| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Sourcemaster2 |
Posted - 23 Jul 2004 : 22:23:09
Do the standard evil races (chromatic dragons, beholders, illithids, and so on) have any large group or cities that are good-aligned? Are any of them of a fixed alignment, or are they morally neutral like most races? |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Sourcemaster2 |
Posted - 30 Jul 2004 : 19:53:57
The idea of an "evil" race turning good is sometimes overused, but its groundwork is reasonable. Obviously races like drow, beholders and illithids are evil in such proportions that most people will never encounter a benign one, but the idea that they are utterly incapable of diverging from the norm is unreasonable. For beholders and illithids, creatures who are inherently superior in that they have powerful abilities demihumans lack, it is completely understandable that almost every one would be evil by the standards of those demihumans. Arrogance caused by a logical advantage leads to evil, and it takes an extremely moral individual to defeat the instinctive and cultural influences that would make it evil. For it to occur frequently is improbable, but it's hard to deny the possibility. |
| Faraer |
Posted - 30 Jul 2004 : 15:23:54
I haven't talked to Ed about this, so regarding the Realms I might be mistaken. Here's a case in which I'm not: Tolkien's Middle-earth, in which Elves are inherently, magically good (though they have the capacity to pervert and squander their goodness), and Orcs are absolutely evil (though a good Orc is conceivable in the metaphysically depleted Fourth Age). If these characters were people who just happened to be fictional, the accusations at Tolkien of suspect racial theories would be valid; but they are fictive entities who happen to resemble people in some aspects. (Incidentally, I recommend reading Ursula Le Guin's article on The Lord of the Rings in The Language of the Night, which discusses how its characters are both symbolic parts of a whole psyche and individual 'human' actors.)
Kitira, yes, psychologically is certainly one of the ways, and it's an area of legitimate author variation how much she tries to bring us into a character's head, and to what extent the psychological element is a veneer over what I call the mythic bones. (Though I prefer 'psychically', by which I mean the operation of the psyche as it is as opposed to how the academic discipline of psychology and its popular offshoots describes it.) Just because goblins (I think) ARE evil doesn't mean they're all equally evil, or worthy of instant slaughter, or incapable of deception. And it happens that I haven't read a story (or plot hook) about a renegade 'good' monster that I found interesting or believable.
Sarelle, there's one disagreement about the value (etc.) of a mythically heightened morality vs a psychologically nuanced kitchen-sink one, and for all my appreciation of realist techniques I side with the first as a more powerful storytelling tool. But in the Realms humans and demihumans partake of all the moral shading and variance you like, and I don't see the gain in extending all that to hobgoblins or cloakers (and thus depleting their power as irrational figures of fear, disgust, and nightmare). Thinning is of course a matter of degree. |
| Sarelle |
Posted - 30 Jul 2004 : 14:17:46
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
The bourgeois assumptions of the modern social sciences -- the idea that evil races are evil because of nurture, say -- seem to me quite foreign to sword and sorcery fiction. Look up 'thinning' in the Encyclopedia of Fantasy: I don't want to fantasy roleplay in a thinned-out world that might as well be our own.
If you were a power-gamer, I'd understand your views. But you evidentally are very much interested in the Realms as a world. And if the Realms just consisted of "goodies" and "baddies" there would truly be very little attractive about it - it would be boring, and would be horribly morally imposing.
'Thinning' is inevitable - unless the mood is created from the beginning to be utterly fantastic and different, then people will use what they know, and this is more than reasonable when the world features humans, and features creatures from mythology. Psychologically putting yorself in the setting must be done to enjoy the setting, otherwise the missing information (and there will always be missing information in a fictional universe) will make the setting seem cardboard or static. |
| Kitira Gildragon |
Posted - 30 Jul 2004 : 05:23:44
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
If the Realms was realistic, it wouldn't be fantasy but realist fiction that happened to be set in a different world. Though the Realms is closer to realism than a lot of more explicitly fabulistic works, its bulk of verisimilitudinous detail doesn't mean that it isn't fundamentally a world of story in which things happen according to story's rules and are apprehended in the soul's phantasmagorical theatre. And this is essential for it to be in a sense more real than quotidian life, as all art must be. Else its magic is all froth and flash.
The bourgeois assumptions of the modern social sciences -- the idea that evil races are evil because of nurture, say -- seem to me quite foreign to sword and sorcery fiction. Look up 'thinning' in the Encyclopedia of Fantasy: I don't want to fantasy roleplay in a thinned-out world that might as well be our own.
Ahhh... quite interesting. Lovely, in fact.
