| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Lucius |
Posted - 13 Jun 2005 : 11:53:11
I'm currently reading Volo's Guide to the Sword Coast. Last night I noticed that the hamlet of Ulgoth's Beard is, by canon, meant to be on the coast, with the city of BG 20 miles away from the coast.
I'm aware that the games are not considered canon, but I was just wondering why you think they were moved? It seems odd to have Ulgoth's Beard to the east rather than west of the Gate, and for such a large mistake such as missplacing a city, to be overlooked. I can't see how either geographical disscrepencies add anything to the game.
I know what you mean when it's said that NWN moves away from the Realms, but I can't help to be dissapointed that my all time favourite game is also wrong in places.I always thought the Baldur's Gate games a=had that distinct Realms feel. :(
P.S. Does anyone know where I can find an official map of the Sword Coast? |
| 10 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| khorne |
Posted - 28 Jun 2005 : 13:14:34
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
quote:
Originally posted by Lucius
I've just noticed another odd difference in lore in BG. What's with the kobolds? They seem to be more related to dogs than the lizard like ones I had seen in NWN and previous D&D material. Could someone shine some light on this for me?
Well I was shocked to discover kobolds were dargon kin, I first noticed this in a 3.x product. In the past versions I always had impression of dog-like.
From 2nd "Barely clearing 3 feet in height, kobolds have scaly hides that range from dark, rusty brown to a rusty black. They smell of damp dogs and stagnant water. Their eyes glow like a bright red spark and they have two small horns ranging from tan to white. Because of the kobolds' fondness for wearing raggedy garb of red and orange, their non-prehensile rat-like tails, and their language (which sounds like small dogs yapping), "
From 1st "The hide of kobolds runs from very dark rusty brown to a rusty black. They have no hair. Their eyes are reddish and thier small horns are tan to white."
From BD&D (RC) "These small, evil doglike humanoids"
So take your pick of past lore as posible answer of where dog-like came from.
Of course 3.x offers this "Kobolds are short, reptilian humanoids"
I recently read a Dragon article about kobolds, and its contents certainly raised my respect for them. Beware the blood of Tiamat and the wrath of Kulturmak indeed. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 14 Jun 2005 : 16:30:47
quote:
Originally posted by Lucius
I've just noticed another odd difference in lore in BG. What's with the kobolds? They seem to be more related to dogs than the lizard like ones I had seen in NWN and previous D&D material. Could someone shine some light on this for me?
Well I was shocked to discover kobolds were dargon kin, I first noticed this in a 3.x product. In the past versions I always had impression of dog-like.
From 2nd "Barely clearing 3 feet in height, kobolds have scaly hides that range from dark, rusty brown to a rusty black. They smell of damp dogs and stagnant water. Their eyes glow like a bright red spark and they have two small horns ranging from tan to white. Because of the kobolds' fondness for wearing raggedy garb of red and orange, their non-prehensile rat-like tails, and their language (which sounds like small dogs yapping), "
From 1st "The hide of kobolds runs from very dark rusty brown to a rusty black. They have no hair. Their eyes are reddish and thier small horns are tan to white."
From BD&D (RC) "These small, evil doglike humanoids"
So take your pick of past lore as posible answer of where dog-like came from.
Of course 3.x offers this "Kobolds are short, reptilian humanoids" |
| Lucius |
Posted - 14 Jun 2005 : 15:41:14
I've just noticed another odd difference in lore in BG. What's with the kobolds? They seem to be more related to dogs than the lizard like ones I had seen in NWN and previous D&D material. Could someone shine some light on this for me?
P.S. Are there any other differences in lore, appart from the ones discussed above? |
| SirUrza |
Posted - 14 Jun 2005 : 01:25:20
I look at the games like this...
Bioware, SSI, etc. are the Dungeon Masters and I'm playing in their campaign. The events of the games are as canon as when I'm DMing the game. :)
Until you see something from a game in print as a gaming product, don't consider any of it canon.
|
| Kentinal |
Posted - 13 Jun 2005 : 21:04:26
I seem to recall that in the UK cities were communities that had a major church.
IAE population in RW does not effect status of a community just the political organization these days. A city can have 5,000 a town 20,000 in population. |
| Mumadar Ibn Huzal |
Posted - 13 Jun 2005 : 20:44:25
quote:
Originally posted by Lucius
I've just read that Nashkel is a city, officially, and not the sleepy town it appears to be in the game. Does anyone know of any other differences between the BG games and accepted lore?
Mind you size alone doesn't necessarily mean the distinction between a hamlet and a city. In medieval Real World, towns could 'purchase' the rights to be a city, no matter what the size of the place might be, or how many inhabitants. While I haven't come across 'city rights' in the Realms, it doesn't mean the system does not exist in one form or other. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 13 Jun 2005 : 16:41:43
"Jim Butler gives the official (or canon) answer ;)
Everything that bears the Forgotten Realms logo is considered canon. Where two sources contradict one another, a decision needs to be made as to which one should be followed. For game products, that would mean you'd follow a game product over a novel. Later products have precedence over older products."
|
| Lucius |
Posted - 13 Jun 2005 : 16:04:19
Bg is canon? I thought the games were not, like NWN?
I've just read that Nashkel is a city, officially, and not the sleepy town it appears to be in the game. Does anyone know of any other differences between the BG games and accepted lore? |
| Enialus Meliamne |
Posted - 13 Jun 2005 : 12:43:04
Cannot be positive on this mind you, but I think the Ulgoth's Beard location in Baldur's Gate was placed there from the expansion Tales of the Sword Coast? I believe the first part of the game, had placed areas all along the coast, thusly causing them to have to move Ulgoth's Beard elsewhere? IIRC, it also had an arrow or something pointing towards it, suggesting that it may have been set that way in order to facilitate game play only (without them having to rewrite the map code) and thusly in theory, Maybe Ulgoth's Beard was in the proper location :-). You just have to get there in a roundabout game play manner. |
| Dargoth |
Posted - 13 Jun 2005 : 12:11:48
quote:
Originally posted by Lucius
I'm currently reading Volo's Guide to the Sword Coast. Last night I noticed that the hamlet of Ulgoth's Beard is, by canon, meant to be on the coast, with the city of BG 20 miles away from the coast.
I'm aware that the games are not considered canon, but I was just wondering why you think they were moved? It seems odd to have Ulgoth's Beard to the east rather than west of the Gate, and for such a large mistake such as missplacing a city, to be overlooked. I can't see how either geographical disscrepencies add anything to the game.
I know what you mean when it's said that NWN moves away from the Realms, but I can't help to be dissapointed that my all time favourite game is also wrong in places.I always thought the Baldur's Gate games a=had that distinct Realms feel. :(
P.S. Does anyone know where I can find an official map of the Sword Coast?
I wouldnt say the BG series isnt Canon to loudly if I where you
*Casts Protection against Kuje 10' Radius on Lucius*
I thought Ulgoth's Beard beard was on the Coast in BG (I vaguely recall that there are ships docked in the port area
Ed Greenwood has had a bit more to say on Ulgoth's Beard in his thread, he may have covered what your after there |
|
|
