| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
MrHedgehog
Senior Scribe
688 Posts |
 Posted - 19 Jul 2011 : 09:47:58
|
|
Why are Sharn now "chaotic evil"? On page 266 of the 4th edition manual. Being touched by the spell plague seems like an incomplete reason... Are all Sharn now evil, or just some?
|
|
|
Bladewind
Master of Realmslore
Netherlands
1280 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jul 2011 : 11:18:01
|
I think its the constant pain they experience for their current situation: they were multiple personalities who merged and heavily invested themselves in a magical, weave-adapted form and are starved now. Hungry for 'weave based' magic and slowly falling apart/going insane/losing their selves.
Its tragic really. |
My campaign sketches
Druidic Groves
Creature Feature: Giant Spiders |
 |
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jul 2011 : 17:20:26
|
While Bladewind's explanation appeals to me, I still view the sharn as more *chaotic* than evil, and see their new definition as "chaotic evil" more as a consequence of the redefinition of the alignment system (i.e. no more chaotic neutral now).
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Brian R. James
Forgotten Realms Game Designer
USA
1098 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jul 2011 : 18:03:04
|
The sharn's listing as Chaotic Evil in the FRCG was a mistake. This was corrected in later errata and explained by Chris Sims in a sidebar of the Ecology of the Sharn article I wrote for Dragon #373.
quote:
Sharn Alignment
In an upcoming Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide
update, the sharn (page 266) will receive a revision
in alignment to unaligned. This alters the
plaguechanged sharns to the alignment they were
always intended to have. Plaguechanged sharns
are enigmatic and erratic, and they seek to spread
the Spellplague, but they are no more evil than
the Spellplague itself.
One might wonder why the sharn was ever
published as chaotic evil. The answer to that
weirdness lies in the early design for Fourth Edition,
when we had a Chaotic alignment that meant
“chaotic but not evil.” I gave the plaguechanged
sharns that alignment, because it made sense with
their behavior. When the alignment system solidified,
the sharn was then inadvertently switched to
chaotic evil against the original design intent. The
update and this sidebar correct that mistake.
—Chris Sims
|
Brian R. James - Freelance Game Designer
Follow me on Twitter @brianrjames |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jul 2011 : 19:07:09
|
Well, there you have it. My thought was that "chaotic evil" was just the closest they could get to the real alignment for the sharn, but I like this fix here. 
I'd kinda like a return to five alignment choices ("Good," "Lawful," "Unaligned/Neutral", "Chaotic," "Evil"), but then, that might just be nostalgia talking.
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Neo2151
Learned Scribe
USA
118 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jul 2011 : 23:04:40
|
See, I'd prefer no alignment rules at all. Even back in 3.x you could constantly hear people describe their alignment as "I'm alignment A but I have tendencies towards alignment B."
That was back when there were 9 alignment options. Now there's less? IMO, alignment is way too broad a scope to try and put rules on. It's akin to trying to sum up what kind of person your character is with a word or two. Can you do that with yourself? I didn't think so!  |
"Come looking for me, and I will blast you to dust, and then lay waste to all your descendants, ancestors, and the realm you came from, every last tree and stone of it. Why? Well, it's what I usually do."
-Baerendra Riverhand on The Story of Spellfire |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jul 2011 : 00:51:46
|
Well, as I see it, alignment is fundamentally two things: 1) A DM's shorthand for "how does this creature generally behave?" and 2) sometimes a mechanical distinction (i.e., for the purpose of holy, axiomatic, etc, weapons or spells). It is of extremely limited use to players, except to give sort of a guideline to orient their characters around. I think people should be free to use whatever alignment system they want--few of my D&D games ever come down to alignment discussions.
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36998 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jul 2011 : 01:12:07
|
| Indeed. Alignment has never been more than a set of guidelines, despite how it's often (mis-)perceived. |
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!  |
|
|
|
Eltheron
Senior Scribe
740 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jul 2011 : 03:30:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Indeed. Alignment has never been more than a set of guidelines, despite how it's often (mis-)perceived.
