| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Mirtek
Senior Scribe
595 Posts |
 Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 21:24:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
Within the context of the Forgotten Realms Alignment system which is cosmological and not philosophical, those creatures that are products of creationism would indeed behave according to those 9 categories and only deviate as far as those cosmological forces allowed.
Yet even fiends and celestials and even deities can change their alignment |
 |
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 21:57:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
The fact that the scientific method is not a medieval invention. They experiment, but the role of that intellectual scientist like Haley, or Newton, Galilleo, and Einstein are taken by Vangherdahast, Elminster, Alustriel, and Khelben. A world that can be altered by magic to that degree could not give consistent results because any action a wizard takes would scew the results. Try doing a meteorological experiment while the Great Druid of the High Forest is summoning rain.
No, the scientific method is not a medieval invention. It was around long before that. So it seems reasonable that a fantasy world which has advanced to at least a medieval-ish level of development would have a few "scientists."
Vangerdahast, Elminster, Alustriel, and Khelben are probably fair comparisons to scientists, but so are many others. Everyone described as a sage, for starters, plus an undoubtedly larger number of individuals scattered around Toril and across history. Not all of them are wizards, and being a wizard shouldn't predispose someone to looking for empirical evidence. Science, or "science" depending on how much weight you give it in the Realms, is about observing and understanding the world, not about changing it. It isn't science if the goal is to change things.
And yes, a spellcaster playing with the weather would disrupt a meteorological experiment. But spellcasters are rare to begin with, and spellcasters powerful enough to manipulate the weather in a large area are rarer. Moreover, they don't typically do it constantly for a long period of time. Anauroch, Raurin, and the Plains of Purple Dust are obvious exceptions. If you want to know something about the weather, and someone is messing with the weather where you are, you go somewhere else to conduct your experiment.
The development of magic does not preclude the development of science.
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
Within the context of the Forgotten Realms Alignment system which is cosmological and not philosophical, those creatures that are products of creationism would indeed behave according to those 9 categories and only deviate as far as those cosmological forces allowed.
How is alignment not philosophical?
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
There is nothing about goblins not having free will that prevents infinite possibilities.
Well, they're certainly prevented for goblins. What's the point of preventing a player from choosing goblin as his character's race, or of dictating his alignment choices?
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
That is exactly why the phrase from Mielikki has so much weight. I can easily say that is how one of the forgotten realms writers is addressing...
And what happens when another Realms author has a conflicting take on it?
|
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 22:07:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
They can choose something else, but most of them don't -- most of them don't even realize they have a choice.
Yes. However, if brought to realize it, I'd expect some -even groups- of them to choose differently. To me it's not simply about evil/good, but something about any living creature wanting to improve their life conditions. I've already said it:
quote:
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 (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.
That's what happened among drow, and -personally- I think should be possible among greenskins. For example, if some of them realize that founding a kingdom, being -somewhat- civilized, trying to progress, could lead to a stronger presence and better life than only raiding for resources (and if that actually worked, and judging by how long Many Arrows lasted, it kinda did), then I'd expect some orcs to realize that there are different paths and support that ideology (not even strictly for the evilness/goodness of it, but mainly because of how it could improve their situation).
|
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 22:11:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tanthalas
I prefer a world where any sentient creature has the possibility of being of any alignment.
quote:
Originally posted by Mirtek
Yet even fiends and celestials and even deities can change their alignment
Solid points. 10 points to Gryffindor.
I feel like I'm arguing over something just because I see undesirable things in someone else's perspective or desires. And that's a lousy place to be, so I think I'm gonna stop.
The point of roleplaying, and of developing the Realms as a setting for it, is having fun.
When I want everything to be the same, and just hack and slash my way across a world that requires no thought, I play WoW. When I want to be engaged and challenged by the world and its occupants, I come to the Realms. But that's just me. If all goblins being irredeemably evil because that's how they were created and they're all a bunch of hopeless little losers with no chance to change their destiny of being hated by everyone and brained by anyone who can heft a mace makes the Realms awesome for you, then go for it. Please don't presume to change my Realms to match yours, but (with some difficulty  ) I can let you play it your way.
I agree with the OP that WotC is dumbing down the Realms. They've been doin it ever since they acquired it from TSR. And I do hope it will stop, but I'm not going to hold my breath. In the meantime I have to keep trusting in the ever-shuffling deck of authors and designers to continually introduce new things, at a greater rate than things are taken away. And defend my right to reject the dumbing, of course. |
|
|
|
Eilserus
Master of Realmslore
USA
1446 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 22:47:25
|
I think it comes down to just that: how you want your Realms to be is how it should be. If you want goblins to be pure evil, go for it. If not, go for that too.
And just to open up a new can of worms, because, you know I like stirring the chamber pot. TeeHee, how bout this:
Ed or THO recently stated some of the gods may be acting a bit extreme or outside their normal bounds while the Sundering is going on. And I believe it has been referenced here and there, that the gods WILL lie to get something to benefit them. They will even lie to their priests and divine agents etc.
What if Mielikki told Catti-brie to relay that information to Drizzt knowing it was a lie, or a stretch of the truth. Heck, it could just be her interpretation and even the divine ones have been wrong from time to time. So maybe one of the reasons she told Drizzt that story was because she fears losing him to Lolth and also, so he is strong and won't question his convictions when all the Nine Hells breaks loose when war erupts?
Lots of possibilities. And since the Realms isn't really all black and white and more shades of gray, I bet there is a story to be told as to why Mielikki thinks that way. Provided that is how she feels. Whether we ever learn that is a different matter. |
|
|
|
Mournblade
Master of Realmslore
USA
1287 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 23:53:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
No, the scientific method is not a medieval invention. It was around long before that. So it seems reasonable that a fantasy world which has advanced to at least a medieval-ish level of development would have a few "scientists."
No Scientific inquiry has been happening since our brains evolved to question. The Scientific Method as a procedure of systematic questioning was not a medieval invention. That was 15th century. I mentioned the scientific method, not just questioning in general.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
Vangerdahast, Elminster, Alustriel, and Khelben are probably fair comparisons to scientists, but so are many others. Everyone described as a sage, for starters, plus an undoubtedly larger number of individuals scattered around Toril and across history. Not all of them are wizards, and being a wizard shouldn't predispose someone to looking for empirical evidence. Science, or "science" depending on how much weight you give it in the Realms, is about observing and understanding the world, not about changing it. It isn't science if the goal is to change things.
The very field of science being subservient to a force that could bend it, would change that philosophy considerably. Toril is not a closed system, the energy inputs from the elemental planes, the positive plane, and the outer planes throw thermodynamics off kilter.
This is why technology cannot advance past a certain points. Remember gunpowder does not even work in the realms, it has to be a magical mixture. The science of the Forgotten Realms is medieval and in no way the sophistication achieved with the scientific method.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
And yes, a spellcaster playing with the weather would disrupt a meteorological experiment. But spellcasters are rare to begin with, and spellcasters powerful enough to manipulate the weather in a large area are rarer. Moreover, they don't typically do it constantly for a long period of time. Anauroch, Raurin, and the Plains of Purple Dust are obvious exceptions. If you want to know something about the weather, and someone is messing with the weather where you are, you go somewhere else to conduct your experiment.
How would the person know it was a spellcaster causing the anomaly? That's the point, they wouldn't know it was magic bending the laws.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
The development of magic does not preclude the development of science.
Then why isn't the forgotten realms using micro computers? Science in that world can only go to a certain point, as was established.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
Within the context of the Forgotten Realms Alignment system which is cosmological and not philosophical, those creatures that are products of creationism would indeed behave according to those 9 categories and only deviate as far as those cosmological forces allowed.
How is alignment not philosophical?
When the forgotten realms was developed for a campaign setting it was made with the great wheel in mind (Note I said campaign setting not Ed's world for stories.) The great wheel was inspired by the Law and Chaos cosmology of Michael Moorcock.
The great wheel is composed of cosmological forces not philisophical forces. Faerun, as part of a multiverse with the outer planes means the alignments are cosmological.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
There is nothing about goblins not having free will that prevents infinite possibilities.
Well, they're certainly prevented for goblins. What's the point of preventing a player from choosing goblin as his character's race, or of dictating his alignment choices?
Goblins are not a playable race. So whether or not they have free will is irrelevant to a player playing the race. They are not an option. That player can explore the myriad of playable races available.
I'm sure a player somewhere wants to play a Gelatinous Cube. I am not about to allow that as an option either. I am OK with limiting the player races to the FOrgotten Realms campaign guide.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
That is exactly why the phrase from Mielikki has so much weight. I can easily say that is how one of the forgotten realms writers is addressing...
And what happens when another Realms author has a conflicting take on it?
That is why I am hoping it is a request from development for the overall realms. Then we would not have to worry about that conflict. |
A wizard is Never late Frodo Baggins. Nor is he Early. A wizard arrives precisely when he means to... |
|
|
|
Mournblade
Master of Realmslore
USA
1287 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 23:58:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
[
I agree with the OP that WotC is dumbing down the Realms. They've been doin it ever since they acquired it from TSR. And I do hope it will stop, but I'm not going to hold my breath. In the meantime I have to keep trusting in the ever-shuffling deck of authors and designers to continually introduce new things, at a greater rate than things are taken away. And defend my right to reject the dumbing, of course.
How is any of this dumbing down the realms? People have been reading the trope of looking inside yourself to find the real monster since they were children. There really is nothing profound about a DM revealing to the players: LOOK! You guys are truly the bad guys. The Goblins just wanted a hunting ground. If a DM wants to tell that story, there are plenty of appropriate species to use.
Preferring Goblinkin to be evil, is not in any way a desire to make everythign the same. Wanting GOblins to be relatively simple creatures is a very poor indicator of something being dumbed down. I am not sure how one can jump from Goblins being irredeemably evil, to having all beer steins and all other aspects of the realm being the same.
