| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Brace Cormaeril
Learned Scribe
294 Posts |
 Posted - 15 Jun 2010 : 05:23:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
As for the Eladrin/Elves: Prior to 4E, High Elves were not fey creatures and did not have the dimensional hop ability that Eladrin do. So, before the Spellplague, High Elves, were slightly better with certain abilities (and slightly worse) than their other elven cousins, but after the Spellplague they can now 'fey step'. This is explained in that they always COULD, but the Spellplague reminded them HOW. Hence, in my opinion it is a ret-con since the story has retroactively written the high-elfs ability to coincide with the new rules.
It seems to me that elves were always creatures of 'faerie' although not in the 3e vernacular of 'subtypes'. I've just reviewed the 4e Campaign Setting and Players Guide. Ashe, can you provide a source for your assertion that Elves 'remembered' how to 'fey-step'? I also noted, in the 4e material, that 'eladrin' and 'sun and moon elf' terminology is used somewhat interchangeably, in fact, pg. 14 of the Player's Guide (4e) even states, "eladrin, also known as sun and moon elves..."
Regardless, it is not the name of these beings, (a rose by any other name, and all that...) but the abilities of these beings after the Spellplague that stinks of retcon to some... |
The Silver Fire's Blade: A Novella in Nine Parts, Available Soon, in the Adventuring Forum!
|
 |
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2010 : 05:57:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Brace Cormaeril
<chop>
Regardless, it is not the name of these beings, (a rose by any other name, and all that...) but the abilities of these beings after the Spellplague that stinks of retcon to some...
...like myself, but I confess I have a particularly sensitive nose on this particular issue (as well as that of the dragonborn). I like the 2E celestial eladrin, and I like the moon elves and sun elves; I also like them as distinct and separate groups, and this particular 4E retcon simply confuses the issue imho.
Anyway, I've said my piece on this; I had originally promised myself after reading this scroll that I wasn't going to contribute to it, but Ashe left me with the perfect segue... so yes, Ashe once again cast summon troll... this time on the retcon.  |
Playing in the Realms since the Old Grey Box (1987)... and *still* having fun with material published before 2008, despite the NDA'd lore.
If it's comparable in power with non-magical abilities, it's not magic. |
|
|
|
Dark Wizard
Senior Scribe
USA
830 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2010 : 07:23:32
|
Elf-like is the key, they are not elves. They are associated with but distinct from elves. Some of them serve the elven deities, but there are other deities who call Arborea home. Some of the most powerful servants of the elven gods are Aasimon (Solars). Angels are to
Humans as Eladrin are to Elves, but it wasn't mutually exclusive.
Didn't the recent edition do something similar with the LeShay
Also, Succubi are devils now, right? |
|
|
|
Darkmeer
Senior Scribe
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2010 : 07:24:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Brace Cormaeril
Regardless, it is not the name of these beings, (a rose by any other name, and all that...) but the abilities of these beings after the Spellplague that stinks of retcon to some...
Exactly. And this is the crux of the retcon issue for elves with me. Personally, I don't want 50 subraces of elf, but they were canon before. What worries me is that the Eladrin have these new abilities, making transition style lore difficult (let alone Eladrin being chaotic good outsiders previously, as has also been noted above, which is technically also a retcon, since it would affect the Summon Monster tables...).
I also believe that, given the discussion of retcons and this does impact some play styles from the Realms and back, Planar lore should be included here. The new cosmology has altered from the previous editions (although this seems to be a tradition, for what it's worth).
So far, the Realms has had 3 cosmologies. The great wheel (including the great tree) in 2e and earlier, the Great tree only (3.x), and now the very odd planar cosmology that is in 4e. The fact the great tree only (in 3.x) still allowed use of the great wheel, just differently, was fine (although in the books, the Realmslore indicated no relationship with that other lore). The new cosmology bears no resemblance to the previous, and this would be considered a retcon, regardless of world, I believe. Not necessarily the biggest deal in the world, but something to note.