Not exactly true, and not really a misperception. In original AD&D, alignment had a number of very clear mechanical effects: spells that were dependent on alignments, items that functioned only for specific alignments, even alignment "languages" and the like.
It's probably better to say that alignment never should have had any crunchy effects, and would have been better if originally implemented as merely a set of guidelines.
|
"The very best possible post-fourteenth-century Realms lets down those who love the specific, detailed social, political and magical situation, with its thousands of characters, developed over forty years, and want to learn more about it; and those who'd be open to a new one with equal depth, which there just isn't time to re-produce; and those repelled, some past the point of no return, by the bad-taste-and-plausibility gap of things done to the world when its guardianship was less careful."
--Faraer |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36998 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jul 2011 : 04:43:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Indeed. Alignment has never been more than a set of guidelines, despite how it's often (mis-)perceived.
Not exactly true, and not really a misperception. In original AD&D, alignment had a number of very clear mechanical effects: spells that were dependent on alignments, items that functioned only for specific alignments, even alignment "languages" and the like.
It's probably better to say that alignment never should have had any crunchy effects, and would have been better if originally implemented as merely a set of guidelines.
But it is a misperception... Many people seem to have this idea that alignment is a rigid straitjacket, and that being of alignment X obligates you to act in a particular manner, 100% of the time. People perceived alignment as being something that restricted what their character could do, by forcing them to act in particular manners. And alignment has never been that.
People have also thought that CE meant pychopathic mass murderer, or that any evil alignment meant someone couldn't have friends/lovers or like puppies, and that CN meant be evil one day and good the next. We've even seen some of those misconceptions in our own halls.
Alignment has been explained as a guideline more than once, and examples have been given more than once. And still the various misperceptions have remained... I've no proof, but I think it's part of the reason the alignment system was changed for 4E (not going into my opinion of that change). |
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! |
|
|
|
Eltheron
Senior Scribe
740 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jul 2011 : 06:13:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
But it is a misperception... Many people seem to have this idea that alignment is a rigid straitjacket, and that being of alignment X obligates you to act in a particular manner, 100% of the time. People perceived alignment as being something that restricted what their character could do, by forcing them to act in particular manners. And alignment has never been that.
Come now, I think you know that I was responding to your assertion that "Alignment has never been more than a set of guidelines...", which is a pretty hefty statement. But given that there have been spells, items, powers, abilities, and a number of other things -specifically- tied to alignment, your statement as written is demonstrably false. Alignment did, for many years, have specific mechanical effects in the game. In that way, it was in fact "more than a set of guidelines".
That said, I understand what you're saying. And I've heard this argument before, repeatedly. But quite honestly, even though it's been something of a "hot topic issue" on various forums, I have never once in 30-some years of playing D&D met someone who actually felt that alignment was a "straightjacket" as you say. Not once.
quote:
People have also thought that CE meant pychopathic mass murderer, or that any evil alignment meant someone couldn't have friends/lovers or like puppies, and that CN meant be evil one day and good the next. We've even seen some of those misconceptions in our own halls.
To some degree, although these examples above are somewhat over the top, there is a certain amount of truth to what you're saying if you look at alignment as a cause rather than an effect. If you have someone who was "neutral good" then they cannot be regularly torturing people, poisoning people, and the like. Not without consequences: a change in their alignment. Likewise, if a PC says they are "chaotic evil" yet support good kings, implement laws that are just, and regularly provide the community with healing for free, it doesn't make much sense to keep calling them chaotic evil. But honestly, that was pretty much the limit of any "problems" caused by alignment.
quote:
Alignment has been explained as a guideline more than once, and examples have been given more than once. And still the various misperceptions have remained... I've no proof, but I think it's part of the reason the alignment system was changed for 4E (not going into my opinion of that change).
