Basic rules Wizards are Intelligent and Clerics are Wise. With both races included in the citation the and has less a meaning then and/or. Besides you appear to be ignoring Divine spells able to make magic items. You appear to be trying to claim a Drawf was a Wizard before it was possible.
Bruenor clearly created the item without being a Wizard, either used Divine magic, racial magic or one of the other more obscure magics. The magic Denied was access to Arcane magic.
As for a change in the Realms that allowed Drawven Wizards to start to exist that is not a retcon. That is just a change in the world, a retcon would be saying Bruenor was a Wizard.
"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
Deleted - forget it - we just keep going in circles here...
Welcome to club! Here's your ale and wings platter. Note that Brace has yet to prove his point of view either...
Didn't need to, Ashe. You proved it for me. And failed to provide a single untenable lore-bit...
Okay, let me get this straight. You want me to argue about how I haven't proven anything that meets your criteria because I commented on how nothing you put forward meets my criteria.
So, anyway, how about that Koman Coulibaly? Can you believe he cost us a goal?
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
quote:Originally posted by Brace Cormaeril Please review the definition of retcon we are using in this scroll, it is linked on the first page.
I read it when the thread was only a page long. I'm aware of the difference betweedn additive, subtractive, and alteration retcons. I don't have any problem with the additive ones, only the other two. Thanks a bunch though.
quote:Originally posted by Brace CormaerilPer this scroll, Sylvae, what you refer to as 'contradictions' are, in fact, retcons. (Maybe even Alteration retcons)
When I say contradictions, I mean Alteration or Subtractive retcons that make existing lore untenable, unless the retcon is explained as some sort of natural flowing of events (which would make them no-longer retcons, I am aware).
quote:Originally posted by Brace CormaerilI don't believe that an untenable retcon, thereby meeting the metric for "Alteration" retcon, has been broached in this thread. Some have stated as much, but have been unwilling to provide sources/validation for this supposition.
I've provided untenable retcon examples, and shown sources, and pointed out areas both in your fan-based-explanation and in existing canon lore that have huge holes in the logic, and large pieces of unexplained changes. I've even written a piece of fan-lore that would turn some of the untenable retcons into natural flowing events. 1. Subtractive Retcon: The races of Eladrin never existed. 2. Alteration Retcon: Eladrin have always been a race that has previusly referred to as elves. 3. Alteration Retcon: Moon& Sun Elves vs. Wild & Wood Elves. Used to be different subraces, now they're different species. 4. Alteration Retcon: Elves, and Eladrin are now Fey. 5. Illogical fan-explanation, justification of poorly explained changes:
quote:I chose not to place any weird 'calamities' in my ... imagining of the 100 years between WotC's support of 3e and 4e. Such things are unneeded.
100 years is only like a sixth or more of their lifespan, and it takes longer than that for an infant to even reach adulthood. In that small of a time period, why would they all change, without a major event to cause it?
quote:Originally posted by Brace CormaerilSylvae: Please provide a source for your assertion that I have discounted any retcons. I have not.
Easiest one:
quote: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.
Where the types affect how the world affects them and how they are affected by the world, they aren't simply game mechanics, and therefore it is an alteration retcon.
quote: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".
Magic would affect them differently due to the fact that they count as fey. This change of counting them as fey is applied retroactively, which means it contradicts lore in a nigh infinite number of places. Example: suddenly, all elves have "ALWAYS" been able to use items that are only usable by fey. fey-bane weapons have "ALWAYS" affected elves, etc. The list goes on.
Also, a side-note:
quote: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 don't care what people in the feywild call themselves, that doesn't change what they are or are not. I can take a dog and call it a duck, but that doesn't make it a duck. Even if the dog came up to me, and magically talked and told me "I am a duck", that still does not make the dog a duck.
Okay, there is obviously no point in me continuing this discussion. Having a proper debate requires that all parties listen to what the others have to say -- and that's not happening in this scroll.
Okay, there is obviously no point in me continuing this discussion. Having a proper debate requires that all parties listen to what the others have to say -- and that's not happening in this scroll.
Passes the ale & wings to the furry one.