/d |
"These people are my family, not just friends, and if you want to get to them you gotta go through ME." |
Edited by - Darkmeer on 15 Jun 2010 07:31:36 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2010 : 07:30:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Wizard
You need to do yourself the favor of watching the fourth and last season of Enterprise if you haven't done so. It's not the best of Trek, but in my opinion it is the best of Enterprise. It's how I imagined the show would have and should have turned out if they pursued the show's premise with influences from and nods to previous Trek lore.
QFT...
The final episode nearly brought tears to my eyes - ranked right up there with greatest TV series finalies of all time, as far as I'm concerned - pure genius.
Most of the series was *meh*, but that episode gave me the briefest glimpse of just how good it might have been. I'm not talking about the storyline either - that was good too - but the way they framed the story made my jaw drop.
Brilliant.
Now back to our regularly scheduled program.....  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Kno
Senior Scribe
452 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2010 : 11:35:03
|
| Majority of 2nd edition eladrin did not serve any deity, you could also say that elves appeared eladrin-like. Other creatures that were retconned are gnomes, fomorians, dryads, archons, shadar-kai, giants, dragonborn, slaadi and angels. |
z455t |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3243 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2010 : 13:52:53
|
| Well, I've spoken my peace on the subject of what I believe are ret-cons. Brace, you're starting to stoop to semantics to prove your point and I don't feel like getting caught in an endless loop. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Alisttair
Great Reader
Canada
3054 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2010 : 16:25:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Wizard
Another retcon may be the deal with alignments, but that's more of a meta-game concept.
I agree that the alignments issue is more a meta-game concept. I wouldn't consider it a retcon as opposed to just how the laws of alignment changed with the spellplague, since many abilities, spells, restrictions (i.e. Paladins needing to be LG), etc... relied on a person's beliefs (their alignment) whereas now it has no effect on someone's capabilities....so basically, all Neutral Good and Chaotic Good people are now simply Good, but were still considered NG or CG previous to the spellplague respectively. |
Karsite Arcanar (Most Holy Servant of Karsus)
Anauria - Survivor State of Netheril as penned by me:
http://www.dmsguild.com/m/product/172023 |
|
|
|
BlackAce
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
358 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2010 : 18:24:11
|
I think the easiest way to define a retcon is that it is any alteration that renders previous statements invalid or significantly changes previous definitions.
For instance if I wrote a story about Storm Silverhand and said that her hair was red and explicitly stated that this was always the case. That would invalidate any prior descriptions which state she has silver hair. If I simply state she has taken to dyeing her hair red, then that is just additional information and has no effect on anything written prior.
Some Ret-cons add clarification. 3ed's splitting the Green elves into the Wild elves and Wood elves to resolve the different ways the race had been potrayed is a good example of that.... and some ret-cons muddy the waters. The addition of Eladrin to FR as Moon and Sun Elves is an example of the latter.
|
|
|
|
Brace Cormaeril
Learned Scribe
294 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2010 : 18:35:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
Well, I've spoken my peace on the subject of what I believe are ret-cons. Brace, you're starting to stoop to semantics to prove your point and I don't feel like getting caught in an endless loop.
Stoop to semantics? You seem to have a short memory there, Ashe. As we agreed, just a few posts up, to the importance of semantics in this exchange. I've actually provided sources and pg. #'s (for my assertions). Where are yours, Ashe? I asked you to provide a source for the crux of your argument, which was "elves remembered how to fey step" or some such. And your response is *I'm* relying on semantics? (You can keep the anecdotes.)
I remember now why I lurked Candlekeep for a decade. I am a extremely unimpressed with most of her scribes.