Faraer, if the Realms didn't have enough of a touch of our reality, would we be able to make that little bit of a connection to it that we do? Would it seem as real and living to us? Part of the magic of storytelling is that the reader must be able to relate to it in some way. Face it- our world is different. There is no magic, there is not a dragon alive... heck, we don't even have to worry about vicious genetic experiments gone wrong. How do you relate to a world with these kinds of differences? Psychologically.
This is just one of those ways we can. You may feel that it's becoming a bit much, and I can understand that; however, without it, there wouldn't be as much diversity. Without taking nurture into account, and looking at it from a perspective of "monsters are people too" you lose a bit of that.
If everything were as set as you just said, what kind of plot twists could you come up with? Really, if you didn't have a renegade or two to add to the mix, the stew would taste quite bland, don't you think? Say for just a second that every monster is an enemy... without the possibility of it dropping information, or gaining enough trust to backstab the protagonists, don't you find it to be rather dull?
Basically, you'd be having to kill anything that wasn't considered a person. Where's the mystery or adventure in that? It seems to tip the scales more to a blooding fest than a shot for finesse.
Mind you, I have a few issues of my own with both sides (minor things), but this is just my own opinion. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 30 Jul 2004 : 03:18:30
quote:
Originally posted by chosenofvelsharoon
I aggree with Faraer, it didn't feel like campaign specific book, it was about biology of a typical dragon, and if i recall the diety's were a bit different than those listed for dragons in faiths and pantheons (i won't swear to this, it's been a while).
Well, as for the deities, I think that Faiths & Pantheons was the one that was in the wrong. 3E doesn't have a great record of maintaining continuity with 2E. |
| chosenofvelsharoon |
Posted - 30 Jul 2004 : 02:56:10
quote: from Wooly Rupert
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by chosenofvelsharoon
It's not realms specific, but the 2e draconomicon talked about famous dragons that defied alignment (predominantly chaotics, such as copper are not always good and i think there was a ng silver).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No offense, but how is a Forgotten Realms sourcebook not Realms-specific?
None taken, I apologize for my assumption. It's been about 9 months since i picked up the book and my library (read friend who can actually afford all those greatly detailed books) got rid of his copy when the 3e version came out.
I aggree with Faraer, it didn't feel like campaign specific book, it was about biology of a typical dragon, and if i recall the diety's were a bit different than those listed for dragons in faiths and pantheons (i won't swear to this, it's been a while). |
| Faraer |
Posted - 29 Jul 2004 : 19:34:23
The Realms references in FOR1 are very superficial; they're practically just names, with none of the right feel or substance. The late Nigel Findley visibly did not understand the Realms, whether through lack of time, sympathy, or whatever. The dragons he describes just aren't like how we know Realms dragons to be from "Wyrms of the North" in terms of mindset, naming, behaviour, and religion or lack of it. It's a nonesuch without solid rooting in Realmslore. |
| Faraer |
Posted - 29 Jul 2004 : 19:25:04
If the Realms was realistic, it wouldn't be fantasy but realist fiction that happened to be set in a different world. Though the Realms is closer to realism than a lot of more explicitly fabulistic works, its bulk of verisimilitudinous detail doesn't mean that it isn't fundamentally a world of story in which things happen according to story's rules and are apprehended in the soul's phantasmagorical theatre. And this is essential for it to be in a sense more real than quotidian life, as all art must be. Else its magic is all froth and flash.
The bourgeois assumptions of the modern social sciences -- the idea that evil races are evil because of nurture, say -- seem to me quite foreign to sword and sorcery fiction. Look up 'thinning' in the Encyclopedia of Fantasy: I don't want to fantasy roleplay in a thinned-out world that might as well be our own. |
| Crust |
Posted - 29 Jul 2004 : 17:47:06
Illithids and beholders are usually evil because they were born into a society that is very harsh and grating on the psyche, just like the drow society RAS introduced with the Dark Elf Trilogy. A typical beholder isn't cuddled and protected by mommy. Nor is a mind flayer, a being who shares the thoughts of an entire race of evil creatures, let by an evil god-brain. I'm sure the good mind flayers eat only cow and pig brains.  |
| Sarelle |
Posted - 29 Jul 2004 : 15:14:04
But, as has been said many times, the Realms aspires to be realistic. Why else would Ed go into such details in his Realmslore. And in the theme of realism, evil and good and chaos and law are all abstract, and in the opinion of each individual. Classifying them is just to make them neat in game terms - if we want to have fleshed out characters like Danilo, then we must accept that intelligent drow individuals will not always go around with the same set of ethics.
