| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| MuadDib |
Posted - 21 Jul 2003 : 13:14:12
Ok, this is going to be long (or maybe not but who cares) so here goes:
Official Statement
I would just like to officially thank whichever person (Alaundo and Webmaster most likely) created the Candlekeep website for ending my life forever, as far as reading is concerned. Here i was thinking candlekeep was the only place of realms lore. I mean i now know it is the best, but i guess i was dumb to think it was the only one. Then i made the foolish mistake of clicking the links page, and saw like 50 new pages. I went to one, and it was huge. AARG! Just as i said in a previous post, you start climbing up your little pile, and just as you begin to see clearly, you see piles much bigger than your own. I feel so small. sigh. At least im in the best one, that is my rationalisation. I will now dedicate the rest of my life to catching up, and getting familiar with all these damn sites, and get to the business of becoming a sage. sigh. Bookwyrm and Sage of Perth: My hat's off to both of you...
That being said in my normal long winded way:
I have a question:
I went to a past of the site where it says campaign logs, and clicked on one which caught my eye: "The Art of Being Entreri" by David Pontier. I started reading and it was quite good. Now is this Cannon (or canon or whatever, i know you guys get the picture) and an official kind of novel type thing? (only read half of chapter one) or is this some sort of thing created by some joe soap just for kicks? I'm not sure, so i was wondering...and as an extension to that if it is made by some joe soap, would anyone be interested in writing one with me. I love writing and since i have noone in real life to play with (no! not like that you sick puppy) i like to write stuff online, and was just wondering if anyone would be interested in the idea...
As well wanted to say, went and saw some pics, and while they were cool, there were SO many missing from the site. Where can we get, and subsequently create a nice Monster Encyplodpaedia with ALL the monsters and characters in it. I know a lot of them are open to interpretation, but i find having an image to link to the text is an awesome benefit. Like Phaerim (spelling i know - sigh) and Death Tyrants. I googled a few, and was thinking, why dont we create our own Monster Menagerie (hey that actually sounds quite good  ) and if we cant use those pics (copyright) why not redraw them for ourselves and sort of actively build on the site, improving it and getting a few more of those awards 
Hmmm, im sure i had lot more to say, but not having a pensieve, im afraid it has escaped the feeble grasp of my attention and has run fleetingly to my subconscious, where im sure it will stay until the excact moment i click "Post New Topic" - Damn that Murphy
Oh well, so there it is, anyone who can sift through all the nonsense and answer me, i would greatly appreciate it.
_____________________________________________________________________
I feel all small and alone
Bah, it will pass, the dragon within me is roaring, or maybe i haven't eaten in a while....
::Ponder:: |
| 29 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| The Sage |
Posted - 25 Jul 2003 : 04:27:35
That's okay Mournblade .
Anyway, I sent the email off this morning. I may even contact the university by phone and try to find out why they would still use this material if this fault is included in it. It makes me wonder now though, whether there are any other problems within the book.
|
| Mournblade |
Posted - 24 Jul 2003 : 23:25:37
I wasn't trying to imply you didn't understand the system, I was just basically stating it was limited. And PLEASE email the reply if you get one. Meanwhile I will search through some other texts to get an idea. Textbooks always have errors in them of one sort or another, I am going to go to Rutgers Library when I get a chance or Princeton's Library if they will let me in, and search through some of the texts on file. I am actually finding it difficult to even FIND coelentarate in any of the other books I have except for the Zoology one. IF you would be so kind as to email me the reply sage (if you get one), it would help me greatly in figuring this out |
| The Sage |
Posted - 24 Jul 2003 : 07:16:40
Well I understand the classification system just fine, but when I re-read the entry in my books, after reading your post, I became confused.
Anyway, a partial source of my confusion was that I misread the entry in the two molecular books, only one stated something about cnidarians but it was in an appendix case study at the back of the book. Therefore the only textbook that had the term 'Coelenterates' written in it was the evolutionary biology book, and it was published in 2000 by Australian University Publishers. I simply do not understand why they would still use this term, I mean this book is recognised as a requirement for the course curriculum.
So I have emailed a letter to the publishers stating the discussion of this exact topic (omitting irrelevant details of course) to discover why such a misprint should exist in a recently published tome.
I will email the reply (if any) to you as soon as they send it, as I am sure you will be just as surprised at their response as I will be.
|
| Mournblade |
Posted - 24 Jul 2003 : 06:20:38
quote:
Originally posted by Sage of Perth
Mournblade said -
quote:
Actually Coelentarata is not used anymore. That Phylum used to include Ctenephores (comb Jellies that do not sting) and Cnidarians together. They separated Coelentarata into Cnidarians (radial, two layered, creatures WITH stinging cells) and Ctenophora (comb jellies: Radial, two layer creatures, WITHOUT stinging cells). I studied Marine Biology in Japan so I am pretty sure that the Indo-Pacific Biologists are not using Coelenterata anymore. Coelentarata comes from the gastric cavity that both of these phylums share.