Less than a guideline, I'd argue that alignment is better described as an "average assessment of behavior over time." The word "guideline" is actually part of the problem, as alignment status should not be viewed as a cause or a "future determiner" but rather as an effect. Even so, whichever way one looks at it, I don't know anyone -and have never heard of anyone in real life- who treats alignment as some kind of "straightjacket" in the sense that it limits character behavior. Characters' actions, combined with intent, determine alignment, not the other way around.
Perhaps I don't consider this a "big issue" because I never really gamed with people who were handed pre-generated characters and told to act out the character based on the character sheet. But honestly, I find it hard to believe that someone in real life literally used alignment in that way. On forums, sure. People on forums take up idealistic arguments that they'd never argue the same way at the gaming table. Happens all the time.
|
"The very best possible post-fourteenth-century Realms lets down those who love the specific, detailed social, political and magical situation, with its thousands of characters, developed over forty years, and want to learn more about it; and those who'd be open to a new one with equal depth, which there just isn't time to re-produce; and those repelled, some past the point of no return, by the bad-taste-and-plausibility gap of things done to the world when its guardianship was less careful."
--Faraer |
|
|
|
MrHedgehog
Senior Scribe
688 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jul 2011 : 20:26:34
|
I am glad Sharn were not turned into horrible evil monsters :(
I use with my friends the nine alignments in a less wordy way than before "Lawful, Chaotic, Unaligned, Good, Evil, Lawful good, Chaotic good, lawful evil, chaotic evil". The way in which the alignments were simplified didn't make sense to me. If those who made the decision wanted less alignments I would have had "Lawful, Chaotic, Unaligned, Good, and evil". Having chaotic evil and lawful good but no CG or LE at the same time made it even more confusing in my eyes. |
|
|
|
Kno
Senior Scribe
452 Posts |
Posted - 02 Aug 2011 : 08:11:11
|
| Sends a message that you have to respect the authority to be good, there are no good anarchists. Slaads also changed into nihilists. |
z455t |
|
|
|
Chosen of Asmodeus
Master of Realmslore
1221 Posts |
Posted - 02 Aug 2011 : 10:21:59
|
| I don't have many problems with the 4e alingment system; merging neutral and chaotic good and lawful and neutral evil makes sense. But I always felt the blanket "unaligned" was too vague and incompassing, and this topic is a good example of why that's not a good thing. They wanted to express that sharn were chaotic, and while they can do that in the descrition, the alignment box is going to read unaligned, which is going to be the same thing for the most hardlined lawful yet morally grey individuals. |
"Then I saw there was a way to Hell even from the gates of Heaven"
- John Bunyan, Pilgrim's Progress
Fatum Iustum Stultorum. Righteous is the destiny of fools.
The Roleplayer's Gazebo;
http://theroleplayersgazebo.yuku.com/directory#.Ub4hvvlJOAY |
|
|
|
Cronje
Seeker
56 Posts |
Posted - 02 Aug 2011 : 13:13:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kno
Sends a message that you have to respect the authority to be good, there are no good anarchists. Slaads also changed into nihilists.
I disagree. To skip to another genre, the X-Men were definitely good-intentioned, and most certainly chaotic. |
|
|
|
MrHedgehog
Senior Scribe
688 Posts |
Posted - 02 Aug 2011 : 17:14:34
|
He didn't mean he believes that, Cronje, he was being critical of the alignments creatures were given.
In 4th edition I've noticed they made every sort of creature an enemy. If not evil they are "unaligned" so that they might be adversaries. Copper dragons are now greedy potential adversaries rather than friendly creatures, slaad are evil rather than just chaotic (because just being chaotic is no longer an option), and so forth. Slaad and Maruts now have the same alignment of "unaligned". I just choose to think of them as being "chaotic" and "lawful" and ignore the story they applied to them which I think was merely done because they wanted the monster manual to only contain enemies. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36998 Posts |
Posted - 02 Aug 2011 : 18:23:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrHedgehog
He didn't mean he believes that, Cronje, he was being critical of the alignments creatures were given.
