| Author |
 Topic  |
|
The Hooded One
Lady Herald of Realmslore
5056 Posts |
 Posted - 17 Mar 2005 : 01:59:21
|
Hello, all. Ed makes reply to Haman:
MageFairs - - what fun! Your chief sources of published Realmslore on these events are indeed the sources you’re already familiar with: MAGIC OF FAERUN and my short story “Elminster At the MageFair,” originally published in REALMS OF VALOR and recently reprinted in BEST OF THE REALMS Volume 1. Yes, they make wonderful roleplaying settings.
Let’s delve into your questions:
First, there are “mage fairs” and there is THE annual MageFair. I’m not going to discuss the small local ones, because they vary tremendously, are indeed essentially like our real-world flea markets and gaming conventions (as your questions lead me to believe you already see them as), and you can tailor their sizes, rules, and essential nature to whatever you want them to be for your campaign needs. What’s in the MAGIC OF FAERUN covers them forwards, backwards, and sideways for those who need 3e rules.
Many realms and cities ban the small local magical fairs, but I’m not aware of anyone banning MageFairs. Such bans would be meaningless fiction anyway, because the wizards who hold them pay no attention to the decrees of kings. MageFairs (the big annual sort) are never held in cities or populated areas anyway, but only in remote wilderlands (often inhospitable rock badlands, deserts, or the like), as they can be dangerous to non-magical folk - - and said folk knowing the precise time and location of a great arcane gathering might well be dangerous to the wizards and sorcerers taking part.
In general, those who ban the small local fairs do so because their rule is insecure and they fear wizards entering “their” territory, or wreaking destruction there - - or they fear someone selling magic or hiring their spellcasting services out to a foe or rival, who will then challenge their rule. In rarer cases (Rashemen and Thay are examples, and in elder days, Athalantar would have been, too), mage fairs aren’t wanted because the rulers or inhabitants of a land want themselves to be the only users of magic in it; no groups or gatherings of magically-powerful outlanders are welcome.
THE MageFair moves from place to place, the locale for any given year clearly shown (with location; usually the dream is of “soaring over anything” from one’s sleep location to the spot) to the everchanging Council who run them by mind-visions sent by Azuth (who also ‘chooses’ every year’s Council, revealing the Council members to each other in dreams). No one except the Chosen, Azuth and Mystra and their servants, and the Council know the location of an annual MageFair until three mornings beforehand. All other arcane spellcasters are reminded in dreams of the impending event, and passwords (not always the same one for everyone) are ‘mind-whispered’ to them. To get in, one must travel to outside the wards of a MageFair (attempts to translocate past them will result in severe mind-pain, and failure of the magic), give the password to a sentinel-mage, and demonstrate magical ability to that sentinel by casting (any) spell (of the attendee’s choice).
Anyone who just tries to burst through the wards should be warned that unless a sentinel lets them through - - something that happens invisibly, silently, and without apparent spellcasting - - or they happen to be a Chosen or other powerful servant of Azuth or Mystra ‘attuned to the Weave’ [such individuals can ‘step around’ the wards, and bring companions who lack such powers along with them, unharmed] the wards will act as a Prismatic Wall spell, plus several additional ‘inner curtain’ effects if the prismatic effects are breached. Spells sent against the wards usually encounter spell reflection. (The wards have all these fearsome effects in one direction only: from outside to inside. They don’t even seem to exist, to creatures and spells moving from inside to outside.)
The Council, usually about a dozen strong and usually including at least two experienced members (who’ve been on previous Councils), are responsible for checking and securing the site, casting the wards (which Azuth channels through them, achieving magical defenses far stronger than they could cast unaided, and somewhat mysterious to everyone - - yes, including Council members - - in structure if not in workings; everyone knows what they do, but it’s almost impossible to breach or dispel them, because Azuth changes their nature every year), and arranging the schedule, any trials or demonstrations, who will be allowed as a vendor and precisely what they’ll be allowed to sell, and so on. Azuth always rewards Council members (usually with new spells placed in their spellbooks) afterwards, so very few of them worry about any costs in time or coin of these preparations.
MageFairs have conduct rules and traditions (events, such as spell-hurling duels, that are always held), but their chief value is in socialization: mastering arcane spells, like writing, is an essentially lonely occupation, and MageFairs provide a way for wizards and sorcerers to get to know each other. Many of them, despite legendary feuds and the arrogance and eccentricity exhibited by so many wizards and sorcerers, soon come to look upon MageFairs as high points of their year, where they get to see old friends (in some cases, make trades, do business, get drunk, or even make love with old friends). Hmmm, rather like GenCon, though there were no GenCons (or D&D, for that matter) when I created MageFairs. :}
Yes, most of the ‘big names’ make at least a brief appearance, even if heavily disguised or by ‘riding the eyes’ (by spell, from afar) of agents who attend for them. They simply don’t want to be ‘out of the loop’ as much as they will be if they miss MageFair after MageFair. Yes, there are lectures and demonstrations. No, there are no autograph booths, though a certain sort of wizard (usually the short, pompous types who never go adventuring, but who make a good living selling blank spellbooks, spell inks, and potions to others) exchanges what can only be described as business cards. Most of the time they’re gab-and-chatter-fests. Friends of the Council members work frantically making meals and dispensing drinkables for three days and nights, and then collapse from exhaustion, to be magically whisked back to their homes, and made much richer for their efforts.
Azuth and Mystra consider MageFairs vital in keeping magic-use healthy, strong, and ever-growing, and even the wizards who hate crowds and especially detest other wizards admit that MageFairs are the best way to hear the news, spread warnings (especially of lands that have passed laws affecting spell use, but also of wild magic, unleashed monsters, and other perils). They also gather many arcane spellcasters together for Azuth and Mystra (and their servants) to observe and judge and impart things swiftly to. Would-be troublemakers are warned that servants of those two deities, as well as the visible sentinel-mages, watch events closely. One MIGHT get away with deftly and swiftly murdering a fellow wizard, but attempts to release a spreading spell, poisonous gas or dust, germs, or other means of affecting many arcane spellcasters will be noticed and foiled - - and the perpetrators shapechanged into something helpless for a decade or so.
As for tales of colourful events at MageFairs: I have hundreds, but let me leave you with just one (now prevented by the altered wards, which govern the area within them as well as being an outer sphere of defense): a clever ‘virus illusion’ passed from person to person by touch or eye contact, that swapped illusory faces of everyone ‘in the virus,’ randomly and every third breath drawn by the caster. This led to many moments of shock and horror as wizards discovered themselves apparently in bed with someone other than their expected partner, and so on. It went on and on, most disconcertingly, and the caster then started to ‘mix in’ monster likenesses, which led to several spell-attacks - - and an angry Azuth personally appearing to set things right.
