in the multiverse is evil, for it forces good to act. |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 19 Sep 2012 : 15:57:28
|
@Sightless: I think there is an implicit assumption that the books aren't going to repeat themselves over and over, but instead build on each other. Each one strives to present a coherent picture that can be used on its own, independent of other pieces, but you can always go back and incorporate more. You should never feel *required* to know lore--this was the (mis)conception that got pre-4e FR into trouble, and which 4e FR tried to correct (albeit not with great success).
How much lore the players should know and use totally depends on what sort of game you're running. In a lore-rich game, the DM might indeed expect the players to know some of the lore, if only to help him/her out. In a game where the DM is more tight-fisted/mysterious about it, it's possible you are mistaken about what you think you know.
@Kysus: I've never read this Warriors of Heaven book you're talking about. Is it a Realms source? I would tend to defer more to Realms-specific sources than general D&D sources.
Just to clarify: The Realms and Core don't always mesh together. In the Realms, eladrin are a kind of fey, which elves are as well (as are drow). I'm not saying "elves become eladrin," but rather that they come from the same source, and eladrin basically *are* elves that dwell in the Feywild and are (near) immortal.
What elves and eladrin are outside of the Realms is a different matter entirely. They're a different thing in different settings. In the Core Nerath world, as I understand it, elves and eladrin aren't supposed to be closely related, and no one would call an eladrin an "elf" unless he/she is trying to explain what an eladrin is, in which case you might get a story like "an eladrin is like an elf that's spent too much time in the Feywild." And even that isn't accurate, as there are plenty of mechanically-ELVES in the Feywild too.
I've explained over and over that the "eladrin" race is just the mechanical tool that's applied to "high elves" in the Realms. The vast majority of people in the realms don't call them "eladrin," but rather just elves, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE. I really don't think it's worth getting strung out over this. Life is too short.
quote:
Originally posted by Shemmy
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Eladrin = CG outsider fey, Angels = LG outsiders
Just to be the nitpicky 'loth.
Angels = Not exemplifying any specific alignment, but they can be any good alignment, usually but not always servitors of good gods.
Archons = LG celestials
Indeed. I was simplifying things (mostly because I was typing on my phone, where I type 20 or so words a minute instead of 80-90 on a keyboard. 
Your clarification only makes my point more clearly, as humans can be of any alignment, and can become outsiders of any alignment. Elves can also be of any alignment, but tend toward CG as a race.
And I'm not going to claim it aligns perfectly, but you can see the connection, I hope?
quote:
Originally posted by Sightless
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
The realms has always had high elves (moon and sun) and low elves (wood and wild). It comes from Tolkien, basically. 4e just tried to synch up the mechanics so you had two races instead of four. If anything, it seems to have been an attempt to embrace the concept of elven subraces in a robust mechanical way. (But this is past the scope of the OP to hash out 4e's technique.)
Woooow hold it there cowboy, analogy is off there. High and low elves had more to do with who did, versus who didn't go to the undieing lands in original Elven language, but then it got blurred to discuss those that lived closest to the taint of the necromancer, or rather those that lived in the wilder woods. So, there's kind of a distinct difference here.
I'm only saying that the Realms emulates Tolkien in that it has different subraces of elves. I'm not claiming that they're subraces for the same reasons. In FR, the distinction between elves has a lot to do with location, but also cultural and historical difference.
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" |
|
|
|
Sightless
Senior Scribe
USA
608 Posts |
Posted - 19 Sep 2012 : 15:59:16
|
| I did state the latter was meant to build on the former, which means the silver marches was meant to build on Guide to the north. |
We choose to live a lie, when we see with, & not through the eye.
Every decision, no matter the evidence, is a leap of faith; if it were not, then it wouldn't be a choice at all. |
|
|
|
Lord Bane
Senior Scribe
Germany
479 Posts |
Posted - 19 Sep 2012 : 17:17:13
|
| It seems i misread the lines, my bad! |
The driving force in the multiverse is evil, for it forces good to act. |
|
|
|
CorellonsDevout
Great Reader
USA
2708 Posts |
Posted - 19 Sep 2012 : 18:55:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
Not to split hairs, but most of the first third of Evermeet was about the Seldarine gods themselves, told mostly from THEIR point of view, rather than that of a mortal. I would tend to see it as "fact" for that reason. We get actual dialog from Corellon, Sehnine, and even Araushnee/Lolth themselves. A simple myth would probably not contain that sort of lore. Most myths are told as if from an observer from a distance, not right in front row view.
