Candlekeep Forum
Candlekeep Forum
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Members | Private Messages | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Forgotten Realms Journals
 General Forgotten Realms Chat
 Would you rather see Elminster limited in power?
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 5

Aldrick
Senior Scribe

909 Posts

Posted - 25 Feb 2015 :  15:43:54  Show Profile Send Aldrick a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Lilianviaten

I guess it's debatable who is the most powerful, but for novel purposes, it's clearly Elminster.


That's a bit of an unfair comparison though. It's like saying that I ate the most food out of anyone at the dinner party, when I was the only person at the dinner party. Elminster is the main character in many novels, and enjoys a tremendous amount of plot armor. Many of the most powerful spell casters in the Realms have never made it into print. This creates a biased perspective of who is the most powerful. Ed himself will tell you, if asked, that Elminster is not the most powerful spell caster in the Realms--this is not even a debatable topic, since the answer to the question is so immediately obvious.

There could be thousands of more powerful spell casters in the Realms that we just don't have the names of, and even those that we do know the names of who don't see things in print, that does not mean that they are inactive. We just don't know what they're doing, unless it is explicitly stated somewhere in canon.
Go to Top of Page

Aldrick
Senior Scribe

909 Posts

Posted - 25 Feb 2015 :  16:25:08  Show Profile Send Aldrick a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowsoul

I also wish they would cut back on Mystra having a direct hand in things. Why should she have so much direct intervention when the other deities do not? Selecting a chosen and giving them power is where it should stop.


I agree entirely here. One of the problems with it is that if Mystra is doing it, then there is no reason that other deities can't, wouldn't, or shouldn't do it as well.

Mystra has a ton of Chosen. The original reason for her having them has been diluted, especially post-Sundering. Why doesn't Cyric just create a bunch of powerful Chosen? Then when they run into serious trouble, why doesn't he give them a True Resurrection, or show up in avatar form in an all out assault like Mystra did in the Nine Hells? If Mystra could do that in the Nine Hells, imagine what Cyric could do in the Realms. He could wipe out entire cities.

People would lose their crap if Cyric was played to par with how Mystra is used.

Maybe then people would finally grow tired of seeing the deities used in such a way, and will join me in having Ao ban them from directly interfering with the mortal world. Interfere indirectly? Sure. Interfere directly? No.
Go to Top of Page

Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
Moderator

USA
36779 Posts

Posted - 25 Feb 2015 :  17:14:46  Show Profile Send Wooly Rupert a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by LordofBones

God forbid the Chosen eat some humble pie for once. With the sheer incompetence slapped on Thay and poor Manshoon, the Realms needed decent villains.



The Realms had decent villains -- plenty of them. There were evil wizards; evil dragons; various meddling deities and near-deities; things from the Lower Planes; greedy merchants; wizards' cabals both large and public, like the Red Wizards, and small and secretive, like the Twisted Rune; scheming nobles; and plenty of individuals that didn't fall into any of those categories.

Yes, in 2E, due to the lame Code of Ethics TSR had, Manshoon, the Zhents, and the Red Wizards did not come off so well. But that was a poor decision forced on the Realms, not a problem with the setting.

A similarly poor decision was the fact that in 2E, most of the evil groups that weren't the Zhents or the Red Wizards were mostly ignored.

In 3E, they decided to counter the Zhent/Red Wizard issue by creating a new enemy. Instead of being marginally incompetent, the Shades were made hyper-competent.

They were one small group of individuals, but they were involved in almost every evil scheme, and no one could stand up to them. In the Return of the Archwizards trilogy, in fact, all the established powerful folks of the Realms fell all over themselves in a rush to demonstrate extremely un-characteristic stupidity and incompetence, giving the Shades more successes than they reasonably should have had.

And this trend continued throughout 3E: whatever the Shades turned their eyes towards, they got.

All of the other power groups of the Realms, whether good or evil, were unable to mount any kind of effective resistance to the Shades.

To truly fix the villainous problem of 2E, WotC should have simply let bad guys succeed sometimes, and even more, they should have gone back to the complex interplay of dozens of groups that Ed intended to have. We should have seen much, much more of these less-used power-groups, not had them buried under a rug and forgotten.

And sometimes, the price of stopping one evil group would have been the success of another evil group.

Instead, we got one all-powerful enemy, somehow involved in everything and successful everywhere, despite the obvious illogic of that scenario.

The Shades weren't just cheesy, they were cartoony. They were under every rock, behind every plot, and no one could do anything about them -- which is, ironically, pretty much the same (erroneous) complaint people have about Mystra's Chosen.

Here is, to me, the best example of how cheesy the Shades were: the Lost Vale. No one had been able to find that -- even a near-deity, flying directly overhead, searching for it and knowing it was there, was unable to find it. And yet, for no readily apparent reason, the Shades found and conquered it. There was no reason for them to look for it, no reason for them to want to conquer it, and really no way for them to find it -- yet they did all three, and like with their destruction of Zhentil Keep, it was barely a footnote in their tale.

The Realms needed the destruction of Shade, if no other other reason than to make room for believable, non-mustache-twirling villains.

Candlekeep Forums Moderator

Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com
-- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct

I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!

Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 25 Feb 2015 17:15:08
Go to Top of Page

Shadowsoul
Senior Scribe

Ireland
705 Posts

Posted - 25 Feb 2015 :  17:32:32  Show Profile Send Shadowsoul a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

quote:
Originally posted by LordofBones

God forbid the Chosen eat some humble pie for once. With the sheer incompetence slapped on Thay and poor Manshoon, the Realms needed decent villains.



The Realms had decent villains -- plenty of them. There were evil wizards; evil dragons; various meddling deities and near-deities; things from the Lower Planes; greedy merchants; wizards' cabals both large and public, like the Red Wizards, and small and secretive, like the Twisted Rune; scheming nobles; and plenty of individuals that didn't fall into any of those categories.

Yes, in 2E, due to the lame Code of Ethics TSR had, Manshoon, the Zhents, and the Red Wizards did not come off so well. But that was a poor decision forced on the Realms, not a problem with the setting.

A similarly poor decision was the fact that in 2E, most of the evil groups that weren't the Zhents or the Red Wizards were mostly ignored.

In 3E, they decided to counter the Zhent/Red Wizard issue by creating a new enemy. Instead of being marginally incompetent, the Shades were made hyper-competent.

They were one small group of individuals, but they were involved in almost every evil scheme, and no one could stand up to them. In the Return of the Archwizards trilogy, in fact, all the established powerful folks of the Realms fell all over themselves in a rush to demonstrate extremely un-characteristic stupidity and incompetence, giving the Shades more successes than they reasonably should have had.

And this trend continued throughout 3E: whatever the Shades turned their eyes towards, they got.

All of the other power groups of the Realms, whether good or evil, were unable to mount any kind of effective resistance to the Shades.

To truly fix the villainous problem of 2E, WotC should have simply let bad guys succeed sometimes, and even more, they should have gone back to the complex interplay of dozens of groups that Ed intended to have. We should have seen much, much more of these less-used power-groups, not had them buried under a rug and forgotten.

And sometimes, the price of stopping one evil group would have been the success of another evil group.

Instead, we got one all-powerful enemy, somehow involved in everything and successful everywhere, despite the obvious illogic of that scenario.

The Shades weren't just cheesy, they were cartoony. They were under every rock, behind every plot, and no one could do anything about them -- which is, ironically, pretty much the same (erroneous) complaint people have about Mystra's Chosen.

Here is, to me, the best example of how cheesy the Shades were: the Lost Vale. No one had been able to find that -- even a near-deity, flying directly overhead, searching for it and knowing it was there, was unable to find it. And yet, for no readily apparent reason, the Shades found and conquered it. There was no reason for them to look for it, no reason for them to want to conquer it, and really no way for them to find it -- yet they did all three, and like with their destruction of Zhentil Keep, it was barely a footnote in their tale.

The Realms needed the destruction of Shade, if no other other reason than to make room for believable, non-mustache-twirling villains.