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Yeah. I think you're about right Wooly. It shouldnt get to the point where you're having to quote a couple pages back because people weren't listening the first time. It's a shame too. Some good stuff came out of this thread.
Maybe the good stuff can be pulled out and used elsewhere.
Ok, now this is getting good. No, better, because I've enjoyed it all the way.
quote: Originally posted by Sylrae I'm aware of the difference betweedn additive, subtractive, and alteration retcons. I don't have any problem with the additive ones, only the other two.
Thank you for choosing to use the vernacular established on the first page. There were some tirades regarding semantics earlier on; such can be avoided with careful use of jargon.
quote: 1. Subtractive Retcon: The races of Eladrin never existed. 2. Alteration Retcon: Eladrin have always been a race that has previusly referred to as elves. 3. Alteration Retcon: Moon& Sun Elves vs. Wild & Wood Elves. Used to be different subraces, now they're different species. 4. Alteration Retcon: Elves, and Eladrin are now Fey. 5. Illogical fan-explanation, justification of poorly explained changes:
I'm not really sure what that is supposed to be a list of, but I've some thoughts. 1. We know that Eladrin have existed in D&D since the Planescape MMII 2. No one has stated that Eladrin have always been a race that has previously been referred to as elves. 3. I am not familiar with the concept of "species" in dungeons and dragons. In fact, the elves you mention in point three are *not* different species, using any definition of the word with which I am familiar. 4. Elves and Eladrin are fey. This is (may be) an "Addition" retcon as it pertains to Elves. This is an Addition retcon because the following statement is not untenable: As a result of the new proximity of Faerun and the Feywilde, elves are fey. I am unfamiliar with any treatment of 2e Eladrin in 4e.
quote: Where the types affect how the world affects them and how they are affected by the world, they aren't simply game mechanics, and therefore it is an alteration retcon.
Luckily, we are given an explanation. The proximity of the Feywilde.
5. Illogical fan explanation:
quote:100 years is only like a sixth or more of their lifespan, and it takes longer than that for an infant to even reach adulthood. In that small of a time period, why would they all change, without a major event to cause it?
This claim is deductively invalid (it's framed like a question, but I get your point); hence, illogical. My fan-fic was just a trifle in an attempt to drive home how easy it is to see that it is not an untenable position to say that some Elves of Faerun have adopted the name Eladrin, as is the case in 1480DR. Hence, if the position is not untenable, but it doesn't hail from in-line events, it is an "Addition" retcon.
quote:When I say contradictions, I mean Alteration or Subtractive retcons that make existing lore untenable, unless the retcon is explained as some sort of natural flowing of events (which would make them no-longer retcons, I am aware).
You're totally right at the start there, that "Alteration" and "Subtraction" retcons emerge from new lore that makes existing lore untenable. But Elves adopting the name Eladrin is an Additive retcon at worst... The kind we both like! Good to know.
quote:Magic would affect them differently due to the fact that they count as fey. This change of counting them as fey is applied retroactively, which means it contradicts lore in a nigh infinite number of places. Example: suddenly, all elves have "ALWAYS" been able to use items that are only usable by fey. fey-bane weapons have "ALWAYS" affected elves, etc. The list goes on.
The Elves of Faerun become fey as a result of the closer proximity of Faerun and the Feywilde. This is an Additive retcon, as it does not contradict any previous lore. If a source can be provided that states something to this effect, it is not a retcon at all.
quote:I don't care what people in the feywild call themselves, that doesn't change what they are or are not. I can take a dog and call it a duck, but that doesn't make it a duck. Even if the dog came up to me, and magically talked and told me "I am a duck", that still does not make the dog a duck.
I have soooo many real world examples of cultural revolutions, and ensuing cultural identification, from around the world, many of which are deeply charged issues, so I won't discuss them here. Pick a continent on Earth, and them read some history of nearly any cultural group on that continent. But heres a nice fantastic one:
You proclaim, "Foul demon-dog! Thou art not a duck!" To which a passerby replies, "No, man... that's a duck. All canines are referred to as ducks. Get with the program, mate. It's 2111...." "By the freezing plains of Baator!," you think aoud, "I better check this out!" Interviews with a number of people on the street indicate that, indeed, *everyone* has chosen to identify canine species as ducks! (and you are a time traveler!) And you decide, that, indeed, a rose by any other name smells as sweet, and a dog by any and other designation is just as loyal.
