| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36798 Posts |
 Posted - 19 Jun 2010 : 14:42:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Now you see, that just proves that every point is arguable, especially in a setting as vast as FR.
If some 'oddball' Dwarves did indeed use magic, then the 3e 'change' was not a retcon at all. Obviously Dwarves could always 'do magic' but simply preferred not to.
In fact, I can point you to 2 examples of Dwarven magic. First, Bruenor constructed a magic Warhammer for Wulfgar - something requiring magical ability to do (as per the rules). There was also a city in Murghom (who's name escapes me ATM) that the Dwarves obliterated using magic, ostensibly because it was built in their territory (and it was Rune magic, but magic none-the-less).
Dwarves may have not been using magic simply as a cultural thing, but its obvious to me they had some - just look at the Wyrmskull throne, or The Axe of the Dwarven Lords.
If anything, I would say any form of magic that didn't include the physical shaping of an item or rune was prone to their magical resilience. In fact, I would take it a step further and say the Runes themselves were a means of bypassing that resilience (Moradin probably slapped them with some sort of 'crafting required' prerequisite).
Then after the ToT, they discovered that their natural resilience was fading, for whatever reason, and that they needn't be dependent upon Runes anymore to perform magic. By the time 3rd edition rolled around they had developed their own magical traditions again - assume a bunch of 'closet spellcasters' came forward and began to teach the young.
Hmmmm... Runes required to bypass inherent magical resistance... I think I just folded a new bit of lore into my homebrew...
The thing is, in 1E and 2E, dwarves could not be arcane spellsliingers. It was against the rules. We had a couple exceptions in the Realms, but those were exactly that -- exceptions. Kinda like dwelves and elf-orc crossbreeds. We knew they were there, but there were no game rules supporting it.
Wizard was not a potential character class for dwarves, and dwarves had problems using magical items. There's even a dwarven myth buried on the Wizards site that says the dwarves were Denied -- by their gods! -- and literally could not see the Nether Scrolls when the Scrolls were right in front of them. A gnome glanced at the Scrolls and became an illusionist, but the dwarves could not see them when looking directly at them.
The two examples you site... Bruenor was not a wizard. He used magic that one time, but it wasn't as much casting a spell as it was some sort of one-time ritual. And the city destroyed by dwarven magic? We don't have details -- it could have been a similar ritual, or it could have been entirely divine magic.
Bruenor's one-shot ritual would easily explain any number of dwarven magical items, even artifacts.
The point is that under 2E rules, there was exactly one way to become a dwarven wizard without breaking the rules: a single spot in Undermountain that allowed any existing character to become a wizard. That was it.
So dwarves had a hard time using magical items (remember, a 20% failure chance) and the wizard class was denied to them. And then, in 3E, without a single word, both of these restrictions were gone. Any dwarf could use any magical item without issues, and any dwarf could toss off arcane spells. That's a retcon.
And the thing that bugs me the most about it is that the opportunity to explain it was there. They took the time to explain the rising dwarven birth rate, by saying Moradin decided to help his people and gave them the Thunder Blessing. One sentence, right there in that section, could have explained how dwarves were suddenly able to use magic -- all they needed was something like "Seeing the rising use of magic among other races, Moradin lifted his Denial, giving his people the same options for magic use as the other peoples of the Realms." Less that thirty words would have turned it from a retcon to something new and shiny among dwarves. Thirty words. They couldn't even do that much, and instead left us with the same lame explanation we had for sorcerers and other things: "they were always there. You just didn't know about it." |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
 |
|
|
Brace Cormaeril
Learned Scribe
294 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2010 : 18:06:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
The thing is, in 1E and 2E, dwarves could not be arcane spellsliingers. It was against the rules. We had a couple exceptions in the Realms, but those were exactly that -- exceptions. Kinda like dwelves and elf-orc crossbreeds. We knew they were there, but there were no game rules supporting it.
In other words, dwarven spellcasters were supported in the lore, but not in the ruleset. One exception *does* lore make. In 1e, elven wizards couldn't exceed, what 14th level? (try building a mythal with 7th level spells...)
You seem to have forgotten THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE IN 1E AND 2E.
I can imagine a groups of physicists, standing about an earth mote in real life, whirling about in contempt of gravity... "Well, that seems to go against The Standard Model. But that is just an exception, the rule still applies. (And yeah, I know the Standard Model is incompatible with the fact the my computer works...)
|
The Silver Fire's Blade: A Novella in Nine Parts, Available Soon, in the Adventuring Forum!
|
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36798 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2010 : 20:20:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Brace Cormaeril
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
The thing is, in 1E and 2E, dwarves could not be arcane spellsliingers. It was against the rules. We had a couple exceptions in the Realms, but those were exactly that -- exceptions. Kinda like dwelves and elf-orc crossbreeds. We knew they were there, but there were no game rules supporting it.