Oh, all right, TWO stories: an attempt to steal a wand with a snatch-from-afar spell that was twisted by a defensive spell akin to a mantle into an unintended-by-anyone effect that snatched random garments off wizards, OR teleported them straight up, from twenty to eighty feet aloft, to hover motionless and then teleport right back to their starting-points. This, too, went on and on, with progressively barer mages popping up into the sky here, there, and everywhere - - until Mystra ended it by altering the wards to deny all translocation spells but create a ‘fly field,’ wherein everyone could fly, and hurling several magic items into their midst, causing a wild rumble-and-chase game to occur.
Most of the other tales I could tell involve long explanations of why certain events triggered feuds, so . . . you’ll just have to wait for books and short stories as yet unwritten, I guess.
I hope this has been of help.
So saith Ed. I remember Torm asking Elminster if he could go to a MageFair dressed in a toad suit, just to save time. 
love to all,
THO
|
 |
|
|
George Krashos
Master of Realmslore
Australia
6646 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2005 : 02:32:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Hooded One
So saith Ed. I remember Torm asking Elminster if he could go to a MageFair dressed in a toad suit, just to save time.
love to all,
THO
THO, is "Torm" as cheeky and entertaining IRL, or does the roleplaying let him out of his shell somewhat?
-- George Krashos
|
"Because only we, contrary to the barbarians, never count the enemy in battle." -- Aeschylus |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2005 : 03:51:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
quote:
Originally posted by The Hooded One
So saith Ed. I remember Torm asking Elminster if he could go to a MageFair dressed in a toad suit, just to save time.
love to all,
THO
THO, is "Torm" as cheeky and entertaining IRL, or does the roleplaying let him out of his shell somewhat?
-- George Krashos
If he is, then I should like to meet him! |
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!  |
|
|
|
Dargoth
Great Reader
Australia
4607 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2005 : 06:09:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
quote:
Originally posted by The Hooded One
So saith Ed. I remember Torm asking Elminster if he could go to a MageFair dressed in a toad suit, just to save time.
love to all,
THO
THO, is "Torm" as cheeky and entertaining IRL, or does the roleplaying let him out of his shell somewhat?
-- George Krashos
Ive got the THO pegged for Illistyl Elventree
Speaking of Illistyl Elventree 1ed has her listed as being a Psionic wielder what is she in 3ed? (I know the real KOMD guys never converted to 3ed but what will the "Official" WOTC stats for her be?) |
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
"Its good to be the King!"
Mel Brooks |
|
|
|
Garen Thal
Master of Realmslore
USA
1105 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2005 : 06:45:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dargoth
Ive got the THO pegged for Illistyl Elventree
Speaking of Illistyl Elventree 1ed has her listed as being a Psionic wielder what is she in 3ed? (I know the real KOMD guys never converted to 3ed but what will the "Official" WOTC stats for her be?
I think it's been mentioned more than once before that part of the Hooded Lady's agreement to provide answers for us included the caveats that a) we would not get to know which of the Knights she plays, and b) we accept that 3E stats of any sort for the Knights will not be forthcoming. Ever.
Not that this information isn't interesting, of course. But, like some matters of Realmslore, this is one of those things we simply can't know. |
|
|
|
Dargoth
Great Reader
Australia
4607 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2005 : 06:56:22
|
A)Im not asking her which charcter she plays, I am like George stating my opinion Im not expecting THO to confirm or deny it
B) I suspect we will see 3ed stats for KoMD in some future Dalelands source book (probably under the Dalelands entry) at the very least Id expect to see the Single line stat block of Name, alignment, Class and level.
|
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
"Its good to be the King!"
Mel Brooks |
|
|
|
Kuje
Great Reader
USA
7915 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2005 : 07:03:52
|
Ed, or THO, or one of the other scribes.
How does dating, no not that kind! get you minds out of the gutter!, work in FR?
Jerryd wants to argue that a date has to be a precise term that includes a day/a month/a year. But the FRCS says that most major events like birthdays, weddings, deaths, etc, are only given years. So is a year enough to call it a date or does it have to have a day and a month with the year to actually be called a "date?" |
For some of us, books are as important as almost anything else on earth. What a miracle it is that out of these small, flat, rigid squares of paper unfolds world after world, worlds that sing to you, comfort and quiet and excite you... Books are full of the things that you don't get in real life - wonderful, lyrical language, for instance, right off the bat. - Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium |
Edited by - Kuje on 17 Mar 2005 07:04:53 |
|
|
|
Jerryd
Acolyte
USA
33 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2005 : 07:09:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by THO
Hmmm. Jerry, as one of the Knights I can tell you that Cormyr IS “the good kingdom,” and most folk in the Dales (even those who mistrust its “creeping colonialism”) and in Sembia (even those who want to swallow it) admire it - - as a place to live, as a nation of tolerant, loyal, stick-together people, and as, ahem, an efficiently-run realm that gets things done (in terms of addressing the needs of its people).
I never denied that Cormyr was "the good kingdom" - I specifically said that I DID view it as such. What I was disputing was the premise that the War Wizards as Ed has elaborated on them here were organized and successful at playing their part in making it so. See my previous post in which I give my definition of "successful" and "organization." What I wanted was a War Wizards that was successful in their role of helping MAKE Cormyr that good kingdom, but what Ed's described here in my opinion isn't it.
quote:
Originally posted by THO
And I think here is where you and Ed part ways, both on depicting the War Wizards and characterizing Vangerdahast. The key to making campaigns fascinating and long-lasting is depth and the “grayness” that’s been discussed, NOT clear-cut simplicity. Undeniably Ed’s world-setting has been one of the most popular in gaming, and has outlasted many, many competitors in part because the buyers of TSR and WotC products (who had many alternatives to spend their sheckels on) chose to buy Realms products. I think some of them did it because of the complexity, and therefore the endless play possibilities, plus the feeling they get that it's somehow "real."
I certainly don't deny either the profitability or popularity of the Realms, but I think the reason for that is much more about the depth and detail of it than any sense of "grayness" or moral ambiguity you may see in it. Depth and detail don't necessarily go hand-in-hand with grayness or ambiguity.
quote:
Originally posted by THO
I dispute your judgement of Vangey as a “deluded villain.” HE thinks he’s “doing right,” and who’s to say he’s wrong?
Anyone who's got a firm grasp on what's right and wrong. Anyone who is a hypocrite, liar and a murderer (in Garen's words that Ed ENDORSED) can't possibly be considered to be "doing right."
quote:
Originally posted by THO
The fact that he’s not a one-dimensional hero seems to ruin him for you, but I see Ed’s depiction of him as a man wrestling with trying to impose his will on the world, and settling for the “end justifying the means,” as far more interesting than plain black and white (which you stated your preference for in an earlier post). In short, Vangey is a stronger character for it, and the campaign possibilities more fascinating.