And the Realms needs the destruction of The Chosen of Mystra because of those exact same reasons.

“Fantasy is escapist, and that is its glory. If a soldier is imprisioned by the enemy, don't we consider it his duty to escape?. . .If we value the freedom of mind and soul, if we're partisans of liberty, then it's our plain duty to escape, and to take as many people with us as we can!”
#8213; J.R.R. Tolkien

*I endorse everything Dark Wizard says*.
Go to Top of Page

Irennan
Great Reader

Italy
3802 Posts

Posted - 25 Feb 2015 :  17:37:53  Show Profile Send Irennan a Private Message
No, the Realms don't need any further destruction. If something is overbearing, it can be depowered, you don't need to remove it. The destruction of Shade wasn't necessary, the removal of Mystra's chosen isn't either. With every thing that gets removed (especially because of people crying ''OP'') the setting loses a piece of itself. There's a middle way between ''OP/always wins/invincible/is everywhere'' and ''nuked into oblivion''.

Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things.

Edited by - Irennan on 25 Feb 2015 17:41:11
Go to Top of Page

Aldrick
Senior Scribe

909 Posts

Posted - 25 Feb 2015 :  18:11:30  Show Profile Send Aldrick a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

Yes, in 2E, due to the lame Code of Ethics TSR had, Manshoon, the Zhents, and the Red Wizards did not come off so well. But that was a poor decision forced on the Realms, not a problem with the setting.


I agree entirely with the first part of your statement. Ed himself has said as much, saying that the Zhents were turned into "Keystone Kops" (his words). However, I do disagree that it was not a problem with the setting. It became a very real problem with the setting, due to the perceptions it created, and how it caused various groups to evolve over time.

3E definitely went in the opposite direction, the 'Darker and Edgier' route, and the Shades were shoved down our throats hard. That, at least to me, is without question. However, I believe the reason they went to the other extreme was precisely because of the problems that were created due to the TSR Code of Ethics.

They should have moved to rehabilitate what TSR screwed up. The bulk of the Return of the Archwizards could have been rewritten for the Red Wizards of Thay. All they would have had to do was open a portal to the Anauroch Desert, with the intent of locating a powerful Netherese artifact that they detected had 'recently become active'. Then they could have discovered an intact Mythallar, and used it to create their own Flying Enclave--then looking for powerful Netherese Artifacts. Things could have mostly played out the same, and it would have ended with the Red Wizards making a major come back--and becoming a major power in the region.

quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

In 3E, they decided to counter the Zhent/Red Wizard issue by creating a new enemy. Instead of being marginally incompetent, the Shades were made hyper-competent.

...

And this trend continued throughout 3E: whatever the Shades turned their eyes towards, they got.

All of the other power groups of the Realms, whether good or evil, were unable to mount any kind of effective resistance to the Shades.

...

They were under every rock, behind every plot, and no one could do anything about them -- which is, ironically, pretty much the same (erroneous) complaint people have about Mystra's Chosen.


Exactly. I agree with this entirely. This is a consistent problem with the Realms, across the board. You know who is favored by WotC right out of the gate, based on what NPC or group gets handed the idiot ball. Most (though not all) Realms novels feel like a collection of plot points. The author needs to achieve X, Y, and Z before the end of the book. So certain NPC's or entire groups of NPC's are handed the idiot ball, to make the story possible.

I despise this on so many levels. Usually, it is the "villainous" characters/groups holding the ball, but on occasion it is the "heroes" instead. This was true when it came to the Shades, as you noted, and it was usually true in the reverse when it comes to Mystra's Chosen as both you and Lord of Bones noted.

What the Realms needs is for WotC to stop backseat driving the metaplot. If they want a metaplot, do it in published adventures or something, but leave the novels alone. Encourage authors to write believable and realistic characters, and make sure they are portrayed consistently. Stop dividing everyone down the lines of good guys and bad guys, and start focusing on what makes a good story in a fantasy setting (drama & conflict or VIMS = Violence, Intrigue, Mystery, and Sex ). Then stop picking winners and losers, and let the world and story evolve however it may. To the extent outside influence should happen, it should be to keep the canon consistent.

It would also be nice if we could step away from the black and white characters. While we are at it, stay away from uber powerful characters, and focus on characters of more reasonable power--or away from adventuring characters all together. Why can't we just read about some good old political intrigue among normal nobles in Waterdeep or something? Sigh.
Go to Top of Page

Mirtek
Senior Scribe

595 Posts

Posted - 25 Feb 2015 :  20:31:13  Show Profile Send Mirtek a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Aldrick

Ed himself has said as much, saying that the Zhents were turned into "Keystone Kops" (his words).
Which is funny, given that it was Ed himself who wrote the ultimate humiliation of Manshoon that forever ruins him as a credible villian in his Knights of Myth Drannor novels years after 2e.
Go to Top of Page

Tanthalas
Senior Scribe

Portugal
508 Posts

Posted - 25 Feb 2015 :  21:43:47  Show Profile Send Tanthalas a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Mirtek

quote:
Originally posted by Aldrick

Ed himself has said as much, saying that the Zhents were turned into "Keystone Kops" (his words).
Which is funny, given that it was Ed himself who wrote the ultimate humiliation of Manshoon that forever ruins him as a credible villian in his Knights of Myth Drannor novels years after 2e.



It is funny that Ed would say something like that, when imo, more than any author that I've read, it's his novels that are responsible for ridicularizing FR villains the most. Ok sure, Shade was overused, but I'd say that they only really became cartoony in The Herald, due to how Ed writes his villains.

I love reading Ed's books for the lore and the humour, but his villains always end up underwhelming. I think it's a problem when it doesn't feel like the heroes won, but rather that the villains lost.

Sir Markham pointed out, drinking another brandy. "A chap who can point at you and say 'die' has the distinct advantage".
Go to Top of Page

Shadowsoul
Senior Scribe

Ireland
705 Posts

Posted - 25 Feb 2015 :  22:25:36  Show Profile Send Shadowsoul a Private Message
I kind of wish the Forgetten Realms would take on the Game of Thrones direction where no one is safe. I get tired of the good vs evil where good always prevails in the end.

“Fantasy is escapist, and that is its glory. If a soldier is imprisioned by the enemy, don't we consider it his duty to escape?. . .If we value the freedom of mind and soul, if we're partisans of liberty, then it's our plain duty to escape, and to take as many people with us as we can!”
#8213; J.R.R. Tolkien

*I endorse everything Dark Wizard says*.
Go to Top of Page

BenN
Senior Scribe

Japan
382 Posts

Posted - 25 Feb 2015 :  23:41:46  Show Profile Send BenN a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowsoul

I kind of wish the Forgetten Realms would take on the Game of Thrones direction where no one is safe. I get tired of the good vs evil where good always prevails in the end.

On the other hand, the Myth Drannor elves did kinda get their asses handed to them in The Herald (assuming one counts them as among the 'good guys').

A couple of other thoughts:

While the Chosen of Mystra seem to be almost immortal (recent events notwithstanding....), during the Sundering apparently the Chosen of other gods were getting massacred all over the place. I get that the 7 Sisters are among Ed's favourite characters, but IMHO it would be more interesting to see Chosen of other gods being developed more, and to see how they cooperate / copflict with those of Mystra.

Although I think RAS writes very well, and has come up with some interesting new ideas (the revamped Regis for one), I wish that the CoTH had stayed dead. Keep Drizzt alive if you must, but I think it would have been better if he had continued with new characters. For instance, I like Dahlia - she's certainly not a black & white character, and the question for me is: is she beyond redemption? Now that she's apparently had her brain pureed by a mind-flayer, I guess we won't find out one way or the other.....

Edited by - BenN on 25 Feb 2015 23:43:49
Go to Top of Page

Aldrick
Senior Scribe

909 Posts

Posted - 26 Feb 2015 :  00:18:21  Show Profile Send Aldrick a Private Message
I am just going to reprint what Ed said here, since people are jumping on him. I don't want his words to be pulled out of context. The last quote also addresses the question brought up by MrHedgehog.