There was a definite dumbing down of the realms within the last 5 years, but it was not eliminating the trope that Goblins have feelings too.
|
A wizard is Never late Frodo Baggins. Nor is he Early. A wizard arrives precisely when he means to... |
Edited by - Mournblade on 25 Apr 2014 00:02:19 |
|
|
|
Aldrick
Senior Scribe
909 Posts |
Posted - 25 Apr 2014 : 00:47:35
|
When it comes to western fantasy certain tropes are pretty standard.
If it's ugly then it's likely evil. If it's pretty then it's likely good. If it's black it's probably evil. If it's white it's probably good. If it's pretty or white, but is sexually suggestive then it's also probably both manipulative and evil. If it's ugly or black, but it's chaste and virginal, then it's probably good. If it's pretty and white, but it's chaste and virginal, then it's undoubtedly the most pure thing you'll ever encounter.
Somewhere between those things are the shades of gray.
D&D by and large follows these tropes. You don't really need the ability to detect alignment to figure things out, all you really need is a good look at them. In the Realms things are a bit more shaken up when it comes to sexuality, so sex = evil doesn't really apply in the Realms. Though, it is assumed that Chastity = Good in core D&D - which is why the Vow of Chastity existed in the Book of Exalted Deeds.
It's also a good rule of thumb to assume that people will find it more difficult to kill something that looks similar to humans. For example, killing an orc baby will likely be a struggle. However, killing a beholder baby wouldn't likely require much thought. The reason being the beholder baby looks uglier and less resembles a human.
People focus too much on alignment when it comes to their games. Alignment is a background issue, something that matters more on the Planes, than on the Prime. The debate should never be between is this "good" or is this "evil", but rather the debate should be over what an individual character believes is good or evil.
It's perfectly possible that a character could believe that all orcs are born evil monsters, and therefore killing orc babies is completely justified. It's also perfectly possible that a character could believe that orcs are only evil because of their culture, and that they could choose differently. Therefore killing orc babies is wrong.
Who is right is irrelevant. It's the conflict that makes the story interesting. If you have a character that believes that all orcs are undeniably born evil, then you need to challenge that character. If you have a character that believes that orcs are only evil because of their culture, then you need to challenge that character.
For a character who believes that all orcs are born evil, we need scenes where that character is confronted with moral choices where he's just slain orc male combatants. Now, he's left with the females, children, and young male orcs who are too young or too untrained to fight. What does he do with them?
Sadly, in fantasy this aspect is often overlooked. The reality is, any time an orc camp is attacked, there must be females, orc children, and non-combatants there - they're necessary in order to support the warriors. Even if it's strictly a war camp, killing the orc males has a detrimental impact on the females, children, and non-combatants - regardless whether or not they're present.
Not every orc in the world is an adult male, carries a weapon, is trained to fight, and wants to kill you. Sadly, such individuals are overlooked because it makes things complicated for the "heroes" - we can't have "heroes" making difficult choices, can we?
Of course we can. 
What does the "hero" do with all the females, children, and non-combatants? This is where the true conflict starts. Everyone can agree that stopping the orc warriors from raiding nearby settlements is a good idea, but this is where the disagreements happen - it's where matters get complicated. They can't just walk away because with so many adult male orc warriors dead, they're left undefended, and will almost certainly starve to death - or worse, be adsorbed into another orc tribe breeding and growing their numbers.
What do you do? Pretty much every character is going to have been taught from birth that orcs are evil, that such evil is innate, and the only good orc is a dead orc. That's what most people are going to believe.
So, does the character when confronted with an orc mother - who is clearly terrified, pleading in her guttural orcish tongue, clutching her baby - does the character stab her in the face and take the baby and bash it's head against the rocks? Or does the character decide that they can't do it. Does the character decide that they're going to have to find a different way to handle the situation?
It's in that moment that the story really becomes interesting, because it's in that moment that we get a glimpse of the true nature of the character. We learn about that characters values, their strengths, their weaknesses, and it sets the stage for greater conflict.
If that character chooses not to kill them, what does he do with them? Orcs are despised and hated, and it's virtually assured that most humans are going to want to kill them on site. Most people are going to disagree with his decision, simply based on bigotry alone. How does he handle it? How does he handle someone who disagrees with him, and wants to kill them all - someone whose even willing to disobey his orders and attempt it anyway. Will he kill a human to save an orc? What will be the long term repercussions of that when other people find out what he has done?
In the end, it doesn't matter whether or not orcs are evil by nature. What matters is what the character believes, and whether or not they can act on those beliefs.
The same is true if you encounter baby beholders. Most people are likely going to be less sympathetic to baby beholders because they don't look human. That's what gives people pause about orcs - the fact that they look human. So you need baby beholders to act in a way that can tap into human emotions and sympathy.
For example, I'd describe it as floating into a corner, hovering near the floor. I'd talk about how it has all it's eyes squeezed tightly shut, and it's eye stalks shake and tremble in fear. I'd do whatever I could to convey some semblance of humanity in it... just to see what the character choices are...
In terms of the story, if they save the orcs, it's likely going to turn out badly in some way. Not all the orcs are going to be saints. Few are going to forget what was done to their fathers, brothers, uncles, and grandfathers. If they keep the beholder, it will turn on them at some point when it gets bigger and stronger, likely killing someone who was innocent. Though this will take place long after they've spent enough time to get attached to it.
The point is no matter the choices people make, there always has to be conflict. Without conflict there is no story. In order for there to be conflict the choices someone makes can never really work out perfectly. There always has to be complications.
If you force your men to slaughter a bunch of orc women and children, I want at least some of them to disagree with the decision, some of them to be mentally scarred from the experience - especially if you forced them to do it. I want it to feel like some dark cloud hangs over you, people may call you a hero, but deep down inside I want you to wonder, "...but am I really a hero, did I do the right thing?" Even if the character himself doesn't emotionally or mentally suffer from the consequences, I want him to see those consequences play out in others around him.
If you save the orcs, down the line, I want some orcs to do horrible things to humans - say several orcs rape and murder some human women. The humans respond by lynching and burning orc homes. Suddenly you have a race war erupting between orcs and humans. A handful of orcs were clearly in the wrong originally, but the humans respond by killing the original offenders and then lynching innocent orcs and burning their homes to the ground. Orc children were dragged into the street and ripped apart by an angry mob. Orcs retaliate against the humans, driven by hatred, and built up animosity as a result of human bigotry. They do equally awful things. More bloodshed happens.
By the time you return, there is nothing but a bubbling cauldron of animosity and hatred, interspersed with violent riots on both sides. The humans blame you for bringing the orcs. The orcs blame you for killing their warriors. Everything is quickly going straight to hell. You felt heroic saving them, but now you wonder... "...did I do the right thing? How have I helped anyone, when life for everyone is now worse?"
This is what makes a good story. Whether or not orcs are naturally evil is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is how the character feels, how the character acts, and the consequences that naturally extend outward from that decision. From there, it's all about the conflict, and how the character is continuously tested as a result of their decisions. |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7966 Posts |
Posted - 25 Apr 2014 : 03:43:41
|
It's a fantasy setting. Used to describe a world in which FR stories, fiction, and gaming can take place.
People are inclined towards treating the Realms with verisimilitude, trying to structure its natural (and supernatural) "physics" in plausible-seeming ways consistent with what we understand of our world. But the Realms is not a simulation. It is a platform for story-telling and adventure.
Central themes in the Realms are heroism, villainy, gods, and magic. Heroes need to kill mighty evil things to demonstrate and measure their prowess, villains need evil plans and evil minions to oppose the heroes. The Realms is sort of a free-for-all environment where heroes can basically wander from story to story semi-randomly enforcing their brand of righteous morality with steel and magic. Unlike the other fantasy trope where all evil opponents are deterministically fated to serve some greater evil. But if you think about it too deeply - you empathize with those orcs, you are concerned about their infants, you wonder if they can be educated or civilized, etc - then you just take all the fun out of the game. If your author or DM presents such distasteful ambiguities needlessly (that is, without fulfilling some moralistic-heroic-story-oriented goal), then he is simply encouraging savagery and sadism. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
BEAST
Master of Realmslore
USA
1714 Posts |
Posted - 25 Apr 2014 : 03:56:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
If this is their stance with ''evil'' humanoids, then my interest in the 'new Realms' has just plummeted, for what little it matters.
You're less interested in a return to the way things used to be? I thought that "new Realms" was supposed to be all about a return to the old Realms feel. 
Or do really want "new Realms" to be new?  
I think they tried that...
quote:
But it doesn't make sense. If baby orcs are not physiologically 'evil', how can adult ones become so? Magic? Gods? Cheesy explanations are totally uninteresting IMO.
Consider the lion. As a cub, it can be an adorable, playful little kitten. But when it grows up, it can eat you. It can even turn on you after you've raised it for years (ask Siegfried and Roy.)
Consider a chimpanzee. As an infant, it might pluck your heartstrings. As an adult, it might flip out and chew your face off.
Consider the horror tales of Dobermans, German Shepherds, Rottweilers, and Pit Bulls raised as family pets. As puppies, they can all be quite heartwarming. And they can all be trained to serve as members of families. But report after report tells us of such dogs who were trusted momentarily with a child or a neighbor, and then the dogs just snapped and attacked.
It happens. Behavior and attitudes change over time. Cute babies can grow up to be vicious monsters. In fact, they often do. And with some species, they usually do.
I think that this is a fact that is forgotten by too many people. Too many times, trainers/owners get lax with their handling of such animals, because they've come to know and trust them. And that is exactly when disaster strikes, and the animals' aggressive nature manifests itself.
We can want them to all remain sweet little pookies forever, and we can even convince ourselves into believing that they indeed will do so. But we're probably just fooling ourselves and one another.