I reject the notion that portraying anyone with a firm and uncompromising sense of right and wrong - of good and evil - renders them "one-dimensional." One can have a rich and in-depth personality and still hold to a set of moral absolutes - and I DON'T think that portraying a character as "shades of gray" or ambiguous makes them stronger (unless you mean "strong" in the thespianic context of "a challenge to the player to portray").
quote:
Originally posted by THO
As far as the logic of your arguments goes, you shoot yourself in the foot on this one: you cry dismay at Vangey being a villain who deceives the realm on one hand, and mention his retirement out of MORAL exhaustion. Well, neither the shining man of Good or the blackhearted villain would ever suffer from MORAL exhaustion; only characters who are neither one nor the other, but wrestling with themselves in between, are subject to such thinking and feeling (such as disillusionment).
This is false. A person who was possessed of a moral certainty and self-confidence who has that certainty and confidence ripped away due to a realization that the premises it depended upon were false (e.g. through a belated realization of reality that had been previously evaded and denied) suffers at least as much - and probably more - moral exhaustion then a person who had never possessed certainty and self-confidence to start with.
quote:
Originally posted by THO
I generally keep out of the debate between you and Ed on matters Cormyrean, and have already passed on these two posts to Ed to comment (again: he’s got a huge backlog of replies to tender, first, and I suspect you’ve both largely reached the “agree to disagree” point), but it amazes me that you can enjoy the Realms - - for some years, by the sounds of it - - and yet cling to a preference for clear-cut black and white good/evil, “organized just like this or is disorganized” viewpoint, because, ahem, that isn’t the Realms.
I had perceived much of it as such, and while I haven't read every novel or story in the realms the ones I have read can all fit the "hero wins and villain loses" model, thanks in large part to the Code that TSR/WotC had once followed. Ed himself acknowledged earlier in our discussion that not nearly as much detail about Vangey has gotten into publication as he would have liked, thus my original opinion of him was based on a dataset that was limited enough to easily lead to misdirection. That opinion started showing cracks thanks to his behavior in Beyond the High Road and Death of the Dragon, but Ed himself has really plied the sledge-hammer to finish off my prior image of him.
The games in which I participate ARE in more of a clear-cut, black-and-white style - wallowing in moral angst, ambiguity or relativism is something that has never appealed to me or been a source of uplift or entertainment. (And for what reason do we game if not for entertainment and uplift?)
quote:
Originally posted by THO
For the record, most of the Knights were born in Cormyr or grew up there, we DO think of it as “the bright shining place” (and do son largely because of what Vangey built it into), and I’m puzzled as to why you take such energetic runs at the creator of the Realms and HIS view of the place and characters he’s created, just because they don’t fit your preferences. I don’t pick up a basic geography book, flip to Arkansas, read the name of its state capitol, and snarl, “THAT’S not the place * I * want to be the capitol - - so it isn’t!”
There's a big difference. A geography book is a reference to real-world fact, and facts are impervious to wants, wishes or whims. The Realms, on the other hand, is a created work of fantasy that can be held to certain aesthetic expectations or standards - or *re*created and modified to meet the expectations and standards of the individual DM and group. If I were writing up the War Wizards solely for my own gaming use, I'd have no hesitation at all in modifying things as I saw fit to meet my own standards of verisimilitude, believability, and aesthetics. My purpose in writing the Military Forces of Cormyr, on the other hand, was a collation of data from various books and - more importantly - extrapolations and detail-filling-in on that data to make them more playable and that might be useful to a larger audience than myself. This means I have to keep as close to published lore as I can and still produce something I'm comfortable with putting my name on. Thus the difficulty I face when Ed's views on certain matters of verisimilitude, definitions or aesthetics differ from mine.
quote:
Originally posted by THO
I’m also puzzled as to why you believe the only way to organize the War Wizards is the way you see as most efficient.
I've given my reasons in-depth in past posts, and tried to make it as clear as I could. Perhaps I've failed to achieve that clarity, or perhaps we just think too differently to really bridge the gap, but in either case I doubt there's any point to rehashing it now, which is why I'm trying to wind this down now.
And now a couple of comments to A Gavel...
quote:
Originally posted by A Gavel
However, Jerry, Ed’s point very much stands. Elizabeth DID establish a security force.
That's not the point I was disputing, though. I never denied that, nor did I deny that Elzabeth's government was well-organized. Ed mentioned Elizabethan England (among other real-world instances) as comparable to the War Wizards in degree of organization and THIS was the point I was disputing. The War Wizards as Ed has described them here are NOT NEARLY as organized as his real-world examples, making his analogy one that was not at all apt.
quote:
Originally posted by A Gavel
And like The Hooded One, I’m afraid (with respect) I find some of your arguments to Ed to be rather simplistic “but I want things to be THIS way, not the way you’re telling me they are.” As I have to tell rather a lot of people who appear before me in court: Life and law are the way they are, not the way we want them to be.
As I mentioned in reply to the Hooded One above, there's a big difference between your real-life court and the Realms. Real-life is subject to objective reality that limits how much change an individual can affect, but the Realms is an artistic creation - a fantasy world - that CAN be altered to be the way we want in our individual games. I certainly can't alter how Ed presents the Realms or how WotC publishes it, but I can disagree with them and I can alter it however I desire in my game.
|
|
|
|
Melfius
Senior Scribe
USA
516 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2005 : 14:15:59
|
| How about both Ed and Jerryd agree to disagree and we go from there? |
Melfius, Pixie-Priest of Puck - Head Chef, The Faerie Kitchen, Candlekeep Inn
"What's in his pockets, besides me?"
Read a tale of my earlier days! - Happiness Comes in Small Packages |
|
|
|
Blueblade
Senior Scribe
USA
804 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2005 : 15:03:12
|
Sounds good to me. Jerryd’s recent posts that hammer home his preference for black and white, and specially his insistence on apply his and only his definition of “organization” make it clear to me, at least, the pointlessness of arguing with him.
It’s like disputing with anyone who insists on defining all of the terms used in the argument before the talking begins.
If anyone has the right to do that here, it’s Ed, being as he created the War Wizards, Vangerdahast, Cormyr, and the Realms, NOT Jerryd.
I think Jerryd has the perfect right to make the War Wizards whatever he wants them to be, in his campaign. I don’t think he should be trying to argue with the Realms creator (why do that except to try to change ED’s view of them, so Ed will change it for us all?).
And I note (in Jerryd’s reply about Elizabethan England posted above) that Jerryd is again refusing to accept a point I think Ed has clearly scored, by redefining “organization.” If you can’t argue “fair,” don’t argue.
 |
|
|
|
A Gavel
Seeker
USA
53 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2005 : 15:25:19
|
To Blueblade: I agree heartily. Jerryd is certainly not “arguing fair” in his posts here. Specifically, he applies HIS judgements of what’s organized not only to the War Wizards, but to Ed’s arguments (in his posted reply to me).