Exactly (I'm not trying to split hairs either), but I agree with you, Alystra Illianniss.
Thanks for the clarification on aasimar though, Erik. |
Sweet water and light laughter |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 19 Sep 2012 : 19:42:52
|
I haven't actually read Evermeet, so I can't state anything definitively, but my caveat still stands. Many holy books in history claim to be telling a story from the perspective of the divine beings involved. That doesn't mean it's true, or even if it is, that doesn't mean everything happens exactly as written. Divine perception and human perception are different.
I suggest we table the discussion of elven origins (particularly since it's so murky when we're also discussing the Core cosmology of various editions), and talk about the OP, which was about how elves will be going forward after the Sundering. And as I've said before, I'm fairly confident we'll see elves return to their roots--I don't expect WotC will continue the eladrin/elf distinction.
Tangentially, I have a moon elf character who I'm pretty sure will survive past the Sundering, and she'll have pupil-less gold eyes. Why? Not because she's an eladrin (though that may have something to do with it), but for an entirely different, as-yet-unrevealed reason, which may have something to do with her eyes turning jet-black when she uses her shadowdancing powers.
Appearance is not always indicative, which is another way of saying that it can be deceiving.
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" |
Edited by - Erik Scott de Bie on 19 Sep 2012 19:45:32 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 19 Sep 2012 : 20:03:11
|
HOWEVER (and Erik SHAME ON YOU for not reading Evermeet! Its a masterpiece of Realmslore!), the entire novel is written as to be a "History of the Elves, by Danilo Thann", and is therefor hearsay, just like everything else in The Forgotten Realms. 
As he writes his 'work' (in italics at the beginning of certain chapters), we are treated to the 'insight' provided to him by various sources - these are the historic tales we are reading. You can take them as infallible third-person if you like, but because of the frame of the story (a style I greatly appreciate), the 'facts' presented don't necessarily have to be 100% true.
In other words, Elaine provided herself (and us) with an 'out'. She truly is a brilliant author. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 19 Sep 2012 20:04:36 |
|
|
|
Sightless
Senior Scribe
USA
608 Posts |
Posted - 19 Sep 2012 : 20:36:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
I haven't actually read Evermeet, so I can't state anything definitively, but my caveat still stands. Many holy books in history claim to be telling a story from the perspective of the divine beings involved. That doesn't mean it's true, or even if it is, that doesn't mean everything happens exactly as written. Divine perception and human perception are different.
I suggest we table the discussion of elven origins (particularly since it's so murky when we're also discussing the Core cosmology of various editions), and talk about the OP, which was about how elves will be going forward after the Sundering. And as I've said before, I'm fairly confident we'll see elves return to their roots--I don't expect WotC will continue the eladrin/elf distinction.
Tangentially, I have a moon elf character who I'm pretty sure will survive past the Sundering, and she'll have pupil-less gold eyes. Why? Not because she's an eladrin (though that may have something to do with it), but for an entirely different, as-yet-unrevealed reason, which may have something to do with her eyes turning jet-black when she uses her shadowdancing powers.
Appearance is not always indicative, which is another way of saying that it can be deceiving.
Cheers
And thus we see the reason for my tag line. |
We choose to live a lie, when we see with, & not through the eye.
Every decision, no matter the evidence, is a leap of faith; if it were not, then it wouldn't be a choice at all. |
|
|
|
Razz
Senior Scribe
USA
749 Posts |
Posted - 19 Sep 2012 : 23:02:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
quote:
Originally posted by Razz
Um, eladrin are not, and never were, elves. They've always been chaotic good celestials of the more chaotic upper planes. Been that way for decades. Let's not encourage WotC's mangling of many familiar terms in their 4e
Yes, they were. Chaotic Good celestials that are to elves what humans are to angels. This was made clear during 3.5, before 4e ever hit the stands. Under certain circumstances, mortal elves can transcend their mortal forms and become eladrin, much like humans becoming devils, demons, or angels. It's entirely possible that's where ALL eladrin come from--where do elves go when they leave the mortal world?
All WotC did in 4e was clear up the connection between eladrin and elves. It's not mangling, and there's really no contradiction.
See, this is what offends me, as a Realms gamer and fan, about the FR designers. To think I'm stupid enough to fall for the fact that it just happened to be coincidence that 4E D&D Core cosmology and lore was predestined to neatly fall into place in a 4E post-apocalyptic Forgotten Realms.