Thank you for your comments, Ashe. Although you failed to offer up any pseudo-scholoarly backing for you claims, they are appreciated. |
The Silver Fire's Blade: A Novella in Nine Parts, Available Soon, in the Adventuring Forum!
|
Edited by - Brace Cormaeril on 15 Jun 2010 18:38:31 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2010 : 18:55:33
|
As I had thought, this is just an excuse for another 'bait' thread....
I think the people who protest the loudest about the 'division of the FR fanbase' are the largest responsible - if people would stop making threads purposely designed to keep the arguments going, everyone would just move on.
I'm NOT in a good mood today..... |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Alisttair
Great Reader
Canada
3054 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2010 : 19:06:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
As I had thought, this is just an excuse for another 'bait' thread....
I think the people who protest the loudest about the 'division of the FR fanbase' are the largest responsible - if people would stop making threads purposely designed to keep the arguments going, everyone would just move on.
I'm NOT in a good mood today.....
I agree. It appears every time a thread geared towards (or hijacked into) division is closed, another one pops right up...and I will not state my other observations regarding this issue. |
Karsite Arcanar (Most Holy Servant of Karsus)
Anauria - Survivor State of Netheril as penned by me:
http://www.dmsguild.com/m/product/172023 |
|
|
|
Brace Cormaeril
Learned Scribe
294 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2010 : 20:04:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Yeah, the 'Elf thing' is really just one example out of maybe a hundred wherein new lore over-writes previous lore, and like I said earlier (I believe in the other thread), any one or two things aren't all that bad in-and-of themselves. Its the whole ball of wax (at once) that was so hard to swallow.
Markustay, for a guy who alleges "maybe a hundred" retcons, 5'll get you 10 you couldn't come up with 20, or even 10 retcons which meet the defitions provided by the article linked above. Please, don't even try. Just go with your feelings, and leave the scholarly work to those more capable.
As *I* thought, boys. Any attempt to collate, analyze and reconcile alleged discontinuities, as a community, is met with scorn and personal attacks. I ignored the blatant violations of CCoC A.5, (because calling a fellow scribe a troll is certainly a violation) and continued to do my best, utilizing a stack of old D&D books on my desk over a meter high, to source my points of view. My work engendered ridicule, my sources met with anecdotes. If you look through my posts, you (get out a dictionary for the big words) will see that I, although consistently unimpressed with the vast majority of published work, embrace the work of *all* the FR designers, regardless of edition. I also will continue to work on post-plague to 4e lore, and make submissions to the 'Compendium which I'm beginning to believe will fail to launch due to grognards (no one in particular... ((A.5, again))) individuals whose attempts to contribute to threads is but to pipe in a cast aspersions (is that an A.8 violation?) (lets call *them* bridge dwellers), and those fearful of WotC corporate lawyers.
Have it your way, silence any other perspectives, meet sources with feet stomping and slander, and have a nice day.
'Till swords meet.
|
The Silver Fire's Blade: A Novella in Nine Parts, Available Soon, in the Adventuring Forum!
|
Edited by - Brace Cormaeril on 15 Jun 2010 20:45:17 |
|
|
|
Mr_Miscellany
Senior Scribe
545 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2010 : 20:44:56
|
| Brace, see my PM please. |
|
|
|
BlackAce
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
358 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2010 : 20:53:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Brace Cormaeril
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
Well, I've spoken my peace on the subject of what I believe are ret-cons. Brace, you're starting to stoop to semantics to prove your point and I don't feel like getting caught in an endless loop.
Stoop to semantics? You seem to have a short memory there, Ashe. As we agreed, just a few posts up, to the importance of semantics in this exchange. I've actually provided sources and pg. #'s (for my assertions). Where are yours, Ashe? I asked you to provide a source for the crux of your argument, which was "elves remembered how to fey step" or some such. And your response is *I'm* relying on semantics? (You can keep the anecdotes.)
I remember now why I lurked Candlekeep for a decade. I am a extremely unimpressed with most of her scribes.
Thank you for your comments, Ashe. Although you failed to offer up any pseudo-scholoarly backing for you claims, they are appreciated.