"... So the short answer to your question is that you are very much mistaken that Elminster is “the most powerful being in the world.” ... Contrary to what you state, there are MANY “more powerful evil beings” AND “non-Chosen of Mystra more powerful mysterious beings” than there are Chosen of Mystra. Larloch and Shaaan the Serpent Queen, just to name two of a long, long, LONG list (and right now I’m only considering those characters I created for the Realms, not those others have added to the setting). ..."

...So, like I said. It is pretty clear that Elminster isn't making the Top 10 of the most powerful spellcasters in the Realms, and it is debatable whether or not he even makes the top 20.

Anyway, here are Ed's own words on the Zhents being "Keystone Kops".

quote:
Questions for Ed Greenwood (2004)
Posted On: 22 Mar 2004

As for your question about villains, things have changed. TSR had a rather strict Code of Ethics (revised at least once that I can recall) that was hard to live with for two reasons: judging from what got published, some writers seemed “exempt” from it, where others of us (me being one :}) got it applied to us pretty thoroughly; AND it pretty well said that evildoers can’t be seen to benefit from evil actions within the confines of a product (meaning: you could START a book with a Great Evil Empire, but you couldn’t have them defeated at the end of a trilogy but “win” along the way, until things looked more and more dire [example: The Lord of the Rings]: they had to lose in EACH book of the trilogy or series). This is why the Zhentarim so often came across as the Keystone Kops of the Realms in early Realms novels. Frustrating as heck, believe me.

Wizards has a much broader (but more ‘sensitive New Age,’ i.e. more sensitive towards offending real-world female consumers) Code of Conduct, that I can by and large live with just fine. Folks who read my books carefully will notice that I’ve been “pushing the barriers” a little with each novel so that what’s deemed acceptable is a little broader next time, giving me more storytelling room. Yet for all the complaints hurled my way for being fixated on sex, being mad for nudity and gals with silver hair and all that, I’ve never in print gone as far as Bob Salvatore did way back in his great novel HOMELAND (the female drow valedictorian of the graduating class summons and has sex with a glabrezu of the lower planes? whilst the entire class participates in an orgy? Wow!). So what one can get away with does vary. As for your concerns with rewriting: all Realms novels are works for hire. Wizards of the Coast owns the copyright and can control the text. All novel authors rewrite until their editor is happy with the result. And that’s true almost everywhere in the publishing world. That’s just “the way the game works.” Down the years, I’ve had seven book and game products go straight through editing with no requests for changes or additions. Seven (no, I’m not going to say which ones), and my prose usually gets tinkered with. One must accept that, or stop participating in the process. Obviously, looking back over the hundreds of published things I’ve been involved with, concerning the Realms, I’ve accepted it. :}


quote:
Questions for Ed Greenwood (2007)
Posted On: 05 Mar 2007

So saith Ed. Who adds a response to Delzounblood’s queries: “Why, apart from standard structure do nearly all novels have the good guy's winning??

Surley in the Realms there has been a time where one evil faction or another has been on the winning side? or else how did the the Red Wizards for example or the Zhents or any of the others start and grow there base of operations?

When will ED write a novel on Bad Guy's winning???

If Ed would like? I have part of a novel written he can read, where the main character is a Fallen Angel! A Paladin gone BAD! which I am working on. I would like to hear his (and yours THO) views on it so far!”

Ed replies:
“Nearly all novels” have that structure because most human readers want to know that good triumphs, and publishers know that (unless there’s a clear promise of a later book in which good might win, as in a labelled trilogy or saga, e.g. “Book One of”) sales will suffer if good doesn’t win. (Or, in a romance, if the hero and heroine don’t wind up with each other.)

TSR/WotC Realms novels have that structure because strict sets of Code of Ethics have applied, down the years, mandating that. In short, we were forced to write “good guys win” novels (hence the Keystone Kops-incompetent Zhents of early books). That has slowly been relaxed (as for how CRUCIBLE got that way, it must have had full editorial approval).

You’re quite right that evil must triumph to set up those established powerful evil organizations - - and if you check Realmslore, you’ll see many, many historical instances of the bad guys winning (fall of Myth Drannor, etc.).

I will write such a Realms novel when I receive editorial approval to do so (if you don’t consider HAND OF FIRE to be that already). Check out my next Tor Books novel, DARK WARRIOR RISING, due out in September 07, for a ‘“sort of” good guys winning, but a lot of bad guys winning, too’ novel.


quote:
Questions for Ed Greenwood (2007)
Posted On: 23 Apr 2014
By: paladinnicolas

Dear THO and Ed, I have a somewhat long question I would like to ask Ed, and while I am aware that some of the readers may disagree, I would like to begin by mentioning that I ask this respectfully and that I like Ed's work. My question has to do with some aspects I do not like about the Realms, which have led me to enjoy its fiction but to not be the campaign setting I use when playing. In fact, when I learned to play D&D I did so in the Realms but have never done so again, and as I just said I like its fiction. This has to do with a feeling that the Realms, having been created by Ed prior to D&D with his stories, are better suited, according to my tastes, to fiction, because of something many dnd players consider: Elminster and the Chosen of Mystra. What I would like to ask Ed is whether the way I conceive or interpret their role in the world is mistaken and that thus my dislike is attributable to a mistake of mine, or whether it is the way things are and it is a matter of simple taste disagreement, case which would be perfectly normal: after all, I admit that many dnd players love the Realms as they are according to the Mystra's chosen vision, and that is a perfectly respectable taste. What I don't like is the idea that Elminster successfully manipulates many events in the world and, being almost the most powerful being in the world, he is the one to save it from the greatest threats, rather than players. Of course, this does not mean that PCs are irrelevant, but only that while El deals with the worst menaces, they deal with others. Still, I don't like this. On top of that, most mysterious and powerful beings are Chosen of Mystra and allegedly good-aligned. I am aware of the idea that they can err, but my qualms have to do with two aspects: first of all, that there are neither more powerful evil beings nor non-Chosen of Mystra more powerful mysterious beings. Secondly, Elminster and the Chosen embody an idea of goodness removed from that of certain merciful, pious approaches, and so do not have that romantic feel. Moreover, non-wizards and gods different from Mystra and agents of other deities have no real chance. While Mystra has been defeated in the past, this may have been a decision of WotC rather than El's. Lastly, villains are depicted as foolish or significantly weaker, e.g. Manshoon (in fiction at least). To conclude, I stress that I love Ed's fiction and admire his work, and more than that I think that he is very friendly and generous to share his ideas with us. I like the realms and will continue to do so, and if there is a disagreement I may be in the wrong, but these concerns of mine lead me to play in other settings, and yet I may be wrong in how I interpret these aspects about the Realms. Thank you (I always wanted to ask this respectfully).


Posted On: 24 Apr 2014
Response by: Ed

paladinnicolas, no offense taken.

The published Realms have focused on Elminster and the Chosen of Mystra FAR more than my “home” Realms campaign ever has, even with Elminster literally living next door to the Knights, in Shadowdale, for a lot of campaign time.

This is due to the popularity of these characters, resulting in requests by both publishers (TSR and Wizards) for me to write Elminster novels that often feature the other Chosen, from the Seven to Khelben and for that matter the goddess of magic herself. In my own Realms campaign, Elminster is far more of “the old storyteller” who drops hints or recollections about someone or something, then frustratingly vanishes on his own business, leaving the Player Characters on their own.

So the short answer to your question is that you are very much mistaken that Elminster is “the most powerful being in the world.” Far from it. Nor is he infallible, and he’s not interested in saving the world from its “greatest threats” - - rather, he’s interested in being the best servant Mystra has. (That is, furthering her aims, of protecting the Weave and of promoting magic so it’s as widely used as possible by the maximum number of creatures, not concentrated in the hands of a few who use it to rule or tyrannize others.) His greatest achievement may just be doggedly keeping at this, refusing to go away and refusing to give up.