In other words, dwarven spellcasters were supported in the lore, but not in the ruleset. One exception *does* lore make. In 1e, elven wizards couldn't exceed, what 14th level? (try building a mythal with 7th level spells...)
You seem to have forgotten THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE IN 1E AND 2E.
I can imagine a groups of physicists, standing about an earth mote in real life, whirling about in contempt of gravity... "Well, that seems to go against The Standard Model. But that is just an exception, the rule still applies. (And yeah, I know the Standard Model is incompatible with the fact the my computer works...)
No, one single example does not support the lore, either -- because the rest of the lore was all about how dwarves couldn't be arcane spellcasters. As in, other than one passing reference to a dwarven wizard, all of the lore for 1E and 2E -- whether Realms or otherwise -- said dwarves could not be wizards.
Did you not read what I said about a Realms-specific bit of lore that said magic was Denied to dwarves? Not denied small d, Denied with a capital D -- their gods did not allow it.
Most important rule of 1E and 2E? How is that relevant to a discussion about retroactive changes to continuity? |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2010 : 21:02:20
|
Sorry I started this train of thought...
I'm starting to see Brace's side of things (though still vehemently in disagreement with them) - if you can find even one instance of something in past lore, then obviously such things were always possible, if improbable (A Halfling bard?).
Brace is taking the lawyer's way out - if you can come up with at least one plausible reason why something isn't so, then you have eliminated 'Reasonable Doubt' and have provided 'an out'.
I understand that bit of logic, and often used it myself to defend the Ilythiir dark Elves over on the Wizards boards, and like Lord Karsus used to love to throw in my face - "The lack of evidence to the contrary is NOT evidence itself!"
God I miss those debates... we used to un-earth all sorts of esoteric canon lore in our battles to out-wit one another.. those were the days. 
Anyhow, I ran a 'Dwarf' Wizard in 2e, and did so legally, within the framework of the rules, because I can be a real rules-lawyer when I want to, and got my DM (my bro-in-law) to agree such was possible and allow it.
All this proves is that any point is arguable, and weather a thing is a retcon or not is merely a matter of one's sensibilities - it's all subjective, like I've been saying from the beginning.
I think part of the problem is with FR's original presentation - 'inaccurate reporting'. That means any new piece of info we get that over-writes old info is merely that - NEW information. The difference here is weather we want to call the old info 'inaccurate', or just plain 'wrong'. If the old info was 'wrong', we are more-likely to decide its a retcon, but if the info was just inaccurate, then we can chalk it up to that 'inaccurate reporting'.
Which once-again brings me around to a simple fact - each person is going to decide where to draw that line in their own minds, and no two people are going to agree when that line was crossed. I think the sheer plethora of 'new information' we received in 4e simply over-loaded our sensibilities, and that may be why so many of us finally drew the line at that point. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 19 Jun 2010 21:04:08 |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31727 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jun 2010 : 01:39:25
|
The dwarven wizards pre-3e argument has always fascinated me. There are plenty of cases where the Realms proper doesn't follow every detail of the ruleset. But in this case, FR11 tells us:- "Elminster . . . knows of no dwarven wizards, and believes the inherent magic resistance of 'trueblood' dwarves makes their mastery of wizardry impossible."
Of course, as ever, Elminster might be wrong, and the occasional unique dwarven wizard would be fully within the spirit of Realmslore. Instead, Wizards decided that dwarven wizards were henceforth not just possible but common -- thus making your formerly distinctive dwarf mage PC ordinary, and further homogenizing the races. The reasoning for this was never explained. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
Brace Cormaeril
Learned Scribe
294 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jun 2010 : 02:01:07
|
What's that phrase from the Old Mage from everyone's fav source, the OGB (I'm away from my books atm...)? "On my honor as a sage, nothing in these pages is false, though none of it may be true.". I think that's it...
Also, just because dwarven wizards are in the 3e ruleset doesn't mean they're common in the Realms. No one jumps up and down hollerin' in my campaign when they encounter a dwarven wizard... usually, my players delight in experiencing the rare and 'unique'. |
The Silver Fire's Blade: A Novella in Nine Parts, Available Soon, in the Adventuring Forum!
|
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jun 2010 : 02:26:27
|
See, I have never really had trouble with that bit, despite WotC officially just ignoring the whole thing. I came up with my own thesis, as did Wooly a couple of posts back, and that was that.