I constantly play sentient 'monsters' as PCs or NPCs, because I enjoy it, period. But I never see anything wrong or anti-Realms about such a play style.
On the other hand, I agree about using such things just for the Wow-Factor in novels - its cheap and overused. |
| Sourcemaster2 |
Posted - 29 Jul 2004 : 01:13:34
Why can't a sentient creature choose its alignment? Maybe some are naturally inclined towards evil, and/or are raised in an environment that promotes evil, but sentience itself allows that the being is aware of itself, and so could fight (if it wanted to, which most evil beings don't)its instincts and/or training. Drow are a subtype of elf; they just happen to be mostly evil. Wild elves are no more monster than elf if they happen to be evil-aligned. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 29 Jul 2004 : 01:00:42
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
You actually could argue that FOR1 is non-Realms-specific, given how little regard its authors paid to the established continuity and mode of the Realms.
I've never had any problems with that supplement... Care to elaborate a bit on this statement? |
| Faraer |
Posted - 28 Jul 2004 : 22:53:45
In the mode of the Realms as I understand it -- and that of most heroic fantasy -- there are people, the demi-human races, who can be good or evil, and there are monsters, who are NOT people but impediments to the protagonists. Insisting that sentient species must have some choice of alignment because they would in real life is a naive category error: this is not real life, it's fiction.
(Interestingly, drow are in the grey area, and precisely what annoys some people about recent treatments of drow is considering them a type of elf rather than a monster.)
Maybe in some sense there is a good beholder somewhere in Faerūn. But it would be senseless, pointless, and meaningless to ever put it in a story.
Fantasy is not just bourgeois realism with monsters and magic and funny names added. |
| Sourcemaster2 |
Posted - 28 Jul 2004 : 21:46:17
The "monsters are people too" theme is really "sentient beings are morally neutral." Anything that can reason should be able to decide its alignment and take any class. Unthinking "monsters" and divine/infernal forces may be pure good or evil (although if you can't think, you shouldn't have an alignment, at least in my opinion), but mortals can vary. Cosmic forces are all well and good, but they don't manifest directly often in Faerun. |
| Faraer |
Posted - 28 Jul 2004 : 18:33:38
I think the 'monsters are people too' theme is trite, tedious, and genre-inappropriate pretty much in its entirety. In the Realms good and evil are not a matter of perspective, they're absolute cosmic forces.
You actually could argue that FOR1 is non-Realms-specific, given how little regard its authors paid to the established continuity and mode of the Realms. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 28 Jul 2004 : 17:26:32
quote:
Originally posted by chosenofvelsharoon
It's not realms specific, but the 2e draconomicon talked about famous dragons that defied alignment (predominantly chaotics, such as copper are not always good and i think there was a ng silver).
The 2e Draconomnicon went into a fair amount of detail on the draconic afterlife. They become spirit dragons, called animae, guided to the Outer Planes by Chronepsis (or possibly his proxies). They go to the plane of their alignment or the plane in which their deity resides, and they slowly lose their memories at the rate of one year per year. A dragon who is resurrected after a year's time in the afterworld will have a year's worth of memory lost to the Astral Plane, and won't gain that year back. A dragon spirit who loses all of its memories becomes a purified draconic archetype, ready for use as a proxy of one of the dragon gods or for reincarnation.
|
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 26 Jul 2004 : 05:14:30
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
No offense, but how is a Forgotten Realms sourcebook not Realms-specific? 
Thanks for being brave and asking. That one threw me a bit as well. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 26 Jul 2004 : 04:31:47
quote:
Originally posted by chosenofvelsharoon
It's not realms specific, but the 2e draconomicon talked about famous dragons that defied alignment (predominantly chaotics, such as copper are not always good and i think there was a ng silver).
No offense, but how is a Forgotten Realms sourcebook not Realms-specific? |
| Talwyn |
Posted - 26 Jul 2004 : 02:12:29
I agree with Sarelle that it'd be a rehashed theme in trying to create a story about a "good" Illithid. Sure it may be hunted by it's people, exiled etc but it still an Illithid.
I can't see anything benign about a race of beings that feeds off other intelligent creatures brains while they are still alive. What a hideous way to die, having your brain eating by a tentacled grey thing 
But saying that, they make very interesting & complex characters and it'd be intriguing to learn more about their society and ways via a story focused on a particular Illithid. |
| Sarelle |
Posted - 26 Jul 2004 : 01:21:24
Well the good illithid in question is on the run, hunted by his people. So yes.