Elminster DOES “successfully manipulates many events in the world,” but they are events large and small, most of them hidden from public view or what we modern real-worlders might term “geopolitics,” and he and the other Chosen are by no means dealing “with the worst menaces.” They are doing what Mystra wants him to do, which usually consists of stealthily leaving scrolls and spellbooks where adventurers and “just plain folks” can find them, steering those who have a talent for the Art into places and meetings where they’ll have a chance to learn more about the Art, and so on.

When you state that “most mysterious and powerful beings are Chosen of Mystra and allegedly good-aligned,” I’m afraid you’re simply wrong. There are perhaps twenty active Chosen at any one time, and they serve Mystra in many different ways - - by which I mean they are by no means all “magical fighters” or “meddlers” or “adventurers.” Some of them are literally scribes who write down magic and hide from the world.

[[Nor are these Chosen what everyone would call “good.” Khelben was a law-and-order type, but Elminster and Storm delight in breaking laws and rules, particularly where they see such laws and rules as protecting the corrupt or promoting good at the expense of personal freedoms.]]

With Khelben off the scene, and acknowledging that Manshoon and Halaster have personal relationships with Mystra but are NOT Chosen, and the Srinshee largely keeps away from human affairs, that leaves Elminster and the Seven as the sort of ‘active’ Chosen you’re probably envisaging. Right now (I’m assuming you haven’t yet read THE HERALD) not all of the Seven are still alive, one of them (Dove) almost entirely avoids using magic, and one (Qilué) is shared between Mystra and Eilistraee, and the result is a mere handful of Chosen of Mystra (four or five beings, in the entire world) who MIGHT conceivably compete with Player Character adventurers in some situations.

And they usually won’t compete with adventurers, because they’re usually busy doing something else (recall the scene I put into SPELLFIRE, with Elminster and Florin strolling right through a battle, Elminster’s attention entirely on other things than what Shandril and her companions were involved in, and facing).
Contrary to what you state, there are MANY “more powerful evil beings” AND “non-Chosen of Mystra more powerful mysterious beings” than there are Chosen of Mystra. Larloch and Shaaan the Serpent Queen, just to name two of a long, long, LONG list (and right now I’m only considering those characters I created for the Realms, not those others have added to the setting). From the first, there have been more “nasty bad guys” (and gals, and nonhuman critters) in the Realms than good guys. I know, because I put them there, from Fzoul and Szass Tam to Klauth and the many Malaugrym and even more beholders.

Whether or not Elminster and the Chosen have a “romantic feel” is, of course, a personal view and if you find them non-romantic, so be it. I think some of the Seven are quite romantic, but I find Elminster more gruff and comical (and forbidding underneath) than romantic. However, I find his dedication, and his love of the Realms, romantic indeed.

When you state: “non-wizards and gods different from Mystra and agents of other deities have no real chance,” I’m afraid I flatly disagree. My fiction and the existing published history of the Realms (see the Grand History of the Realms) describe many mistakes, defeats, reverses, and outwittings of Mystryl and the two Mystras and their servants and agents - - and these defeats continue right up to the “present day” of the published Realms.

This sentence puzzles me: “While Mystra has been defeated in the past, this may have been a decision of WotC rather than El's.” Elminster doesn’t get to decide Mystra’s fate; it’s far more the other way around. If you meant to write “rather than Ed’s,” you’re partly correct; Wizards is the copyright holder of the Realms now, and control the creative direction of the Realms - - but in the past, I had more of a free hand in what I wrote (not the actual prose, which always got attentively edited, but the content) and so Mystra’s defeats were matters I created.

“Lastly, villains are depicted as foolish or significantly weaker, e.g. Manshoon (in fiction at least).” Here you are spot-on correct, but that was due to TSR’s infamous Code of Conduct (evil cannot be seen to win or benefit in any lasting manner from their achievements, evil cannot be portrayed as more successful or more competent than good, villains must always be more clearly flawed than heroes), and Realms designers railed against this so much that you should be able to spot passages in both my fiction and in Realms game products where the “Keystone Kops” incompetence of the Zhents was lampooned or where we attempted to provide rational in-game explanations for it.

About twenty years ago, I ran eleven short (13 session) mini-campaigns in a public library (the Player Characters were members of chartered adventuring bands in Cormyr, given charters that had a built in “starter mission’/adventure), and I don’t think Elminster or the other Chosen were so much as mentioned, let alone ever appeared, in ten of them. In the eleventh, Storm Silverhand led some Harpers right through the PCs’ forest campsite in the middle of the night, scaring the er-whatsis out of them.

The view of El and the Chosen as getting in the “game way” of Player Characters adventuring in the Realms, and so limiting their adventures, that you set forth in your post is one I’ve heard many times, but it’s not a view I’ve ever heard from any player I have Dungeon Mastered. I can only conclude that a lot of DMs must use El and the Chosen as giant hammers to batter down uppity players and their characters, which is horrible DMing behaviour. El and the Chosen are part of the rich background tapestry of the Realms, and should be used sparingly - - just as the gods themselves should be used even more sparingly.

Inevitably the published Realms fiction focuses on heroes, and about five years before the end of TSR’s tenure as custodian of the Realms, it was decided that authors should have “signature characters” and that mine should be Elminster, and I’ve been asked to write Elminster, more Elminster, and still more Elminster books ever since - - but I’ve never heard anyone say that because Sherlock Holmes is an immortal character of lasting popularity, they can’t set games in London, even Victorian London, because he’s somehow “in the way.” Nor do the writers of murder mysteries shun London because there was once a mysterious butcher named Jack the Ripper.

Now with all of this said, your (and yes, it is very respectful, and I thank you for that) post doesn’t anger me, because I welcome the chance to try to increase your enjoyment of the Realms and to “set the record straight” for others who might share the interpretation of El and the Chosen that you have posted about.

Elminster isn’t even my favorite Realms character, nor are any of the other Chosen. I’ve always had a softer spot for Mirt the Moneylender, myself.

I find it sad when gamers turn away from the Realms because of this skewed notion of the role of the Chosen of Mystra. The setting is SO much larger and richer than that. (I’ve worked on it for not much less than fifty years now, trying to make it ever richer.) I hope you can come to see that, paladinnicolas - - and more than that, start to enjoy playing in the Realms.

(There’s this Tyranny of Dragons thing coming up, and if you take a peek at it, you’ll see something else that I am SO happy is finally being focused on in the Realms, that might make you consider the Harpers, the Zhentarim, and so on in a new light.)

So saith Ed, whom I know is hard at work on at least two major Realms projects right now. Neither of which I can comfortably sit and wait for - - but I'll have to!


Go to Top of Page

Aldrick
Senior Scribe

909 Posts

Posted - 26 Feb 2015 :  00:22:09  Show Profile Send Aldrick a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by BenN

On the other hand, the Myth Drannor elves did kinda get their asses handed to them in The Herald (assuming one counts them as among the 'good guys').


You're right. It is always questionable to call any Elf among the good guys.
Go to Top of Page

Shadowsoul
Senior Scribe

Ireland
705 Posts

Posted - 26 Feb 2015 :  07:18:24  Show Profile Send Shadowsoul a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Aldrick

I am just going to reprint what Ed said here, since people are jumping on him. I don't want his words to be pulled out of context. The last quote also addresses the question brought up by MrHedgehog.

"... So the short answer to your question is that you are very much mistaken that Elminster is “the most powerful being in the world.” ... Contrary to what you state, there are MANY “more powerful evil beings” AND “non-Chosen of Mystra more powerful mysterious beings” than there are Chosen of Mystra. Larloch and Shaaan the Serpent Queen, just to name two of a long, long, LONG list (and right now I’m only considering those characters I created for the Realms, not those others have added to the setting). ..."

...So, like I said. It is pretty clear that Elminster isn't making the Top 10 of the most powerful spellcasters in the Realms, and it is debatable whether or not he even makes the top 20.

