| Author |
 Topic  |
|
silverwolfer
Senior Scribe
789 Posts |
 Posted - 23 Apr 2014 : 18:46:24
|
So to put it simply seems that WOTC wants to make the realms simpler, and am not sure who to blame. In the Hunters book around page 45, Milliki goes off and basically says, kill all the goblins by default, because you know they are evil by default.
An it is seriously looking like that Many Arrows is going from a sort of chaotic neutral stance, to either being wiped out or going for pure generic evil orc kingdom.
I don't know, seems we are going way retro, where if they are green, they are evil.
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 23 Apr 2014 : 19:09:52
|
I wouldn't say it's dumbing down the Realms... We can (and have!) endlessly argued racial alignments before... In the Realms, alignment can have a very real impact -- to the point of having dimensions (planes of existence) dedicated to it, or being affected by alignment-specific magic effects. Additionally, some races are created by singular deities and usually mirror that deity's alignment.
Given those two facts, I don't have an issue with saying "999 times out of 1000, a member of this particular race is going to be alignment Y. And if not Y, then X or Z, and almost never A, B, or C." |
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!  |
 |
|
|
Mirtek
Senior Scribe
595 Posts |
Posted - 23 Apr 2014 : 19:57:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by silverwolfer
In the Hunters book around page 45, Milliki goes off and basically says, kill all the goblins by default, because you know they are evil by default.
I was also a little confused by Catti's inner monologue in The Companions, where she was thinking about the future of Anauroch and how it would become a desert again and to me it read as if she (and Mielikki) approved.
Which I found strange for a deity of nature, since Anauroch only ever became a desert due to unnatural phaerimm life drain magic. If the Shades have one act of restoring natural order to their name, then it's restoring Anauroch to what it should naturally be.
Maybe the spellplague damaged Mielikki's mind.
|
|
|
|
Eilserus
Master of Realmslore
USA
1446 Posts |
Posted - 23 Apr 2014 : 20:09:39
|
I don't mind the whole goblin thing myself. The goblin races were created solely to destroy the humans, dwarves, elves, halflings etc. I think it fits nicely. And Wooly has a good point too, that doesn't mean there won't be the exception.
Keep in mind, this is the views of one deity. I'm sure they all hold their own opinions. One thing is certain, and based off their history, the monstrous races are a plague upon civilization. They always have been, always will. |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 23 Apr 2014 : 20:57:43
|
I don't like this at all, tbh. Goblin, Orcs, Drow, Duergar and so on are all beings made of flesh who -unlike outsiders- have the ability to make free choices and create their own life path as they see fit. 'Alignment' should never be the product of physiology (and saying 'all X are evil' basically equals this), it only removes depth (a lot of it) from any race that gets this treatment.
Having diversity, lone individuals or even groups whose choices diverge from their race's stereotype (or even oppose it), is way more natural and interesting than a bunch of 'people' who are basically clones when it comes to their goals in life and motivations.
Also it doesn't invalidate the role of some kind of creatures as villains, because MANY (the majority) of them will still behave as such. What it does is inducing thought on their motivations, making players act differently than simply saying 'oh -X-, lets kill them all-, creating RP and opportunity for stories, and that's a good thing.
Only outsiders should be X-aligned, and only because it basically is their definition. They literally are embodied concepts and should behave accordingly. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 23 Apr 2014 21:14:22 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 23 Apr 2014 : 21:23:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
I don't like this at all, tbh. Goblin, Orcs, Drow, Duergar and so on are all beings made of flesh who -unlike outsiders- have the ability to make free choices and create their own life path as they see fit. 'Alignment' should never be the product of physiology (and saying 'all X are evil' basically equals this), it only removes depth (a lot of it) from any race that gets this treatment.
Having diversity, lone individuals or even groups whose choices diverge from their race's stereotype (or even oppose it), is way more natural and interesting than a bunch of 'people' who are basically clones when it comes to their goals in life and motivations.
We do have those exceptions, though... But having a single good goblin or a single good drow doesn't change the fact that the overwhelming majority of the members of those races are not just evil, but unrepentantly and quite thoroughly evil.