Now, as to the why? I'm not sure. Perhaps such creatures are genetically programmed only to display aggressive behaviors after they have grown to sufficient size and strength at which they could actually do some damage, whether for personal eating and survival, or for communal defense. As babies, they wouldn't really be able to do much to a perceived enemy, so what good would genetically-programmed aggressiveness be to them, at that age and level of development? Instead, they are ungainly, and fragile, and curious, which most of us perceive as adorable.
Maybe orcs have hard-wired aggressive instincts and behaviors just like the above-cited animals; but they also have a sufficient level of intelligence and consciousness to consider that aggressiveness and its likely outcome.
Just because one is self-aware hardly means that one is predisposed to curtail one's aggressive tendencies for anyone else's sake. Maybe someone actually likes being a thug.
Whether you approve of it or not, it is my understanding that Realmsian goblinoids fit this description. They're made this way, and they tend not to fight it. Given a chance, most of them actually embrace it. It's just the way that most of them are.
Are you philosophically, or artistically, opposed to the contention that most of the above-cited animals are naturally dangerous creatures? Or can you accept that as fact?
Why, then, is it all that much harder for you accept the idea that goblinoids are very similar?
quote:
Also, how can you tell if a baby humanoid is 'evil', it's not like (s)he can do much to show it...
I'm not exactly sure about the babies.
But Regis observed young orc children playing on the bank of the River Surbrin, just north of Mithral Hall in The Pirate King. They all saw each other, and smiled and waved at each other. He could see them talking and laughing with each other, and they never displayed any anger or aggressiveness towards one another or towards him. They just seemed like playful, cooperative little humanoid kids.
Given that, it's probable that orc babies probably just seem like normal little loud, messy, clumsy humanoid babies! 
Unless baby orcs were shown to behave in an evil manner, I would assume that they probably don't behave in an evil manner, and so I would deem them off-limits for violence. Save that exclusively for the wicked grown-ups.
As for whether this passage in NOTH constitutes some form of dumbing down of the Realms, I would argue that it was actually the previous edition's suggestions that goblinoids are just people too, and they're just misunderstood, and they just need some good lovin', that constituted a dumbing down of something. It was an insult to the intelligence of a whole lot of readers and gamers who have followed along with the lore about Realmsian goblinoid behavior for many years. It called on us to forget or ignore just about all that we had learned before, and to substitute it with what we were being offered up in the latest incarnation of the lore. To advocate that people only consider the most recent observations despite all that came before is asking us to dumb ourselves down.
On a side note, I find it kinda ironic that my home county of Harris in the great state of Texas has decided upon a wild way to manage a large population of feral hogs in our area. <report> If you look closely, some of those feral piglets look kinda cute. That sure won't stop the adults from making some tasty ham steaks and sides of bacon on a whole lot of people's dinner plates, though! Once again, aw-shucks babies make for nasty monsters. These feral piglets might be observed to be rooting up people's yards or damaging their building structures, though, so they're hardly innocent, themselves.
If orc children or babies were ever similarly observed, then Mielikki's outrage--as easy as it is to characterize as extreme and over-the-top for us in this scroll--might actually have some foundation. If we can rationalize killing piglets, or goat kids, or whatever other type of young animals, then why not hypothetically violent, evil little goblinoids, too?  |
"'You don't know my history,' he said dryly."
--Drizzt Do'Urden (The Pirate King, Part 1: Chapter 2)
<"Comprehensive Chronology of R.A. Salvatore Forgotten Realms Works"> |
|
|
|
BEAST
Master of Realmslore
USA
1714 Posts |
Posted - 25 Apr 2014 : 04:37:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
What doesn't depend on me -as customer/reader- is what stories and lore I get from them can include or not. That's why it's important to me that ''evil'' races are not physiologically so, and why I welcome and enjoy individuals or groups/factions of such races that choose differently, or even try to change things among their 'people'. They would -obviously- still be a narrow minority, but would provide a lot of depth/character development to otherwise very flat/boring races.
If lions, and tigers, and bears (oh, my!) are naturally predisposed to being dangerous creatures, but natural exceptions exist; then maybe the exceptions amongst the drow or goblinoids are likewise natural exceptions. The occasional good-natured circus tiger or neverendingly lovable Pit Bull might owe its beneficence to a genetic mutation. Maybe Drizzt's goodliness is the result of a birth "defect", too! 
Therefore, perhaps the notion of choice by such individuals is only an illusion. Maybe they were naturally empowered to live different lifestyles from most other members of their respective species.
And maybe this goodly genetic mutation could be passed on to future generations, through successive in-breeding. In this way, the previous evil nature of the entire species could possibly be supplanted by a newer goodly nature.
You could still have your desired type of story in which the good guy defies the norms of the rest of his race, even with a physiological basis to alignment. It might even add an additional layer of depth to the story, for who or what should get the credit for such a character seeming goodly? |
"'You don't know my history,' he said dryly."
--Drizzt Do'Urden (The Pirate King, Part 1: Chapter 2)
<"Comprehensive Chronology of R.A. Salvatore Forgotten Realms Works"> |
|
|
|
Aldrick
Senior Scribe
909 Posts |
Posted - 25 Apr 2014 : 05:45:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
Unless baby orcs were shown to behave in an evil manner, I would assume that they probably don't behave in an evil manner, and so I would deem them off-limits for violence.
Why would they be off-limits for violence if they are Evil? It doesn't matter what someone is doing at the time you meet them as to whether or not they're Evil. You could encounter Hitler tearing up at the site of a Sarah McLachlan Commercial for the SPCA while writing a million dollar check to PETA... if you cast detect evil, and he's showing up as Evil - that's all you need to know. Setting aside any ideas of lawfulness, you'd be perfectly within your rights to shoot him in the face. In fact, shooting him in the face would even be a Good aligned (but Chaotic) act.
The same is true for the orc children. If they detect as Evil, then they can (and should) be killed. Detecting as Evil means one of two things: It means you've either committed horrific acts in the past to the point it has stained your soul, or you're innately Evil by nature which means you'll be doing Evil acts in the future. Since we're talking about children in this case, and they can't conceivably have done something horrible enough to earn an Evil alignment, then it means they are innately Evil. That makes them no different than a demon.
If a demon decides to take the form of a cute innocent little child, does that somehow make it not a demon? What about a really ugly child, which is what an orc kid would be from a human perspective? Not really. Evil is Evil. It's not even dirty business to kill them - it's a Good aligned act.
This is exactly why in my Realms I put a high restriction on alignment. Using 4E alignment terminology, pretty much every single mortal on the prime is "unaligned". To become "aligned" they have to consistently do Good, Evil, Lawful, or Chaotic acts on a regular basis. A single act does not define them, as mortals have free will and can be redeemed. You can do something really horrible in the past, and spend the rest of your life being mediocre and not fall to Evil. To become Evil, it takes effort, and to remain Evil it takes effort. The same is true for Good.
This means that, in my Realms, if you encounter someone who is Evil then you know with 100% certainty that it's kosher to kill them. You don't even have to ask questions. The moment you have that information, you know all you need to know. They got that alignment because they earned that alignment, and if you're born with that alignment then you can be certain you're going to act in accordance with that alignment, because it's against your nature to act otherwise.
If you encounter someone who is Good or Evil, then you can be certain that their very existence is helping alter the multiverse and planes in some way. Good aligned people bring the Realms closer to the Upper Planes. Evil aligned people bring the Realms closer to the Lower Planes. Basically, it's Planescape philosophy terminology applied to everything, and not just the planes themselves. This is the reason so many outsiders battle over mortals, trying to push them one way or another. It's the reason the deities try to persuade mortals one way or another... what mortals believe and how they act literally shapes the multiverse and has fundamental consequences on it's balance. Only mortals have free will.
A devil doesn't have free will. It can't imagine any other world aside from a Lawful Evil world. It can't help but act in a Lawful Evil manner, because it's very nature is bound up in Lawful Evilness. If it breeds with mortals and they give birth to offspring, then those mortals will likewise be similarly tainted. Killing those children would not be an Evil act, because you know with absolute certainty that they are the tainted spawn of a devil.
Any sense of gray exists in the "unaligned" group. There are really nice, kind, and benevolent people in that group. There are also really cruel, mean, and malevolent people in that group. However, being benevolent or malevolent is quite different from being Good (capital G) or Evil (capital E).
I think core D&D attempts to muddy the waters way too much, by throwing good (lower case G) and evil (lower case E) in with Good (capital G) and Evil (capital E). This leads to the weird issues we're currently facing.
I'd rather be debating whether or not Orcs are naturally aggressive, brutish creatures that are prone to violence than whether or not they are all inherently Evil. Because if they're inherently Evil, then they're no different from demons, and you're completely and totally justified in engaging in genocidal slaughter. Any "exception" you might kill would just be unfortunate collateral damage, and their death would be nothing compared to the Greater Good of slaughtering millions of their brothers and sisters.
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Heroes need to kill mighty evil things to demonstrate and measure their prowess, villains need evil plans and evil minions to oppose the heroes. The Realms is sort of a free-for-all environment where heroes can basically wander from story to story semi-randomly enforcing their brand of righteous morality with steel and magic. Unlike the other fantasy trope where all evil opponents are deterministically fated to serve some greater evil. But if you think about it too deeply - you empathize with those orcs, you are concerned about their infants, you wonder if they can be educated or civilized, etc - then you just take all the fun out of the game. If your author or DM presents such distasteful ambiguities needlessly (that is, without fulfilling some moralistic-heroic-story-oriented goal), then he is simply encouraging savagery and sadism.
Put another way... or more directly. D&D is designed to be an adventure game where you kill things and take their stuff. It's not trying to tell a story - any semblance of story that exists is only there to hurry along the group to the next dungeon. Deeper questions and complicated story get in the way of the killing and the looting.