The very fact the the 4ed Players Guide uses "High Elves" and "Eladrin" interchangably points to the ret-con. You answered the question yourself, Brace, I'm not certain what you expect Ashe to add. You are indeed using semantics to gloss over any point on that score if you already know the answer and refuse to aknowledge it?
I'm sorry but this whole thread has quickly revealed itself to be little more than a baiting exercise on your part, to start yet another edition flame war. I say that as I honestly cannot see what else you may be trying to prove?
And frankly, if you're so unimpressed with your fellow Candlekeep scribes, you feel the need to say so, maybe this site isn't for you. Especially as this is the third thread in a row where you've sunk to flaming. |
Edited by - BlackAce on 15 Jun 2010 20:54:55 |
|
|
|
Brace Cormaeril
Learned Scribe
294 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2010 : 21:08:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by BlackAce
quote:
Originally posted by Brace Cormaeril
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
Well, I've spoken my peace on the subject of what I believe are ret-cons. Brace, you're starting to stoop to semantics to prove your point and I don't feel like getting caught in an endless loop.
Stoop to semantics? You seem to have a short memory there, Ashe. As we agreed, just a few posts up, to the importance of semantics in this exchange. I've actually provided sources and pg. #'s (for my assertions). Where are yours, Ashe? I asked you to provide a source for the crux of your argument, which was "elves remembered how to fey step" or some such. And your response is *I'm* relying on semantics? (You can keep the anecdotes.)
I remember now why I lurked Candlekeep for a decade. I am a extremely unimpressed with most of her scribes.
Thank you for your comments, Ashe. Although you failed to offer up any pseudo-scholoarly backing for you claims, they are appreciated.
The very fact the the 4ed Players Guide uses "High Elves" and "Eladrin" interchangably points to the ret-con. You answered the question yourself, Brace, I'm not certain what you expect Ashe to add. You are indeed using semantics to gloss over any point on that score if you already know the answer and refuse to aknowledge it?
I'm sorry but this whole thread has quickly revealed itself to be little more than a baiting exercise on your part, to start yet another edition flame war. I say that as I honestly cannot see what else you may be trying to prove?
And frankly, if you're so unimpressed with your fellow Candlekeep scribes, you feel the need to say so, maybe this site isn't for you. Especially as this is the third thread in a row where you've sunk to flaming.
Black Ace, please review the (working) definition of "ret-con" above. In addition, please review the following link on Semantics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_dispute . You seem to be unfamiliar with both.
After you have done so, please state what type of ret-con the name change is, and how it meets the criterion for your assessment. I'm sure you'll find this to be an exciting intellectual exercise. |
The Silver Fire's Blade: A Novella in Nine Parts, Available Soon, in the Adventuring Forum!
|
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2010 : 21:17:24
|
Whatever... I already explained that what YOU think of as a retcon and what I think of as a retcon and what Mr. Misc thinks of as a retcon and what Wooly thinks of as a retcon (ad infinitum) will all be different - no two people, no matter how closely in agreement with each other, will draw the line in the EXACT same place.
The whole thing is subjective, making this exercise pointless, aside from once again dragging us through the changes that rubbed so many the wrong way. Its like having someone rub sandpaper on an open wound - let it heal already. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 15 Jun 2010 21:17:40 |
|
|
|
Saegis
Acolyte
Canada
23 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2010 : 21:18:38
|
One thing I noticed in the 4e FR player's guide is that there are racial feats for the Eladrin.
Eladrin are considered either to be Sun or Moon Elf. They aren't considered more powerful than Elves in any game play mechanic. Eladrin players can also choose to take the Sun or Moon Elf feats that give them specific bonuses that help distinguish them by their different heritage.