Not to sound hostile, but unless you're telling me the design team for 4th Edition built the lore & cosmology for the game from the ground up alongside the Forgotten Realms, instead of worrying about the justification of cramming it into the Realms as an afterthought, I can't buy that explanation for the Eladrin/Elf mixup. Just like I refuse to agree to any explanation on why Succubi are suddenly "devils", demons are suddenly elementals, archons were always elementals and not lawful good celestials, yugoloths are just "demons with a lawful bend", dwarves have had their vision transform 4 times in all 4 editions, etc. All signs point to me that the Realms was a complete afterthought, so a lot of of what is in 4E Realms is rather "unofficial" to me since it was never originally meant to be there to begin with. Had 3E continued as it was, which carried over the lore from 2E and 1E, we all wouldn't be having this conversation to begin with.
Yes, 3E did somewhat vaguely settle that eladrin are "angelic elves". That still doesn't explain why the entire race got watered down to a playable race. We're talking some tough beings that have officially battled the obyriths (I think, maybe just the tanar'ri) in ancient times before Toril even existed. Beings that possessed elemental-like supernatural abilities, heck, the tulani can kill evil with a mere gaze. Yet, now we have a watered down version come out of no where, with all that power gone, and even the celestial terms reduced to mere eladrin orders that are coupled with the season of the year (can't remember what Dragon Magazine issue that was, but it was explained in Dragon).
There was never any precedent that eladrins were part of the Feywild. In fact, it wasn't even called Feywild, it was always called Faerie. And it was known to never be in the same place at once time in the upper planes. I do distinctly remember a faint connection between eladrin and the Realm of Faerie, but that was mentioned only because the two shared traits with their chaotic natures.
Eladrin were from Arvandor, which never mentioned having a connection to Faerie. It was said that the first elves did come from Faerie, but they were not eladrin and no such connection was ever made.
Until, coincidentally, 4E rolled around. I read the interviews, chat logs, forums, and, as much as it makes me puke, I read both the "Wizards Presents" books and I saw a lot between those lines that WotC won't own up to. D&D no longer had its core cosmology and no longer even had its core alignment system. The idea was to simplify everything and they did that perfectly. Without the original cosmology and alignment system, they no longer had need for eladrin, guardinals, archons, yugoloths, etc.
So they made a cool, faerie-like, arcane-empowered elf race, took the term eladrin since it was no longer being used, and that was all there was to it.
What it feels like you're telling me is that the Realms designers had it planned all along to connect eladrins to elves prior to 4E discussions and water them down to mortals from the plane of Faerie, that they were always one and the same but just a form that was closer to Faerie/Feywild, while elves were closer to the Material Plane in form. Were genasi always meant to be mirrors of Elemental Chaos plane and formed from all the elements and were never humans with elemental ancestry? (and the Elemental Chaos also never officially existed at any point in D&D except as the plane of Limbo, which was an Outer Plane dedicated to Chaos, which 4E got rid of the whole law&chaos themes, too) Were archons always elementals disguised as lawful good celestials, too, then? Were succubi just THAT good at subterfuge that they managed to convince all inhabitants of the Abyss that they were demons and never devils?
This is where I get lost in even attempting to give 4E Realms lore a chance. Stuff like that is thrown at a whim, given a random explanation that has had no precedent, and not once does any of the designers own up to the simple fact that,"Yes, we were stuck meshing 4E lore with the lore of all campaign settings we produce in 4E, so we apologize for the cluster---- that came out of it all."
Again, no matter how many times someone tries to spin it, I simply cannot buy it.
This is exactly why I want 5E Realms to disregard 4E lore in the Realms completely.
A better explanation would have been:
During the Spellplague, when the planes were being mangled about, the eladrins of Arvandor were sent out by the Seldarine to save the elves from Lolth's machinations to take advantage of the event. They succeeded, but lost their very natures as they sacrificed themselves to save the elves of the world and merged pieces of their essence into some of them. Thus, the eladrin were "reborn" as a new subrace of elves, who found more of their kin from the Feywild and have made their homes in both the Feywild (which has emerged more in Toril thanks to the Spellplague) and Faerun.
Simple, efficient, done. I don't understand why all the unnecessary complexities. |
Edited by - Razz on 19 Sep 2012 23:03:52 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
What will Elves be after the Sundering?