Maybe it's just me, but 1 out of 10,000 does not imply universal tendencies. 9,999 out of 10,000 does. |
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! |
|
|
|
Eilserus
Master of Realmslore
USA
1446 Posts |
Posted - 23 Apr 2014 : 21:36:02
|
| This might just be my archaic understanding of things, but drow and duergar were tempted to evil. The goblin races were created to BE evil, BY evil and dark gods. I find that a huge difference and one that many don't take into account. |
Edited by - Eilserus on 23 Apr 2014 21:36:24 |
|
|
|
Caolin
Senior Scribe
768 Posts |
Posted - 23 Apr 2014 : 22:14:41
|
| I think I am in alignment with most here. They went a bit too far in humanizing the classic "evil" races in DnD. This isn't the real world and there are supposed to be stark blacks and whites (morally speaking). |
|
|
|
Delwa
Master of Realmslore
USA
1268 Posts |
Posted - 23 Apr 2014 : 22:38:44
|
| I'm in agreement with Wooly and Eilserus here. A lot of these races were created for an evil purpose, and an evil god has no reason to grant something he creates free will. The fact that good aligned exceptions exist doesn't require us to conclude they have free will. It could merely mean another god decided to have a little fun. |
- Delwa Aunglor
I am off to slay yon refrigerator and spoil it's horde. Go for the cheese, Boo!
"The Realms change; seldom at the speed desired of those who strive, but far too quickly for those who resist." - The Simbul, taken from the Forgotten Realms Campaign Conspectus |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 23 Apr 2014 : 22:40:19
|
quote:
We do have those exceptions, though... But having a single good goblin or a single good drow doesn't change the fact that the overwhelming majority of the members of those races are not just evil, but unrepentantly and quite thoroughly evil.
Maybe it's just me, but 1 out of 10,000 does not imply universal tendencies. 9,999 out of 10,000 does.
I know. I disagree on the 'unrepentantly' bit tho, cause it still implies being physiologically evil/good, and that sounds very uninspired and uninteresting to me.
What I'm saying is that even small groups of Orcs/Drow/whatever who don't reflect their race stereotype (or go against it) are fine or interesting, because -as I said in my previous post- it would add concrete variety and depth to them (instead of the virtual variety of 1 super-dude over 10000000, which doesn't add much from a setting PoV IMO), while still retaining their threat (as the vast majority of any of those race would still be villainous).
Drow have such a group in the Eilistraeens, and -personally- I'd welcome Many Arrows deciding to take a stance that is not 'we smash stuff, cuz we orcs and ebil' and going for a little more civilized route.
quote:
and an evil god has no reason to grant something he creates free will. The fact that good aligned exceptions exist doesn't require us to conclude they have free will. It could merely mean another god decided to have a little fun.
That way such creatures could be replaced with golems, and nothing would change from a story-telling/RP PoV... |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 23 Apr 2014 22:43:56 |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7969 Posts |
Posted - 23 Apr 2014 : 22:48:17
|
I‘ve said it before - when you humanize all the monsters in this game you eventually end up with nothing left to battle except humans.
I personally prefer simpler monsters from simpler times who were all unquestionably evil threats. Treacherously competent evil drow. Brutal marauding evil orcs. Predatory bloodthirsty vampires. Sneeringly condescending pointy-eared elven scum.
One of the greatest advantages possessed by the D&D human race, and to a lesser degree the various mainstream demihuman races, is the unusual versatility and adaptability which allows them - as civilizations, nations, societies, or individuals - to choose any of a wide array of alignments. Other races in D&D tend to have more rigidly defined roles and temperaments ... a Good-aligned drow is supposed to be unthinkable and unbelievable, not such a commonplace thing that there‘s one in every adventuring party. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 23 Apr 2014 : 22:52:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by Delwa
I'm in agreement with Wooly and Eilserus here. A lot of these races were created for an evil purpose, and an evil god has no reason to grant something he creates free will. The fact that good aligned exceptions exist doesn't require us to conclude they have free will. It could merely mean another god decided to have a little fun.