While I agree that the 3rd edition sub-races were more distinct, 4e did not completely throw away two elven sub-races and replace them with one race that are somehow more powerful than their Wood Elven counterparts. |
|
|
|
BlackAce
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
358 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2010 : 21:19:01
|
I'm of the opinon that it is you who is having trouble with the definition of semantics. After all, you haven't made any clear statement on what your own opinion is beyond belittling other people for stating theirs.
So here's a question for you. What exactly are you trying to assert? That taking what were two seperate races in previous editions and altering them into one isn't a change to previously established canon?
Oh and one other thing; spare me the sarcasm. It just reinforces my already low opinon of your attitude. |
Edited by - BlackAce on 15 Jun 2010 21:20:27 |
|
|
|
Brace Cormaeril
Learned Scribe
294 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2010 : 21:25:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by BlackAce
quote:
Originally posted by Brace Cormaeril
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
Well, I've spoken my peace on the subject of what I believe are ret-cons. Brace, you're starting to stoop to semantics to prove your point and I don't feel like getting caught in an endless loop.
Stoop to semantics? You seem to have a short memory there, Ashe. As we agreed, just a few posts up, to the importance of semantics in this exchange. I've actually provided sources and pg. #'s (for my assertions). Where are yours, Ashe? I asked you to provide a source for the crux of your argument, which was "elves remembered how to fey step" or some such. And your response is *I'm* relying on semantics? (You can keep the anecdotes.)
I remember now why I lurked Candlekeep for a decade. I am a extremely unimpressed with most of her scribes.
Thank you for your comments, Ashe. Although you failed to offer up any pseudo-scholoarly backing for you claims, they are appreciated.
The very fact the the 4ed Players Guide uses "High Elves" and "Eladrin" interchangably points to the ret-con. You answered the question yourself, Brace, I'm not certain what you expect Ashe to add. You are indeed using semantics to gloss over any point on that score if you already know the answer and refuse to aknowledge it?
I'm sorry but this whole thread has quickly revealed itself to be little more than a baiting exercise on your part, to start yet another edition flame war. I say that as I honestly cannot see what else you may be trying to prove?
And frankly, if you're so unimpressed with your fellow Candlekeep scribes, you feel the need to say so, maybe this site isn't for you. Especially as this is the third thread in a row where you've sunk to flaming.
One more thing, BlackAce. I personally believe that calling the Elves of Faerun Eladrin after the Spellplague is part of an Additive retcon. However, if they new abilities of this group changed as a result of "in world events", then, (as per THO's post) it is not a retcon at all... The issue of semantic arguments was addressed, redressed then glossed over. Please review the links above. |
The Silver Fire's Blade: A Novella in Nine Parts, Available Soon, in the Adventuring Forum!
|
|
|
|
BlackAce
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
358 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2010 : 21:41:36
|
Then maybe you should go back and look at my Redheaded Storm example above. If the High Elves becoming Eladrin is purely a new event, just as the Dark Elves becoming Drow was, then yes, it's not a retcon merely a change.
If however it is implied that this was always the case then it is indeed a retcon. The argument of semantics hinges on what both the 4e Players Guide and the Campaign setting state was previously the case. Do they actually state this was a change or do they gloss over it?
The former is not a retcon, the latter most definetly is. |
Edited by - BlackAce on 15 Jun 2010 21:43:31 |
|
|
|
Brace Cormaeril
Learned Scribe
294 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2010 : 21:45:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by BlackAce
Then maybe you should go back and look at my Redheaded Storm example above. If the High Elves becoming Eladrin is purely a new event, just as the Dark Elves becomming Drow was then yeas it's not a retcon merely a change. If however it is implied that this was always the case then it is indeed a retcon. The argument of semantics hinges on what both the 4e Players Guide and the Campaign setting State was previously the case. Do they actually state this was a change or do they gloss over it?
The former is not a retcon the latter most definetly is.
Where is it implied that the Elves of Faerun *were always* CG Outsiders?
The FRCS 4e states the opposite. From the "Important Facts" sidebar, pg.5
"9. Ancient elven lineages have returned to Faerūn.