The Silver Fire's Blade: A Novella in Nine Parts, Available Soon, in the Adventuring Forum!
Edited by - Brace Cormaeril on 21 Jun 2010 10:18:23
quote:Originally posted by Brace Cormaeril 1. We know that Eladrin have existed in D&D since the Planescape MMII
In 4e, the Eladrin from previous editions are not mentioned anywhere. the closest alternative are:
quote:2. No one has stated that Eladrin have always been a race that has previously been referred to as elves.
The ancient elven lineage from the feywild are referred to as eladrin in 4e. what used to be different races of eladrin are now attainable positions for these feywild eladrin elves.
quote:3. I am not familiar with the concept of "species" in dungeons and dragons. In fact, the elves you mention in point three are *not* different species, using any definition of the word with which I am familiar.
In previous editions of D&D, Sun/Moon/Green Elves were all elves. in 4e FR, the green elves are elves, and the sun/moon elves are mentioned as having been a different but similar type of creature from the same place.
quote: 4. Elves and Eladrin are fey. This is (may be) an "Addition" retcon as it pertains to Elves. This is an Addition retcon because the following statement is not untenable: As a result of the new proximity of Faerun and the Feywilde, elves are fey. From what I read, elves becoming fey is not a side effect of the proximity of the feywild. I'll double check that either later tonight or in the morning. It seemed to be written as though they were always fey in the frcg. I'll admit that without the direct quote to back me up I could have missed something. So I'll look in a bit.
quote:Where the types affect how the world affects them and how they are affected by the world, they aren't simply game mechanics, and therefore it is an alteration retcon.
Luckily, we are given an explanation. The proximity of the Feywilde. Additive retcon.
Don't recall seeing that as the explanation to them being fey. again, I'll look that up again.
quote:I am unfamiliar with any treatment of 2e Eladrin in 4e.
2e Eladrin, as with 3e Dragonborn, and 2e/3e Dragonkin, are deliberately not covered in 4e. the world is written as though they never existed. With the addition of different creatures using the same names, I don't think that is neglect. Hence subtractive retcon.
quote:
quote:Magic would affect them differently due to the fact that they count as fey. This change of counting them as fey is applied retroactively, which means it contradicts lore in a nigh infinite number of places. Example: suddenly, all elves have "ALWAYS" been able to use items that are only usable by fey. fey-bane weapons have "ALWAYS" affected elves, etc. The list goes on.
The Elves of Faerun become fey as a result of the closer proximity of Faerun and the Feywilde. This is an Additive retcon, as it does not contradict any previous lore. If a source can be provided that states something to this effect, it is not a retcon at all.
It contradicts previous lore, that stated elves were humanoid.
5. Illogical fan explanation:
quote:100 years is only like a sixth or more of their lifespan, and it takes longer than that for an infant to even reach adulthood. In that small of a time period, why would they all change, without a major event to cause it?
This claim is deductively invalid (it's framed like a question, but I get your point); hence, illogical. My fan-fic was just a trifle in an attempt to drive home how easy it is to see that it is not an untenable position to say that some Elves of Faerun have adopted the name Eladrin, as is the case in 1480DR. Hence, if the position is not untenable, it is an "Addition" retcon. With the information that has ben published, there is nothing to adequately explain the changes mentioned. If they had published sufficient transitionary material to fill in the gap, that would be different. As of yet, they have not provided transitionary material to explain it, and are instead using the model of 'treat it like they were always there.'
quote:When I say contradictions, I mean Alteration or Subtractive retcons that make existing lore untenable, unless the retcon is explained as some sort of natural flowing of events (which would make them no-longer retcons, I am aware).
You're totally right at the start there, that "Alteration" and "Subtraction" retcons emerge from new lore that makes existing lore untenable. But Elves adopting the name Eladrin is an Additive retcon at worst... The kind we both like! Good to know.
