| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Charles Phipps |
Posted - 06 Apr 2022 : 23:42:42
I just picked up a copy of Darkhold: Secrets of the Zhentarim and I have to say that I think it's probably my favorite supplement so far for Fifth Edition. I've always had a soft spot for the Black Network and in my 41 years of life can list the dozens of disasters I had to witness them go through.
I am genuinely kind of happy for the Zhentarim that they've become a player character faction and actually outlasted the Shadovar, the Church of Cyric, and every other Johnny Come Lately to remain one of the most powerful evil organizations in the Realms.
At the end of the day, the creators recognized that they're such an iconic bunch of baddies that if you want to give options for Neutral and Evil PCs in the Realms then there's no better example to follow.
Who else feels the same way? |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Charles Phipps |
Posted - 13 Apr 2022 : 10:35:15
quote:
Does it mention that evil visited upon evil for personal gain is still evil?
It talks about:
* Consent and Safety
* Has the Pereghost talk about how the infighting in their organization was stupid and to be kept at a minimum.
* Gives hint for roleplaying Evil Characters
* The importance of cooperation among evil characters.
* Making sure that player character groups with evil aligned members don't shun them or make them feel like less part of the group.
* The benefits of mixed parties of good and evil members.
"Adventuring parties pursue a common goal.
While playing an evil-aligned character, aligning
your characters’ motivations with the party’s
goal allows for seamless integration into an
adventuring party. What makes an evil-aligned
character different is the means they are willing
to use to accomplish their end goal."
* Evil archetypes like the Antihero, The Criminal Mastermind, the Enfoecer, and the Redeemed (who is evil but working on trying to move his alignment to Neutral or Good), the Scoundrel, and a Fallen Hero (The Revenant) who clings to ideals they betrayed.
* A table for redeeming and sympathetic qualities to give evil characters
* Tips also for running Evil Campaigns that are fun for everyone
Stuff like that. |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 13 Apr 2022 : 09:46:49
quote:
Originally posted by TheIriaeban
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
quote:
Originally posted by TheIriaeban
Wow. Just wow. Umm, it is canon since it was in Dragon but, for my own take on it, Chad Zak only happens to Lolth's priestesses and it is considered a "gift" from their goddess.
That's a generic article on drow. It's not canon for the Realms.
-- George Krashos
Do tell? So, if it is specifically about FR and it is in Dragon, it is canon? If it is not specifically about FR and it is in Dragon, it is official but not canon for FR?
Specific FR articles always formed a part of canon Realmslore automatically. How can generic articles that feature no Realmslore join that canon body of information? They can't - automatically. But there have been instances where stuff in Dragon has been adopted and incorporated - case in point, the Confluence in Dragons of Faerûn.
-- George Krashos
|
| Azar |
Posted - 13 Apr 2022 : 05:52:18
Does it mention that evil visited upon evil for personal gain is still evil? |
| Charles Phipps |
Posted - 13 Apr 2022 : 05:40:26
Another Darkhold note: The roleplaying hints on how to play an "evil" character were extremely well done and nicely addresses about 90% of the problems that playing an evil character normally does in these sorts of games. There's nothing that says evil characters can't have friends, loved ones, or their own codes. They're just, by and large, awful-awful people.
So this was my favorite part of the book. |
| TheIriaeban |
Posted - 13 Apr 2022 : 05:31:20
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
quote:
Originally posted by TheIriaeban
Wow. Just wow. Umm, it is canon since it was in Dragon but, for my own take on it, Chad Zak only happens to Lolth's priestesses and it is considered a "gift" from their goddess.
That's a generic article on drow. It's not canon for the Realms.
-- George Krashos
Do tell? So, if it is specifically about FR and it is in Dragon, it is canon? If it is not specifically about FR and it is in Dragon, it is official but not canon for FR? |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 13 Apr 2022 : 00:35:41
quote:
Originally posted by TheIriaeban
Wow. Just wow. Umm, it is canon since it was in Dragon but, for my own take on it, Chad Zak only happens to Lolth's priestesses and it is considered a "gift" from their goddess.
That's a generic article on drow. It's not canon for the Realms.
-- George Krashos |
| Charles Phipps |
Posted - 12 Apr 2022 : 22:10:04
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Phipps
It's rather doubly funny because I *AM* a twin who absorbed his other twin.
https://americanpregnancy.org/healthy-pregnancy/multiples/vanishing-twin-syndrome/
That's not how it's described, though. It is literally referred to, in the referenced article, as "mortal combats," "prenatal battles," and "one fetus's successful slaying of its rivals." It also says "the slain are absorbed back into the mother's body."