I think these races do have free will. But I also think they have strong natural tendencies towards a particular alignment, and that they are not choosing to go against those tendencies. And it's not that they think, "Hey, maybe I should be this other alignment... Nah, I'm good." I think that instead, it never occurs to them to be different. When every single person you know does something, and your leaders do it, too, and everyone tells you this is what is expected, you're not likely to question it. |
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! |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 23 Apr 2014 : 22:54:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
I know. I disagree on the 'unrepentantly' bit tho, cause it still implies being physiologically evil/good, and that sounds very uninspired and uninteresting to me.
I don't think it implies that. Most people, regardless of their alignment, are not going to have any issues with that alignment, and will not feel guilty about it. Nor will they feel the need to explain it or apologize for it. Hence, they are unrepentant about it. |
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! |
|
|
|
Delwa
Master of Realmslore
USA
1268 Posts |
Posted - 23 Apr 2014 : 22:59:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
quote:
and an evil god has no reason to grant something he creates free will. The fact that good aligned exceptions exist doesn't require us to conclude they have free will. It could merely mean another god decided to have a little fun.
That way such creatures could be replaced with golems, and nothing would change from a story-telling/RP PoV...
But golems are severely limited in their ability to reason and process commands. A more self-aware, reasoning creature could do so much more evil. Just look at humans. We're sentient, and boy do we cause chaos and destruction.
To jump to the conclusion that a sentient creature devoid of free will is merely a golem is a stretch.
Alias had sentience, and after a great deal of effort, achieved free will of a sort. (Haven't finished that trilogy, so I could be wrong) and while she was just an advanced golem, according to some, she fooled a lot of people into believing she was human. |
- Delwa Aunglor
I am off to slay yon refrigerator and spoil it's horde. Go for the cheese, Boo!
"The Realms change; seldom at the speed desired of those who strive, but far too quickly for those who resist." - The Simbul, taken from the Forgotten Realms Campaign Conspectus |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 23 Apr 2014 : 23:02:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I think these races do have free will. But I also think they have strong natural tendencies towards a particular alignment, and that they are not choosing to go against those tendencies. And it's not that they think, "Hey, maybe I should be this other alignment... Nah, I'm good." I think that instead, it never occurs to them to be different. When every single person you know does something, and your leaders do it, too, and everyone tells you this is what is expected, you're not likely to question it.
Yeah, but that doesn't mean being innately evil/good. In such situations events can occur that change the way of thinking of some individuals and open their mind, making them realize that different kinds of life are possible and maybe even better.
Sometimes ideologies that differ from the mainstream can be brought to life by acknowledgement that particular choices can lead to a better quality of life for all (and it doesn't even strictly come to evil/good here, they would be consequences of trying to improve one's life, which ALL creatures seek). Then, in such cases, you would have conflict between supporters of different ideologies which lead to situations similar to what I describe.
This kind of process just seem more 'natural' to me than the 'things are this way, just because, and we must never change' kind of attitude.
quote:
But golems are severely limited in their ability to reason and process commands. A more self-aware, reasoning creature could do so much more evil. Just look at humans. We're sentient, and boy do we cause chaos and destruction.
To jump to the conclusion that a sentient creature devoid of free will is merely a golem is a stretch.
Ok, then they would be the same thing as a smart golem who can develop tactics and such. What I mean is that, when it comes to character development, very little would change if characters w/o free will or ability to choose were replaced by golems. They would be equally uninteresting to me. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 23 Apr 2014 23:45:57 |
|
|
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 00:27:43
|
as for the anuaroch or the desert whose name I cant spell.
It was destroyed and restored by unnatural means. So it going back to a desert would in theory make since.....
oh I can see where this discussion is going.
variation of Alignment stupid : 56-a |
why is being a wizard like being a drow? both are likely to find a dagger in the back from a rival or one looking to further his own goals, fame and power
My FR fan fiction
Magister's GAmbit
http://steelfiredragon.deviantart.com/gallery/33539234 |
|
|
|
The Arcanamach
Master of Realmslore
1842 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 01:32:48
|
quote:
When every single person you know does something, and your leaders do it, too, and everyone tells you this is what is expected, you're not likely to question it.