Thus, we end up with groups of adventurers raiding orc camps... and like magic, that orc camp is only filled with adult male orcs, all trained and ready for battle, who want to kill the players. Not a child in sight. No non-combatant orcs in sight either. Neither will you find orc women, unless they're victims of the mean, horrible orcs you just killed - thereby justifying you killing them in the first place.
If you happen to stop and wonder where future generations of Orcs come from if there are no women or children around, or how the Orcs even sustained themselves without non-warriors... or if you assume that they must be further off elsewhere away from the main encampment, and you wonder what will happen to them... you're thinking too deeply! Get back to killing and looting.
You need that XP, yo. And that Longsword +1. That's what D&D is all about, in the end.
That's also why all Orcs must be Evil. Because it makes killing them justifiable, so you don't have to think too deeply that you're hacking a sentient creature that feels pain into tiny bits and pieces, leaving it's family to morn and likely starve to death. To think too deeply about that wouldn't be "heroic". |
Edited by - Aldrick on 25 Apr 2014 05:57:05 |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 25 Apr 2014 : 11:11:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
If this is their stance with ''evil'' humanoids, then my interest in the 'new Realms' has just plummeted, for what little it matters.
You're less interested in a return to the way things used to be? I thought that "new Realms" was supposed to be all about a return to the old Realms feel.
Or do really want "new Realms" to be new?
I think they tried that...
As for whether this passage in NOTH constitutes some form of dumbing down of the Realms, I would argue that it was actually the previous edition's suggestions that goblinoids are just people too, and they're just misunderstood, and they just need some good lovin', that constituted a dumbing down of something. It was an insult to the intelligence of a whole lot of readers and gamers who have followed along with the lore about Realmsian goblinoid behavior for many years. It called on us to forget or ignore just about all that we had learned before, and to substitute it with what we were being offered up in the latest incarnation of the lore. To advocate that people only consider the most recent observations despite all that came before is asking us to dumb ourselves down.
Please, 5E Realms are still new Realms, even if WotC is putting some effort in repairing stuff. Also we have seen very little up to now, so yes I'd totally say that 5E FR is still a 'new' setting to me (it's what I meant by 'new' Realms).
As for the matter of this thread, I'm not interested in seeing a 'return to the past' for this particular issue, if that means removing depth from some of the main intelligent races.
About the 'dumbing ourself' part, there are many inconsistences, stupid, nonsensical actions by characters and gods and so on in the published Realms lore, and I even see some willingness to handwave them as 'unreliable narrator' or 'you can never know the truth'. Then you feel like something that could easily be attributed to a perception change or actually gaining knowledge about a race, is an offense to your intelligence (you know, it's basically what happened with the drow)? Also, this is not asking to ignore past observations about greenskins, it's not like that all of sudden they became heroes or something, they're still a threat. There's just a new fact: they have a choice, no matter how underrepresented non mainstream ones are, or how many of them don't even realize it (much like dark elves), they still have this ability.
quote:
Consider the lion. As a cub, it can be an adorable, playful little kitten. But when it grows up, it can eat you. It can even turn on you after you've raised it for years (ask Siegfried and Roy.)
Consider a chimpanzee. As an infant, it might pluck your heartstrings. As an adult, it might flip out and chew your face off.
Consider the horror tales of Dobermans, German Shepherds, Rottweilers, and Pit Bulls raised as family pets. As puppies, they can all be quite heartwarming. And they can all be trained to serve as members of families. But report after report tells us of such dogs who were trusted momentarily with a child or a neighbor, and then the dogs just snapped and attacked.
It happens. Behavior and attitudes change over time. Cute babies can grow up to be vicious monsters. In fact, they often do. And with some species, they usually do.
I think that this is a fact that is forgotten by too many people. Too many times, trainers/owners get lax with their handling of such animals, because they've come to know and trust them. And that is exactly when disaster strikes, and the animals' aggressive nature manifests itself.
We can want them to all remain sweet little pookies forever, and we can even convince ourselves into believing that they indeed will do so. But we're probably just fooling ourselves and one another.
Now, as to the why? I'm not sure. Perhaps such creatures are genetically programmed only to display aggressive behaviors after they have grown to sufficient size and strength at which they could actually do some damage, whether for personal eating and survival, or for communal defense. As babies, they wouldn't really be able to do much to a perceived enemy, so what good would genetically-programmed aggressiveness be to them, at that age and level of development? Instead, they are ungainly, and fragile, and curious, which most of us perceive as adorable.
Maybe orcs have hard-wired aggressive instincts and behaviors just like the above-cited animals; but they also have a sufficient level of intelligence and consciousness to consider that aggressiveness and its likely outcome.
Just because one is self-aware hardly means that one is predisposed to curtail one's aggressive tendencies for anyone else's sake. Maybe someone actually likes being a thug.
Whether you approve of it or not, it is my understanding that Realmsian goblinoids fit this description. They're made this way, and they tend not to fight it. Given a chance, most of them actually embrace it. It's just the way that most of them are.
Are you philosophically, or artistically, opposed to the contention that most of the above-cited animals are naturally dangerous creatures? Or can you accept that as fact?
Why, then, is it all that much harder for you accept the idea that goblinoids are very similar?
I dislike the idea that 'goblins are like tigers' because, unlike animals, greenskins basically have human-like intelligence and that should allow them choice. They can not be compared to animals. Some of them may actually like being thugs, some others may be forced into it, possibly while not even realizing it.
Also, I think you missed the point I was trying to make. If a creature is not innately/physiologically evil as a baby, it means that it can decide to not be so and that, if put in a different environment, it can be different than many from its race. Now it just sounds unlikely to me that, by growing in age -and consequently intellect-, such creature would for some magical reason no longer be able to make choices, losing and advanced mental ability. To me it's just something put there so that slaughtering orcs and the likes has no moral consequences.
Furthermore predators are disposed to be dangerous creatures because it's their only method of survival, while intelligent beings can actually adapt and find alternatives.
quote:
If lions, and tigers, and bears (oh, my!) are naturally predisposed to being dangerous creatures, but natural exceptions exist; then maybe the exceptions amongst the drow or goblinoids are likewise natural exceptions. The occasional good-natured circus tiger or neverendingly lovable Pit Bull might owe its beneficence to a genetic mutation. Maybe Drizzt's goodliness is the result of a birth "defect", too!
Therefore, perhaps the notion of choice by such individuals is only an illusion. Maybe they were naturally empowered to live different lifestyles from most other members of their respective species.
And maybe this goodly genetic mutation could be passed on to future generations, through successive in-breeding. In this way, the previous evil nature of the entire species could possibly be supplanted by a newer goodly nature.
You could still have your desired type of story in which the good guy defies the norms of the rest of his race, even with a physiological basis to alignment. It might even add an additional layer of depth to the story, for who or what should get the credit for such a character seeming goodly?
That argument can easily go through a slippery slope, and can be applied to humans themselves.
At the end of the day, living creatures are just (very complex) physical systems. You give them an input (which can be putting them in a particular situation, or simply speaking to them, 'showing' them something -how you do it depends on what senses the being has got-), it causes reactions inside them and gives back ONE output (AFAIK, even in Quantum Mechanics, systems have a deterministic evoultion with time, given the intial conditions, which -in our case- would be how the being is born and its genes). The implication of this is that, being just a mass of molecules working according to the result of chemical reactions, no living thing -not even the intelligent ones- has choice, because its reaction are determined only by what it is and external inputs.
Also, if things were actually that way, you could say that 'evil' people are not evil, they didn't choose, they were simply born that way.
Now no one that I'm aware of knows if this is true, or not (and it would suck if it was), but point is that attributing choices to genes strips any living being from the capacity to actually make them (so it doesn't add layers of complexity, it removes them).
quote:
You could still have your desired type of story in which the good guy defies the norms of the rest of his race
On a side note, the stories I wish for are not necessarily Drizzt-like, more something along the lines of conventionally evil races being given some dept, ability to grow, change and evolve in lore featuring them, even as villains (which is not possible if you say 'they are innately X because god/magic/sheaningans period').
Personally, more Drizzt's is not really the example of what I'd like to see. Sure, he can be an interesting character, but as I've already said, adding 1 super-dude over 10000000 doesn't add much variety to a setting, even more so if this super-dude decides to go 'screw my people' mode. Variations like Many Arrows, Eilistraeens/Vhaerunites bring concrete depth and are even more 'realistic' -so to speak- than having just 1 over so many: ideas are born someway, they spread, some people see that they lead to a better life, they embrace and support it, while others (a lot more others, considering the situation of races like orcs and drow) don't. The ones who do could band together, work/fight to achieve something for them or their race.
It's not even about evil/good, it's about choices and the natural tendency to the improvement of one's own conditions.
|
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 25 Apr 2014 13:17:19 |
|
|
|
Tanthalas
Senior Scribe
Portugal
508 Posts |
Posted - 25 Apr 2014 : 13:08:26
|
I think arguments that try to compare goblinkin to mere animals are inherently flawed. The reason why those arguments fail is because, as already stated by others, goblinkin aren't mere animals, they're sentient beings with intelligence.
Animals aren't the only ones who have instincts, humans have those too. The difference is that our intelligence can let us override our instincts.
As for the argument about "bringing back the old realms", I honestly never got the feeling that the Realms had changed much between 3E and 4E. The big difference was really only the big time skip.
This is one of the things that I dislike about the Sundering, they seem intent on bringing the geo-political status quo back to the pre-Spellplague era (getting rid of Many-Arrows, Myth Drannor becoming a ruin again, Thay going back to how it was, Shade probably going away, Tymanther and Akanul going away) which while will apparently make some of their fans happy, for me it just feels like a regression of the world. If everything goes back to how it was, are we going to be eternally stuck in a world that never changes? Because that's basically a dead world. I could be ok with some things changing back (after all, that's how some things evolve) but everything? |
Sir Markham pointed out, drinking another brandy. "A chap who can point at you and say 'die' has the distinct advantage". |
Edited by - Tanthalas on 25 Apr 2014 13:58:33 |
|
|
|
Apex
Learned Scribe
USA
229 Posts |
Posted - 25 Apr 2014 : 13:49:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
You don't have to recognize "modern morality" but the rules do. Not that it's vital to stick to the rules, but you went there.