And Jerryd, your point about the Realms being different from the real world (and therefore alterable by arguing strenuously) is very much a two-edged sword. I’m used to sitting in impartial judgement (or striving to do that) daily, and I’m not seeing consistent arguments in your posts. I’m seeing someone who feels passionately about his own view of the War Wizards (commendable!) shifting his arguments constantly to get his own way. If I was Ed, I’d have run out of patience with replying to you one exchange of posts ago. To refuse to accept the expertise of the creator of a fictitious organization seems pointless to me: if you postulate that Ed’s wrong about the War Wizards, then you are arguing about nothing at all, because you’re refusing to trust the only source any of us have for the very thing you’re arguing about.
It’s like arguing with Rowling about Harry Potter, or Tolkien about Middle Earth. Ultimately pointless. Suggesting to Ed, “Uh, I think you’ve missed something ehre or got something wrong, and here’s why,” is valuable to all Realms fans, but it seems to me, Jerryd, that you’ve gone far past that, long ago, and this is now about winning this argument at all costs.
Now, if you’re trying to manipulate Ed into providing MORE details of the War Wizards and Vangerdahast, that’s different, and I’m behind you all the way . . .
 |
|
|
|
Kuje
Great Reader
USA
7915 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2005 : 19:08:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Melfius
How about both Ed and Jerryd agree to disagree and we go from there?
Agrees with you as well. :) |
For some of us, books are as important as almost anything else on earth. What a miracle it is that out of these small, flat, rigid squares of paper unfolds world after world, worlds that sing to you, comfort and quiet and excite you... Books are full of the things that you don't get in real life - wonderful, lyrical language, for instance, right off the bat. - Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium |
|
|
|
thom
Seeker
USA
69 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2005 : 22:04:59
|
quote:
Now, if you’re trying to manipulate Ed into providing MORE details of the War Wizards and Vangerdahast, that’s different, and I’m behind you all the way . .
Hmmm...so that's what he'd been doing for the last 15 pages! Now why didn't I think of doing that?
On a lighter note, THO, (or anyone here versed in cities lore) I've been following Ed's column about Melvos Hammerstars & I love it! But I'm trying to figure out how to map out 1 of his tallhouses for my PCs to stumble adventure thru, and I'm slightly confused.
A typical 4 story is narrow "usually one one-room-and-a-passage wide".
Does this mean a (say) 30 foot wide tallhouse has a 5 foot wide passage running down the left side of the floor and a 25 foot room takes of the remaining amount like so:?
__________
h|......r
a|..... o
l |..... o
l |..... m
_|________
And so is each floor ONE big room or is it divided into 2,3, or 4 rooms?
Just curious; I'm trying to make them as authentic as possible. Thanks for any help, and as always thanks for your answers!
thom
|
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4685 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2005 : 23:36:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by thom
On a lighter note, THO, (or anyone here versed in cities lore) I've been following Ed's column about Melvos Hammerstars & I love it! But I'm trying to figure out how to map out 1 of his tallhouses for my PCs to stumble adventure thru, and I'm slightly confused.
A typical 4 story is narrow "usually one one-room-and-a-passage wide".
Does this mean a (say) 30 foot wide tallhouse has a 5 foot wide passage running down the left side of the floor and a 25 foot room takes of the remaining amount like so:?
__________
h|......r
a|..... o
l |..... o
l |..... m
_|________
And so is each floor ONE big room or is it divided into 2,3, or 4 rooms?
Hmm, city lore tends to lend toward row houses. Where a passage way and stairway (remember are stories). Off hand meeting the ASCII art appears to match description, though coridor might be on the right. As for the rooms themselves constuction tends to indicate a need for internal bearing walls (or at least beams) to support the overall structure and almomost certainly would be divided into rooms within the given space for family type usage. A business might use beams and posts buteven those would tend to have at least a back room. |
|
|
|
Jerryd
Acolyte
USA
33 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2005 : 01:56:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by A Gavel
Now, if you’re trying to manipulate Ed into providing MORE details of the War Wizards and Vangerdahast, that’s different, and I’m behind you all the way . . .
In part, that's exactly what I've been doing! Now, I'm not at all saying that I don't believe in the validity of my positions (I do believe in them, and I don't do devil's advocate aruments), but getting more Realmslore is half the reason why I went on so long and at in such depth. Ed says something, and I say "I don't see how that can be, because..." then Ed comes back with something that addresses my reason and sometimes that generates more Realmslore which resolves the problems I was having.
I'll give you an example. In Ed's most recent post, he revealed that the War Wizards are still a going concern because the Harpers are a constant and covert supporting element. It's long been obvious that the Harpers are meddlers par excellence, of course, but what wasn't clear until now was the DEGREE to which they meddled in War Wizards affairs - within the context of the War Wizards operations, were the Harpers just a non-essential sideshow good for individual stories but not indispensible to the big picture, or did the Harpers so involve themselves as to become essential to getting the job done? That newly-revealed large degree resolved the apparent contradiction I saw between Ed's earlier words about the War Wizards and their APPARENT success at helping to make Cormyr a great place, and the revelation didn't take place until late in the discussion. We'd have missed it if Ed and I hadn't gone on at length, so all the verbiage was worth it if you look at it that way!
As to your other points... The other half of my motivation is simply an attempt to understand WHY Ed and I disagree on some things - an attempt to dig down underneath and see what the root of the difference is. He says A, I say B, he says A because of C, I say B because of D, he says C because of E, I say D because of F, and so on until we eventually drill down to the root and fundmental cause of our difference - I say Z is this, he says Z is that. Maybe one or the other of us will find an error of logic somewhere, or we will find the basic premise, principle or conceptual definition we differ on that most typically results in agreement to disagree - but at least the root cause of the difference is revealed, rather than just stopping at the surface and hand-waving the difference away as "everyone's got an opinion". You may think that this kind of argument is not "arguing fair", but personally I think that's how arguments are SUPPOSED to be conducted - intermediate steps in the argument SHOULD be challenged in an attempt to get to the bottom of the issue! As it turned out, I discovered that he and I do have some definitional differences in concepts that at the higher levels caused us to sort of argue around each other. And I don't believe my arguments have been shifting - I've been saying the same things all along, just perhaps trying to say the same thing in a different way to clarify my meaning and intent.
My style of discussion may not be to everyone's taste and I may be judged as being stubborn, pedantic, confrontational, nit-picky or obsessive over minutiae and detail - or even "unfair" (although I'd disupte that last judgement) - but it's not a style I plan to change because it serves my needs. Now that I've explained my discussion style and the reasons for it, though, we don't need to get into an extended discussion about it since it's not Realms relevant.
|
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4685 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2005 : 02:13:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jerryd
And I don't believe my arguments have been shifting - I've been saying the same things all along, just perhaps trying to say the same thing in a different way to clarify my meaning and intent.
your arguments have not changed. you say you are right and everyone else is wrong.
quote:
My style of discussion may not be to everyone's taste and I may be judged as being stubborn, pedantic, confrontational, nit-picky or obsessive over minutiae and detail - or even "unfair" (although I'd disupte that last judgement) - but it's not a style I plan to change because it serves my needs. Now that I've explained my discussion style and the reasons for it, though, we don't need to get into an extended discussion about it since it's not Realms relevant.