THIS pretty much sums it up for me. I'll add that many 'good' specimens would be considered weak by the over-arching culture and killed or sacrificed to their dark gods (or driven out/escaping as Drizzt did). That leaves the vast majority in the evil camp. |
I have a dream that one day, all game worlds will exist as one. |
|
|
|
Tanthalas
Senior Scribe
Portugal
508 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 01:44:02
|
The whole goblinkin thing in Night of the Hunter was just stupid. Why are goblinkin irredeemably evil? Because Mielikki says so. That was Cattie-Brie's big proof. It makes zero sense for entire races with intellect to have no free will. And no, them being "made to be evil" isn't a good explanation, it's a non-explanation. Goblinkin now all have to be evil because of the "word of god". RAS (and everyone that was behind this decision) just turned getting rid of Many-Arrows into a religious crusade to side-step any moral dilemmas about wanting to wipe out a whole nation of sentient beings.
silverwolfer has a point when he says that goblinkin races have been dumbed down. There's just nothing interesting about them now because they'll never be nothing more than boring fodder villains. Villains being bad because of their choices is what makes them interesting, and now their choices are gone.
That whole "it's A-OK to kill orc babies" thing? I really hope we get to see the Companions of the Hall encounter an orc "nursery" of sorts with their infants in it. It's going to be interesting to see the heroes basically killing defenseless babies just because they're evil. If it were baby beholders, that don't look anything like humans and can probably fight back, that would be one thing, but orcs are too close to humans for something like that to be played out as nothing.
And let's not even go into their explanation as to why there are goblinkin individuals that disprove Mielikki's "law". That part of the novel was just vomit-inducing. |
Sir Markham pointed out, drinking another brandy. "A chap who can point at you and say 'die' has the distinct advantage". |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 01:48:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
I know. I disagree on the 'unrepentantly' bit tho, cause it still implies being physiologically evil/good, and that sounds very uninspired and uninteresting to me.
I don't think it implies that. Most people, regardless of their alignment, are not going to have any issues with that alignment, and will not feel guilty about it. Nor will they feel the need to explain it or apologize for it. Hence, they are unrepentant about it.
Sorry then, I misunderstood it as 'irreversibly' evil (English is not my first language).
quote:
THIS pretty much sums it up for me. I'll add that many 'good' specimens would be considered weak by the over-arching culture and killed or sacrificed to their dark gods (or driven out/escaping as Drizzt did). That leaves the vast majority in the evil camp.
Some of them could band together and try to achieve something, tho (as it has happened, Many Arrows' different stance can be considered an example IMO, Eilistraeens/Vhaerunties too). That's what I'm trying to get at, ideologies can spread if they bring good results and improvements, or can inspire people. The majority -as you said- would however still be in the 'threat' camp, continuing to make decent villains while providing room for variety and character development.
However -according to the OP- the new 'official' stance on greenskins seems to be 'they are physiologically evil', which blatantly sucks IMO. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 24 Apr 2014 01:48:29 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 01:51:11
|
I'd like to think its more a matter of 'getting back to basics', which mans the game (and attached settings) should be simpler... at least, at first.
When the Realms were introduced, 'all Drow were bad'. Then along came Drizzt - an exception - and we found out these creatures have some depth. The same can be seen in other 'exceptions'.
Unlike many of you, I remember D&D 'back in the day', without all those layers of complexity and 60 some-odd splats per edition. I enjoyed it when Dragon magazines gave us (optional) 'layers' we could add into our game, as did later supplemental sourcebooks (which back then, gamers understood to be completely optional).
So we need both a setting and set of game rules that doesn't require a doctorate to understand and/or play. That is how you attract new people to the setting. Not by sticking your nose up in the air and saying, "Not in MY Realms!"
I imagine, if it proves to be wildly popular - which it might - then they can add layers of depth and complexity as they go along... just as they have done in the past. We do not need good drow (isn't that just an elf?) or man-eating hobbits... not at first. Baby steps. Let 5th edition be a 'gateway drug' to a lifetime of gaming addiction.  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 24 Apr 2014 01:51:55 |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 02:09:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I'd like to think its more a matter of 'getting back to basics', which mans the game (and attached settings) should be simpler... at least, at first.