Anyway, here are Ed's own words on the Zhents being "Keystone Kops".

quote:
Questions for Ed Greenwood (2004)
Posted On: 22 Mar 2004

As for your question about villains, things have changed. TSR had a rather strict Code of Ethics (revised at least once that I can recall) that was hard to live with for two reasons: judging from what got published, some writers seemed “exempt” from it, where others of us (me being one :}) got it applied to us pretty thoroughly; AND it pretty well said that evildoers can’t be seen to benefit from evil actions within the confines of a product (meaning: you could START a book with a Great Evil Empire, but you couldn’t have them defeated at the end of a trilogy but “win” along the way, until things looked more and more dire [example: The Lord of the Rings]: they had to lose in EACH book of the trilogy or series). This is why the Zhentarim so often came across as the Keystone Kops of the Realms in early Realms novels. Frustrating as heck, believe me.

Wizards has a much broader (but more ‘sensitive New Age,’ i.e. more sensitive towards offending real-world female consumers) Code of Conduct, that I can by and large live with just fine. Folks who read my books carefully will notice that I’ve been “pushing the barriers” a little with each novel so that what’s deemed acceptable is a little broader next time, giving me more storytelling room. Yet for all the complaints hurled my way for being fixated on sex, being mad for nudity and gals with silver hair and all that, I’ve never in print gone as far as Bob Salvatore did way back in his great novel HOMELAND (the female drow valedictorian of the graduating class summons and has sex with a glabrezu of the lower planes? whilst the entire class participates in an orgy? Wow!). So what one can get away with does vary. As for your concerns with rewriting: all Realms novels are works for hire. Wizards of the Coast owns the copyright and can control the text. All novel authors rewrite until their editor is happy with the result. And that’s true almost everywhere in the publishing world. That’s just “the way the game works.” Down the years, I’ve had seven book and game products go straight through editing with no requests for changes or additions. Seven (no, I’m not going to say which ones), and my prose usually gets tinkered with. One must accept that, or stop participating in the process. Obviously, looking back over the hundreds of published things I’ve been involved with, concerning the Realms, I’ve accepted it. :}


quote:
Questions for Ed Greenwood (2007)
Posted On: 05 Mar 2007

So saith Ed. Who adds a response to Delzounblood’s queries: “Why, apart from standard structure do nearly all novels have the good guy's winning??

Surley in the Realms there has been a time where one evil faction or another has been on the winning side? or else how did the the Red Wizards for example or the Zhents or any of the others start and grow there base of operations?

When will ED write a novel on Bad Guy's winning???

If Ed would like? I have part of a novel written he can read, where the main character is a Fallen Angel! A Paladin gone BAD! which I am working on. I would like to hear his (and yours THO) views on it so far!”

Ed replies:
“Nearly all novels” have that structure because most human readers want to know that good triumphs, and publishers know that (unless there’s a clear promise of a later book in which good might win, as in a labelled trilogy or saga, e.g. “Book One of”) sales will suffer if good doesn’t win. (Or, in a romance, if the hero and heroine don’t wind up with each other.)

TSR/WotC Realms novels have that structure because strict sets of Code of Ethics have applied, down the years, mandating that. In short, we were forced to write “good guys win” novels (hence the Keystone Kops-incompetent Zhents of early books). That has slowly been relaxed (as for how CRUCIBLE got that way, it must have had full editorial approval).

You’re quite right that evil must triumph to set up those established powerful evil organizations - - and if you check Realmslore, you’ll see many, many historical instances of the bad guys winning (fall of Myth Drannor, etc.).

I will write such a Realms novel when I receive editorial approval to do so (if you don’t consider HAND OF FIRE to be that already). Check out my next Tor Books novel, DARK WARRIOR RISING, due out in September 07, for a ‘“sort of” good guys winning, but a lot of bad guys winning, too’ novel.


quote:
Questions for Ed Greenwood (2007)
Posted On: 23 Apr 2014
By: paladinnicolas

Dear THO and Ed, I have a somewhat long question I would like to ask Ed, and while I am aware that some of the readers may disagree, I would like to begin by mentioning that I ask this respectfully and that I like Ed's work. My question has to do with some aspects I do not like about the Realms, which have led me to enjoy its fiction but to not be the campaign setting I use when playing. In fact, when I learned to play D&D I did so in the Realms but have never done so again, and as I just said I like its fiction. This has to do with a feeling that the Realms, having been created by Ed prior to D&D with his stories, are better suited, according to my tastes, to fiction, because of something many dnd players consider: Elminster and the Chosen of Mystra. What I would like to ask Ed is whether the way I conceive or interpret their role in the world is mistaken and that thus my dislike is attributable to a mistake of mine, or whether it is the way things are and it is a matter of simple taste disagreement, case which would be perfectly normal: after all, I admit that many dnd players love the Realms as they are according to the Mystra's chosen vision, and that is a perfectly respectable taste. What I don't like is the idea that Elminster successfully manipulates many events in the world and, being almost the most powerful being in the world, he is the one to save it from the greatest threats, rather than players. Of course, this does not mean that PCs are irrelevant, but only that while El deals with the worst menaces, they deal with others. Still, I don't like this. On top of that, most mysterious and powerful beings are Chosen of Mystra and allegedly good-aligned. I am aware of the idea that they can err, but my qualms have to do with two aspects: first of all, that there are neither more powerful evil beings nor non-Chosen of Mystra more powerful mysterious beings. Secondly, Elminster and the Chosen embody an idea of goodness removed from that of certain merciful, pious approaches, and so do not have that romantic feel. Moreover, non-wizards and gods different from Mystra and agents of other deities have no real chance. While Mystra has been defeated in the past, this may have been a decision of WotC rather than El's. Lastly, villains are depicted as foolish or significantly weaker, e.g. Manshoon (in fiction at least). To conclude, I stress that I love Ed's fiction and admire his work, and more than that I think that he is very friendly and generous to share his ideas with us. I like the realms and will continue to do so, and if there is a disagreement I may be in the wrong, but these concerns of mine lead me to play in other settings, and yet I may be wrong in how I interpret these aspects about the Realms. Thank you (I always wanted to ask this respectfully).


Posted On: 24 Apr 2014
Response by: Ed

paladinnicolas, no offense taken.

The published Realms have focused on Elminster and the Chosen of Mystra FAR more than my “home” Realms campaign ever has, even with Elminster literally living next door to the Knights, in Shadowdale, for a lot of campaign time.

This is due to the popularity of these characters, resulting in requests by both publishers (TSR and Wizards) for me to write Elminster novels that often feature the other Chosen, from the Seven to Khelben and for that matter the goddess of magic herself. In my own Realms campaign, Elminster is far more of “the old storyteller” who drops hints or recollections about someone or something, then frustratingly vanishes on his own business, leaving the Player Characters on their own.

So the short answer to your question is that you are very much mistaken that Elminster is “the most powerful being in the world.” Far from it. Nor is he infallible, and he’s not interested in saving the world from its “greatest threats” - - rather, he’s interested in being the best servant Mystra has. (That is, furthering her aims, of protecting the Weave and of promoting magic so it’s as widely used as possible by the maximum number of creatures, not concentrated in the hands of a few who use it to rule or tyrannize others.) His greatest achievement may just be doggedly keeping at this, refusing to go away and refusing to give up.

Elminster DOES “successfully manipulates many events in the world,” but they are events large and small, most of them hidden from public view or what we modern real-worlders might term “geopolitics,” and he and the other Chosen are by no means dealing “with the worst menaces.” They are doing what Mystra wants him to do, which usually consists of stealthily leaving scrolls and spellbooks where adventurers and “just plain folks” can find them, steering those who have a talent for the Art into places and meetings where they’ll have a chance to learn more about the Art, and so on.

When you state that “most mysterious and powerful beings are Chosen of Mystra and allegedly good-aligned,” I’m afraid you’re simply wrong. There are perhaps twenty active Chosen at any one time, and they serve Mystra in many different ways - - by which I mean they are by no means all “magical fighters” or “meddlers” or “adventurers.” Some of them are literally scribes who write down magic and hide from the world.

