| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Denoples
Acolyte
39 Posts |
 Posted - 13 Mar 2006 : 01:27:51
|
First off let me say these questions apply to the Silver Marches, if they are going to apply to an area.
Secondly, the answers to these questions will probably not be cut in stone. Maybe they haven't been considered before and an reply needs to be made based on how one would view this fantasy world, which might be based on historical information.
What will happen to the weapons of armed visitors visiting a walled city? Surely they will not be allowed to enter armed. Does anyone know what happened historically? And if anyone would be allowed to carry a sword in public? I could imagine a numbered sortage system like we now have in some cloakrooms(?).
What would the average pay of a simple peasant be? So in a sense, what would be the cost of living?
Would there be females serving as archers in the Silver Marches armies? I imagine that with perfect equal rights they could if they wanted. But even in todays militaries, females in combat duties are very rare. What are people's views on this? And would the traditional male and female roles be the norm in Faerun?
How must I imagine racism in Faerun? Since the degree of uniqueness of races in Faerun one could say racism, or any judgement made based on race, would be justified. In our world racism is quite persistant. How would one interpret racism in Faerun? Xenophobia, disregard for each others culture, just a lack of understanding, genetic superiority, blind hatred? And how segregated would the 'peaceful races' be in the civilized cities like Silverymoon (or Neverwinter for that matter).
My last question I could probably find an answer to in the published sources. But are wars between human civilisations/cities common without one being evil? Since humans fighting humans, for any or no reason, throughout history continuously is it a part of the realm? If you look at history then being a neighbour is generally enough reason to have a war, or rather a test of strenght.
I am not really sure if the realms generally require one to be evil and one to be good for a war to exist.
So are there 'grey wars' between civilized people in Faerun?
|
Edited by - Denoples on 13 Mar 2006 02:02:07
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4692 Posts |
Posted - 13 Mar 2006 : 02:43:21
|
Economy is not well handled by any D&D product, the pay scales go from staving to doing Ok (but I can make more money by adventuring), so while I could point you to skilled and unskilled pay scales they make little sense.
Weapons of visitors are at minimun peace bound (that is tied by rope, cloth, strap and/or other means to render a weapon as nonlethal, at maximun the weapons are removed from visitors. In general there is a mix between the two options, daggers rarely peace bound or siezed as they double as an eating untensil (and there is not much difference to the non weapon belt knife, which can be used as a weapon in need), ranged weapons would in general not be permitted to visitors either. Exceptions will exist for trusted vistors and/or allies and their bodyguard (though depending on trust level the honored visitor will recieve an honor guard of local troops as deemed needful to be respectful).
Female archers in the Silver Marches, clearly in my opinion there will be many. At times perhaps making the bulk of the ranged weapon troops (let the guys go and sling swords and get covered with blood *wink*here all I might do is break a nail) depending on the needs of defense. As much like USA expansion females learned how to shoot and kill foes from a distance, in the chaotic and boderless lands of FR this is a survival skill that not learned means you die. I would expect that at least 10 percent of hired troops would be female, militas (reserves call from the population) if over 50 percent would be females it would not surprise me.
"racism" This clearly exists in many ways between many races, "A Drow, kill it keep", "Up axes it is a goblin" and so forth. In fact it is not just race "A Zent can be trusted less then a Drow", "Waterdeep merchants will bargin for your teeth", "never trust a Thay" and on and on, there is an on going conflict of not just races , but of societies that exist in the realms.
Wars between lawful groups also do occur. It could be a result of dispute of toll fees. In general Lawful Good societies do not war with Lawful Good societies (though I suspect this has occured). Other societies having some aspect of law clearly could indeed war with another lawful society (not concerned with the overall good or evil that results from a war). Also mistakes can occur that start a war and becomes hard to stop as after it starts damage has been done. |
"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 |
 |
|
|
Denoples
Acolyte
39 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2006 : 19:42:48
|
| Anyone else? |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2006 : 23:31:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Denoples
Maybe they haven't been considered before
They've been considered. Also, the Realms doesn't consistently follow any historical model, and one can't infer how the Realms is from what's done in our world.quote:
What will happen to the weapons of armed visitors visiting a walled city? Surely they will not be allowed to enter armed. Does anyone know what happened historically? And if anyone would be allowed to carry a sword in public? I could imagine a numbered sortage system like we now have in some cloakrooms(?).