And just because the rules say they were possible in 3e didn't suddenly make 10,000 Dwarven Wizards appear. AS far as I was concerned, there were less then a hundred world-wide, and the only thing the new rules did was make it possible for players to BE one of these rare individuals.
As for the Wizard/Sorcerer thing, I use my own Spell-point system, making the existence of Sorcerers both redundant and unnecessary, ergo nothing at all changed in my FR.
My biggest complaint after the 3e release was the changing of the maps... which is why I spend so much time changing them back. 
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
"Elminster . . . knows of no dwarven wizards, and believes the inherent magic resistance of 'trueblood' dwarves makes their mastery of wizardry impossible."
Accent, mine. 
And the existence of even one - which we have in canon - thus proves Elminster was wrong. 
Like I keep saying, I completely understand where Brace is coming from - his tolerance level for change just happens to be MUCH higher then most of ours. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 20 Jun 2010 02:26:54 |
|
|
|
Brace Cormaeril
Learned Scribe
294 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jun 2010 : 02:54:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Brace Cormaeril
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
The thing is, in 1E and 2E, dwarves could not be arcane spellsliingers. It was against the rules. We had a couple exceptions in the Realms, but those were exactly that -- exceptions. Kinda like dwelves and elf-orc crossbreeds. We knew they were there, but there were no game rules supporting it.
In other words, dwarven spellcasters were supported in the lore, but not in the ruleset. One exception *does* lore make. In 1e, elven wizards couldn't exceed, what 14th level? (try building a mythal with 7th level spells...)
You seem to have forgotten THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE IN 1E AND 2E.
I can imagine a groups of physicists, standing about an earth mote in real life, whirling about in contempt of gravity... "Well, that seems to go against The Standard Model. But that is just an exception, the rule still applies. (And yeah, I know the Standard Model is incompatible with the fact the my computer works...)
No, one single example does not support the lore, either -- because the rest of the lore was all about how dwarves couldn't be arcane spellcasters. As in, other than one passing reference to a dwarven wizard, all of the lore for 1E and 2E -- whether Realms or otherwise -- said dwarves could not be wizards.
Did you not read what I said about a Realms-specific bit of lore that said magic was Denied to dwarves? Not denied small d, Denied with a capital D -- their gods did not allow it.
Most important rule of 1E and 2E? How is that relevant to a discussion about retroactive changes to continuity?
And yeah, Wooly, I saw that 'Denial' thing. Your source was a legend buried in the Wizards forums. You got a canom source for that?
I don't think that Bruenor's creation of Aegis Fang was an isolated event, though. I believe, (and I'm away from my sources) that in 'The Crystal Shard', it is mentioned that all dwarven smiths are required to craft such an item. Now, Bob Salvatore isn't always the best source of canon, though it is... Nor does it rule out that these items are the result of divine magic, though if you're stickin' to 1e-2e, weren't *all* magic items arcane (3e verncular) in nature.
At Markus real quick: If there were dwarven wizards in the past, this is not an attempt to 'call a lack of evidence, evidence', because, in fact, there *is* evidence, albeit obscure. Also, runecasters amongst the dwarves has been in my 'homebrew' for over 15 years. |
The Silver Fire's Blade: A Novella in Nine Parts, Available Soon, in the Adventuring Forum!
|
|
|
|
Brace Cormaeril
Learned Scribe
294 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jun 2010 : 03:07:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
See, I have never really had trouble with that bit, despite WotC officially just ignoring the whole thing. I came up with my own thesis, as did Wooly a couple of posts back, and that was that.
And just because the rules say they were possible in 3e didn't suddenly make 10,000 Dwarven Wizards appear. AS far as I was concerned, there were less then a hundred world-wide, and the only thing the new rules did was make it possible for players to BE one of these rare individuals.
As for the Wizard/Sorcerer thing, I use my own Spell-point system, making the existence of Sorcerers both redundant and unnecessary, ergo nothing at all changed in my FR.
My biggest complaint after the 3e release was the changing of the maps... which is why I spend so much time changing them back.
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
"Elminster . . . knows of no dwarven wizards, and believes the inherent magic resistance of 'trueblood' dwarves makes their mastery of wizardry impossible."
Accent, mine.
And the existence of even one - which we have in canon - thus proves Elminster was wrong.
Like I keep saying, I completely understand where Brace is coming from - his tolerance level for change just happens to be MUCH higher then most of ours.
Not change, my friend. As per the definition*s* of retcons agreed upon above, *Additions*, expansions upon previous lore. The real metric for Alteration retcons is: Does the new information make previous lore 'untenable'. If previous lore is not 'untenable', it is an Additive retcon, an expansion on previous lore.