[[Nor are these Chosen what everyone would call “good.” Khelben was a law-and-order type, but Elminster and Storm delight in breaking laws and rules, particularly where they see such laws and rules as protecting the corrupt or promoting good at the expense of personal freedoms.]]

With Khelben off the scene, and acknowledging that Manshoon and Halaster have personal relationships with Mystra but are NOT Chosen, and the Srinshee largely keeps away from human affairs, that leaves Elminster and the Seven as the sort of ‘active’ Chosen you’re probably envisaging. Right now (I’m assuming you haven’t yet read THE HERALD) not all of the Seven are still alive, one of them (Dove) almost entirely avoids using magic, and one (Qilué) is shared between Mystra and Eilistraee, and the result is a mere handful of Chosen of Mystra (four or five beings, in the entire world) who MIGHT conceivably compete with Player Character adventurers in some situations.

And they usually won’t compete with adventurers, because they’re usually busy doing something else (recall the scene I put into SPELLFIRE, with Elminster and Florin strolling right through a battle, Elminster’s attention entirely on other things than what Shandril and her companions were involved in, and facing).
Contrary to what you state, there are MANY “more powerful evil beings” AND “non-Chosen of Mystra more powerful mysterious beings” than there are Chosen of Mystra. Larloch and Shaaan the Serpent Queen, just to name two of a long, long, LONG list (and right now I’m only considering those characters I created for the Realms, not those others have added to the setting). From the first, there have been more “nasty bad guys” (and gals, and nonhuman critters) in the Realms than good guys. I know, because I put them there, from Fzoul and Szass Tam to Klauth and the many Malaugrym and even more beholders.

Whether or not Elminster and the Chosen have a “romantic feel” is, of course, a personal view and if you find them non-romantic, so be it. I think some of the Seven are quite romantic, but I find Elminster more gruff and comical (and forbidding underneath) than romantic. However, I find his dedication, and his love of the Realms, romantic indeed.

When you state: “non-wizards and gods different from Mystra and agents of other deities have no real chance,” I’m afraid I flatly disagree. My fiction and the existing published history of the Realms (see the Grand History of the Realms) describe many mistakes, defeats, reverses, and outwittings of Mystryl and the two Mystras and their servants and agents - - and these defeats continue right up to the “present day” of the published Realms.

This sentence puzzles me: “While Mystra has been defeated in the past, this may have been a decision of WotC rather than El's.” Elminster doesn’t get to decide Mystra’s fate; it’s far more the other way around. If you meant to write “rather than Ed’s,” you’re partly correct; Wizards is the copyright holder of the Realms now, and control the creative direction of the Realms - - but in the past, I had more of a free hand in what I wrote (not the actual prose, which always got attentively edited, but the content) and so Mystra’s defeats were matters I created.

“Lastly, villains are depicted as foolish or significantly weaker, e.g. Manshoon (in fiction at least).” Here you are spot-on correct, but that was due to TSR’s infamous Code of Conduct (evil cannot be seen to win or benefit in any lasting manner from their achievements, evil cannot be portrayed as more successful or more competent than good, villains must always be more clearly flawed than heroes), and Realms designers railed against this so much that you should be able to spot passages in both my fiction and in Realms game products where the “Keystone Kops” incompetence of the Zhents was lampooned or where we attempted to provide rational in-game explanations for it.

About twenty years ago, I ran eleven short (13 session) mini-campaigns in a public library (the Player Characters were members of chartered adventuring bands in Cormyr, given charters that had a built in “starter mission’/adventure), and I don’t think Elminster or the other Chosen were so much as mentioned, let alone ever appeared, in ten of them. In the eleventh, Storm Silverhand led some Harpers right through the PCs’ forest campsite in the middle of the night, scaring the er-whatsis out of them.

The view of El and the Chosen as getting in the “game way” of Player Characters adventuring in the Realms, and so limiting their adventures, that you set forth in your post is one I’ve heard many times, but it’s not a view I’ve ever heard from any player I have Dungeon Mastered. I can only conclude that a lot of DMs must use El and the Chosen as giant hammers to batter down uppity players and their characters, which is horrible DMing behaviour. El and the Chosen are part of the rich background tapestry of the Realms, and should be used sparingly - - just as the gods themselves should be used even more sparingly.

Inevitably the published Realms fiction focuses on heroes, and about five years before the end of TSR’s tenure as custodian of the Realms, it was decided that authors should have “signature characters” and that mine should be Elminster, and I’ve been asked to write Elminster, more Elminster, and still more Elminster books ever since - - but I’ve never heard anyone say that because Sherlock Holmes is an immortal character of lasting popularity, they can’t set games in London, even Victorian London, because he’s somehow “in the way.” Nor do the writers of murder mysteries shun London because there was once a mysterious butcher named Jack the Ripper.

Now with all of this said, your (and yes, it is very respectful, and I thank you for that) post doesn’t anger me, because I welcome the chance to try to increase your enjoyment of the Realms and to “set the record straight” for others who might share the interpretation of El and the Chosen that you have posted about.

Elminster isn’t even my favorite Realms character, nor are any of the other Chosen. I’ve always had a softer spot for Mirt the Moneylender, myself.

I find it sad when gamers turn away from the Realms because of this skewed notion of the role of the Chosen of Mystra. The setting is SO much larger and richer than that. (I’ve worked on it for not much less than fifty years now, trying to make it ever richer.) I hope you can come to see that, paladinnicolas - - and more than that, start to enjoy playing in the Realms.

(There’s this Tyranny of Dragons thing coming up, and if you take a peek at it, you’ll see something else that I am SO happy is finally being focused on in the Realms, that might make you consider the Harpers, the Zhentarim, and so on in a new light.)

So saith Ed, whom I know is hard at work on at least two major Realms projects right now. Neither of which I can comfortably sit and wait for - - but I'll have to!






I would say that Ed should go and speak with George R R Martin if he believes novel sales fall if the good guys don't win.

“Fantasy is escapist, and that is its glory. If a soldier is imprisioned by the enemy, don't we consider it his duty to escape?. . .If we value the freedom of mind and soul, if we're partisans of liberty, then it's our plain duty to escape, and to take as many people with us as we can!”
#8213; J.R.R. Tolkien

*I endorse everything Dark Wizard says*.
Go to Top of Page

Shadowsoul
Senior Scribe

Ireland
705 Posts

Posted - 26 Feb 2015 :  07:22:13  Show Profile Send Shadowsoul a Private Message
I'm glad someone mentioned the CoTH because it became really obvious that it was purely a sales move to continue that line of books.

They should have stayed dead.

“Fantasy is escapist, and that is its glory. If a soldier is imprisioned by the enemy, don't we consider it his duty to escape?. . .If we value the freedom of mind and soul, if we're partisans of liberty, then it's our plain duty to escape, and to take as many people with us as we can!”
#8213; J.R.R. Tolkien

*I endorse everything Dark Wizard says*.
Go to Top of Page

Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader

USA
2717 Posts

Posted - 26 Feb 2015 :  08:14:36  Show Profile Send Jeremy Grenemyer a Private Message
Sweet Jesus, is it really necessary to copy an entire post, just to deliver a one-line reply?

Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver).
Go to Top of Page

Shadowsoul
Senior Scribe

Ireland
705 Posts

Posted - 26 Feb 2015 :  11:00:53  Show Profile Send Shadowsoul a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer

Sweet Jesus, is it really necessary to copy an entire post, just to deliver a one-line reply?



I'm using my mobile phone so it's a pain in the hole trying to cut.