When the Realms were introduced, 'all Drow were bad'. Then along came Drizzt - an exception - and we found out these creatures have some depth. The same can be seen in other 'exceptions'.
Unlike many of you, I remember D&D 'back in the day', without all those layers of complexity and 60 some-odd splats per edition. I enjoyed it when Dragon magazines gave us (optional) 'layers' we could add into our game, as did later supplemental sourcebooks (which back then, gamers understood to be completely optional).
So we need both a setting and set of game rules that doesn't require a doctorate to understand and/or play. That is how you attract new people to the setting. Not by sticking your nose up in the air and saying, "Not in MY Realms!"
I imagine, if it proves to be wildly popular - which it might - then they can add layers of depth and complexity as they go along... just as they have done in the past. We do not need good drow (isn't that just an elf?) or man-eating hobbits... not at first. Baby steps. Let 5th edition be a 'gateway drug' to a lifetime of gaming addiction.
Sorry, but how is saying that intelligent creatures have a choice and do not necessarily fit their stereotype, too complex? I -as a 'novice'- see it as a given and would be turned away by a setting that deals with such matters in a trivial way.
I really don't think that people would have difficulties with/be discouraged by something that -at the end of the day- is rather natural among creatures as intelligent as humans (and that can only make for more interesting stories/RP). It's not like they'd have to work/study in order 'understand' this concept. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 24 Apr 2014 02:10:43 |
|
|
|
MagniThorson
Acolyte
20 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 02:47:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I'd like to think its more a matter of 'getting back to basics', which mans the game (and attached settings) should be simpler... at least, at first.
When the Realms were introduced, 'all Drow were bad'. Then along came Drizzt - an exception - and we found out these creatures have some depth. The same can be seen in other 'exceptions'.
Unlike many of you, I remember D&D 'back in the day', without all those layers of complexity and 60 some-odd splats per edition. I enjoyed it when Dragon magazines gave us (optional) 'layers' we could add into our game, as did later supplemental sourcebooks (which back then, gamers understood to be completely optional).
So we need both a setting and set of game rules that doesn't require a doctorate to understand and/or play. That is how you attract new people to the setting. Not by sticking your nose up in the air and saying, "Not in MY Realms!"
I imagine, if it proves to be wildly popular - which it might - then they can add layers of depth and complexity as they go along... just as they have done in the past. We do not need good drow (isn't that just an elf?) or man-eating hobbits... not at first. Baby steps. Let 5th edition be a 'gateway drug' to a lifetime of gaming addiction.
I like the way you put this. I think this approach brings a simplicity that makes for easy entry and immersion. Things can always be layered in later or adjusted for taste. |
|
|
|
Delwa
Master of Realmslore
USA
1268 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 03:06:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I'd like to think its more a matter of 'getting back to basics', which mans the game (and attached settings) should be simpler... at least, at first.
When the Realms were introduced, 'all Drow were bad'. Then along came Drizzt - an exception - and we found out these creatures have some depth. The same can be seen in other 'exceptions'.
Unlike many of you, I remember D&D 'back in the day', without all those layers of complexity and 60 some-odd splats per edition. I enjoyed it when Dragon magazines gave us (optional) 'layers' we could add into our game, as did later supplemental sourcebooks (which back then, gamers understood to be completely optional).
So we need both a setting and set of game rules that doesn't require a doctorate to understand and/or play. That is how you attract new people to the setting. Not by sticking your nose up in the air and saying, "Not in MY Realms!"
I imagine, if it proves to be wildly popular - which it might - then they can add layers of depth and complexity as they go along... just as they have done in the past. We do not need good drow (isn't that just an elf?) or man-eating hobbits... not at first. Baby steps. Let 5th edition be a 'gateway drug' to a lifetime of gaming addiction.
Sorry, but how is saying that intelligent creatures have a choice and do not necessarily fit their stereotype, too complex? I -as a 'novice'- see it as a given and would be turned away by a setting that deals with such matters in a trivial way.