What rules do you speak of. The rules I have (written by the games creator E. Gary Gygax and thus representative of original intent) clearly state the Orcs are evil and will attack and kill ALL elves on sight (for instance). |
|
|
|
Mournblade
Master of Realmslore
USA
1287 Posts |
Posted - 25 Apr 2014 : 14:01:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tanthalas
I think arguments that try to compare goblinkin to mere animals are inherently flawed. The reason why those arguments fail is because, as already stated by others, goblinkin aren't mere animals, they're sentient beings with intelligence.
Animals aren't the only ones who have instincts, humans have those too. The difference is that our intelligence can lets us override our instincts.
As for the argument about "bringing back the old realms", I honestly never got the feeling that the Realms had changed much between 3E and 4E. The big difference was really only the big time skip.
This is one of the things that I dislike about the Sundering, they seem intent on bringing the geo-political status quo back to the pre-Spellplague era (getting rid of Many-Arrows, Myth Drannor becoming a ruin again, Thay going back to how it was, Shade probably going away, Tymanther and Akanul going away) which while will apparently make some of their fans happy, for me it just feels like a regression of the world. If everything goes back to how it was, are we going to be eternally stuck in a world that never changes? Because that's basically a dead world. I could be ok with some things changing back (after all, that's how some things evolve) but everything?
I have to disagree. There were lots of geophysical changes that were made and I think the tone of the realms changed for the worse. The world of the Forgotten Realms does not need to change to have good stories in it or run good games. That is the purpose of the world. Provide a place to run your games. Why does the world need to change for that? Why does the Forgotten Realms have to be dynamic? It is a game campaign setting, that DM's can change how they wish. Excellent novels can be written in that world without changing the geopolitical landscape. Pathfinder does it with Golarion, and RA Salvatoree does it with the Drizzt novels. Nothing in those novels makes macro changes to the realms. Small changes are fine that do not change the theme. Macro changes like we had with 4e, as the market showed, are definitely unwanted.
Eberron as far as I can tell is the same world it was from its inception and there are not many complaints about that. Why aren't people screaming about the stagnation of Eberron? |
A wizard is Never late Frodo Baggins. Nor is he Early. A wizard arrives precisely when he means to... |
|
|
|
Tanthalas
Senior Scribe
Portugal
508 Posts |
Posted - 25 Apr 2014 : 14:54:44
|
The reason why the world needs change is because if it never changes then it becomes a dead world. In a world that never changes, we know from the start that all threats are doomed to fail because the world is unchanging. We don't need the bad guys to always win, but they do need to win sometimes, otherwise they'll never be a credible threat.
I agree that excellent novels can be written without changing the world, but excellent novels can also be written that change the world.
People complain a lot about the spellplague, but to me the only real problem with it was the huge timeskip that automatically killed off most of the known NPCs in the Realms. That was the real problem with 4E. I disagree completely that the tone of the setting changed from 3E to 4E, it still feels like the same old Realms to me.
Talking about Eberron is meaningless to me since I've had no contact with it and have no idea about the complaints that do or do not exist with the setting. What I do know is that there are always people out there resistant to change. |
Sir Markham pointed out, drinking another brandy. "A chap who can point at you and say 'die' has the distinct advantage". |
|
|
|
BEAST
Master of Realmslore
USA
1714 Posts |
Posted - 25 Apr 2014 : 15:02:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Aldrick
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
Unless baby orcs were shown to behave in an evil manner, I would assume that they probably don't behave in an evil manner, and so I would deem them off-limits for violence.
Why would they be off-limits for violence if they are Evil? It doesn't matter what someone is doing at the time you meet them as to whether or not they're Evil.
As I said, if they're not shown to behave in an evil manner, then you don't have the evidence upon which to conclude that they are evil. There needs to be a record of many such acts which demonstrate a sufficient pattern to be able to generalize about the race/species. Until then, a goodly character would refrain from violence, for fear of wantonly killing an innocent.
I'm not aware of any evidence about the behavior of orc children outside of the scene in The Pirate King. And that scene showed completely innocent, playful kids, with nary an inkling of aggressiveness towards each other or a member of another species/race (Regis, the halfling). So I'm aware of any grand body of evidence pointing to an evil nature of orc children. All that I know of is anecdotal evidence of their goodness or neutrality.
quote:
[...] if you cast detect evil, and he's showing up as Evil - that's all you need to know.
I'm leery of such magical dei ex machina. I don't get into the magical side of D&D as much as the melee side. That just seems too easy. It seems just as simplistic as treating all orcs as mere combat fodder.
quote:
To become "aligned" they have to consistently do Good, Evil, Lawful, or Chaotic acts on a regular basis. A single act does not define them, as mortals have free will and can be redeemed. You can do something really horrible in the past, and spend the rest of your life being mediocre and not fall to Evil. To become Evil, it takes effort, and to remain Evil it takes effort. The same is true for Good.
This means that, in my Realms, if you encounter someone who is Evil then you know with 100% certainty that it's kosher to kill them. You don't even have to ask questions. The moment you have that information, you know all you need to know.
You see, right there is an illustration of what I'm talking about. On the one hand, you talk about how murky and slippery the idea of alignment is. And then in the next breath you turn around and say that you can use a magic spell to shortcut right through all of that and get your Magic 8-Ball answer. It's too easy!
quote:
They got that alignment because they earned that alignment, and if you're born with that alignment then you can be certain you're going to act in accordance with that alignment, because it's against your nature to act otherwise.
What I was suggesting before is that perhaps orcs are not born with an evil alignment, but rather, they develop aggressive tendencies as they get older and stronger, and with mental development and self-awareness, there arises a moral perceptiveness of their own aggressiveness, and with it an evil alignment. This would make whacking the adults fine, but not the kids.
quote:
I think core D&D attempts to muddy the waters way too much, by throwing good (lower case G) and evil (lower case E) in with Good (capital G) and Evil (capital E). This leads to the weird issues we're currently facing.
Well, I think it's a worthwhile debate, and certainly quite timely, given the NOTH passage.
quote:
I'd rather be debating whether or not Orcs are naturally aggressive, brutish creatures that are prone to violence than whether or not they are all inherently Evil. Because if they're inherently Evil, then they're no different from demons, and you're completely and totally justified in engaging in genocidal slaughter.
"Evil"..."evil". "Tomayto"..."tomahto", to me, oh.
I don't think there's much practical difference, when you're in the middle of a situation. Philosopher sages might be able to afford the luxury of splitting such hairs back in their towers and chambers. But in the field, adventurers need clearcut rules of engagement. Natural hyper-aggressivenes/violence = dangerous creature. Natural hyper-aggressiveness/violence + self-aware intelligence = evil. So whack it!
quote:
Any "exception" you might kill would just be unfortunate collateral damage, and their death would be nothing compared to the Greater Good of slaughtering millions of their brothers and sisters.
But isn't that kind of flippant disregard for the killing of innocents not a "Good"/"good" thing, at all? |
"'You don't know my history,' he said dryly."
--Drizzt Do'Urden (The Pirate King, Part 1: Chapter 2)
<"Comprehensive Chronology of R.A. Salvatore Forgotten Realms Works"> |
|
|
|
silverwolfer
Senior Scribe
789 Posts |
Posted - 25 Apr 2014 : 15:39:52
|
| Books sell, that is why Faerun gets so much attention. You have the , we game here crowd, and you have the;we read it because it is a growing and changing world. Those clash, deal with it. |
|
|
|
Mournblade
Master of Realmslore
USA
1287 Posts |
Posted - 25 Apr 2014 : 16:16:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tanthalas
The reason why the world needs change is because if it never changes then it becomes a dead world. In a world that never changes, we know from the start that all threats are doomed to fail because the world is unchanging. We don't need the bad guys to always win, but they do need to win sometimes, otherwise they'll never be a credible threat.
I agree that excellent novels can be written without changing the world, but excellent novels can also be written that change the world.
People complain a lot about the spellplague, but to me the only real problem with it was the huge timeskip that automatically killed off most of the known NPCs in the Realms. That was the real problem with 4E. I disagree completely that the tone of the setting changed from 3E to 4E, it still feels like the same old Realms to me.
Talking about Eberron is meaningless to me since I've had no contact with it and have no idea about the complaints that do or do not exist with the setting. What I do know is that there are always people out there resistant to change.
Indeed many people are.
Just as many people accept change for changes sake. 4e was a change for changes sake. It was no advancement of story, just a developer changing the game realm.
At least this change is being done right with Ed Greenwood and RA SAlvatore at the helm. SO I can get on board with this change. |
A wizard is Never late Frodo Baggins. Nor is he Early. A wizard arrives precisely when he means to... |
|
|
|
Mournblade
Master of Realmslore
USA
1287 Posts |
Posted - 25 Apr 2014 : 16:23:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by silverwolfer
Books sell, that is why Faerun gets so much attention. You have the , we game here crowd, and you have the;we read it because it is a growing and changing world. Those clash, deal with it.
I would be interested to see where the novels lead the reader to the spellplague changes. What the players got was an arbitrarily changed world for new Players. What the readers got was an arbitrarily changed world that abruptly changed.
People were not reading the realms to follow the change to the NEW!realms with extra SHINY!.
The spellplague was not handled any better for readers than it was for players. Probably worse for readers.
|
A wizard is Never late Frodo Baggins. Nor is he Early. A wizard arrives precisely when he means to... |
|
|
|
Baltas
Senior Scribe
Poland
955 Posts |
Posted - 25 Apr 2014 : 16:23:18
|
Dunno about Mielikki opinion on goblinoids, it seems a bit hypocritical, seeing how she has a drow ranger under herself, and drow and goblins have statistically/technically the same capability to evil. And generally the drow do a lot more vile things than your common orc or goblin.