I've done my best to avoid "real-life" comparisons, but think about how little we know about Egypt/Sumer. These civilization rose (we think, maybe...) 8000-10000 years ago. And we want Sages in 137x DR to have a complete picture of events that ocurred 30000 years ago? Give me some Additions, please. ('Cause I really wanna know...) |
The Silver Fire's Blade: A Novella in Nine Parts, Available Soon, in the Adventuring Forum!
|
|
|
|
Mr_Miscellany
Senior Scribe
545 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jun 2010 : 03:22:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
The reasoning for this was never explained.
I guess it depends on what you consider to be "reasoning".
If you're the type who wants reasoning of the "in-game" variety, well then you're right: it wasn't explained in-game, whether by an RSE or just some "fix it" bit of lore.
If you're the type who wants reasoning of the "What were the game design reasons for allowing dwarves to be spellcasters?" variety, then WotC did explain why the change took place, in detail*.
This change, like several other in the Realms that occurred to reflect the 2E to 3E transition, was of the "Magic Television" variety (where the "Magic Television" is the rules set that one views the setting through), which is to say from the point of view of the designers and the setting itself, dwarven mages always existed in the Realms, it's just that nobody—Elminster included—knew about most of them.
These and other changes (like the rising dwarven birthrate) were made this way because WotC chose to listen to fan feedback and not "blow up the Realms" as was done in the 1E to 2E transition. ...my how quickly WotC forgets what it learned, eh? ;)
Anywhoo, I'm not sure what this adds to the discussion, nor how this change would be catalogued under Brace' system of retcon definitions. I just wanted to make sure people understood that many of the changes—like dwarven spellcasters—were grounded in game mechanics and playability concerns.
They were not done "all of a sudden**" as some of the earlier scroll comments might imply.
*Level caps and class restrictions by race were cited as limiting factors for play. To the crop of designers working on 3E, these artificial limits (meant to keep humans abreast of the other demihuman races) got in the way of fun and play value for the game, so they were removed.
**On second reading through the thread I realize I may be misreading what "all of a sudden" means as it was used in the above posts on the scroll.
|
Edited by - Mr_Miscellany on 20 Jun 2010 18:46:52 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jun 2010 : 04:19:18
|
@Misc - level caps, like material components, is something I don't remember ever seeing any DM adhere to (although I'm aware that many did - I personally never encountered any of them).
@Brace - I realize now that I was a bit confusing - the 'lack of evidence argument' was more aimed at your arguments in general (referring to your definition of a 'retcon'), rather then this specific one concerning the Dwarves (since I agree that they've always been around - just well hidden).
|
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Brace Cormaeril
Learned Scribe
294 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jun 2010 : 04:20:44
|
I for one am not willing to consider my (certainly erroneous) conjecture regarding the designers intentions as yet *another* layer of meta.
Totally mind-blowing for me is that I was considering this implication (the various layers of meta, and the fanbases perception of the designers intentions as one of those meta-layers) just a few posts back. Too much meta for me. Score a point for Ashe and Markus: We all draw lines in the sand. |
The Silver Fire's Blade: A Novella in Nine Parts, Available Soon, in the Adventuring Forum!
|
|
|
|
Brace Cormaeril
Learned Scribe
294 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jun 2010 : 04:52:56
|
Markus: No offense. Your cartography rocks. I bow down.
But I haven't provided a definition for retcon. Ashe did. I just happen to agree with him; wiki is a good source.
I will (continue, irl) to offer your cartography the accolades it deserves in the DnD community. But humor me this... What part of the following is contradicts previous lore?
1385DR-Spellplague, feywilde becomes more attuned with Faerun.
1395DR-Eladrin (CG outsiders from the Outer Plane Faerie), make contact with the nobles of the elven court, revealing that they and the elves share a common heritage: rulership of the Feywilde, the elves ancient homeland Fae.
1405DR-The common elven populace becomes aware of an increase in 'fey mounds' 'fey crossroads', and the like.
1425DR-The Eladrin begin to openly serve the Elves, while reintroducing them to troves of lost art and artifice.
1445DR-In the 60 years since the new afinity for the Feywilde, and the cultural renaissance inherent to the elves reclaiming their greatest civilisation, elves have begun to identify with their Faerie heritage which they share with Eladrin. Amongst the elves, the phrase "Ghaelad'tel Quessir" (The People of the Light) is coined.
1470DR-Twenty five years later, most elves have embraced their connection to Faerie.
1480DR-Some human mispronounces "Ghaelad'tel
Quessir" as 'geh-Elad..ir.
Repeated later as Eladrin.