In 4th edition I've noticed they made every sort of creature an enemy. If not evil they are "unaligned" so that they might be adversaries. Copper dragons are now greedy potential adversaries rather than friendly creatures, slaad are evil rather than just chaotic (because just being chaotic is no longer an option), and so forth. Slaad and Maruts now have the same alignment of "unaligned". I just choose to think of them as being "chaotic" and "lawful" and ignore the story they applied to them which I think was merely done because they wanted the monster manual to only contain enemies.
What blew my mind was seeing the D&D mini for a portal, and noting that it had offensive capability.  |
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! |
|
|
|
Chosen of Asmodeus
Master of Realmslore
1221 Posts |
Posted - 03 Aug 2011 : 00:28:58
|
Can't say I'm horribly upset about the changes to dragons(at least their alignment, still feel that black dragons get shafted on the power scale). It doesn't prohibit good dragons(hell, one of the draconomicons mentioned a red dragon paladin of Bahamut), just throws them into the same moral myopia as the rest of the world.
As for the rest; way I look at it and as far as I can tell, the way the designers intended it is that the creatures in the monster manual are just that, monster's ready for play and combat(which is also why they included the rules for modifying and customizing monsters in the dungeon master's guide instead of the MM); the specimens don't represent the whole of their given race/species, nor do they necessarily reflect the alignment thereof, they're just a group of hostiles placed in front of your party. |
"Then I saw there was a way to Hell even from the gates of Heaven"
- John Bunyan, Pilgrim's Progress
Fatum Iustum Stultorum. Righteous is the destiny of fools.
The Roleplayer's Gazebo;
http://theroleplayersgazebo.yuku.com/directory#.Ub4hvvlJOAY |
|
|
|
Quale
Master of Realmslore
1757 Posts |
Posted - 03 Aug 2011 : 10:30:07
|
| I don't care about dragons, they could kill them all. On the other side, 4e introduced much better origin story for the Sharns than the destruction of Miyeritar. The most weird alignment change was the archons. |
|
|
|
Chosen of Asmodeus
Master of Realmslore
1221 Posts |
Posted - 03 Aug 2011 : 21:10:38
|
| Well, with archons they basically (and they've flat out admitted this) took the name and stuck it on a new monster. |
"Then I saw there was a way to Hell even from the gates of Heaven"
- John Bunyan, Pilgrim's Progress
Fatum Iustum Stultorum. Righteous is the destiny of fools.
The Roleplayer's Gazebo;
http://theroleplayersgazebo.yuku.com/directory#.Ub4hvvlJOAY |
|
|
|
MrHedgehog
Senior Scribe
688 Posts |
Posted - 04 Aug 2011 : 16:31:08
|
For 4th edition I ignore Eladrin and call them "Sun Elves", "Moon Elves" or "High Elves" and "Elves" are "Wood Elves".
Eladrin are still chaotic good outsiders to me = D And I hope they release 4th edition statistics for Courre, etc. but they probably won't since they wouldn't likely be foes... unless they release Good aligned foes after releasing Heroes of Shadow. |
|
|
|
Chosen of Asmodeus
Master of Realmslore
1221 Posts |
Posted - 05 Aug 2011 : 01:22:51
|
Well, you're supposed to call them sun/moon/high elves. The eladrin/elf distinction is purely for the stats.
I do like that they're keeping most of the noble eladrin outsiders on the far chaotic side of unaligned, though. The fair folk should always be alien and dangerous.
|
"Then I saw there was a way to Hell even from the gates of Heaven"
- John Bunyan, Pilgrim's Progress
Fatum Iustum Stultorum. Righteous is the destiny of fools.
The Roleplayer's Gazebo;
http://theroleplayersgazebo.yuku.com/directory#.Ub4hvvlJOAY |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
12229 Posts |
Posted - 06 Aug 2011 : 20:05:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
People have also thought that CE meant pychopathic mass murderer, or that any evil alignment meant someone couldn't have friends/lovers or like puppies, and that CN meant be evil one day and good the next. We've even seen some of those misconceptions in our own halls.
CE could like puppies... they kept wardogs.... now house kittens, were a definite no-no |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Sharn now evil?