I think you're unfamiliar with the definition of additive retcon as described. If there is a logical sequence of events to explain something, it isn't a retcon at all. it becomes a retcon when you're writing something that changes the past. An additive retcon writes about the past and details something that had not been detailed. An alteration retcon writes in the past about things that had been detailed, but writes things that contradict existing material.
quote:
quote:I don't care what people in the feywild call themselves, that doesn't change what they are or are not. I can take a dog and call it a duck, but that doesn't make it a duck. Even if the dog came up to me, and magically talked and told me "I am a duck", that still does not make the dog a duck.
I have soooo many real world examples of cultural revolutions, and ensuing cultural identification, from around the world, many of which are deeply charged issues, so I won't discuss them here. Pick a continent on Earth, and them read some history of nearly any cultural group on that continent. But heres a nice fantastic one:
You proclaim, "Foul demon-dog! Thou art not a duck!" To which a passerby replies, "No, man... that's a duck. All canines are referred to as ducks. Get with the program, mate. It's 2111...." "By the freezing plains of Baator!," you think aoud, "I better check this out!" Interviews with a number of people on the street indicate that, indeed, *everyone* has chosen to identify canine species as ducks! (and you are a time traveler!) And you decide, that, indeed, a rose by any other name smells as sweet, and a dog by any and other designation is just as loyal.
You are arguing it is just a name change, which has become widely accepted. I am arguing that in addition to a name change, they are changing established history by giving the creatures abilities they did not possess, making new quantifiable physical divisions between breeds of elves that did not exist. They are also using the name change to replace the original creatures with that name, with the newly renamed creatures. In addition, they changed the race's category to fey, which, unless there is a source saying that the change is due to the proximity to the feywild, is a retroactive change(retcon) of the annoying alteration variety.
To be honest Brace, you may even have some valid arguments sometimes, but the way you conduct your debate is grating, and comes across as you ignoring everything anyone else says, or discounting it as invalid by making assertions about their words that you shouldn't be making, or intentionally interpreting what they say in alternate ways that have enough of a different meaning for you to argue they were saying somethign they were never actually saying to begin with, and it's rather frustrating.
Forget the definition of 'retcon', we can't even agree on the definition of what constitutes a 'setting', nor what is 'canon'.
So when different people have different definitions (which, as I said, are just our own personal 'lines in the sand'), everyone is going to only agree that their own perspective it correct, which they quantify within the parameters of their own definitions.
Please tell me what I just said....
I should have stuck with "I give up"... it was easier...
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
Why is the definition provided by Ashe insufficient?
Is it appropriate to call denizens of Faerie, fey?
To meet the definition for "Subtractive" retcon, some new bit of lore would have to state that CG Outsiders, native to Arborea and composed of Ghaele, Braelani, tulani, etc.., never existed. What's the phrase, "the lack of evidence is not itself evidence"?
If the new proximity of Faerun and Faerie, er the Feywilde, accounting for the new *abilities* of elves is not explicitly stated in the lore, it is not an Alteration, because the above statement (regarding planar proximity) could be made, and that statement is not untenable. If some bit of lore said that elves always had the abilities they have post-plague, we just didn't know it, the it is an "Alteration" retcon. I have seen no source which allude to Alteration.
Thanks to everyone, especially Wooly, for your participation in this thread. I've learned a lot about Realmslore, and the community who loves it.
The Silver Fire's Blade: A Novella in Nine Parts, Available Soon, in the Adventuring Forum!
Thanks to everyone, especially Wooly, for your participation in this thread. I've learned a lot about Realmslore, and the community who loves it.
And your condescension still knows no bounds. It is no wonder you dismiss out of hand something written by someone who was clearly acknowledged as helping with "The third incarnation of the Forgotten Realms setting," in a capacity as "we must never forget the "Lore Lords" of the Forgotten Realms, such as Steven Schend, Eric Boyd, George Krashos, Grant Christie, Bryan Wischstadt, and many, many others who check this and add that and fix this other little bit". Clearly Ed doesn't just "like" Grant Christie, or the others he thanked specifically. But then, I don't suppose you hold any of those "others" in high esteem either.
I'd like to actually see you contribute something lore-wise to this place, or indeed the next Candlekeep Compendium, instead of just baiting other scribes here with very thinly veiled barbs and personal attacks.