While Sages and scholars furled their brows in rage, the mispronounciation catches on.
The above is a poor work of fan-dom. But does it violate any canon? |
The Silver Fire's Blade: A Novella in Nine Parts, Available Soon, in the Adventuring Forum!
|
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36798 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jun 2010 : 05:21:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Brace Cormaeril
And yeah, Wooly, I saw that 'Denial' thing. Your source was a legend buried in the Wizards forums. You got a canom source for that?
I did not say it was on the Wizards forums. It was an article published on the Wizards site, circa 2000. It was put up at approximately the same time as the Roll of Years. It is official Wizards content and therefore canon.
I did not use the word forums anywhere. I specifically said their site.
quote:
Originally posted by Brace Cormaeril
I don't think that Bruenor's creation of Aegis Fang was an isolated event, though. I believe, (and I'm away from my sources) that in 'The Crystal Shard', it is mentioned that all dwarven smiths are required to craft such an item. Now, Bob Salvatore isn't always the best source of canon, though it is... Nor does it rule out that these items are the result of divine magic, though if you're stickin' to 1e-2e, weren't *all* magic items arcane (3e verncular) in nature.
And I said that the kind of ritual Bruenor did would explain a lot of dwarven magical items. Please read what I actually wrote.
Besides, casting a spell one time, thru some sort of ritual, does not a wizard make. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 20 Jun 2010 05:22:48 |
|
|
|
Brace Cormaeril
Learned Scribe
294 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jun 2010 : 05:29:09
|
| My bad, thanks Wooly. You got a link, or an article name for that? |
The Silver Fire's Blade: A Novella in Nine Parts, Available Soon, in the Adventuring Forum!
|
|
|
|
Brace Cormaeril
Learned Scribe
294 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jun 2010 : 05:43:36
|
Regarding Bruenor's magic item creation, I agree some more information is required. What methods for item creation, besides "arcane magic", did the 1e/ 2e ruleset allow?
I don't know what it is that "makes a wizard", or that makes one an "arcanespellslinger".
And if this bit of lore regarding the dwarves and the Nether Scrolls was published after the movie "What the *bleep* do We Know?", I'd consider this bit of lore derivitive based on fallacy |
The Silver Fire's Blade: A Novella in Nine Parts, Available Soon, in the Adventuring Forum!
|
|
|
|
Sylrae
Learned Scribe
Canada
313 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jun 2010 : 12:23:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Brace Cormaeril
What part of the following is contradicts previous lore?
1385DR-Spellplague, feywilde becomes more attuned with Faerun.
1395DR-Eladrin (CG outsiders from the Outer Plane Faerie), make contact with the nobles of the elven court, revealing that they and the elves share a common heritage: rulership of the Feywilde, the elves ancient homeland Fae.
1405DR-The common elven populace becomes aware of an increase in 'fey mounds' 'fey crossroads', and the like.
1425DR-The Eladrin begin to openly serve the Elves, while reintroducing them to troves of lost art and artifice.
1445DR-In the 60 years since the new afinity for the Feywilde, and the cultural renaissance inherent to the elves reclaiming their greatest civilisation, elves have begun to identify with their Faerie heritage which they share with Eladrin. Amongst the elves, the phrase "Ghaelad'tel Quessir" (The People of the Light) is coined.
1470DR-Twenty five years later, most elves have embraced their connection to Faerie.
1480DR-Some human mispronounces "Ghaelad'tel
Quessir" as 'geh-Elad..ir.
Repeated later as Eladrin.
While Sages and scholars furled their brows in rage, the mispronounciation catches on.
The above is a poor work of fan-dom. But does it violate any canon?
I don't see anything there that violates canon, and it serves as a bit of an explanation to the huge what the f*** that wizards threw out there with the eladrin race, but some parts don't make that much sense.
1. An Elven lifespan in FR is I believe 600+ years (Cormanthyr empire of elves lists like 6 lifespans, but for the most part), without magical intervention. Any elf over the age of maybe 60 or 70 would be more likely to continue to behave as they did through their whole lives, and not change everything now that they have met the eladrin.
2. A great deal of the elves in faerun come from mixed stock of green, sun, and moon elves, and therefore shouldn't be regarded as separate species...
3. According to Races of Faerun: Wood elves are about 2/3 sun and moon elf blooded, so why don't they count as eladrin?
4. Elves have still undergone an unexplained transformation into actual fey, as magic never affected them like they were fey before. (the rules change affects the fluff change in this sense).
5. The eladrin (CG Outsiders) are still also now fey, and different races of eladrin(pre4e) are now different groups of trained elves. Now, it seems silly to me to be able to train really hard and change your race. Just because a chimp wishes really hard, and trains to act like one, does not make it an ourangutang.