I really don't think that people would have difficulties with/be discouraged by something that -at the end of the day- is rather natural among creatures as intelligent as humans (and that can only make for more interesting stories/RP). It's not like they'd have to work/study in order 'understand' this concept.
It's complex in that, Joe, a good aligned fighter comes across a band of orcs. If orcs are almost exclusively evil, he can attack them and feel few moral qualms about it. However, if orcs are as alignment-diverse as, say humans, then setting up an ambush without first giving them a chance to prove their motives becomes a complex moral question.
Both ways can be fun, depending on how your group likes to play.
D&D Next has gone with the "core rules are vary basic, add complexity to tast" route, and I think (can't read minds, so I don't know) that's what we're shooting for here. |
- Delwa Aunglor
I am off to slay yon refrigerator and spoil it's horde. Go for the cheese, Boo!
"The Realms change; seldom at the speed desired of those who strive, but far too quickly for those who resist." - The Simbul, taken from the Forgotten Realms Campaign Conspectus |
|
|
|
Mapolq
Senior Scribe
Brazil
466 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 03:16:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mirtek
quote:
Originally posted by silverwolfer
In the Hunters book around page 45, Milliki goes off and basically says, kill all the goblins by default, because you know they are evil by default.
I was also a little confused by Catti's inner monologue in The Companions, where she was thinking about the future of Anauroch and how it would become a desert again and to me it read as if she (and Mielikki) approved.
Which I found strange for a deity of nature, since Anauroch only ever became a desert due to unnatural phaerimm life drain magic. If the Shades have one act of restoring natural order to their name, then it's restoring Anauroch to what it should naturally be.
Maybe the spellplague damaged Mielikki's mind.
Don't want to go into the nature of evil thing, but I'll just comment on this. It could be argued that after something has been artificially changed for over a thousand years, then it's now as natural as most everything. I understand there was no trace left of the Phaerimm's Life Drain spells, but since they drained the Narrow Sea and killed the vegatation, the Anauroch went through desertification, and it stayed like that because it's in the middle of a continent, on a rain shadow. |
Never sleep under the jackfruit tree.
Tales of Moonsea - A Neverwinter Nights 2 Persistent World. Check out our website at http://www.talesofmoonsea.com and our video trailer at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am304WqOAAo&feature=youtu.be, as well as our thread here at Candlekeep: http://www.forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=12955
My campaign thread: http://www.forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=16447 |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 03:21:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
However -according to the OP- the new 'official' stance on greenskins seems to be 'they are physiologically evil', which blatantly sucks IMO.
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
Sorry, but how is saying that intelligent creatures have a choice and do not necessarily fit their stereotype, too complex? I -as a 'novice'- see it as a given and would be turned away by a setting that deals with such matters in a trivial way.
I'm in that weird position of agreeing with pretty much everything, on both sides of an argument.
I agree, Irennan, that it sounds bad. And I agree with Wooly that it's not that bad.
Drow are pretty much the epitome of evil among humanoids. Of course there are spots of greater and lesser evil, but walking the streets of Menzoberranzan the likelihood of being stabbed in the face is greater than the chances of being hugged by friendly strangers with no ulterior motives. There are lots of ways this could be expressed.
"Drow are evil."
"Most drow are evil."
"Drow are mostly evil."
"Most drow are not nice people."
The list goes on, with most/all of them being wordier than the first one. The first one is simple and concise. It doesn't acknowledge exceptions, and therefore it's perhaps a lazy way of writing it, but sometimes wordcount or even lettercount restrictions might demand it. Sometimes it's important to say something later on that's going to take a paragraph or two, so they condense everything else to fit it in.
There is also the point that "drow are evil" reflects common perceptions. D&D was very humanocentric at the beginning, and it still kinda is but I would say it's getting a little less racist. It's still based on surface-dwelling human/demihuman perspectives. Everyone who's heard anything about drow has heard bad things about them. Most people don't know about the exceptions. From that angle, a sentence in the Monster Manual saying that "drow are evil" isn't out of place... it's what people "know."