But illithids would be able to conceal their thoughts from other illithids. I've always loved illithids, but I think that a book that involves them more than in a cameo role would dispel some of their mystery. And I think a book with a good illithid would be a really bad idea, as it would be very Drizztish and probably would be unsatisfying to a large majority of readers. |
| brjr2001 |
Posted - 26 Jul 2004 : 00:34:02
im sorry did i hear about good illithids, i would assume that since they are a evil race and they are telepathic they would know good illithids and kill them before they caused too much damage. (hmmm that would make a good book a good illithid) |
| chosenofvelsharoon |
Posted - 25 Jul 2004 : 22:39:57
It's not realms specific, but the 2e draconomicon talked about famous dragons that defied alignment (predominantly chaotics, such as copper are not always good and i think there was a ng silver). I haven't had a chance to read the 3e draconomicon.
Also if i recall there was a rogue bronze mentioned in the cult of the dragon source book... named errant pg 53. and a topaz dracolich on the next page.
It seems that there are exeptions to every rule.
|
| Karesch |
Posted - 24 Jul 2004 : 20:50:37
Indeed, I think this thread unto itself shows how little of the books I yet possess and how many I truely need to read yet. My library has been expanding rapidly, however there's only so many gold coins to go around, and I'm spending them as rapidly as they come in. I hope that by the end of this year, it will have at least quadrupled in size, and I'll be considerably closer to having the majority of the tomes instead of the minority.
K |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 24 Jul 2004 : 16:02:43
The predestined-alignment monster types are something I don't rather like. The alignment system is a bit too restricted -- there really should be twenty-seven alignments, not just nine. One of the things I like about Eberron is the fact that alignments aren't as restrictive there, so there can be some good red dragons and evil gold dragons. |
| Sarelle |
Posted - 24 Jul 2004 : 13:58:46
quote:
Originally posted by Sourcemaster2
That's what I was hoping. I'm working on good or neutral members of "evil" races for Terrail, and illithids are always interesting. Are there any known beholders (individual or community) that are good, or at least neutral?
Yup, yup! Check out the Underdark web enhancement for an example of a truly unusual, good beholder/illithid pair. There's also a LN, turning good, illithid of Ch'Chitl in Underdark.
And it ain't Realms, but the Book of Exalted Deeds has a good-aligned illithid monk NPC.
AND, there was a good-aligned red dragon (or half-red/half-blue dragon - I can't remember which) of Myth Drannor - see Fall of Myth Drannor or Cormanthyr. I can't remember which. |
| tauster |
Posted - 24 Jul 2004 : 12:20:20
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Okay, now this is going from memory... But Steven Schend dropped the Rock of Bral into Realmspace (the Tears of Selūne, specifically), and there's a LN beholder there named Large Luigi. He's a barkeep, as I recall.
Large Luigi is an exception. according to "SJR2 Realmspace", "he is one of the few beholders who were able to ascend the spindle to gain complete knowledge of everything. [...]"
i still can not come to grips with that, especially "complete" and "everything". seems to me that he knows more than even the gods themselves...
but i digress, sorry. fact is that he“s lawful neutral, but wasn“t born that way. there“s a conclusive explanation for his alignment change and he is a good tool for me as dm, so i don“t complain. 
the better part of the beholders should be evil, though. it wuold be kind of a credibility gap, should pc encounter good beings from races known to be evil around every corner... |
| The Sage |
Posted - 24 Jul 2004 : 04:38:41
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Okay, now this is going from memory... But Steven Schend dropped the Rock of Bral into Realmspace (the Tears of Selūne, specifically), and there's a LN beholder there named Large Luigi. He's a barkeep, as I recall.
I've also heard that there are several LN beholders "living" in Gzemnid's Realm, in the Outlands. However this could just be pure screed, as they are said to serve the Beholder God of Deception in every way, shape, and form. Their supposed alignment, could be nothing more than a ploy to lure those bloods who aren't well-laned about the dark of the place, into their well stocked human-pantries.
|
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 24 Jul 2004 : 04:37:25
quote:
Originally posted by SoulFlayer
Just wondering. What is Terrail?
Try this link. It should take you to the thread Sourcemaster2 was referring to in his earlier post. |
| Sourcemaster2 |
Posted - 24 Jul 2004 : 04:22:11
For a while now, I've been posting information on a city I'm developing. It's posted in the Sages of Realmslore section of the forum. |
| SoulFlayer |
Posted - 24 Jul 2004 : 04:18:09
Just wondering. What is Terrail? |
|
|