These are the sort of things that are hard to explain the change.
Now if canon went like this (some or much of this may or will likely contradict existing transitionary material, I'm not checking on this stuff right now).
1385DR-Spellplague, feywilde becomes more attuned with Faerun, pushing at the weak spots in the weave. (I believe some other deity starts trying to hold it together after mystra's death, I can't remember atm)
1390DR-The feywilde breaks through into Faerun in several places. The magic of the feywilde transforms many fey-like creatures into true fey. All elves become fey.
1395DR-Some Eladrin (CG outsiders from the Outer Plane Faerie), make contact with the nobles of the elven courts. They say the elves originally came from their plane.
1425DR-The Eladrin begin to openly serve the Elves, while reintroducing them to troves of lost art and artifice.
xxxDR- A bunch of high mages, and clerics, alter the races of moon and sun elves acros faerun to have some abilities of the Eladrin.
xxxDR- A major calamity happens(detail calamity over the course of like half a dozen books), exterminating all Eladrin.
xxxDR- Because the Eladrin have been wiped out, a great number of deities begin using the souls of dead elves to replace them in their stations. What were once different types of eladrin creatures are now positions granted to different high/moon elves.
Because they now serve in all the roles the eladrin once used to, the high and moon elves, now clearly a different species than the remainder of their former kin because of the high magic they conducted, take up the moniker of Eladrin.
That should about explain it.
Does it sound forced? yeah. does it close up those big gaps in logic? yeah. Would I have been more okay with it if wizards of the coast had gone this route? Probably, and I bet I'd have half a dozen more novels. It would have been a hell of alot more reasonable than the handwaving.
"dwarves can be wizards now, it's always been this way, ignore all proof to the contrary" is a bit of a smaller annoyance than "elves are fey, half the elves are a different species thanthe other half, even though much of the continent has mixed blood between the two, eladrin never existed as anything other than one of these two races, it's always been this way, ignore all proof to the contrary" |
Sylrae's Forgotten Realms Fan-Lore Index, with public commenting access to make for easier improvement (WIP) |
Edited by - Sylrae on 20 Jun 2010 12:25:22 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jun 2010 : 18:16:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Brace Cormaeril
My bad, thanks Wooly. You got a link, or an article name for that?
I read the article myself awhile back, but now I can't seem to locate it.
HOWEVER, I have found a link - to the WotC site - with the article in Word doc. format.
Tethyamar Dwarves and Nether Scrolls
It is written as a 'myth', so we are back to more of that 'unrelaible reporting' that Ed so-cleverly built in to his Realms. But since that Doc is hosted on WotC site, I hope that is proof-enough that the legend itself is canon. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 20 Jun 2010 19:33:31 |
|
|
|
Razz
Senior Scribe
USA
749 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jun 2010 : 19:27:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Brace Cormaeril
But humor me this... What part of the following is contradicts previous lore?
1385DR-Spellplague, feywilde becomes more attuned with Faerun.
1395DR-Eladrin (CG outsiders from the Outer Plane Faerie), make contact with the nobles of the elven court, revealing that they and the elves share a common heritage: rulership of the Feywilde, the elves ancient homeland Fae.
1405DR-The common elven populace becomes aware of an increase in 'fey mounds' 'fey crossroads', and the like.
1425DR-The Eladrin begin to openly serve the Elves, while reintroducing them to troves of lost art and artifice.
1445DR-In the 60 years since the new afinity for the Feywilde, and the cultural renaissance inherent to the elves reclaiming their greatest civilisation, elves have begun to identify with their Faerie heritage which they share with Eladrin. Amongst the elves, the phrase "Ghaelad'tel Quessir" (The People of the Light) is coined.
1470DR-Twenty five years later, most elves have embraced their connection to Faerie.
1480DR-Some human mispronounces "Ghaelad'tel
Quessir" as 'geh-Elad..ir.
Repeated later as Eladrin.
While Sages and scholars furled their brows in rage, the mispronounciation catches on.
The above is a poor work of fan-dom. But does it violate any canon?
See, if WotC did things like this (well, better than that I hope) then I am willing to bet the gripe with 4E lore being shoehorned into Realmslore wouldn't have been so venomous and would have died down a lot quicker. Granted, that's just something to explain away the Eladrin. You still have a million other things to explain away (cosmology, genasi, elves decreased lifespan, etc.). And seeing that as too hard of a task, they chose to wave it all away. When the simplest thing to do was to simply use one of the Unknown Continents already laid out as the "Abeir" they needed (and not wipe out Maztica/Anchorome) to introduce new races and deities/primordials, have it where they've been making constant contact with each other over the years (maybe during the tearing of the Weave, several hundred portals connecting Faerun and the new land sprung open) and everything else can stay the same. I really don't think the culling of deities was even necessary, use the "aspects" of thing if it bothered them that much (which I disagree with, but if it meant keeping Mulhorand still around, then so be it).