You can dispute the opinions of others, you certainly already have. you rejected my police anaogy out of hand. You have rejected disfuntional people achieving power positions though facts certainly show they have in history. You dismiss most couter points because in your belief they will not work. That you personaly do not believe they would every work. That your conception of how it works appears to you the only way it can work.
Yes some of us indeed might consider you quote:
being stubborn, pedantic, confrontational, nit-picky or obsessive over minutiae and detail - or even "unfair"
Now if we are wrong about you it would help to see you even conceed one point on how the War Wizards should work, without a massive text post that repeats all the things you have not conceeded because of your belief.
Systems do work far more chaotic in real world then you appear to believe and in fantasy world the few checks and balances are far more chaotic.
|
|
|
|
Garen Thal
Master of Realmslore
USA
1105 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2005 : 02:59:34
|
| I am going to humbly ask--nay, beg--that all parties please stop. Arguing the methods of each other's argumentation is a horrible waste of everyone's time and energy, and I am sure that every scribe here at Candlekeep would much prefer to spend less time quibbling and more time learning, discussing and understanding the Realms. |
|
|
|
Melfius
Senior Scribe
USA
516 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2005 : 03:10:03
|
Please ignore the following statements. Sometimes, a guy just has to spout...
Basically, Jerryd, what you need to consider is the rest of us. A continuous harangue of Ed could result in his making a decision to discontinue posting here. This is what is most irritating to us.
Secondly, we all agree that your position has not changed and shows no intention of ever changing. You have your views/beliefs - fine. So be it. No one is going to tell you that you have to change them. But when you argue to the point where it is clear you want others to change their views to match yours, that our opinions are wrong, that's where it becomes a useless arguement. Live and let live.
The bottom line is this: Ed created the Realms. He created the War Wizards. They are, for all intents and purposes, his intellectual property to do with as he sees fit (well, with the exception of WotC's veto-power ). If you don't agree with his decisions, you are more than welcome to change them in your campaigns. You are even encouraged to do so! Go forth and prosper, and all that.
But if the man wants to make the War Wizards a band of troubadors travelling Cormyr and selling snake oil to the local rubes, he can. It's his sandbox, and he can kick over everyone's castles if he wants to.
Offer your opinions, we welcome them with open arms. But don't argue them as fact.
Now I'll put the soapbox back where I found it, and promptly submit myself to Alaundo for my lashings.
Please turn your ignore filters off now, I'll try and get things back on topic:
Ed! How are you doing? Great to hear from you again with such wonderful Realmslore! Quick question - Do you plan on attending this year's Origins?
Happy St. Patty's Day, all! |
Melfius, Pixie-Priest of Puck - Head Chef, The Faerie Kitchen, Candlekeep Inn
"What's in his pockets, besides me?"
Read a tale of my earlier days! - Happiness Comes in Small Packages |
Edited by - Melfius on 18 Mar 2005 03:14:02 |
|
|
|
SiriusBlack
Great Reader
USA
5517 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2005 : 03:19:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Melfius
Basically, Jerryd, what you need to consider is the rest of us. A continuous harangue of Ed could result in his making a decision to discontinue posting here. This is what is most irritating to us.
I'd be very surprised if that happened. EG and THO has shown too great a degree of class and maturity to allow something like this to discontinue the posts in this thread. If people are having that big a problem with Jerryd's posts, then it's time to take it to a moderator and resolve it there. That's why the moderators get paid the big bucks just like the authors/game designers. |
|
|
|
Melfius
Senior Scribe
USA
516 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2005 : 03:29:44
|
| Wait a minute! Moderators get PAID?!?! |
Melfius, Pixie-Priest of Puck - Head Chef, The Faerie Kitchen, Candlekeep Inn
"What's in his pockets, besides me?"
Read a tale of my earlier days! - Happiness Comes in Small Packages |
|
|
|
George Krashos
Master of Realmslore
Australia
6646 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2005 : 03:57:41
|
Oh yeah, all the time. Just like FR design and development assistants.
-- George Krashos
|
"Because only we, contrary to the barbarians, never count the enemy in battle." -- Aeschylus |
|
|
|
SiriusBlack
Great Reader
USA
5517 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2005 : 04:04:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
Oh yeah, all the time. Just like FR design and development assistants.
Actually in all seriousness, before leaving the WOTC boards (Gosh, that sounds like I'm describing a combat zone), in private and public communications with some moderators, I got the impression that they were paid.
Thus, I'm sure the moderators here are also getting direct deposits or kick backs under the table. |
|
|
|
Melfius
Senior Scribe
USA
516 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2005 : 04:06:12
|
Well, I'm not. 
Guess just being a chef ain't enough. |
Melfius, Pixie-Priest of Puck - Head Chef, The Faerie Kitchen, Candlekeep Inn
"What's in his pockets, besides me?"
Read a tale of my earlier days! - Happiness Comes in Small Packages |
|
|
|
The Hooded One
Lady Herald of Realmslore
5056 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2005 : 04:30:28
|
Hello, all. Ed replies to Jerryd’s latest 2-part War Wizards post:
Well, Jerryd, I believe I’ve reached the “agree to disagree” stage with you.
There’s simply no point in going on debating if you’re going to refute every point I make by defining terms differently than I do and then triumphantly concluding that I’m wrong about this or that “by definition.” It adds nothing to shared enjoyment of the Realms, and such an approach falls far short of convincing me. However, I’ll reply to certain of your points, because some of your assertions shouldn’t be left unchallenged in the records all scribes can peruse.
You post: “Suppose for a moment the Harpers never existed, and Vangey and his War Wizards remain as-is and faced all the same challenges. Could Vangey and the War Wizards have handled all those challenges over the years entirely on their own and made Cormyr the same kind of place it is depicted as? Or would they have failed and fallen to defeat? In my opinion, this must be judged before one can call Vangey and the War Wizards "successful".”
Sorry, Jerryd, but I disagree. There is NO group, policy, or individual in either the Realms or the real world that could ever be judged “successful” through this approach, because anyone can always ask unanswerable hypothetical “but what if” (Blucher had arrived later on the battlefield, or Mary the First hadn’t died when she did, or Hitler had successfully invaded and conquered England or hadn’t opened the two-front war, or the United States had failed in its War of Independence, or the Plantagenets hadn’t given way to the Tudors, or Lincoln hadn’t been assassinated) questions - - questions none of us can ever really know the answer to. Just as you can’t learn the answer to the one you’ve posed, because history (imaginary, for the Realms, or “real,” for our real world) didn’t turn out that way. So we’re really talking, when you say “judged” successful, in applying your opinions of success to the War Wizards (or various scribes applying their opinions, and debating it). I could just as easily say: “We must consider if Vangerdahast and a bunch of other guys in robes could together have handled all those challenges over the years if there was no magic in the Realms. Then and only then can we decide if we’ll call them successful.” By the gods, Jerry, you’ve created the ultimate straw man!