“Fantasy is escapist, and that is its glory. If a soldier is imprisioned by the enemy, don't we consider it his duty to escape?. . .If we value the freedom of mind and soul, if we're partisans of liberty, then it's our plain duty to escape, and to take as many people with us as we can!”
#8213; J.R.R. Tolkien

*I endorse everything Dark Wizard says*.
Go to Top of Page

LordofBones
Master of Realmslore

1477 Posts

Posted - 26 Feb 2015 :  12:19:31  Show Profile Send LordofBones a Private Message
It's kind of bizarre that under WotC's tenure, the authors behind Mask and his Chosen, Szass Tam's ascension and madness, Sammaster and the Rage of Dragons and the Return of Shade had their villains be both powerful and competent. Meanwhile, Elminster's villains are the total opposite; Telamont is virtually unrecognizable from his previous appearances in the Sundering series, Larloch shows up to give an Evil Villain Motive speech, Manshoon continues to prove that he's no more competent than Team Rocket...

No, seriously, it completely undermines the idea of the Big Bad Editorial Board when villains not written by Ed Greenwood are competent, dangerous and nuanced.
Go to Top of Page

Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader

USA
2717 Posts

Posted - 26 Feb 2015 :  16:09:37  Show Profile Send Jeremy Grenemyer a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowsoul



I'm using my mobile phone so it's a pain in the hole trying to cut.

ok I apologize. I am on an iPad and I know what it's like.

Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver).
Go to Top of Page

Rymac
Learned Scribe

USA
315 Posts

Posted - 26 Feb 2015 :  16:22:17  Show Profile  Visit Rymac's Homepage Send Rymac a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer

quote:
Originally posted by Shadowsoul



I'm using my mobile phone so it's a pain in the hole trying to cut.

ok I apologize. I am on an iPad and I know what it's like.



Ditto. Wish there was an easier way to cut, cut & paste, and copy text in Safari.
Go to Top of Page

Ayrik
Great Reader

Canada
7966 Posts

Posted - 26 Feb 2015 :  16:56:28  Show Profile Send Ayrik a Private Message
quote:
LordofBones

... Manshoon continues to prove that he's no more competent than Team Rocket...
Hey now! There's no reason to disparage Team Rocket, sir!

Although I do agree that Manshoon is a has-been. A gloriously potent villain back in the formative FR0 Grey Box era, a treacherous schemer and manipulator of many minions. But the Realms is a bigger world these days, it's outgrown the Heartlands, moved far beyond the boundaries of provincial little Cormyr (and Sembia) and the Dales and Zhentil Keep - and Manshoon just hasn't kept up. He was given a delightful spark of promise when the 2E Ruins of Zhentil Keep box set was printed, but alas sure enough WotC managed to blaze and snuff it out.

Conversely, Elminster has grown with the Realms. Doubling and redoubling in power with each subsequent game edition. I almost daresay that more "rules" have been invented/written to define Elminster by some few dozen random authors than by Ed himself. The Elminster that we know is not (I think) the Elminster that Ed originally wanted, Elminster keeps changing - and not always for the better.

[/Ayrik]

Edited by - Ayrik on 26 Feb 2015 17:05:57
Go to Top of Page

Lilianviaten
Senior Scribe

489 Posts

Posted - 26 Feb 2015 :  19:33:43  Show Profile Send Lilianviaten a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by LordofBones

It's kind of bizarre that under WotC's tenure, the authors behind Mask and his Chosen, Szass Tam's ascension and madness, Sammaster and the Rage of Dragons and the Return of Shade had their villains be both powerful and competent. Meanwhile, Elminster's villains are the total opposite; Telamont is virtually unrecognizable from his previous appearances in the Sundering series, Larloch shows up to give an Evil Villain Motive speech, Manshoon continues to prove that he's no more competent than Team Rocket...

No, seriously, it completely undermines the idea of the Big Bad Editorial Board when villains not written by Ed Greenwood are competent, dangerous and nuanced.



Well, Ed no doubt has a much different style of writing than Kemp or Byers, but we need some context here. Both Denning and Kemp were allowed, and probably even encouraged, to present Telamont and his followers as extremely competent, because WOTC wanted Shade to be steadily making gains and seem like the most powerful threat in 4e. While Kemp has caused the Chosen of Mask to look awesome, they were antagonists in all those novels. Erevis and Riven were mostly battling agents of Shar in those books (the Shadovar and Kesson Rel). They also battled Mephistopheles and a group of slaadi led by a gith wizard who wanted to cast a spell that would result in mass destruction and death. So yes, Mask and his agents looked very competent, but only as the good guys.

Ed, on the other hand, was tasked with destroying Shade within 1 book. The other Sundering novels showed the Shadovar having serious setbacks (the Chosen of Helm killing Yder; Brennus killing himself and Rivalen), but Shade was still very powerful by the end of the Sundering. So Ed had 1 book to wipe out the most powerful threat in Faerun.

As for Byers's books, I wouldn't use Rage of Dragons as a good example. Sammaster was undone by his own arrogance, and Iracyclea (the white dragon Chosen of Auril) was killed rather easily. Byers also had the Eminence of Araunt and the dragon Tchazzar get destroyed in his books, so Szass Tam is the only villain he's allowed to win. And again, he had permission. WOTC wanted Szass Tam to become a major threat in 4e, and they wanted him to defeat the Red Wizards. So Byers had to make Tam look like a boss. It's worth noting that ever since that series, Tam has failed miserably. His forces sent to Neverwinter to build a dread ring were crushed. His attempts to capture Chosen were thwarted. One of his favored agents (Dahlia) was revealed to be a tool of Lolth the whole time, and another (Umara) was converted to good by Lathander's chosen and now sails back to Thay seeking to overthrow him.

So while Ed doesn't often have villains win, neither do any other writers.

Go to Top of Page

Blueblade
Senior Scribe

USA
804 Posts

Posted - 26 Feb 2015 :  20:06:19  Show Profile  Visit Blueblade's Homepage Send Blueblade a Private Message
Well said.
Reading through this thread, it seems to me that many scribes don't understand what work for hire novels are. Everything has to be approved in-house, and by individual book editors, and those editors and also general editorial stances change over time, and are different people (so, Lord of Bones, that's very likely why villains are portrayed very differently from book to book; there is no Big Bad Editorial Board, there are a bunch of editors and in-house reviewers who don't always agree with each other).
Ed has said repeatedly, over many years, and often while sitting on panels right beside staffers at the publishers (TSR and later WotC) who would contradict him on the spot if he was fibbing, that everything in the Realms books he writes goes to print the way the publisher wants it, and that things are often changed to better fit with other game and book products that come along later. He's also said, and often, that the Realms would look and feel quite different if it was his alone to present to us.
And Shadowsoul, to make your George RR Martin comment after reading Ed's posted words tells me you just invented a viewpoint for Ed that he didn't express. Ed was telling you what THE PUBLISHER thought made books popular. He did a panel on editing at Ad Astra last year with Anne Groell, Martin's editor, during which Ed gave many examples from past fantasy books by many authors of the appeal of a good villain and even the "everyone here's a blackguard" situation, or the "even the good people get forced to do bad in this horrible situation I'm writing about," neither of which Martin (a friend of Ed, BTW) certainly did not invent.
I think a careful and balanced reading of Ed's last decade of Realms books shows us that all characters are portrayed with some shades of gray, and that even the so-called heroes screw up and have feet of clay, as well as the so-called villains.
And being as Ed created most of these characters in the first place, I tend to accept his portrayals of him over those of other writers, at least in terms of "canon accuracy," though other writers may portray them in ways that are more fun to read about at that moment.
However, YMMV, as it always does when we're talking fiction. And the Realms.
BB

Edited by - Blueblade on 26 Feb 2015 20:07:24
Go to Top of Page

Tanthalas
Senior Scribe

Portugal
508 Posts

Posted - 26 Feb 2015 :  20:52:12  Show Profile Send Tanthalas a Private Message
I think there's a big misunderstanding with some of the arguments being tossed around.

Yes, Ed was commisioned with wiping out Shade, so Shade had to be destroyed by the end of The Herald. That's not the issue. The issue is how Shade and Telamont were defeated. Like I mentioned previously, it's bad that instead of getting the feeling that the heroes won, you feel that the villains lost. That's the problem I have with how Ed portrays villains in his FR books.

You can have competent villains being defeated by the heroes, you do that by making the heroes better. That's not to say that villains can never make mistakes, that should obviously happen too, but it shouldn't be the norm. You can't have enemies being morons in all your stories.