In the beginning, the rules were filled with tables. Tables of tables. It seemed to some like all the possibilities were specified, and it didn't leave room for creativity. But I don't think that was the intent, because there were cases (like artifact generation, iirc; maybe someone who still has the books will correct me) where things were not spelled out. There were lots of blanks for DMs to fill in.
All those tables were there so that things could progress smoothly for DMs who didn't have the time/desire to make everything up themselves. That philosophy has been carried forward and reinforced in each edition, and in some cases it creates serious problems for the setting. In my opinion -- I think the TOT was one example of this philosophy taken way too far.
Anyway, my point is that the statement "drow are evil" is similar. It's simplistic, and it makes the game progress smoothly for (new) DMs who don't want to customize everything.
I'm pretty sure if Mike Mearls or Matt Sernett, or anyone else who is "in charge" of anything, were here they'd back me up on this: those of us who have the inclination to monkey around with stuff in our own campaigns are still encouraged to do so. We can have all the Drizzts and Qilues we want. In fact it's precisely the generalization that "drow are evil" that gives Drizzt and Qilue the power they have to light fires within us.
It's not a limitation. It's a foundation. Build dark cities filled with thousands of lights, some brighter and some dimmer. |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 03:27:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mapolq
Don't want to go into the nature of evil thing, but I'll just comment on this. It could be argued that after something has been artificially changed for over a thousand years, then it's now as natural as most everything. I understand there was no trace left of the Phaerimm's Life Drain spells, but since they drained the Narrow Sea and killed the vegatation, the Anauroch went through desertification, and it stayed like that because it's in the middle of a continent, on a rain shadow.
Mapolq beat me to it. Although I remember reading somewhere in a published source that the current (circa 1357-1367) state of Anauroch did not reflect the natural climate for the region and something was still preventing it from reverting to its earlier greener state. I'll try to find the source.
The point is that even though orange will never legitimately be the new black, the desert is the new natural environment in this region. Changing it back to grassy plains and forests would be just as unnatural as creating the desert was. |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 03:29:44
|
quote:
It's complex in that, Joe, a good aligned fighter comes across a band of orcs. If orcs are almost exclusively evil, he can attack them and feel few moral qualms about it. However, if orcs are as alignment-diverse as, say humans, then setting up an ambush without first giving them a chance to prove their motives becomes a complex moral question.
Both ways can be fun, depending on how your group likes to play.
D&D Next has gone with the "core rules are vary basic, add complexity to tast" route, and I think (can't read minds, so I don't know) that's what we're shooting for here.
In a setting you can't support both ways of playing at the same time. Either Orcs/Goblin/Drow... have choice or they have not (that is not counting outsiders like demons, which are good for killing w/o having regrets). Adding one single dude as an exception over 10000000 individuals as 'layer of complexity' doesn't add variety, it just makes for a novel; adding different groups of individuals that represent different choices among a race as a 'layer of complexity' invalidates previous lore (since in this novel it appears to be stated that orcs are evil by default). Either some creatures are 'physiologically' evil or they are not.
Also -IMO- this is something that DMs should handle in game, but a setting like the Realms should have 'alignment' variety among races because it makes for way more interesting and deeper stories/characters in novels. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 03:38:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
I'm pretty sure if Mike Mearls or Matt Sernett, or anyone else who is "in charge" of anything, were here they'd back me up on this: those of us who have the inclination to monkey around with stuff in our own campaigns are still encouraged to do so. We can have all the Drizzts and Qilues we want. In fact it's precisely the generalization that "drow are evil" that gives Drizzt and Qilue the power they have to light fires within us.
It's not a limitation. It's a foundation. Build dark cities filled with thousands of lights, some brighter and some dimmer.
It's true that the general evilness of a race is what gives the ones who choose something different value. I'm not saying that things should be 'orcs are 1/3 good 1/3 neutral 1/3 evil', but that they should nonetheless have variety and depth, and this can be made clear with a simple tweak in the statements you quoted. Tell me: how would saying 'Most drow are evil' instead of 'Drow are evil' complicate things. It would still give the DM with no time what (s)he needs and would make it clear that there's variety. At the end of the day it's still up to the DM what kind of orcs/drow/w/e their players will meet.