By all means let’s discuss this, but leave your “successful” (or not) judgement out of it. To start the discussion, I’ll say this: as the ultimate expert on Cormyr, Vangerdahast, and the War Wizards, it’s MY firm opinion that they would have handled those challenges. Far more messily, with many unintended and “we-got-there-too-late” casualties, and garnering a far more unsavoury reputation for themselves in the process, but yes, they would have. There: they’re successful. In my judgement, of course. Dispute it by all means, but let’s be very clear about what you’re doing: pitting your opinion, not any absolute or correct judgement, against my opinion.
And I’m not going to back down in my belief that my opinions in these matters are right. By all means “organize” things however you’d like in your own campaign or homebrew world, but please don’t expect me to accept them in the published Realms.
You post: “As far as I'm concerned, if a manager requires the intervention of outside agencies to get the job done and keep things going smoothly, then he ISN'T succeeding.”
Again, there’s success and success. Recall the football quotation about winning? “It’s the ONLY thing.” Well, Vangey ‘won,’ holding Cormyr together and shaping it to his aims and preferences, ergo he was successful. “Success” is a ‘value judgement’ that can differ markedly depending on who’s applying it. Vangey achieved what he set out to do.
To posit a real-world example: American historians, if they mention the so-called War of 1812 at all, always deem it a “victory” for the American side. If they think about why they hold that opinion at all, they point to concessions wrung out of Britain that officially “won” them long-disputed territory (much of Wisconsin and Michigan’s northern peninsula). Militarily, it was a laughable comedy of errors on both sides, but Canadians firmly consider it a “victory” for THEIR side. Why? Because the war began with the expressed intent on the part of the invading Americans to conquer the “northern British colonies on the continent” (Canada) and make them American territory. When it all ended, they hadn’t done that, and the Canadians who’d fought them still had their own farms and so on that weren’t part of America. By their standards, “success.”
Vangerdahast set out to make Cormyr a stronger realm, make the War Wizards his personal force or tool in accomplishing that, and shaping Cormyr to be the way he wanted it to be. All of these things he accomplished, retiring on his terms when he wanted to. You can argue as to that being success or not, but (being as you cite MCI and business examples) in business, it’s often said “Results matter.” Vangey got results.
Which brings us back to exactly what I’ve been trying to explore with Vangey (NOT answer definitively, note, but leave to all readers to make their own judgements on): “Do the ends justify the means?”
You go on to post: “A "poor leader" is NOT a success! If Vangey is a poor leader, then he's a failure BY DEFINITION!”
Oh? We were discussing being a MANAGER here, not a leader. Azoun IV is the “leader.”
You go on to post: “If the War Wizards institution is as a whole successful (bearing in mind the Harper discussion and my definition of success above) then it can only be DESPITE Vangey, not because of him”
Oh? Before Vangey came along, the War Wizards had become a group of leaderless individuals doing just as they (individually or in little cabals of buddies) decided, not truly controlled by, or loyal to, the realm, the Crown, or any Court official. I’d say the War Wizards who prevented a massacre in Arabel during the war against the Devil Dragon and defeated dozens of attempts on Azoun’s life, solved more than one murder mystery (see my story “The Grinning Ghost of Taverton Hall” in REALMS OF MYSTERY), and so on, existed as an organization BECAUSE of Vangey, rather than despite him.
. . .
THO here, splitting Ed’s reply into two posts because of the post-length limit. I decided to break at the same place Jerryd did. More immediately . . .
|
|
|
|
The Hooded One
Lady Herald of Realmslore
5056 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2005 : 04:40:35
|
And here is Ed’s reply to Jerryd, Part Two:
You then posted a (very limited) dictionary definition of “organization” and use it to justify your judgement of “organization.” Well, two can play that game, so I’ll respond with just one passage from a Pocket Oxford (not even the Unabridged, which offers a FAR broader scope for the word “organization”): “bring into working order.” That’s exactly what Vangerdahast did: inherit a bunch of War Wizards who were “doing their own thing” and establish a “working order” on them: his own. “Report to me, I’ll give you commands, and I’ll organize, and continually re-organize, you into task groups.” Being as that’s what most intelligence services do in the modern world, to dismiss that TYPE of organization as not falling within the definition of organization means you’re dismissing all of them as being “disorganized.” You’ll probably counter this by saying that no, all of those real-world organizations have a strict hierarchy, but SO DO THE WAR WIZARDS UNDER VANGEY! He’s boss, and under him is Laspeera, who’s designated to speak with his authority. Also under him, reporting directly, are the side-branch of ‘internal police’ investigators (the alarphons), the Council (who deal with the formal side of things, and interface with the courtiers and Heralds), and all of the other War Wizards. This IS organization. It’s just a very ‘flat’ organizational structure, without a lot of levels of “middle management.”
Of course, as long as you refuse to accept that, we’re indeed stuck at agreeing to disagree - - because I in turn refuse to accept your narrower definition of “organization.”
You post: “Organization and moment-to-moment fluidity are mutually exclusive.” Only by your self-admittedly clear-cut, black-and-white preferences. Garen Thal correctly compared the War Wizards to fraternal organizations (clubs, the Rotary, the Kinsmen, the Legion, etc.), and many of them, in our modern real world, while clinging to their own internal rules, pomp and ceremony, do in fact work in ever-changing sub-groups (“task forces” and “committees” and “projects”) to deal with specific local problems and concerns (raising money for wheelchairs, putting in crosswalks, settling disputes over use of a community hall, providing meals for seniors; the aims may be similar from place to place and even country to country, but the local specifics of how they are carried out vary markedly). And this very ever-changing sub-group work is just what the War Wizards do (remember, we’re only talking of 800 individuals here, NOT a huge, unwieldy group).
You post: “in my opinion it's unquestionable that the War Wizards would be more effective with a hierarchical structure than without one even if Vangey didn't have the sense to realize it.”
I fully agree with you. They would be. However, we’re not talking “most effective” or even ‘most efficient,’ here. The most effective way for, say, the United States to further “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” would be to freely and equally provide FULL medical examinations and treatment to every last citizen [oh, and never go to war or allow guns in society] (life), and have no laws or police or military whatsoever (liberty). (I’ll leave the happiness element out of debate because it’s so personal and therefore varied.) Yet strangely enough, that’s not what we find when we look at the United States. Also, the most efficient distribution of agrarian resources (by which I mean edible food, NOT money) is the communal one (communes, or what tends to get labelled “socialism” or “communism”). Yet a purely communal society doesn’t exist in the world; attempts to run communes are always small in population, chaotic, and tend to be unstable or short-lived (the “human factor” twisting theoretical or even on-paper efficiency). I could go on to cite other examples for pages and pages, just off the top of my head. Clearly, then, things in the real world aren’t always established as (or don’t always turn out to be, as they develop and evolve) whatever’s most effective or most efficient. As I said to you in a previous post, I think the War Wizards under Caladnei will BECOME hierarchically organized, because she’s not the paranoid micromanager that Vangey was (and because Filfaeril and Alusair certainly don’t want another Vangey arising to run the War Wizards if anything happens to Filfaeril).