I think the point is, they had an easier route and didn't take it, because they saw the road ahead filled with too much "baggage". One of the designers even said this was intended to be a "reset" so their novel line can be easier to create (I wish I copied these quotes down somewhere now) because the authors and designers were tired of researching Realmslore in order to write a sourcebook/novel without contradicting anything (when they had us here to help them all along!)
I haven't bothered to look into it, but is the "Points of Light" setting also shoehorned into Eberron? And I assume it won't be with Dark Sun. I remember reading on the WotC forums how the Eberron fans were whining about their timeline only jumping a few years. Then WotC came out saying,"We'll leave the timeline where it is and if anything in 4E contradicts with Eberron lore, we'll make sure to have it explained in some manner." I really would love to know the explanation why Forgotten Realms got the shaft like this and the other settings aren't touched. Is there some vendetta against the Realms? Did one of the higher-ups in charge get ticked off by Ed or something?  |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jun 2010 : 19:40:53
|
Yes, more detailed lore (what little there was), and less bad-mouthing past editions (which amounts to calling fans of those editions stupid) would have gone a long way to smoothing things over between editions.
Like I keep saying, it wasn't any one of the changes themselves that were all that bad (or worse then what has gone before), it was the sheer number of them, and the complete lack of any explanation for most of them that drove many of us over the edge.
Everything in 4e could have been made more palatable - they simply didn't make the effort to do so.
The map was the icing on the cake - if anything says "This is DULL" it was that.  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Brace Cormaeril
Learned Scribe
294 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jun 2010 : 20:16:37
|
Sylvae: the crux of your points seems to be that you don't think it is appropriate for beings whose original homeland is "Faerie" to choose to refer to themsleves are "fey". I don't find this hard to believe.
I chose not to place any weird 'calamities' in my (poor, written in 5 mins) imagining of the 100 years between WotC's support of 3e and 4e. Such things are unneeded. (I did put in a goofy mispronounciation anectdote, and a dig at we grognards of Realmslore) No previous lore is made untenable by the Gold and Silver elves of Faerun choosing to call themselves Eladrin. If "magic" effects the elves of Faerun differently after the Feywilde's now greater affinity with Faerun (I don't know this to be the case in 4e... I don't, and won't, play it), then this is in line with "in story events".
You seem to be getting hung up on the 3e-4e-Magic:the Gathering approach to putting "subtypes", with actual rules effects, in monster descriptions.
This is not a problem for me, because if I chose to, I could run a Realms game with GURPs, Marvel Super Heroes, or Earthdawn or 2e-3e-4e-25th Shadowrun (probably a few more) rules sets... YMMV.
So Markus, two questions for you: Did you ever allow a PC to have access to a published FR map?
And, again, what lore is made untenable by, sometime between 1385 and 1480, some beings choosing to accept the term 'eladrin' as adequately synonomous with "elves". |
The Silver Fire's Blade: A Novella in Nine Parts, Available Soon, in the Adventuring Forum!
|
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36798 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jun 2010 : 20:23:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Razz
I think the point is, they had an easier route and didn't take it, because they saw the road ahead filled with too much "baggage". One of the designers even said this was intended to be a "reset" so their novel line can be easier to create (I wish I copied these quotes down somewhere now) because the authors and designers were tired of researching Realmslore in order to write a sourcebook/novel without contradicting anything (when they had us here to help them all along!)
There was also a complaint about there not being any places to set a story that didn't already have a tale there... You know, because only one interesting thing can ever happen in any given location. What really threw the argument out the window, though, was them immediately setting several novels in Waterdeep!  |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Matt James
Forgotten Realms Game Designer
USA
918 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jun 2010 : 21:16:26
|
quote:
There was also a complaint about there not being any places to set a story that didn't already have a tale there...
I'm not challenging because I have any form of retort, but I am curious where this complaint can be found. |
|
|
|
Kyrene
Senior Scribe
South Africa
757 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jun 2010 : 22:05:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
quote:
Originally posted by Brace Cormaeril
My bad, thanks Wooly. You got a link, or an article name for that?
I read the article myself awhile back, but now I can't seem to locate it.
HOWEVER, I have found a link - to the WotC site - with the article in Word doc. format.