But let's get back to sources of modern goblinoids, meaning Mr. J.R.R. Tolkien. Tolkien himself was disturbed that he created an evil race/species, and latter tried to explain that goblins behave as malevolently as they because of the influence of various dark lords, like Morgoth, or latter, Sauron. The Great Goblin from the Hobbit, might also have been an fallen Maiar, and it's suggested that orcs/goblins are compelled to search evil Ainur to lead them, and this might been one of the reasons they were accumulated in Moria. It was even suggested orcs would become a lot less aggressive without the presence of evil Maiar in Arda. in This actually makes them more similar to Darkspawn from Dragon Age, rather than most depiction of orcs, like the one in Forgotten Realms.
Meanwhile, Torrilian goblinoids seem to be natural, pretty much free willed 'normal' beings, with believes, religion, culture. Eldath, Mielikki's closest friend even had/has an orc subrace under her care, the Ondonti, which makes the hunter-goddess stance even weirder. And the Anauroch desert was created in a extremely unnatural way, with even possible Far Realm influence because the Phaerimm. Not to mention, the re-desertification of Anauroch would cause death of very large numbers of animals and plants. I start to have doubts if Mielikki isn't shifting towards the true neutral alignment.
But I think that the situation of goblinoid ‘inborn’ evil, and if they should be irredeemable should depend on the DM and group who play their campaign, I just don’t think that it’s Goblinoids/Orcs being just evil drones matches what we saw previously in the materials related to Faerun.
|
Edited by - Baltas on 25 Apr 2014 16:29:06 |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 25 Apr 2014 : 16:46:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tanthalas
We don't need the bad guys to always win, but they do need to win sometimes, otherwise they'll never be a credible threat.
This I completely agree with. I'm done with the idiot Zhentarim. Give me a Zhentarim that terrifies Zhentil Keep's neighbors and justifies its continued existence.
I'm going to try to reply selectively here. Ignoring your belief that the 4e Realms is the same Realms as the 3e Realms, or that the time jump was the only problem with the changes, does not constitute agreement. Just trying to keep my cool. 
And it's not about resistance to change. It's about the stupidity of screwing around with a lore-rich setting just for the sake of screwing around. That's what the 4e changes were. Nothing was improved; nothing was clarified; nothing was fixed. There was only one reason for changing things... to make them different. And screwed up. And as stated elsewhere, I'm not necessarily bashing the 4e Realms... it's the transition from 3e to 4e.
So much for selective reply, right? What I'm really aiming at is this:
quote:
Originally posted by Tanthalas
The reason why the world needs change is because if it never changes then it becomes a dead world.
This is false, imo. Or rather, it's off-target. Even if the Realms stopped changing for a while, it wouldn't necessarily become a dead world. You know what they could do, instead of writing another book about Cormyr, followed by another book about the Dalelands, followed by another book about the "western heartlands?"
They could write a book about Delzoun, followed by a book about Aryvandaar, followed by a book about Jhaamdath. They could write a book about Larloch, followed by a book about Halaster, followed by a book about the princess Amnestria. They could write a whole series of books about another continent, followed by another whole series of books about another continent, followed by... right?
As long as you're developing the world, it is changing and it is not stagnating, and in a certain easily understood perspective it's continually rewriting what we already know about that actually makes the setting stagnate.
The future is not the only place for development. We have 35,000 years of history to explore. How is continually increasing that number inherently superior to developing dozens of entire campaign settings out of the stupendous amount of timeline we already have?
Sure, it's the "past" but what difference does that really make? If it feels "dead" because most of the NPCs who were around back then are dead "now" then the point has been entirely missed.
A good writer brings the setting alive regardless of what time frame he's writing in. If Ed writes a novel or five set in -20,000 DR, I guarantee that a bunch of us are gonna want to roll up characters and adventure there.
A not-so-good writer doesn't inspire that, even when he writes in the future, so where does that leave us?
Sitting on our thumbs, yawning and staring at a gold mine, because somebody keeps piling more dirt on top of it instead of giving us picks and shovels. I'm not saying there aren't a few quartz crystals and even gold nuggets in the new stuff. I'm saying we have every reason to believe that there's a vastly larger amount of wealth in the mine, and the future isn't going anywhere; it's always going to be there.
You could argue that the past will always be there too, but that's a meaningless statement when WotC refuses to go into the past. They had Arcane Age, which was potentially brilliant, but they stupidly shut the door on that for whatever reason, and now the only glimpses we get of the past are scattered bits certain authors can slip into their novels and source material.
The perspective needs to change. It doesn't have to be all delving into the past, but it also doesn't have to all pushing into the future.
Seriously, WotC... all it would take is a trilogy from Ed and you could be selling campaign expansion boxes again, along with all your wacko ideas for the future. And don't even bother saying that nobody wants to write, or read, about the past. How many copies have been sold of the Grand History since it came out? Right, a bunch. So take the idea that nobody cares about the past, and blow it out your ears. Respectfully yours... |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4426 Posts |
Posted - 25 Apr 2014 : 17:37:14
|
There seems to be two topics going on here:
1.) All green-skinned humanoids (ie. Goblins, Orcs) are irredeemably evil and must be slaughtered by the "goodly races" (a belief held by both the genre and setting for a while, at least until 'modern' thinking and game-design came about).
2.) The Realms changing to keep it alive (a thought-provoking idea, but off-target as someone put it).
Ok...
1.) I never liked the idea that humanoids were given a 100% predisposition of being inherently evil (or good). When I truly started playing D&D (when 3E debuted) most monster Alignment descriptions left a certain amount of leeway for areas outside the norm. This was seen when a creature's alignment said "Usually Chaotic Good" or "Usually Neutral". This worked, IMO, for humanoid races. Other races, those of the Outsider, Celestial, Demonic natures are far more rooted in the cosmos and created with those planes energies, thus having an "Always Chaotic" or "Always Neutral Evil". Now this could be a failing of the alignment system itself OR perhaps people put too much emphasis on how strong alignment is playing in the game, but who's to say?
In the case of Orcs / Goblinoids, I think it's important to look at the narrative of their race as a whole and how it's reflected in the setting and what sort of stories can they tell. With the idea of them being irredeemably evil, a story of one of their kind fighting against the norm, being different, and finding purpose is impossible. Luckily that's not really the case now-a-days and hasn't been for quite some time. I remember reading a short-story written by RAS called The Dark Mirror in which Drizzt captures and, sadly, brings in a run-a-way Goblin who's then executed by a town. At first Drizzt thinks he's doing good (aren't all green-skins evil?) but reflects that at certain points those races can come to a realization that perhaps evil isn't always the way it should be. Further, this belief of inherent evil isn't expressed in all genres. For example World of Warcraft AND Magic: The Gathering both paint goblins as more civilized race, even inventors and those that work strongly with magic. There are also Orcs in Warcraft who have only fought the humans at the behest of Demons. And once the demons were gone, the Orcs were tired of war and wanted to go their own separate ways (which is the entire premise of Thrull and Warcraft III storyline).
So while I agree that the majority of a particular race can be evil and the expectations of encountering them will most likely result in conflict, I never want there to be ABSOLUTES that the game and/or setting rests itself on. At least at the Humanoid-level.
Now...
2.) The changes to the Realms were pretty drastic, however I'll agree with Tanthalas that I never felt the Realms were "different" in tone or feel. I will also agree that a game NOT changing can have a stagnant feel ONLY WHEN the game has had changes in the past. The Forgotten Realms, as an example, is a setting that is ALWAYS shifting and has throughout most of it's history. Sure, the changes were often minor but then *BOOM* RSE. And then for the duration of X-Edition the changes here and there were minor, then *BOOM* another RSE. The fact is, if there wasn't an RSE it would cease to be Realms-like. It's gotten to the point that it's an expected event within Realms Canon, esepically after these 15 or so years.
Basically put, Realms fans like that Canon occurs with Novels and setting books. This creates an atmosphere for immersion for it's fans. So when the setting changes, it feels like it's more alive rather than a setting that never changes like Eberron (something their fans enjoy as well). The only problem I see here is that no one's desires for change is the same. I, for one, loved the 4E changes AND Shade's return AND the reclamation of Myth Drannor AND the 'destruction' of Luskan AND certain gods dying AND the destruction of the Weave (at least, as it's role with funneling ALL magic into Realms-space goes). Others, however, feel these change the setting TOO far and make it totally different. There really is no compromise, however, because as a fan of the Realms we accept Canon (at least, acknowledge it's presence if not wholly welcome it into our specific games) for better or worse. That's just the nature of the beast.
|
|
|
|
Zireael
Master of Realmslore
Poland
1190 Posts |
Posted - 25 Apr 2014 : 17:52:30
|
About Mielikki's words, this is a good point:
quote:
Ed or THO recently stated some of the gods may be acting a bit extreme or outside their normal bounds while the Sundering is going on. And I believe it has been referenced here and there, that the gods WILL lie to get something to benefit them. They will even lie to their priests and divine agents etc.
What if Mielikki told Catti-brie to relay that information to Drizzt knowing it was a lie, or a stretch of the truth.
quote:
Hm. My Monster Manual says orcs are "Often chaotic evil." This is clarified in the back: "The creature tends toward the given alignment, either by nature or nurture, but not strongly. A plurality (40-50%) of individuals have the given alignment, but exceptions are common."
Even if it said they were always evil, there's still room for exceptions deliberately put into the rules.
I think I prefer this one to the black/white polarity. |
SiNafay Vrinn, the daughter of Lloth, from Ched Nasad!
http://zireael07.wordpress.com/ |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 25 Apr 2014 : 17:59:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
There seems to be two topics going on here:
Yea we're jumping around, and I'm not helping.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Basically put, Realms fans like that Canon occurs with Novels and setting books.