You post: “These reasons are why I persist in saying that left to their own devices the Vangey and the War Wizards as you've portrayed them would collapse into an ineffective mess in relatively short order.”
Only because of the way you choose to view Vangerdahast, the War Wizards, and Cormyr. I obviously believe differently, and just as obviously have published all sorts of details about these three elements of the Realms, down the years, that make it clear that the War Wizards HAVEN’T collapsed (for whatever reasons). That’s “established Realms history,” coming from the same source that you first learned about the War Wizards from.
This strikes me as not being very different from looking at your own hands, and saying, “Yup, these are my hands. Four fingers and - - well, I don’t believe in thumbs, so that fifth digit I can clearly see there isn’t a thumb. In fact, it doesn’t exist at all. I’ll just ignore it.” Now, that’s fine if you want to live under those conditions, but you’ve taken a step farther that I don’t find acceptable: telling all the rest of us, “I don’t have thumbs, and none of you do either! Those aren’t thumbs! You’re all wrong about this!”
You post: “I would far prefer to view the War Wizards as being truly successful”
Good, because they ARE truly successful. They have weeded out traitors and infiltrators among the populace, manipulated politics and public opinion, and undertaken many other activities with GREAT effectiveness to help create a Cormyr that is largely loyal and cohesive (Realms coverage tends to look for PC roleplaying opportunities, and hence focus on treasonous nobles, rebels in Arabel and Marsember, and agents of Sembia, Westgate, et cetera, but if the crofters and ‘just plain folk’ of Cormyr WEREN’T loyal to the Crown, those malcontent elements would have succeeded in tearing asunder the realm long ago).
You post: “Given the many and varied tasks charged to the War Wizards, if they are to be successful (by my definition) they MUST be organized (by my definition) and indeed even somewhat hierarchical.”
Can’t argue with this circular logic. If you insist on defining the terms, then (ahem, by definition) the only way those terms can be satisfied is . . . yes, on your terms. However, I DON’T accept your terms, or even your “right” to sit in judgement on my creations and the reasoning behind them. Judge for yourself and hold your own opinions, certainly. Try to deem me “wrong” and my views about the War Wizards and Vangerdahast mistaken, not at all.
You post: “I could accept your characterization of Vangey IF I completely change overall view I had of him before this discussion. I had thought of him as primarily a hero - a man of Good - who had in action some rough edges to him in action. Your depiction of him is definitely not heroic, though - it is of a villain who had deluded himself into thinking he was good simply because he pursued good goals, but who eventually realized he wasn't good and with that bitter self-discovery stepped down in self-disillusionment.”
If you can truly hold that view after reading the words of mine (“I see Vangey as beginning his career as eager and zealous, being hardened into a grimly practical veteran of Court intrigues and nobles’ traps who slowly becomes obsessed with his vision of Cormyr at all costs, convinces himself that the end justifies all means, and then in the twilight of his years begins to mellow and admit three things: that there are now some things he WON’T do in the name of The Dream; that he’s been wrong about a lot of things and in his deeds made many errors, not a few little ‘so what’ ones; and that he’s overstepped the bounds of what’s best for the realm while deluding himself that he wasn’t, and that it’s best if he remove himself from authority, in a manner least damaging to the realm (to avoid a power struggle, being as he came to his senses just before the war with the Devil Dragon and the loss of Azoun)”) you quoted just above them, Jerry, I see no point in continuing this discussion at all. Life (and roleplaying: that’s why the game has levels and character advancement) postulates character DEVELOPMENT and change, not clear-cut “He is evil, was born evil, and always shall be evil” and “Yonder knight is good, can never be anything but good.”
Your insistence on now calling Vangerdahast a “deluded villain” tells me we view the Realms on two entirely different levels. I’m trying to explore a good man suffering the effects of “absolute power corrupts absolutely,” and in the end realizing it, and you’re operating on the assumption that Vangerdahast has an immutable evil, villainous core and merely wore convenient delusional masks to further his career. That view of yours is flawed, by your own words, because the (correct) “MORAL exhaustion and disillusionment” you mention isn’t something a villain would ever feel. He might say, “Ah! What a self-deluding noble fool I’ve been, when I could have been an out-and-out tyrant and avoided a LOT of hard work manipulating people! I’ve wasted so much TIME!” but he WOULDN’T feel any anguish on moral grounds. Vangerdahast clearly does (as certain scenes in ELMINSTER’S DAUGHTER show clearly, if briefly, and several scenes in DEATH OF THE DRAGON hint at).
You post: “You see, the reason I am a fan of Cormyr is because I idealized the place. Insofar as what fits within a renaissance-style world Cormyr is the "good kingdom". That contextually idealized view of Cormyr of course also applied to the institutions that defended it. If Cormyr is the "good kingdom", then the Purple Dragons and War Wizards were the "good defenders" who were successful (by MY definition) - competent, efficient, and (for the most part and to varying degrees) decent.”
Well, Jerry, I created Cormyr to be the shining good kingdom (so much so that a TSR designer, years ago, wrote an internal memo saying it was TOO good “a happy shiny place” and in his opinion had to be destroyed), and I like to think of it as you do, too. But I think it shines much more brightly if it ALSO seems real, not cardboard and simplistic. That means ‘human nature’ foibles, screwups, tensions, and conflicts (all things very much desired by TSR and now WotC games designers and book editors for their own creative needs, not to mention players and DMs!). To accept Cormyr as “the good place” doesn’t necessarily mean one has to accept all of its institutions as perfect and beyond reproach. In fact, that’s static “death” to a DM, novel writer, or game designer: the only ways one can go from there are decadence/decay (from within) or destruction (by invaders).
I have said all along that the published lore about Cormyr has been insufficient, and can lead readers into assumptions about Cormyr that are entirely correct on the scanty evidence they have to go on, but incorrect when one looks at the underlying picture. That’s one of the reasons I’m still around, decades after gamers first started to see published wisps and hints of the Realms, to fill in details and provide more lore - - one of the reasons I answer queries here.
You post: “Perhaps my idealization of (and cheerleading for) Cormyr is excessive in comparison to your own and has too greatly affected my perspective, but for my own part I simply cannot understand WHY when you created the War Wizards you would deliberately choose to portray them as sub-optimal and seriously less effective on their own then they really needed to be. If I were going to portray a place as the "bright shining place" then I would make the institutions of that place as optimal as I could within the context of the overall style of the world (in this case being roughly Renaissance).”