My response above is to your original, unedited post, which I quote in full in that response.
Now, regarding your full, edited response. I was initially prepared to accept this dwarven legend as canon, but then I wasn't sure if it was... You see, another sage mentioned something that made me think that it didn't qualify.
quote:Originally posted by Kyrene 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.
But then Wooly clarified the source's source, so I was cool with it.*** Now, it doesn't say what Wooly thinks it says, but maybe the God of Space Hamsters has enveloped him in some sort of "Denial".
Real quick, just because some sages don't agree with me, doesn't mean I don't respect their contributions. However, if challenging a sage's scholarly acumen is considered a personal attack, then I think that sage needs to keep his day job.
quote:Originally posted by Kyrene
quote:Originally posted by Brace Cormaeril
Thanks to everyone, especially Wooly, for your participation in this thread. I've learned a lot about Realmslore, and the community who loves it.
And your condescension still knows no bounds. It is no wonder you dismiss out of hand something written by someone who was clearly acknowledged as helping with "The third incarnation of the Forgotten Realms setting," in a capacity as "we must never forget the "Lore Lords" of the Forgotten Realms, such as Steven Schend, Eric Boyd, George Krashos, Grant Christie, Bryan Wischstadt, and many, many others who check this and add that and fix this other little bit". Clearly Ed doesn't just "like" Grant Christie, or the others he thanked specifically. But then, I don't suppose you hold any of those "others" in high esteem either.
I'd like to actually see you contribute something lore-wise to this place, or indeed the next Candlekeep Compendium, instead of just baiting other scribes here with very thinly veiled barbs and personal attacks.
*** Edit: I was cool with it because Wooly is a kick ass sage who has 'forgotten' more Realmslore than I'll ever know.
The Silver Fire's Blade: A Novella in Nine Parts, Available Soon, in the Adventuring Forum!
Edited by - Brace Cormaeril on 21 Jun 2010 09:42:50
Is the quote above some deeply layered, multi-faceted commentary on this thread? Or are you just casting aspersions in my direction?
I think, good sir, that thy kettle might be black.
All this talk reminds me of the words of a certain fictional character: "The wise speak only of what they know, Gríma son of Gálmód. A witless worm have you become. Therefore be silent, and keep your forked tongue behind your teeth. I have not passed through fire and death to bandy crooked words with a serving-man till the lightning falls." Don't be insulted now, Brace, because 'tis only a recollection, naught more. I am quite sure that your tongue is fork-less.
You ask for "What retcons were introduced in (the published version) of GHotR and the 4e Campaign Setting and Players books?", but accept none. Clearly, you are so deeply in love with "the fantastic work of the 4e design team" that you refute any argument that puts your darling to shame. I applaud your unquestioning loyalty. Such loyalty, however, wastes everyone else's time. You are not interested in hearing us out. To your eyes, the Spellplagued Realms is without flaw. Arguing with such an enthusiastic defender is without point.
Is the quote above some deeply layered, multi-faceted commentary on this thread? Or are you just casting aspersions in my direction?
I think, good sir, that thy kettle might be black.
Actually neither. I wasn't merely casting, as my edited version proves, I was calling you out. But then that's what you get for still replying to an un-edited post more than 2 minutes after I had already submitted my edited version. Oh, I forget, you just had to prove how innocent you are and how dastradly my unwarranted attack on you was, leading me to...
If my kettle is indeed black, and you are thereby implying that I am the one trolling, does that not make you a troll too? (your black pot and all that...)
quote:Originally posted by Brace Cormaeril
Real quick, just because some sages don't agree with me, doesn't mean I don't respect their contributions. However, if challenging a sage's scholarly acumen is considered a personal attack, then I think that sage needs to keep his day job.