And the mother gets her jollies when it happens.
You've misread my argument. As someone who actually is the product of one twin absorbing the other, it's even stupider to me. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 12 Apr 2022 : 22:05:00
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Phipps
It's rather doubly funny because I *AM* a twin who absorbed his other twin.
https://americanpregnancy.org/healthy-pregnancy/multiples/vanishing-twin-syndrome/
That's not how it's described, though. It is literally referred to, in the referenced article, as "mortal combats," "prenatal battles," and "one fetus's successful slaying of its rivals." It also says "the slain are absorbed back into the mother's body."
And the mother gets her jollies when it happens. |
| TheIriaeban |
Posted - 12 Apr 2022 : 20:32:55
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Phipps
It's rather doubly funny because I *AM* a twin who absorbed his other twin.
https://americanpregnancy.org/healthy-pregnancy/multiples/vanishing-twin-syndrome/
Nice. Now I can say truthfully "Why, yes, I have met a chimera." |
| TheIriaeban |
Posted - 12 Apr 2022 : 20:27:23
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by TheIriaeban
Wow. Just wow. Umm, it is canon since it was in Dragon but, for my own take on it, Chad Zak only happens to Lolth's priestesses and it is considered a "gift" from their goddess.
I wouldn't even use it that way. Anyone who has ever spent time with a newborn child will tell you that a baby is not physically capable of murder -- and this article has them doing it whilst in the womb, with no weapons and no room to maneuver.
It's beyond illogical, all for adding a little more edginess to a people that has, for most of it's published history, been all edge and no depth.
Oh, I agree whole heartedly. That was a suggestion on handling if required to be absolutely true to canon. I am more than happy to pretend I never saw that. |
| Charles Phipps |
Posted - 12 Apr 2022 : 19:46:21
It's rather doubly funny because I *AM* a twin who absorbed his other twin.
https://americanpregnancy.org/healthy-pregnancy/multiples/vanishing-twin-syndrome/ |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 12 Apr 2022 : 19:40:47
quote:
Originally posted by TheIriaeban
Wow. Just wow. Umm, it is canon since it was in Dragon but, for my own take on it, Chad Zak only happens to Lolth's priestesses and it is considered a "gift" from their goddess.
I wouldn't even use it that way. Anyone who has ever spent time with a newborn child will tell you that a baby is not physically capable of murder -- and this article has them doing it whilst in the womb, with no weapons and no room to maneuver.
It's beyond illogical, all for adding a little more edginess to a people that has, for most of it's published history, been all edge and no depth. |
| TheIriaeban |
Posted - 12 Apr 2022 : 17:46:12
Wow. Just wow. Umm, it is canon since it was in Dragon but, for my own take on it, Chad Zak only happens to Lolth's priestesses and it is considered a "gift" from their goddess. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 12 Apr 2022 : 16:57:05
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Phipps
quote:
Forgotten Realms articles in Dragon and Dungeon were indeed canon.
And you'll excuse me but I don't understand that "drow fighting the womb" reference.
Chad Zak. It was an article about the drow that drow women would get pregnant and then the twins would fight it out in the womb. Because drow are evil, you know.
https://www.realmshelps.net/charbuild/races/elf/drow1.shtml
TSR and WotC have given us a number of truly bad ideas or bizarre concepts over the years... I still shudder to think of Little Biggnome, from Krynnspace.
But man, none of that compares to chad zak. |
| Charles Phipps |
Posted - 12 Apr 2022 : 16:49:13
quote:
Forgotten Realms articles in Dragon and Dungeon were indeed canon.
And you'll excuse me but I don't understand that "drow fighting the womb" reference.
Chad Zak. It was an article about the drow that drow women would get pregnant and then the twins would fight it out in the womb. Because drow are evil, you know.
https://www.realmshelps.net/charbuild/races/elf/drow1.shtml |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 12 Apr 2022 : 15:20:27
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Phipps
I am surprised, though. I thought Dragon Magazine articles weren't canon, just official.
Otherwise we have the Drow fighting the womb. :)
Forgotten Realms articles in Dragon and Dungeon were indeed canon.
And you'll excuse me but I don't understand that "drow fighting the womb" reference.
-- George Krashos |
| Charles Phipps |
Posted - 12 Apr 2022 : 15:15:08
I had a response above this. :) |
| Charles Phipps |
Posted - 12 Apr 2022 : 14:21:02
You'll be interested to know, George that I actually used Dragon #357 as the basis of a fairly long running Realms campaign basis in my games!