No, I don’t think anybody’s a wilder and more persistent cheerleader for Cormyr than I am. I have, after all, furiously defended it during two internal TSR debates about smashing it. I’ve explained why I chose to portray the War Wizards as “sub-optimal” several times, but I’ll underscore it again: realism, Jerry. Realism. In real world situations, tensions and growth (which give the D&D game its maximum play possibilities, something built into the published Realms from the first, and nurtured ever since) arise out of lands, organizations, laws, customs, and practises NOT being optimal, and persons disagreeing on how things should be and striving to change them.
To put it as Foxhelm did recently: that may not be the green house you’d like, but it’s the white house I built. The house you say you like so much.
By all means detail the War Wizards however you’d like for your own campaign. Just don’t expect me to budge from my views about them when you disagree with the way I’ve portrayed them.
I’d still like to see how you think Caladnei’s War Wizards SHOULD be organized, rather than reading post after post from you about how I’ve got Vangey’s War Wizards ‘wrong.’
I’m personally dismayed by how your own stated preference for clear-cut and black-and-white has, as you say, forced you to abandon your view of Vangey as an essentially heroic figure because of what I’ve revealed about him, and swing over to seeing him as a “deluded villain.” There’s such a lot of ‘character room’ between a hero who’s rough around the edges and a deluded villain, and the vast majority of Realms characters, like Vangey, are sitting in that character room. It’s a BIG chamber, with a LOT of people in it. If you never enter it, you’re missing most of the Realms.
And on other matters:
Melfius, I wish I could attend Origins. For one thing, I hear there’s a nifty Calliope trophy with my name on it (from last year) that even comes with a dinner! However, I can’t afford either the time off work from the library, or the money such a trip would cost me. Coins are very short up here right now (I’m a game designer and a writer, remember, no longer a steady-salaried wage-slave). So I’m afraid not. I WILL make it to GenCon Indy, barring unforeseen disasters, but that’ll probably be my only “big trip” this year. No Worldcon, no vacations, just a few local “day-drive” conventions.
thom, most tallhouses (homes, not rooming houses or shops) are several rooms ‘deep.’ Think: front door, opening into: full-width-of-building lobby/ ‘front room,’ opening into: passage down one side or other of interior, that in turn opens into a series of rooms or closets or stairs up, and usually ending in a full-width kitchen at the back (on the ground floor). So, yes, the passage flanks a series of (admittedly cramped) rooms.
So saith Ed. Who will return with more Realmslore on the morrow.
love to all,
THO
|
|
|
|
Mareka
Learned Scribe
Canada
125 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2005 : 05:49:45
|
| The first sources I read about Cormyr left me with the impression that it was a somewhat too perfect. I didn't like that version of Cormyr at all, because it seemed one dimensional. But recently, I've taken another look at it, mostly due to this discussion between Mr. Greenwood and JerryD. I have gained a whole new respect for Cormyr and Vangerderhast now. I love Vangy's moral issues and Cormyr's flaws. |
|
|
|
SiriusBlack
Great Reader
USA
5517 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2005 : 06:39:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mareka
The first sources I read about Cormyr left me with the impression that it was a somewhat too perfect.
I've heard that sentiment expressed before. I take it you've never read Cormyr: A Novel. One read through that novel will show you Cormyr has more than a fair share of dark little dirty secrets.
And for that I thank the authors.  |
|
|
|
Alaundo
Head Moderator
United Kingdom
5692 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2005 : 09:18:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by Melfius
Wait a minute! Moderators get PAID?!?!
Well met
Not at all, Melfius, not at all. Move along, there is nothing to see here
Indeed, apologies for the late arrival (something always seems to happen when i'm away from the halls for a time ).
This has certainly gone far enough and it's quite clear that there will never be an agreement on this particular matter, and therefore should stay as is.
Now, back to the meaty Realmslore, let's just stay aware from THAT particular subject for now |
Alaundo
Candlekeep Forums Head Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
An Introduction to Candlekeep - by Ed Greenwood
The Candlekeep Compendium - Tomes of Realmslore penned by Scribes of Candlekeep
|
|
|
|
MW Turnage
Acolyte
USA
8 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2005 : 10:31:13
|
Well met, all.
I'm going to finally take the opportunity to delurk and ask some (hopefully) simple and quick questions about Daggerdale and Randall Morn:
1) Aside from FRQ3's Colderan (their great-grandfather), have either of Randall and Silver Morn's parents been named?
2) I have a snippet by Eric Boyd (from one of the Realms lists of the past decade) that states that Randall arranged a marriage between Silver and one of the Cormaerils. Is this official Realmslore, and if so, what is her husband's name (I gathered 'Thracian' from Realms-L, and went with that IMC, but couldn't find a source for it).
3) If Silver's husband is indeed a Cormaeril, what does that imply for the couple after the events of Cormyr: The Novel? Pressure from the family to bear an heir that could take the Daggerdale throne, in an attempt to recoup the family's losses in a different (albeit smaller) kingdom?
4) What would the affect be on Randall? Pressure to take a wife and bear an heir himself to keep his in-laws from bumping him off in favor of a niece or nephew? A weakening of ties with Cormyr given a familial relationship with Azoun's would-be assasins?
5) The first Realms set mentions that Randall explicitly trusts on his sister (obvious), Florin and Mourngrym (also obvious given the Knight's activities in the area), and Mirt, Durnan and Khelben(!). Now, above and beyond the idea of anyone explicitly trusting Khelben, there's got to be a story in how he came to trust the three of them. Will we ever see it?
5) Finally, in Shadows of Doom, Elminster expressly asks Storm to watch over Randall by name, singling him out over many of El's other responsibilities and projects. Why? Is it a 'professional' interest due to some importance of Randall and Daggerdale to the future of the area, or is it a personal interest?
(Fingers crossed that none of these fall into NDA territory) |
Mark |
|
|
|
Alaundo
Head Moderator
United Kingdom
5692 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2005 : 11:18:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by SiriusBlack
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
Oh yeah, all the time. Just like FR design and development assistants.
Actually in all seriousness, before leaving the WOTC boards (Gosh, that sounds like I'm describing a combat zone), in private and public communications with some moderators, I got the impression that they were paid.
Thus, I'm sure the moderators here are also getting direct deposits or kick backs under the table.
Well met
Not at all, Sirius. On official boards...maybe, but certainly not at Candlekeep. In fact, it costs a fair amount to be here myself and keep this library up and running. However, my love of the Realms and of the pleasure of having ye all share the lore makes it very worthwhile  Still, enough said, and back to the Realmslore... |
Alaundo
Candlekeep Forums Head Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
An Introduction to Candlekeep - by Ed Greenwood
The Candlekeep Compendium - Tomes of Realmslore penned by Scribes of Candlekeep
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Questions for Ed Greenwood (2005)
Topic Locked