By this definition, I'm not a Realms fan. I love the setting. I've been playing here since about 1987. However, if being a fan involves liking WotC's decision to make the TOT and the return of Shade and the Spellplague canon events in the setting rather than campaign options available to DMs who want to use them and completely rejectable by those who don't want to use them, then I'm not a fan. In fact I really hate the Realms, if that's how we're defining it. Consequently, I have to regard this as a bad definition.
I would like us to be able to separate the setting from how the setting is managed. I like the northwest quadrant of Faerun... I just don't want to read about that to the exclusion of everywhere else on Toril. I would like the northwest quarter of Faerun to get roughly 1/4 of the pagecount spent on Faerun. I would like the previous century to get equal development time compared to the next century, and the century before that to get an equal share too. That's a difference in development priorities, not a failure to like any particular part of the setting.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
as a fan of the Realms we accept Canon (at least, acknowledge it's presence if not wholly welcome it into our specific games) for better or worse. That's just the nature of the beast.
This saddens me. The beast sucks, and there's no legitimate reason why it can't improve to become a better beast. |
|
|
|
Renin
Learned Scribe
USA
290 Posts |
Posted - 25 Apr 2014 : 19:03:09
|
wheeeee....this topic has really taken off!
I'll simply sum it up with a paraphrased quote from 'Frailty' starring Matthew Mcconaughey.
"Now, destroying <orcs> is a good thing. Killing people is bad. You understand?" |
|
|
|
Aldrick
Senior Scribe
909 Posts |
Posted - 25 Apr 2014 : 19:05:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
As I said, if they're not shown to behave in an evil manner, then you don't have the evidence upon which to conclude that they are evil. There needs to be a record of many such acts which demonstrate a sufficient pattern to be able to generalize about the race/species. Until then, a goodly character would refrain from violence, for fear of wantonly killing an innocent.
I'm not aware of any evidence about the behavior of orc children outside of the scene in The Pirate King. And that scene showed completely innocent, playful kids, with nary an inkling of aggressiveness towards each other or a member of another species/race (Regis, the halfling). So I'm aware of any grand body of evidence pointing to an evil nature of orc children. All that I know of is anecdotal evidence of their goodness or neutrality.
Keep in mind that I'm not making the case that Orc children -ARE- evil. I think the scene is fine, and is likely a good representation of how most Orc children would react. My point is that, if Orc children -ARE- inherently evil (by canon), then whatever actions they may be taking at the moment are irrelevant.
Hence my tongue-in-cheek reference to Hitler loving animals. Just because you happen to bump into him while petting a cute little puppy that he rescued from an abusive home, doesn't magically erase the fact that he was actively engaging in genocide.
In D&D terms, all that matters is alignment. It matters because an Evil alignment means that you've done horrible things in the past, or that you're innately Evil (like a demon) which means you'll be doing horrible things in the future. Because Orc children are young, it's really not all that possible for them to have committed Evil actions in the past worthy of an Evil alignment. That means they'd have to be innately Evil (like a demon). If they are innately Evil, according to the rules of D&D, then it's not an Evil act to kill them. It could be a chaotic act, depending on the circumstances, but killing them would never be considered an Evil act. In fact, it wouldn't even be dirty business to kill them, and if a powerful good aligned outsider showed up it'd smite them if at all possible.
Just because they happen to look human and take the form of children... that's irrelevant. A demon could just as easily assume such a form, and it wouldn't make it any less a demon.
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
I'm leery of such magical dei ex machina. I don't get into the magical side of D&D as much as the melee side. That just seems too easy. It seems just as simplistic as treating all orcs as mere combat fodder.
It is extremely easy. Detect Evil is a first circle Cleric spell that any cleric could have access to at level 1. There is no way to resist the spell. In a D&D game where the situation of whether or not to kill Orc children came up, and someone proclaimed that they should be killed because Orcs are innately evil - this question can be answered on the spot.
And to your last point... the only reason to make all orcs Evil is precisely because you want them to be nothing more than mere combat fodder. That was the point I was making to Ayrik: The only reason you'd need all Orcs to be Evil is so you never have to consider the implications of killing them in massive numbers. Issues of what happens to innocent Orcs who might be children, women, and non-combatants is irrelevant as they'd all be equally Evil. Thus, they'd deserve to be put to the sword as well. Since people feel squeamish about butchering non-combatants, women, and children we have situations where such individuals are magically absent from all adventures. The only orcs you ever encounter happen to be adult males, trained for battle, who want to kill you.
That is extremely simplistic, as you pointed out. But if you want to tell a "story" where you never have to question your characters actions in situations where you are butchering other sentient beings, then it's necessary. As Ayrik said, you can't think about it too much, or you might come to empathize with the Orcs. If you empathize with them, it becomes harder to kill them without thought. Slapping an Evil label on something makes it easy, and makes the characters emotionally distant from their actions. They can take heart that they know they did the right thing, rest easy, and never have to question what they've done.
That's not the type of stories I like telling or want to tell, but that's what an Evil Alignment is for in D&D.
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
You see, right there is an illustration of what I'm talking about. On the one hand, you talk about how murky and slippery the idea of alignment is. And then in the next breath you turn around and say that you can use a magic spell to shortcut right through all of that and get your Magic 8-Ball answer. It's too easy!
No, it's the difference between the way *I* run the Realms, and the way things are set up in core D&D. By core D&D rules Orcs are Evil. In my Realms, most Orcs are unaligned. Even the ones who rape and pillage. I reserve Evil alignments for the worst-of-the-worst. If you have an Orc tribe acting horribly in my Realms, they either have a reason behind that action, or they're being pushed into that action by an Evil force. You'd have to, at a minimum, climb the ranks of the Orc tribe to find the "True Evil".
In my Realms, Orcs are by nature brutish, prone to aggressive behavior, and are likely to become violent. Just in the same way as Elves are naturally predisposed to song and poetry, or Dwarves are naturally predisposed to crafting. It's part of their innate beings. However, they all still have complete free will. Any of them can choose to struggle against their nature. Tribal Chieftains, and in particular Priests of Gruumsh, play upon their innate nature and lead them down darker paths. That doesn't mean they can't live another way, if given the opportunity and choice. Most simply choose not to do so, because they neither have the opportunity nor the choice.
In fact, many would probably choose to live differently if given the choice, because Orcs - like all other creatures - still have a sense of self-preservation. They have enough intelligence to realize that if they keep fighting eventually they will die, and they realize that it's mostly those at the top that benefit from their struggles. Like in the real world, though, most are either too afraid or don't believe that they can change their lot in life. They do what they're told, go where they are told to go, and do what they are told to do - all to avoid the consequences, which for Orcs is really bad.
In Core D&D the Orcs are just evil, full stop. Period. End of discussion. There may be some who are able to weasel out of their lot in life, but at best such individuals are the result of genetic defects. They are the exceptions, and not the rule. If you encounter an Orc 99.9% of the time, it's going to be Evil, and it's there precisely so you can kill it. You need to kill it to get XP and to take it's stuff. In order to feel good about doing that, it needs to be Evil. It also has to be an adult male, preferably trained for battle, who had the intent of killing you. ...which is why these are the only Orcs you ever run into or are explored in core D&D. All other Orcs are irrelevant to the 'kill them for XP, take their stuff' cycle.
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
What I was suggesting before is that perhaps orcs are not born with an evil alignment, but rather, they develop aggressive tendencies as they get older and stronger, and with mental development and self-awareness, there arises a moral perceptiveness of their own aggressiveness, and with it an evil alignment. This would make whacking the adults fine, but not the kids.
We don't know whether or not that's true in core D&D. The reason being that core D&D only focuses on adult male Orcs who exist to fight and challenge adventurers. Hence why they're all labeled as evil in the first place.
You don't become evil as a result of moral perceptiveness, though. You are either born evil naturally (as a demon), or become evil through actions. It's also unlikely that the vast majority of Orcs believe themselves to be evil - regardless of what alignment tells them. They certainly would find ways to justify their actions, at least to themselves if no one else, the same way humans do.
Now, if you wanted to be permissive with Evil alignments, as in core D&D - you could say that Orcs become evil as a result of their raping and pillaging. However, that doesn't solve the problem of the fact that there are an even larger amount of Orcs who are basically behind the scenes supporting the rapers and pillagers. Namely, non-combatants (at the very least crafters), women, and children. Maybe some of them become evil as a result of their actions as well, but most would struggle to obtain an evil alignment. There simply isn't a lot they could do that wouldn't result in the total collapse of the Orc Tribe to get that alignment via actions. And of course, you eventually reach a tipping point where you have the unaligned working against Evil... which is a Good aligned action, even if their motives weren't Good...
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
"Evil"..."evil". "Tomayto"..."tomahto", to me, oh.
I don't think there's much practical difference, when you're in the middle of a situation. Philosopher sages might be able to afford the luxury of splitting such hairs back in their towers and chambers. But in the field, adventurers need clearcut rules of engagement. Natural hyper-aggressivenes/violence = dangerous creature. Natural hyper-aggressiveness/violence + self-aware intelligence = evil. So whack it!
If you're in the field and something is attacking you it's not an Evil action to kill it. The only exception to this rule is if the being is Good aligned. However, in order for it to maintain that Good alignment, it wouldn't be just willy-nilly attacking you - it'd have to have a justifiable reason (such as you being Evil)...
There is also a great deal of difference between evil (lower case E) and Evil (capital E). It's the difference between a neutral character and a Good aligned character. The neutral / unaligned character can commit evil acts, so long as their evil acts don't outweigh their Good acts, or their evil acts are minor enough as to not be overly significant.