In an unusual bit of storytelling, one of the players actually wanted to play Ashemmi but the storyline we worked out was that they were amnesiac and much of the story was unraveling her tragic and fascinating storyline with the tale of her originally being a Harper infiltrator of the Zhentarim and then getting the proverbial Helm of Opposite Alignment plopped on her.
Notably, I actually played up the tragedy of the Harpers turning against her and believing she'd gone evil of her own volition because Larael had ALSO suffered magical cursing that made her evil with the Crown of Horns. Larael, however, deciding Ashemmi is her enemy and needs to be killed was a tragic bit of irony.
(Obviously, we did swerve from where they joined the Moonstars but that's because I hate the Moonstars and wish them to all die horribly)
Mind control plotlines and tragedies where you are a horrible person against your will for years are a respected trope in fantasy and superhero comics. Her agency is compromised and how to deal with the fallout from that is the storyline.
In our case, we basically did a story of Darth Revan with Ashemmi.
I am surprised, though. I thought Dragon Magazine articles weren't canon, just official.
Otherwise we have the Drow fighting the womb. :) |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 12 Apr 2022 : 13:42:54
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Phipps
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Phipps
* I am a bit nonplussed by the treatment of Ashemmi became it tries to make her a more proactive character but erases her romance with Semmenon. What happened to him and the redemption she and he achieved?
What they did with Ashemmi really tainted that book for me. I get that they had an issue with her backstory of having been forced to become evil... But their retcon impacts a decent amount of material, just to fix something that was, in Realms time, more than 100 years before. Also, the retcon also diminishes Manshoon, I think -- before, he was evil enough to casually twist someone's mind for his own ends; taking away that part of the backstory means removing an excellent example of "this is how evil Manshoon really was."
On top of all that, they had an excellent opportunity to make a new NPC, perhaps another evilly aligned female wizard, and instead they took a page from the current WotC playbook, grabbed some past NPC and twisted them into something different.
So it was a retcon and a missed opportunity.
If it had been me, if I felt absolutely compelled to address Ashemmi's forced alignment change, I would have done something like put a damaged journal some place, with passages in the journal referring to some sort of trickery on Ashemmi's part, with Manshoon's actions either failing or having been just a rumor. Leave the story intact, but spin things so that "maybe it happened this way, maybe it happened this other way."
Yeah, I admit it's my inner lore junkie that is rebelling against this for multiple reasons. I'm flat out CONFUSED now about what is and isn't canon about Ashemmi.
1:] Does this mean Semmenon and Ashemmi broke up or were they never together in the first place?
2:] How can you maintain a Chaotic Good alignment when you're a high ranking leader of the Zhentarim. I'm going to think 150+ years of infiltrating the Zhentarim would at least require a Neutral alignment given the amount of evil you'd need to do.
Undercover has its price and she's been out in the cold a long time.
3:] What happened to Cara Zoreth? Is she the product of an affair she had while undercover or is she retconned from existence? Because wiping out another female character is bad. I also get "woman abandons her child to keep her cover identity" is also not a nuance this book wants to get even if I think it'd be an interesting story beat.
4:] Heroes get mind controlled in fiction so I'm not sure that's a thing that needed to be dealt with as well.
EDIT:
Oh, I did my review of the book here: http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=23586&whichpage=2#top
As the guy who wrote the "Renegades of Darkhold" article in Dragon #357 that the writers of the Darkhold book belatedly referenced, I was pretty miffed (I would use a stronger word but profanity has no place here at Candlekeep) at what they did with Ashemmi in the book. The reason was very simple: my article was true to the sources, every single one of them - convoluted, confronting and challenging as they were. Yes, previous writers had done bad things happen to her (as an aside, last time I checked, Ashemmi is not the only FR character that bad things have happened to ... but I digress) but when you write in a shared world, you take the cards the are dealt to you and build the best hand you can. I'll let you judge how well you think I wove it all together.
And my article set Ashemmi free in a real sense. It culminated in giving Ashemmi the "agency" she supposedly lacked because she ended up free of the Zhentarim, in an equal union with Sememmon who had renounced his evil ways, was a Moonstar, and working toward being a partner, mother and getting her vengeance on the Zhents.