Once again you failed at what you have accused others of doing. You failed to read. I draw your attention to:
quote:Originally posted by Brace Cormaeril
Written by someone Ed praises on that page, but not canon
quote:Originally posted by Brace Cormaeril
and written by someone Ed likes... (he likes everyone, tho)
To spell it out clearly: I said nothing about your respect, or lack thereof, for the contributions of other scribes here at Candlekeep. I also said nothing about challenging said scribes about their knowledge, or lack, of lore. I called you out for a general condescending attitude towards "the community who loves it" (your words), Wooly in particular, and Grant Christie (who must have contributed a significant amount to 3E FR for Ed to have singled him out, among others, for praise) whose document (although hosted at Wizards and despite my futile attempts at researching and providing some short testimony for) you dismissed as nothing more than "it's good, it [sic] flavor-ful [sic]". You were just once again in such a hurry to sound your own opinions, disparage others at the same time, and deflect once again any calls to your troll-like behaviour that you couldn't take the time to read or comprehend any position other than your own.
Now, I have very neatly allowed for your last little bit of baiting to hook me, and shame on me for that. I very well might have attracted the Staff of the Moderator +5 for what I have said, but it had to be done. This is the last I will be feeding you, oh-Brace-of-trolls, and it is a great pity the others who have so patiently replied to you for 7 pages have allowed themselves to also feed your trollish appetite for so long!
Now, and in future, I shall merely answer any post by you with: "Begone troll!" (if I can be bothered to read your bait–or offal, if you prefer–in the first place)
Is the quote above some deeply layered, multi-faceted commentary on this thread? Or are you just casting aspersions in my direction?
I think, good sir, that thy kettle might be black.
Actually neither. I wasn't merely casting, as my edited version proves, I was calling you out. But then that's what you get for still replying to an un-edited post more than 2 minutes after I had already submitted my edited version. Oh, I forget, you just had to prove how innocent you are and how dastradly my unwarranted attack on you was, leading me to...
If my kettle is indeed black, and you are thereby implying that I am the one trolling, does that not make you a troll too? (your black pot and all that...)
quote:Originally posted by Brace Cormaeril
Real quick, just because some sages don't agree with me, doesn't mean I don't respect their contributions. However, if challenging a sage's scholarly acumen is considered a personal attack, then I think that sage needs to keep his day job.
Once again you failed at what you have accused others of doing. You failed to read. I draw your attention to:
quote:Originally posted by Brace Cormaeril
Written by someone Ed praises on that page, but not canon
quote:Originally posted by Brace Cormaeril
and written by someone Ed likes... (he likes everyone, tho)
To spell it out clearly: I said nothing about your respect, or lack thereof, for the contributions of other scribes here at Candlekeep. I also said nothing about challenging said scribes about their knowledge, or lack, of lore. I called you out for a general condescending attitude towards "the community who loves it" (your words), Wooly in particular, and Grant Christie (who must have contributed a significant amount to 3E FR for Ed to have singled him out, among others, for praise) whose document (although hosted at Wizards and despite my futile attempts at researching and providing some short testimony for) you dismissed as nothing more than "it's good, it [sic] flavor-ful [sic]". You were just once again in such a hurry to sound your own opinions, disparage others at the same time, and deflect once again any calls to your troll-like behaviour that you couldn't take the time to read or comprehend any position other than your own.
Now, I have very neatly allowed for your last little bit of baiting to hook me, and shame on me for that. I very well might have attracted the Staff of the Moderator +5 for what I have said, but it had to be done. This is the last I will be feeding you, oh-Brace-of-trolls, and it is a great pity the others who have so patiently replied to you for 7 pages have allowed themselves to also feed your trollish appetite for so long!
Now, and in future, I shall merely answer any post by you with: "Begone troll!" (if I can be bothered to read your bait–or offal, if you prefer–in the first place)
Here's your ale. Do you like your wings extra spicy or mild? We've got a nice table over here just watching.
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
4e-3e-2e-1e-0e retcons...
Topic Locked
Posted - 21 Jun 2010 : 03:36:08
It is no wonder you dismiss out of hand something written by someone who was clearly acknowledged as helping with "The third incarnation of the Forgotten Realms setting," in a capacity as "we must never forget the "Lore Lords" of the Forgotten Realms, such as Steven Schend, Eric Boyd, George Krashos, Grant Christie, Bryan Wischstadt, and many, many others who check this and add that and fix this other little bit". Clearly Ed doesn't just "like" Grant Christie, or the others he thanked specifically. But then, I don't suppose you hold any of those "others" in high esteem either.