Sir Markham pointed out, drinking another brandy. "A chap who can point at you and say 'die' has the distinct advantage".
Go to Top of Page

Malcolm
Learned Scribe

242 Posts

Posted - 26 Feb 2015 :  22:42:44  Show Profile  Visit Malcolm's Homepage Send Malcolm a Private Message
Fair comment - - or it would be if I'd ever noticed Ed having any villains being morons in his stories. Except for thugs and footsoldiers, he sometimes plays those for comic relief. Most of the others just miscalculate and misjudge.
Almost as often as his heroes do.
Go to Top of Page

Shadowsoul
Senior Scribe

Ireland
705 Posts

Posted - 26 Feb 2015 :  23:04:04  Show Profile Send Shadowsoul a Private Message
For the past couple of years, most of the FR novels don't seem to flow naturally. It's really hard to explain. Take the Companions novel. It didn't seem to flow naturally, it seemed written just so they could bring the companions back in order to try and fix things that were screwed up. Seems very heavy handed.

“Fantasy is escapist, and that is its glory. If a soldier is imprisioned by the enemy, don't we consider it his duty to escape?. . .If we value the freedom of mind and soul, if we're partisans of liberty, then it's our plain duty to escape, and to take as many people with us as we can!”
#8213; J.R.R. Tolkien

*I endorse everything Dark Wizard says*.
Go to Top of Page

Tanthalas
Senior Scribe

Portugal
508 Posts

Posted - 26 Feb 2015 :  23:39:15  Show Profile Send Tanthalas a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Malcolm

Fair comment - - or it would be if I'd ever noticed Ed having any villains being morons in his stories. Except for thugs and footsoldiers, he sometimes plays those for comic relief. Most of the others just miscalculate and misjudge.
Almost as often as his heroes do.



Well, your mileage may vary obviously. Me? I'm having a really hard time remembering a competent villain.

Sir Markham pointed out, drinking another brandy. "A chap who can point at you and say 'die' has the distinct advantage".
Go to Top of Page

Lilianviaten
Senior Scribe

489 Posts

Posted - 27 Feb 2015 :  03:24:11  Show Profile Send Lilianviaten a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Tanthalas

I think there's a big misunderstanding with some of the arguments being tossed around.

Yes, Ed was commisioned with wiping out Shade, so Shade had to be destroyed by the end of The Herald. That's not the issue. The issue is how Shade and Telamont were defeated. Like I mentioned previously, it's bad that instead of getting the feeling that the heroes won, you feel that the villains lost. That's the problem I have with how Ed portrays villains in his FR books.

You can have competent villains being defeated by the heroes, you do that by making the heroes better. That's not to say that villains can never make mistakes, that should obviously happen too, but it shouldn't be the norm. You can't have enemies being morons in all your stories.



I didn't see Telamont as incompetent though. We know Larloch to be nearly peerless as a schemer, so it doesn't surprise me that he was playing Telamont the whole time. And Elminster didn't outsmart him. He just sneak attacked him and chumped him (which I did have a big problem with). So I didn't think Telamont defeated himself via arrogance or stupidity. He just plain old got destroyed by the intervention of 2 powerful beings that he didn't see coming.

Manshoon, on the other hand, was made to look incompetent. The attention of everyone in Cormyr, as well as the Chosen, Larloch, and The Shrinshee was COMPLETELY focused on Shade. Manshoon had slipped under the radar, and he had already been operating in Cormyr secretly for years. Despite having a golden opportunity, he managed to be completely ineffective once again. And he wasn't sidelined by any incredible scheming or powerful spells. Mirt just kept him distracted by talking to him for hours, until a bunch of wizards and priests showed up. I've enjoyed Manshoon for years, but I can no longer take him seriously as a villain. He's comic relief, and that's it.

The final villain, Larloch, had a disappointing defeat. He single-handedly crippled Telamont and the entirety of Shade's archmages at once. So we think that we're about to see Larloch's centuries of scheming come to fruition. Then Shrinshee comes along and ONE-SHOT KO's him! This was the big Larloch novel appearance we've been waiting for all these years?

So Larloch too, looked incompetent in a way. Ed told us that Larloch could have conquered a large chunk of Faerun if he wanted to. Given what we saw in the novel, I doubt that. According to Larloch's writeup, he composes genius levels plots spontaneously. Yet he can't achieve the goal he's been plotting to achieve for centuries? I just didn't see the point in using Larloch to suffer the standard epic villain fail. Any generic archmage could have been used for that purpose. Ed could have used Manshoon to fail at taking over the Weave. It would have least given Manshoon an actual storyline.
Go to Top of Page

Lilianviaten
Senior Scribe

489 Posts

Posted - 27 Feb 2015 :  03:28:10  Show Profile Send Lilianviaten a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowsoul

For the past couple of years, most of the FR novels don't seem to flow naturally. It's really hard to explain. Take the Companions novel. It didn't seem to flow naturally, it seemed written just so they could bring the companions back in order to try and fix things that were screwed up. Seems very heavy handed.



I don't blame Salvatore for that. The 100 year time jump forced most authors to either kill their characters or create some explanation for why they are still alive. So rather than making them all Chosen (which would have been lame) or giving them all spellscars, he decided to kill them. Neither the killing nor the resurrections were his choice, so I can't be mad at him. The man just wanted to continue writing about his characters.
Go to Top of Page

LordofBones
Master of Realmslore

1477 Posts

Posted - 27 Feb 2015 :  07:29:08  Show Profile Send LordofBones a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Tanthalas

quote:
Originally posted by Malcolm

Fair comment - - or it would be if I'd ever noticed Ed having any villains being morons in his stories. Except for thugs and footsoldiers, he sometimes plays those for comic relief. Most of the others just miscalculate and misjudge.
Almost as often as his heroes do.



Well, your mileage may vary obviously. Me? I'm having a really hard time remembering a competent villain.



That's the thing with Ed Greenwood's stories, he has a particularly bad case of tell, don't show.

He tells us Manshoon is a deadly puppetmaster and archmage. What we get is someone who dies so often to Team Rocket antics that Kelemvor probably has a revolving door with 'Manshoon' written in massive capital letters.

He tells us that Larloch is this hyper-intelligent, all-powerful lich. What we get is a Villanous Motive Rant and the Srinshee casually punking the poor bastard.

The Red Wizards? Mystra personally empowers the Simbul and Elminster to beat the snot out them when Thay finally shows some military common sense and attacks when their enemies are at their weakest. Hell, the entire concept of Thay vs the Simbul hinges on every wizard in Thay having Stupid Evil as an alignment.

The entire concept of the Chosen of Mystra has a ton of wasted potential:

-Thay and the Black Network working a massive propaganda machine against Elminster and the Simbul.

-The Chosen gradually becoming more and more disconnected from mortals, thanks to the burdens of immortality.

-The Simbul is ganked from within by Velsharoon, who has his own reasons to revive Mystra.

-Kings and rulers becoming more and more resentful and irritated with Harper intrusion into national affairs, with almost chilling politeness towards the more militant Chosen when they appear.

Go to Top of Page

Shadowsoul
Senior Scribe

Ireland
705 Posts

Posted - 27 Feb 2015 :  08:32:54  Show Profile Send Shadowsoul a Private Message
The thing that gets me is that Mystra is supposed to be all about promoting and preserving all used of magic, and yet her chosen are always at the forefront of stopping magical organization's such as That and Shade.

Mystra needs to go back to being Neutral in alignment and put her Justice League on a leash.

“Fantasy is escapist, and that is its glory. If a soldier is imprisioned by the enemy, don't we consider it his duty to escape?. . .If we value the freedom of mind and soul, if we're partisans of liberty, then it's our plain duty to escape, and to take as many people with us as we can!”
#8213; J.R.R. Tolkien

*I endorse everything Dark Wizard says*.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 5 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Candlekeep Forum © 1999-2024 Candlekeep.com Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000