In contrast, the Ashemmi in the book is an illogicality. The book is supposedly set in the 1490s DR. They use all of my history for Ashemmi, stole my idea and story about her being a deep cover Harper agent in Darkhold at the behest of Khelben from 1344 DR and then .... she does absolutely nothing for 150 years! She has supposedly fed information to the Harpers for over a century for no apparent result or gain. She is in my view a cookie-cutter NPC now, and her "agency" relates to being a skulking spy, fearful of being discovered and doing ... just what in real terms?
So to answer your question as to what's "canon": my official FR article in Dragon #357 is canon. The information about Ashemmi in the published FR products such as Cloak and Dagger is canon. The information about her in Elaine Cunningham's novel Thornhold is canon.
The "Darkhold" DMs Guild product is decidedly not canon. That's not my view or opinion, it's the the view of one of the book's lead designers, who I messaged to point out that they were plagiarising my work without attribution and raising the changes to Ashemmi. The response was as follows:
"Also, what we write on DMSGUILD isn’t inherently canon. So while we rewrote Ashemmi, to WOTC, there is no change.
I understand you may not agree with our decision, but what we did has no effect on canon. I’m relaying this just in case it wasn’t clear that our material is in no terms “official.”
So there you have it.
-- George Krashos |
| Charles Phipps |
Posted - 12 Apr 2022 : 11:12:29
It is non-canon but following up how it would change things would be helpful if you're an anal retentive nerd starving for FR content like myself.
:)
SO yes, it doesn't matter and isn't actually canon but I'd love to discuss it/hear thoughts anyway.
Because why not? |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 12 Apr 2022 : 10:53:44
This is not a WotC product, so it's all non-canon. |
| Charles Phipps |
Posted - 12 Apr 2022 : 05:29:38
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Phipps
* I am a bit nonplussed by the treatment of Ashemmi became it tries to make her a more proactive character but erases her romance with Semmenon. What happened to him and the redemption she and he achieved?
What they did with Ashemmi really tainted that book for me. I get that they had an issue with her backstory of having been forced to become evil... But their retcon impacts a decent amount of material, just to fix something that was, in Realms time, more than 100 years before. Also, the retcon also diminishes Manshoon, I think -- before, he was evil enough to casually twist someone's mind for his own ends; taking away that part of the backstory means removing an excellent example of "this is how evil Manshoon really was."
On top of all that, they had an excellent opportunity to make a new NPC, perhaps another evilly aligned female wizard, and instead they took a page from the current WotC playbook, grabbed some past NPC and twisted them into something different.
So it was a retcon and a missed opportunity.
If it had been me, if I felt absolutely compelled to address Ashemmi's forced alignment change, I would have done something like put a damaged journal some place, with passages in the journal referring to some sort of trickery on Ashemmi's part, with Manshoon's actions either failing or having been just a rumor. Leave the story intact, but spin things so that "maybe it happened this way, maybe it happened this other way."
Yeah, I admit it's my inner lore junkie that is rebelling against this for multiple reasons. I'm flat out CONFUSED now about what is and isn't canon about Ashemmi.
1:] Does this mean Semmenon and Ashemmi broke up or were they never together in the first place?
2:] How can you maintain a Chaotic Good alignment when you're a high ranking leader of the Zhentarim. I'm going to think 150+ years of infiltrating the Zhentarim would at least require a Neutral alignment given the amount of evil you'd need to do.
Undercover has its price and she's been out in the cold a long time.
3:] What happened to Cara Zoreth? Is she the product of an affair she had while undercover or is she retconned from existence? Because wiping out another female character is bad. I also get "woman abandons her child to keep her cover identity" is also not a nuance this book wants to get even if I think it'd be an interesting story beat.
4:] Heroes get mind controlled in fiction so I'm not sure that's a thing that needed to be dealt with as well.
EDIT:
Oh, I did my review of the book here: http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=23586&whichpage=2#top |
| Azar |
Posted - 12 Apr 2022 : 02:56:24
These debates were old hat when the internet as we know it was young. Rare is the person that insists all evil individuals fully display each and every facet of their personality at all times: a collection of caricatures only. However, there are those that, for whatever reason (power, mostly, if I had to wager), are going to be upfront about being a monster...whereas others elect to be frank about certain depravities while holding others close to the chest and the true corrupt chessmasters may go their entire lives without being discovered.
Lawful Evil characters are the ones most likely to hold to loyalty (overt, at the very least), because they favor structure and are especially loath to abandon the advantages it brings.
Neutral Evil characters...well, I've already gone over them. They're the worst kind of fair-weather friends.