With the reappearance of the Feywild, its natives
have begun exploring the world again. These fey
folk collectively call themselves eladrin, and many
Faerūnian elves have also adopted this name for
their lineage, though they have not forgotten their
traditional cultural distinctions and names. In casual
speech, the world elven collectively refers to the two
branches of this fey people: elves and eladrin." |
The Silver Fire's Blade: A Novella in Nine Parts, Available Soon, in the Adventuring Forum!
|
Edited by - Brace Cormaeril on 15 Jun 2010 21:50:13 |
|
|
|
BlackAce
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
358 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2010 : 21:58:56
|
| So basically eladrin have begun to appear on faerun and some moon/sun elves have begun calling themselves eladrin. That implies but doesn't explicitly state that the two race are interchangable or in other words the same race. In previous editions High Elves were not Fey. To state that the returned Eladrin are in fact one race is a change from previous editions. That the High Elves have not undergone a metamorphosis to become Eladrin means that yes, this is a retroactive change to continuity. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2010 : 22:27:14
|
I would like to explain myself a little better -
It was not really the changes that 4e made that bother me, although I did feel there were way too many once. It was the rather poor way in which they were implemented. Now, before I get lectured by the 4e crowd once again, let me explain in just one example, since it is the above statements that got me thinking along these lines.
Okay, they want to get rid of all the unnecessary baggage that D&D has accumulated over the years - I can not only get behind that, I applaud it! In fact, when I first found out about 4e and heard what they were planning, I was thinking "Finally!" - I have felt the game has gotten away from 'playability' and more into the realm of 'Intellectual exercise' over the years. I probably only use about 10% of the rules for 3e - there are just too many to keep track of.
Self-edit: Found myself going into 'soapbox mode' again - I erased a couple of unnecessary paragraphs.
In fact, a lot of what they did with the Elves is stuff I myself had already worked out - just look at my work in the Elven netbook - I had the Dark Elves as a form of Wood Elf long before WotC did. 
I had just two groups originally, that latter split into so many subgroups. The Drow are a special case - because of the Descant curse they became different enough to have a separate category, but the other groups all fit into the two main 'parent groups' of Gray/High Elves and wood Elves.
The funny thing is, a LOT of what they did mechanically I can agree with, but they went about it in a very lazy fashion. Why take known races like the Eladrin and re-classify them? Was thinking up a new name for the group TOO HARD for people who are getting paid to be fantasy designers?
Seriously, had they just came up with a new term, like 'The Feysworn', or 'Sidhe', or just about anything else fantasy-ish that sounded remotely related to faerie and/or Elves, and THEN said that all the others were part of THAT group, INCLUDING the Eladrin, I don't think we'd have half the problems we are having.
Semantics are VERY important in a gaming environment. Saying the (High) Elves were always Eladrin goes against the grain, but saying Eladrin are just the Elves' planer cousins would have been readily accepted, and fans would (probably) have been fine with it.
We already had a term for these types of Elves in D&D - Gray Elves, but since FR has already had some problems with that term (it being reversed from traditional D&D), we could have just 'went Tolkien' and called them high Elves and Wood Elves.
Wood Elves, High Elves, and Eladrin (higher Elves?), all part of some nameless over-group - THAT WORKS.
Taking a known, established group and changing it to become the over-group, while still retaining its standing as a seperate individual group is just confusing and helps to muddy the waters.
There are other examples of this - they choose to re-create older stuff, instead of working within the framework and simply better-organizing it.
And THAT is my biggest problem with 4e - both the rules and the lore - it was more a deconstructive effort, then anything creative. I fully understand and appreciate what they were trying to do, but I think they failed miserably, in that they alienated a large portion of their customers. A few simple word-changes and a little more thought would have gone a LONG way in NOT seeing these things as retcons.
Eladrin... how hard would it have been to just use a different name?