That's strange Mournblade. Two of the three biology textbooks I have here (two being on molecular biology, the other on evolutionary biology), state Coelenterates, as the still used and more commonly known term for Cnidarians, and both of these books were published in 2001 and 2002 respectively.
Bookwyrm said -
quote:
Hmm . . . all of a sudden, I think I know how my friends feel when I talk about quantum- and astrophysics . . .
I feel the same way. Although sometimes I like to throw my non-university friends into further confusion and switch the conversation from astro-physics and philosophy to programming. Have you ever seen a non computer programming-major try to understand the basics of object-oriented programming?.
Which one of your text books states that sage? I would bet the two Molecular Biology ones though I don't know why Cnidarians are in a Molecular Bio textbook. Who publishes the texts? Do you have that information by chance? Taxonomy is VERY confusing, and often biologists go in various different directions when classifying things. It is rather cumbersome, when you hit the CLASS level you have subclass, superclass, and the sub classes are even further divided. The linnaen system was invented too early I think, and that is why they have to keep adding sub categories. It makes it very difficult to classify creatures. Such as the California Condor is no longer considered a vulture but instead is considered a stork. Yet not all places have corrected its Linnaen classification.
|
| MuadDib |
Posted - 24 Jul 2003 : 05:43:22
hmmmm, There has to be a topic I can totally befuddle people with
AARG, its got to be out there........
*dies* |
| The Sage |
Posted - 24 Jul 2003 : 05:06:01
Mournblade said -
quote:
Actually Coelentarata is not used anymore. That Phylum used to include Ctenephores (comb Jellies that do not sting) and Cnidarians together. They separated Coelentarata into Cnidarians (radial, two layered, creatures WITH stinging cells) and Ctenophora (comb jellies: Radial, two layer creatures, WITHOUT stinging cells). I studied Marine Biology in Japan so I am pretty sure that the Indo-Pacific Biologists are not using Coelenterata anymore. Coelentarata comes from the gastric cavity that both of these phylums share.
That's strange Mournblade. Two of the three biology textbooks I have here (two being on molecular biology, the other on evolutionary biology), state Coelenterates, as the still used and more commonly known term for Cnidarians, and both of these books were published in 2001 and 2002 respectively.
Bookwyrm said -
quote:
Hmm . . . all of a sudden, I think I know how my friends feel when I talk about quantum- and astrophysics . . .
I feel the same way. Although sometimes I like to throw my non-university friends into further confusion and switch the conversation from astro-physics and philosophy to programming. Have you ever seen a non computer programming-major try to understand the basics of object-oriented programming?.
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 24 Jul 2003 : 01:20:56
Hmm . . . all of a sudden, I think I know how my friends feel when I talk about quantum- and astrophysics . . .  |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 23 Jul 2003 : 21:00:04
quote:
Originally posted by Sage of Perth
Bookwyrm, it may help to know that cnidarians, are also known as Coelenterates, a more common term, at least in regards to this particular animal phylum.
Actually Coelentarata is not used anymore. That Phylum used to include Ctenephores (comb Jellies that do not sting) and Cnidarians together. They separated Coelentarata into Cnidarians (radial, two layered, creatures WITH stinging cells) and Ctenophora (comb jellies: Radial, two layer creatures, WITHOUT stinging cells). I studied Marine Biology in Japan so I am pretty sure that the Indo-Pacific Biologists are not using Coelenterata anymore. Coelentarata comes from the gastric cavity that both of these phylums share.
|
| Mythander |
Posted - 23 Jul 2003 : 15:38:34
quote:
Originally posted by Sage of Perth
An excellent point Mythander. I will indeed see about incorporating such creatures, although it sounds like you already have a few ideas of your own, no?.
That I do, but similar to Mournblade I have to gather the notes that I have in various random notebooks. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 23 Jul 2003 : 07:17:32
Bookwyrm, it may help to know that cnidarians, are also known as Coelenterates, a more common term, at least in regards to this particular animal phylum.
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 23 Jul 2003 : 06:37:43
Hmm. Hadn't heard about that. But of course, considering my own interests, I suppose it makes sense I'm not up to date on even such simple things. |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 23 Jul 2003 : 06:05:45
quote:
Originally posted by Bookwyrm
Ah, gotcha.
I must say, I really like the Linean classification system. I just didn't recognize the name.