Chaotic Evil characters may not even bother with the mere pretense of declaring friendship. On the other hand, they may find it amusing to lead someone on solely for the purpose of crushing their spirit at some random point. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 12 Apr 2022 : 02:48:07
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Phipps
* I am a bit nonplussed by the treatment of Ashemmi became it tries to make her a more proactive character but erases her romance with Semmenon. What happened to him and the redemption she and he achieved?
What they did with Ashemmi really tainted that book for me. I get that they had an issue with her backstory of having been forced to become evil... But their retcon impacts a decent amount of material, just to fix something that was, in Realms time, more than 100 years before. Also, the retcon also diminishes Manshoon, I think -- before, he was evil enough to casually twist someone's mind for his own ends; taking away that part of the backstory means removing an excellent example of "this is how evil Manshoon really was."
On top of all that, they had an excellent opportunity to make a new NPC, perhaps another evilly aligned female wizard, and instead they took a page from the current WotC playbook, grabbed some past NPC and twisted them into something different.
So it was a retcon and a missed opportunity.
If it had been me, if I felt absolutely compelled to address Ashemmi's forced alignment change, I would have done something like put a damaged journal some place, with passages in the journal referring to some sort of trickery on Ashemmi's part, with Manshoon's actions either failing or having been just a rumor. Leave the story intact, but spin things so that "maybe it happened this way, maybe it happened this other way." |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 12 Apr 2022 : 02:25:38
quote:
Originally posted by Eldacar
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Being evil doesn't mean a person doesn't care for anyone at all -- it just means they care more for themselves than they do for most other people. Not all other people, most.
As a comment on this, I have used evil characters in context with a "circle of caring". Consider a brutal mercenary warrior as one among a party of players, for a hypothetical example. This mercenary does things for money, sometimes very bad things. They like, respect, even love their fellow party members, and care about them and their welfare. They would kick down a door and slaughter their way through a prison to rescue their friends.
But the guards in the prison that they are murdering? They aren't in the circle of caring, so the hypothetical mercenary will happily remove heads from necks whether they are surrendering and pleading for mercy or not. "Don't know, don't care."
Evil doesn't mean strangling puppies, or megalomaniacal madness. It can be a simpler, subtler, more callous personality. Maybe they got that personality through a hard life of harder choices. Maybe they got it from some tragedy in their past. Maybe they were always like that.
Well said.  |
| Charles Phipps |
Posted - 11 Apr 2022 : 20:35:51
quote:
Originally posted by TheIriaeban
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Phipps
Ah ha.
Well I stand corrected.
Thanks!
What's the other thread?
Original product thread:
http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=23586&whichpage=1
Where Ed's contribution was revealed:
http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=23494&whichpage=21&SearchTerms=pereghost
Thank you! Much appreciated! |
| Azar |
Posted - 11 Apr 2022 : 18:47:50
quote:
Originally posted by Eldacar
Evil doesn't mean strangling puppies, or megalomaniacal madness. It can be a simpler, subtler, more callous personality. Maybe they got that personality through a hard life of harder choices. Maybe they got it from some tragedy in their past. Maybe they were always like that.
necessarily* mean, but it very well could. Evil is a spectrum...though there is a bare minimum. |
| Eldacar |
Posted - 11 Apr 2022 : 17:20:22
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Being evil doesn't mean a person doesn't care for anyone at all -- it just means they care more for themselves than they do for most other people. Not all other people, most.
As a comment on this, I have used evil characters in context with a "circle of caring". Consider a brutal mercenary warrior as one among a party of players, for a hypothetical example. This mercenary does things for money, sometimes very bad things. They like, respect, even love their fellow party members, and care about them and their welfare. They would kick down a door and slaughter their way through a prison to rescue their friends.
But the guards in the prison that they are murdering? They aren't in the circle of caring, so the hypothetical mercenary will happily remove heads from necks whether they are surrendering and pleading for mercy or not. "Don't know, don't care."
Evil doesn't mean strangling puppies, or megalomaniacal madness. It can be a simpler, subtler, more callous personality. Maybe they got that personality through a hard life of harder choices. Maybe they got it from some tragedy in their past. Maybe they were always like that. |
| TheIriaeban |
Posted - 11 Apr 2022 : 17:14:55
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Phipps
Ah ha.
Well I stand corrected.
Thanks!
What's the other thread?
Original product thread:
http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=23586&whichpage=1
Where Ed's contribution was revealed:
http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=23494&whichpage=21&SearchTerms=pereghost
|
| Charles Phipps |
Posted - 11 Apr 2022 : 16:47:58
Ah ha.
Well I stand corrected.
Thanks!
What's the other thread? |
|
|