Its not like it was so awesome they just had to use it.
Do you see my point now? It is the semantics that screwed WotC in the end. The way in which you present something can mean all the difference in the world - I can gaurantee that the scribes here at The Keep could have taken the same exact changes and presented them in a much more palatable fashion... and we are not professionals (at least most of us aren't). It just had a certain sense of carelessness about it.
Brace, I am not trying to fan the flames; I'm just trying to make you understand why so many of us got disgruntled. 4e FR and rules were NOT the problem - the way in which it was handled was. When taken one mouthful at a time, a LOT of the new stuff isn't half bad... it just needs some 'sprucing up'.
And I've re-worded quite a bit of this as I went along, trying to make is as neutral-toned as possible, but I'm sure some things slipped past me, so forgive me in advance if I said anything in such a way that was misleading - I don't always do it on-purpose.
Edit: I have re-read and re-edited this several times - there are a few questionable spots, but I'm trying to get a point across so I will leave them. This may not have been entirely appropriate for this thread, but since the issue of semantics and personal subjectiveness came up, I thought (hopefully) it was okay. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 15 Jun 2010 23:44:42 |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4687 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2010 : 22:39:30
|
Turning Sun (Gold) and Moon (Silver elves is not a retcon, unless the lore says they always were and just they did not know it.
Retcons are things like 10th spells being banned and Epic magic allowed spell effects of 10th level or higher, they are things like changing the size of the land, they are things like saying an NPC never existed that effected past campaigns.
The Spellplauge clearly could have changed the Gold and Silver, there s also now Beown Elves. All of these events however do not change history. A retcon changes history of the Realms.
Oh as a foot note, FR only had limited 1st Edition and never was 0 Edtition. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
BlackAce
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
358 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2010 : 22:49:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
Turning Sun (Gold) and Moon (Silver) elves is not a retcon, unless the lore says they always were and just they did not know it.
And that is exactly what the blurb implies.
2ed/3ed: High Elves and Eladrin are two seperate races both with fey origins.
4ed: High Elves and Eladrin are the same race, just with slightly different cultures that are now beginning to blend.
|
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2010 : 23:48:49
|
OD&D - Elves were a class, NOT a race.
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
Oh as a foot note, FR only had limited 1st Edition and never was 0 Edtition.
Ed's pre-TSR Realms are sometimes referred to as the 'Zeroeth Edition'. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 15 Jun 2010 23:50:00 |
|
|
|
froglegg
Learned Scribe
317 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2010 : 23:57:28
|
Mourngrym Amcathra was a 6th level cavalier next thing you know he is not, he's just a fighter and now you will say he is dead so that doesn't count. Monks then no monks then return of the monk. RETCON RETCON no matter how you want to over look it Brace it happens from 1st edition to 2nd edition to 3rd edition and so on and so on.
John |
Long live Alias and Dragonbait! Kate Novak and Jeff Grubb the Realms need you more then ever!
On my word as a sage nothing within these pages is false, but not all of it may prove to be true. - Elminster of Shadowdale
The Old Grey Box gets better with age! |
|
|
|
althen artren
Senior Scribe
USA
780 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jun 2010 : 00:24:06
|
Sniff-sniff,
Hmmmm, they din't take the halfing. This reeks of a plan.
Quick, blow up the bridge and take them all out at once.. |
|
|
|
froglegg
Learned Scribe
317 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jun 2010 : 01:03:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by althen artren
Sniff-sniff,
Hmmmm, they din't take the halfing. This reeks of a plan.
Quick, blow up the bridge and take them all out at once..
Smoke powder anyone?
John |
Long live Alias and Dragonbait! Kate Novak and Jeff Grubb the Realms need you more then ever!
On my word as a sage nothing within these pages is false, but not all of it may prove to be true. - Elminster of Shadowdale
The Old Grey Box gets better with age! |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
4e-3e-2e-1e-0e retcons...
Topic Locked