In my Realms, I use the Planes as the standard for alignment. This means Fiends are the incarnation of Evil - they're the standard you have to rise too in order to be Evil. In order to rise to the standard of a Fiend, it takes work, and it takes consistent effort. If you aren't capable of keeping consistent effort, then you're likely to slide back to unaligned over time.
That's because mortals can't (and shouldn't) be defined by single acts or even a series of acts. Free will grants them the ability to change, and to even be redeemed. You can't redeem a fiend without changing it's nature. A mortal who sees the error of their ways will repent, and seek to make amends for the evil they've caused. Such repentance will never occur to a fiend - it's unthinkable. The moment it becomes thinkable it's no longer a fiend.
Beings of the Upper and Lower Planes, just like deities, seek to sway mortals toward Good and Evil, because such beings have the ability to tilt the scales of the multiverse one way or another. It's not merely a single Good or Evil individual alone that tilts the scale, though, it's all the unaligned people that they also influence directly and indirectly.
In my Realms, it's quite possible - if one side should gain a significant upperhand long enough to completely destroy any possibility of balance - that the Realms could fall into the Lower Planes or the Upper Planes. It would totally reshape everything.
This is the entire mission and purpose of a being such as Gargauth. He wants to make the Realms the Tenth Layer of Hell. To achieve that goal he has to destroy any semblance of balance between Good and Evil, and make sure Lawful Evil is the dominant alignment after unaligned. If he achieves that, then the Realms falls into the Nine Hells - becoming the 10th Hell. As a result of being in the Lower Planes, and the Hells specifically, every being on Toril would slowly be corrupted toward Lawful Evil. Free will will start to disappear, and basically in a few (so horrific that it's unimaginable) generations, every sentient creature on Toril will become devils.
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
But isn't that kind of flippant disregard for the killing of innocents not a "Good"/"good" thing, at all?
It is if you're Good aligned. It isn't if you're neutral / unaligned, which is the alignment of most people - even in canon. However, the issue still isn't black and white. A Good aligned individual could technically (accidentally, unknowingly) slay someone who is unaligned AND completely innocent. If they realize what they've done they would have to atone for their action in some way. It's only evil if they slay someone Good aligned - knowingly or unknowingly. In which case, it would require a massive atonement.
These things aren't really that big of an issue for Good aligned characters, though. If 99.9% of all Orcs were innately evil, and they were slaughtering them all... and they knew that there was a small or tiny chance they might end up killing a non-evil Orc then they're seeking atonement before hand. They're praying to the gods for guidance and forgiveness. They're asking for signs and whatever else can be offered to avoid hurting innocents. They're taking all the necessary precautions to the best of their ability.
It's likely that they would receive that assistance as well, and so they'd receive the necessary sign when they encountered that ONE good aligned Orc out of the millions of others they've slaughtered. They'd allow that one orc to live.
The unaligned / neutral ones, though... it becomes more tricky, and it is likely up to the Gods whether or not they want to suffer them to live. But of course, it isn't an evil act to kill them unless they're completely innocent of any evil deed ever or haven't atoned for such deeds, so... heh.
Sucks to be a non-good aligned Orc if the Crusaders for Justice and Goodness show up. Once they kick down your door, they're going to kill you, kill your wife, and then kill your children. ...and the Heavens will pause for a brief moment to judge you based on how much your death upset the balance of good and evil. If it brought the Realms more toward the side of good (meaning that you were on the darker side of unaligned), the Heavens will rejoice. If it is a wash then the Heavens may momentarily shed a single tear for your death, forgive their just crusader who has already pre-atoned, as he's actively slaughtering your father, brother, sister, mother, aunts, uncles, cousins, and your best friend.
Meanwhile, Sam the Cowardly, the single Good Aligned Orc with a heart of gold who only wants to learn how to read will light up like a Christmas Tree, making the sign clear to the Crusaders for Justice and Goodness that this one is the good one... so they spare Sam, leaving him the last of his soon to be extinct race.
After all, if you're dealing with innately Evil beings, then it's no different than slaughtering hordes of demons. The fact that these demons happen to wear Orc faces is irrelevant - slaying them is a Good Aligned Act, because it ends their reign (or soon-to-be reign) of terror, and brings the Realms more in line with the Upper Planes. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4426 Posts |
Posted - 25 Apr 2014 : 19:05:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
There seems to be two topics going on here:
Yea we're jumping around, and I'm not helping.
Meh, it's cool I like discussing multiple things and it cuts down on having to enter multiple scrolls. 
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Basically put, Realms fans like that Canon occurs with Novels and setting books.
By this definition, I'm not a Realms fan. I love the setting. I've been playing here since about 1987. However, if being a fan involves liking WotC's decision to make the TOT and the return of Shade and the Spellplague canon events in the setting rather than campaign options available to DMs who want to use them and completely rejectable by those who don't want to use them, then I'm not a fan. In fact I really hate the Realms, if that's how we're defining it. Consequently, I have to regard this as a bad definition.
Perhaps I should clarify that some fans of the Realms like the fact that novels and game supplements are applied to the Canon fiction of the setting. It's always been that way and I think changing that direction would be bad for the setting, probably not good.
That being said, I don't know of any DMs that feel forced into accepting these changes for their own individual campaigns. For example, I didn't like what happened to Eilistraee and therefore, didn't include that into my games. I accept that it happened in the "published" Realms, but my Realms are different from canon by it's very nature. The thing is, canon effects no one so long as they don't choose it to effect them. I'm pretty sure the majority of people here don't play in the 1480 DR Realms or haven't incorporated the Spellplague as-is OR even incorporated things like Shade's Return or even the Time of Troubles. All of these things happened and effect the setting in some way, but that doesn't mean it isn't easy to ignore or alter their effects in positive ways for home-campaigns.
Besides there's SO many novels out there that I doubt ANYONE who runs Realms campaigns has adhered to the canon of every single one. I find even the notion pretty much impossible. So suffice to say I feel people need to look at the canon of the setting and treat it like a buffet. Take and use what you enjoy, leave and forget what you don't. It's pretty much that simple. It does stink for those who don't play the game and just like the setting, because books reflect what's happening in the world but I feel those are in the minority for a setting specifically designed to be used in conjunction with a gaming product.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
I would like us to be able to separate the setting from how the setting is managed. I like the northwest quadrant of Faerun... I just don't want to read about that to the exclusion of everywhere else on Toril. I would like the northwest quarter of Faerun to get roughly 1/4 of the pagecount spent on Faerun. I would like the previous century to get equal development time compared to the next century, and the century before that to get an equal share too. That's a difference in development priorities, not a failure to like any particular part of the setting.
I think it's a failure of the setting's designers that they only focus on a few main areas of an entire world. It undermines how extensive and detailed the setting truly is AND how fun adventures can be outside the "norm". Further, different areas of the world can often lead to different styles of adventure. While I don't like Mulhorand OR Maztica, interesting stories can be told there that cater to different styles. For exmaple, I could see a really fun and interesting Indiana-Jones style story set in Maztica or Chult. It would use Realms lore and the setting and magic, but be catered to a different style altogether. Similar to Rich Baker's Heroes of the Moonsea trilogy, which started out as a sort of "Western" and flowed into a sort of Pirates of the Caribbean feel. It was ALL Realms, but also interesting and not just medieval feel D&D novels often assume.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
as a fan of the Realms we accept Canon (at least, acknowledge it's presence if not wholly welcome it into our specific games) for better or worse. That's just the nature of the beast.
This saddens me. The beast sucks, and there's no legitimate reason why it can't improve to become a better beast.
What do you propose? The Realms have always been a changing, evolving setting that has it's canon based on a myriad of supplements. Short of the books saying "Hey, you don't need to incorporate the changes this book details into your home campaign." I don't see how the Beast can change. Further, being Improved Upon is a completely subjective element. What's great for me, isn't great for others. And what others want might not be what I want. I felt the Reclamation of Myth Drannor was awesome and I wish they explored it's details more, but others wished it remained a dangerous adventuring area. I loved Shade's return however a lot of people hate the idea of Shade and Shadows being the new, popular thing now-a-days. The point is, none of us are ever going to agree with that is "best" for the Realms because we all have different likes and dislikes. |
|
|
|
Tanthalas
Senior Scribe
Portugal
508 Posts |
Posted - 25 Apr 2014 : 20:43:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
This is false, imo. Or rather, it's off-target. Even if the Realms stopped changing for a while, it wouldn't necessarily become a dead world. You know what they could do, instead of writing another book about Cormyr, followed by another book about the Dalelands, followed by another book about the "western heartlands?"
Cropped your text a bit so I wouldn't be reposting it all.
In my opinion your suggestion, while helpful, wouldn't solve the problem. You'd just be leaving behind "dead regions" when you start focusing on the underdeveloped regions and leaving those behind. It's also completely useless to people who want to see more stories in the same region(I don't include lore here since there's only so much lore you can cram into a region).
As an example. While I love Drizzt, I consider the Icewind Dale region to be pretty boring because it's been the same place since RAS introduced it years ago. The Sword Coast and the Silver Marches? Those areas are interesting since stuff actually happens there.
I get it that people think that the geopolitical status of the Realms changed too much with the Spellplague, especially if you liked one of the regions that ceased to exist after it, but I'm the kind of guy that likes the Realm as a whole, so losing some parts and gaining others doesn't ruffle my feathers much. I get it when you say that they changed the Realms for no reason, but I think that what they're doing with 5E is worse. It's bad enough that they're tossing out everything concerning the Spellplague, good and bad, but they're also tossing stuff out that wasn't even related to the spellplague (Many-Arrows, Myth Drannor, Shade). And for what? Just to return the Realms to the same status quo it had 100 years ago? It's going to be silly to have the Zhents being the big bad guys again. |
Sir Markham pointed out, drinking another brandy. "A chap who can point at you and say 'die' has the distinct advantage". |
Edited by - Tanthalas on 25 Apr 2014 20:56:35 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Dumbing Down the Realms (Yeah spoilers)