The only problem with it is that animals are being moved around all the time due to the advances in Molecular Biology. As we learn more about their DNA, we are suddenly having to move them around to different groups. THat is why generally biologists are starting to favour Cladistic systems (evolutionary trends).
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 23 Jul 2003 : 05:48:31
Ah, gotcha.
I must say, I really like the Linean classification system. I just didn't recognize the name. |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 23 Jul 2003 : 05:39:22
quote:
Originally posted by Bookwyrm
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
Lets see, I had a bunch of intelligent cnidarians that lived in an ocean of H2SO4, and were psionic in nature. They were hidden for so long becasue no one could get under the Furnace Oceans.
Well, I'm not surprised. A sulfuric acid ocean. Kind of reminds me of the ammonia ocean in Rocheworld -- only a lot warmer, of course.
Funny -- I know what the common name for the H2SO4 compound is, yet I don't know what a 'cnidarian' is. Anyone care to educate me?
Cnidarians are the phylum (Kingdom animal--- Phylum CNidaria) that include Jelly fish, sea anemonies, portugese man o war, coral of all types, and Hydras. They are the most primitive form of animal next to the sea sponge, and where most animals have 3 tissue layers (ectoderm, mesoderm, and endoderm) the cnidarians only have 2 layers (ecto and endo). Cnidarians get their name from the stinging cells they all posses called Cnidocytes. All cnidarians sting their prey and inject venom. Despite their simplicity they are some of the most fascinating animals I have studied.
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 23 Jul 2003 : 04:29:01
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
Lets see, I had a bunch of intelligent cnidarians that lived in an ocean of H2SO4, and were psionic in nature. They were hidden for so long becasue no one could get under the Furnace Oceans.
Well, I'm not surprised. A sulfuric acid ocean. Kind of reminds me of the ammonia ocean in Rocheworld -- only a lot warmer, of course.
Funny -- I know what the common name for the H2SO4 compound is, yet I don't know what a 'cnidarian' is. Anyone care to educate me? |
| The Sage |
Posted - 23 Jul 2003 : 03:05:20
Hopefully you will want to share a few specimens when you translate them Mournblade . If I do intend to start running a campaign, I will need more creature material than I have at the moment. Actually I like the thought of jellyfish-type creatures with psionics powers that live in sulfuric acid...it just seems to fit perfectly together in someway.
Actually Rad, I have a copy of the Ultimate Equipment Guide by Moongoose Publishing, and you are right, it does have a lot of interesting fauna and flora material that could be used extensively in a campaign. Perhaps I may expand the new 'Monster Shop' to include flora, and well as fauna.
What do you think?.
An excellent point Mythander. I will indeed see about incorporating such creatures, although it sounds like you already have a few ideas of your own, no?.
|
| Mournblade |
Posted - 22 Jul 2003 : 21:54:23
quote:
Originally posted by Sage of Perth
I'll expect to hear from you soon then MuadDib.
Mournblade you said you create alien creatures for the Alternity setting, since we have been talking about this alot just recently, it has started me thinking about running a couple of Alternity/Star Drive/Star Frontier sessions myself. So do you have any creature material you would care to share by ethereal mail. I have a few pieces that you may find interesting, which I will send out to you.
Plus I think the link I provided for you concerning the Alternity site had some new alien material on there as well, or at least will once the changeover is completed.
Unfortunately, the aliens are all on notebooks. SO I will try to translate them. I do not have any alternity items on digital media yet. Lets see, I had a bunch of intelligent cnidarians that lived in an ocean of H2SO4, and were psionic in nature. They were hidden for so long becasue no one could get under the Furnace Oceans.
|
| Lord Rad |
Posted - 22 Jul 2003 : 17:46:01
Not monsters exactly, but something I always wanted to see was a foliage\fauna guide.
The Ultimate Equipment Guide by Moongoose Publishing has an extensive collection of herbs, giving full descriptions and pictures for each. Id like to see something like this with Realms and non-Realms specific trees and plants etc 
This would obviously contain carnivorous plants  |
| Mythander |
Posted - 22 Jul 2003 : 17:24:49
quote:
Originally posted by Sage of Perth
That's great to hear Mythander. I will get to work on creating a separate section of the Magic Shop especially for monsters, in the 'Library' section of the forums here at Candlekeep as per Alaundo's request.
Excellent! Thank you Sage. One thing that I always thought odd, was the lack of different types of natural creature. Yes, they have all of the creatures that would be found in this world, but I would like to see more creatures like Roth. You would think with all of the predatory animals in the Realms that there would be more food type creatures………….. other than humans. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 22 Jul 2003 : 08:25:01
I'll expect to hear from you soon then MuadDib.