Tethyamar Dwarves and Nether Scrolls
It is written as a 'myth', so we are back to more of that 'unrelaible reporting' that Ed so-cleverly built in to his Realms. But since that Doc is hosted on WotC site, I hope that is proof-enough that the legend itself is canon.
As to the veracity of that document (which I recall also reading a few times, but somehow never saving to my harddrive–now corrected), a little Googling produced this Ed Says article (also still at this point hosted on wizards.com). Grant Christie is mentioned in that article in the same context as SES, ELB and GK, and although it does not necessarily put a stamp of “canon” on “the dwarven myth,” it tends to make it look at the very least like “unofficial” official lore.
Edit: Also found this:quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos (in the Tarkomang, Lord of Tethyamar? scroll)
Grant Christie is one of the original "monks of Candlekeep" - he was one of the group who collated and put together that Roll of Years we all know and love.
-- George Krashos
*goes back to lurking in this volatile scroll* |
Lost for words? Find them in the Glossary of Phrases, Sayings & Words of the Realms
|
Edited by - Kyrene on 20 Jun 2010 22:21:50 |
|
|
|
Mr_Miscellany
Senior Scribe
545 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jun 2010 : 22:18:20
|
It's interesting to watch a bunch of armchair lore quarterbacks (someone explain that to Uzzy as he's not from the States) bitch and moan about how WotC "didn't try" and "failed" and "shouldn't have insulted the fans" and did things that "drove many of us over the edge", etc...
This is one of the things that turns me off about Candlekeep: you get the same group of people together on any topic related to edition changeover, and they just can't help but throw dirt at the game designers and novel authors, vaguely claim that everyone got upset with WotC (without really specifying who or for what exact reasons)and otherwise pollute a useful scroll. It just never fails.
Is it really too much to ask that y'all stop taking it so personally? I mean really, it's been a couple years. What's the sense in crying over milk spilled so long ago that there's just this dry stain left on the table?
I like where Brace is going as far as synching things up (such as his Eladrin name explanation timeline). Can we get back to focusing on that please? |
Edited by - Mr_Miscellany on 20 Jun 2010 22:25:46 |
|
|
|
Dark Wizard
Senior Scribe
USA
830 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jun 2010 : 22:24:40
|
| Welcome to fandom. :: waves :: |
|
|
|
Mr_Miscellany
Senior Scribe
545 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jun 2010 : 22:28:17
|
| Lolz it's nothing new to me, Dark Wizard. I'm just hoping for that next higher level of fandom. Call it the Vulcan level. ;) |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4687 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jun 2010 : 22:48:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Brace Cormaeril
Regarding Bruenor's magic item creation, I agree some more information is required. What methods for item creation, besides "arcane magic", did the 1e/ 2e ruleset allow?
Well let me see.
Divine Magic, heck even in 3.X Clerics can make magic items.
There is rune magic, there in Name magic, and a few others as well. |
"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 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36798 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jun 2010 : 22:51:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
quote:
There was also a complaint about there not being any places to set a story that didn't already have a tale there...
I'm not challenging because I have any form of retort, but I am curious where this complaint can be found.
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/drdd/20080828a
quote:
PA: By the summer of 2005, there wasn’t a whole lot left of Faerűn to discover. We’d spent the last fifteen years or so detailing just about every nook and cranny of the map, in hundreds of books, game products, short stories, comic books, Dragon articles, and Dungeon adventures. There was hardly a square centimeter on the poster map that wasn’t detailed somewhere, and frankly it was getting harder and harder to find room to tell a story. Authors, game designers, and DMs alike were being pushed farther and farther off to the edges. We knew we needed new places to discover, and the ability to refresh the core FORGOTTEN REALMS so that even the Dalelands had some surprises in store.
|
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Dark Wizard
Senior Scribe
USA
830 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jun 2010 : 22:54:15
|
I'm sure you're aware of it. It was just a friendly reminder. I don't think these types of responses ever let up, for any franchise/setting, for any side of the argument.
If you bring up the issue of the "Justice League" of Faerun, or the fumbling villains, or the soap opera pantheon aspects of the Realms with certain people they will give equally vehement responses.
These these reactions often generate lots of fan-produced lore and material, just like discontent with the map scales lead Markus to go off on his massive project, or lack of source books lead Lord Karsus to compile Elves of Faerun. Fans criticizing the lack of integration with Kara-Tur spawned the massive Kara-Tur thread on the Wizards forum.
Player criticism of the game-unfriendly aspects of the old Realms may in part have influenced designers to reevaluate the Realms for 4E. For better or worst, it's a loud noisy, often offensive part of community interactions, but they have their place. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
4e-3e-2e-1e-0e retcons...
Topic Locked