Also there's the factor that campaigns are obviously customizable, but stories set in the Realms or whatever lore you read for enjoyment are not.
quote:
Most people don't know about the exceptions. From that angle, a sentence in the Monster Manual saying that "drow are evil" isn't out of place... it's what people "know."
Said in a novel, by a goddess (like in this case), totally is tho.
|
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 24 Apr 2014 03:43:57 |
|
|
|
Delwa
Master of Realmslore
USA
1268 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 03:45:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
In a setting you can't support both ways of playing at the same time. Either Orcs/Goblin/Drow... have choice or they have not (that is not counting outsiders like demons, which are good for killing w/o having regrets). Adding one single dude as an exception over 10000000 individuals as 'layer of complexity' doesn't add variety, it just makes for a novel; adding different groups of individuals that represent different choices among a race as a 'layer of complexity' invalidates previous lore (since in this novel it appears to be stated that orcs are evil by default). Either some creatures are 'physiologically' evil or they are not.
Also -IMO- this is something that DMs should handle in game, but a setting like the Realms should have 'alignment' variety among races because it makes for way more interesting and deeper stories/characters in novels.
Or, they are physiologically evil, and a deity uses his divine power to overcome it and make an exception. Maybe the deity is Lolth seeing all the chaos a ”good" Drow would cause. Maybe it's Eilistraee (sp) seeing the potential in a single Drow if he were but given the ability.
Point is, it doesn't have to be one way or another.
And without an exact quote, I'm not going to go too much further into the "a goddess said it, therefore it must be absolutely true," line. There are worlds of loopholes, depending on the wording, and the context. Just ask a lawyer.  |
- Delwa Aunglor
I am off to slay yon refrigerator and spoil it's horde. Go for the cheese, Boo!
"The Realms change; seldom at the speed desired of those who strive, but far too quickly for those who resist." - The Simbul, taken from the Forgotten Realms Campaign Conspectus |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 04:05:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Delwa
Or, they are physiologically evil, and a deity uses his divine power to overcome it and make an exception. Maybe the deity is Lolth seeing all the chaos a ”good" Drow would cause. Maybe it's Eilistraee (sp) seeing the potential in a single Drow if he were but given the ability. Point is, it doesn't have to be one way or the other
That could work for a campaing, but not in a story/lore/novel. Even setting aside the fact that it would invalidate Eilistraee's belief that drow can be free to choose by themselves (and it's what she fights for and wants them to do), it would open a can of worms, IMO. Every single variation among individuals in this kind of races would be the work of a god or some sheaningan and -by this logic- if gods had that power, they would go around trying to change individuals and bring them to their cause (there's also the issue of removing value from mortal choice, if deities get to have all that control). Also, it would still exclude the 'shades of grey' RP in favor of the 'black and white' one, as 1 exception -created by a god- doesn't add variety.
quote:
And without an exact quote, I'm not going to go too much further into the "a goddess said it, therefore it must be absolutely true," line. There are worlds of loopholes, depending on the wording, and the context. Just ask a lawyer.
You have a point there, but I still feel like this kind of statements should be avoided to prevent misunderstanding. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 24 Apr 2014 04:10:39 |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 05:00:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
Most people don't know about the exceptions. From that angle, a sentence in the Monster Manual saying that "drow are evil" isn't out of place... it's what people "know."
Said in a novel, by a goddess (like in this case), totally is tho.
I agree, but it's still just what she "knows" and might demonstrate the fact that the powers are not all-knowing or unfailingly rational.
Goblins are destructive to forest ecosystems, and that places them on the list of things Mielikki would logically take aim at. Should she recognize that exceptions exist, given her knowledge of Drizzt? Sure.
It could be foreshadowing for something. Or it could just be another instance of the Realms powers being envisioned as the most annoying adolescent humans... egotistical, vindictive, whiny, self-centered, prone to generalization and selective truth, etc. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Dumbing Down the Realms (Yeah spoilers)