Mournblade you said you create alien creatures for the Alternity setting, since we have been talking about this alot just recently, it has started me thinking about running a couple of Alternity/Star Drive/Star Frontier sessions myself. So do you have any creature material you would care to share by ethereal mail. I have a few pieces that you may find interesting, which I will send out to you.
Plus I think the link I provided for you concerning the Alternity site had some new alien material on there as well, or at least will once the changeover is completed.
|
| MuadDib |
Posted - 22 Jul 2003 : 08:18:58
Well i want first, to document all existing creatures with pictures first, and then hopefully get about the business of creating new ones...
Will keep you updated, and Sage of Perth, i will be in contact regarding the writing, thanks |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 22 Jul 2003 : 08:03:21
I don't really create monsters for fantasy games. I create alien creatures for alternity, but there are plenty of monsters that are made, so I don't have to make many more:) Sometimes I come up with variations on already made monsters.
|
| The Sage |
Posted - 22 Jul 2003 : 07:15:31
Do you have any creations that you might like to add once the project gets started Bookwyrm, that is, if you have created monstrous creatures before?  . What about you Mournblade, if you read through this scroll of course? .
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 22 Jul 2003 : 04:25:41
Hmm . . . A monsterous pet shop? A zoo of the sages? Or just "The Sage of Perth's Guide to All Things Hairy, Scaly, and See-Through"? |
| The Sage |
Posted - 22 Jul 2003 : 01:18:20
That's great to hear Mythander. I will get to work on creating a separate section of the Magic Shop especially for monsters, in the 'Library' section of the forums here at Candlekeep as per Alaundo's request.
|
| Mythander |
Posted - 21 Jul 2003 : 17:52:18
quote:
Originally posted by Sage of Perth
I was thinking about open a portion of the Magic Shop to specifically deal with monstrous creatures and the like, since I have quite a back-log here of monsters of my own creation.
That would be great!! I find making your own creatures puts an interesting twist into a gaming session, especially with experienced gamers. Some people, as hard as they try cannot keep what they know about monsters out of their first level grew up on a farm character |
| Alaundo |
Posted - 21 Jul 2003 : 17:38:43
Well Met
...and thank ye for the kind words MuadDib. Glad that the library is of some use to you for your Realmslore, whether directly or via the many portals provided
As to your questions, the Sage of Perth is quite correct, all the scrolls within Campaign Logs are non-official and we welcome any Realms tales from the scribes and travelers to Candlekeep. Please send any of your works to Tethtoril.
We would love to have such catalogs of many Faerun collections, such as monsters...however, those Wizards whom dwell on the Coast keep a watchful eye on such activities and therefore to prevent unneccesary wrath, we must provide our own interpretations, so please feel free to discuss any such project over here. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 21 Jul 2003 : 13:38:51
Let me begin...
I wouldn't worry about feeling small and alone with regard to knowing Realmslore. Remember all of the learned sages and scribes here (myself included) all had to start learning about this new world at some point. Now granted some have been with the setting from the beginning and have been with it through every adventure, every accessory, and every edition, but never a day goes by that I don't learn something new about the Realms, so in a way, we are all still learning about this world we all love and enjoy.
If it provides any comfort to you, I am a relative newcomer to the Dark Sun campaign setting. I have (atop all my FR and PS material) been trying to read through all the published material on this setting just like you are now with FR. But as I said earlier, I always thought that at one time, even the most devoted Dark Sun fan was like I am now.
Okay now to address the next portion of your post.
"The Art of Being Entreri" by David Pontier, is considered fan-created material and therefore not canon with regards to officially published FR material.
As for helping you to write material or stories online, well I would be glad to help out in whatever capacity I can. Like some noted scribes here, I have considerable ability when it comes to writing stories and the like. I have a story of my own (set in my own world of Amasaria) that I am writing now. I have only just finished the first half of this (hopefully) book, but I could spare some time to dedicate it to a project such as you are suggesting. I have established most of my own background material for my campaign. I have contributed articles of my own design and writing to several fan-created ezines, and was once asked to contribute material to an officially published project run by the Realms of Evil community for Fantasy Flight Games.
Next part -
As for the creation of monsters, well, if I am understanding your post properly, I would really like to contribute to something like this. In fact I was thinking about open a portion of the Magic Shop to specifically deal with monstrous creatures and the like, since I have quite a back-log here of monsters of my own creation.
I think I have addressed nearly everything. If you want more details, just let me know .
|
| zemd |
Posted - 21 Jul 2003 : 13:20:15
I can only answer one question since i don't write and i'm not the forum's webmaster.
The campaign log is a unofficial area.
That's it, can't say anything more... sorry |
|
|