Generally, owning and bearing arms isn't unusual, but it's mostly daggers, clubs, and dress swords for nobles. People wearing armour or carrying large weapons will draw attention to themselves, be closely observed by the watch, refused entry to certain places, but it's rarely banned outright. I don't think peace-bonding is a widespread practice.quote:
What would the average pay of a simple peasant be? So in a sense, what would be the cost of living?
Don't know.quote:
Would there be females serving as archers in the Silver Marches armies?
Yes. This is a relatively egalitarian, somewhat idealized fantasy world. I'm sure Ed's discussed this.quote:
How must I imagine racism in Faerun?
Mixing of human racial groups is common and usual; in the North, say, dark-skinned Vilhon folk will attract some attention and be subject to certain prejudices, but not virulent racism. People are more concerned with custom, and 'doing things our way'.
To a greater extent, people jump to conclusions about demihumans, and these conclusions are largely right. Some people exhibit greater prejudice, but in general the attitudes between the human and demihuman races are not particularly negative.
Silverymoon is one of the most enlightened places in the Realms, and will usually have only subtle racial tension. There may be predominantly elven or dwarven quarters, but not ghettos or anything like that.
Orcs, bugbears, drow and so on are monsters, people rightly fear and hate them, and this is not racism.
In the Sword Coast North, the Lords' Alliance has for some time served to avoid all-out war. It isn't a common option because of its expense and disruption to trade, and the heavy web of economic, military, and magical treaties that bind most civilized settlements, and the risk of vulnerability to your other foes if you commit to war. Aggressively expansionist rulers tend to be unpopular. In general, nations, cities, and power groups of all kinds in the Realms conduct their conflicts by slow intrigue and manipulation, not outright violence, which is also something that Harpers will work to control. Violent inter-human conflict is most common with the brigand states that come and go in border areas. In the relatively prosperous South, with less danger from monsters, border skirmishes of the 'test of strength' kind are more common. |
Edited by - Faraer on 19 Mar 2006 23:33:20 |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4692 Posts |
Posted - 20 Mar 2006 : 01:03:09
|
"What would the average pay of a simple peasant be? So in a sense, what would be the cost of living?"
By the rules if having a craft or profession about 5 gold per week (10 days in a week) is what they earn.
If working out of craft or profession (or not having one) 1 gold per week (yes is still 10 days long).
Cost of survival has to be 1 gold per aford said week, unless charity is given to the peasant/commonors. Compared to sdventurue price list it is very hard to live on one silver piece per day, but is posible because one only needs to eat one pound of food a day (at best 1,500 calories per pound, most foods are less) to survive and thrive.
"Orcs, bugbears, drow and so on are monsters, people rightly fear and hate them, and this is not racism."
This is clearly racism because a judgement is held against the race, no matter the qualities of the individual. Yes most Orcs, bugbears, drow can not be trusted, but to hate/fear/distrusts/etc. all because of their race clearly is racism.
|
"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 |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 20 Mar 2006 : 01:48:47
|
Racism is directed toward people. Monsters aren't people: they're evil-symbolizing things. The sense of 'race' used in Tolkien-derived fantasy is not the sense of 'race' as in human ethnic groups. As long as we're dealing with heroic fantasy and not moral-relativist social realism, adventurers don't and shouldn't feel qualms at slaying orcs.
Drow, to be fair, are liminal: they're monsters for some narrative purposes but monsters for others. |
Edited by - Faraer on 20 Mar 2006 02:32:46 |
|
|
|
scererar
Master of Realmslore
USA
1618 Posts |
Posted - 20 Mar 2006 : 02:51:03
|
I would agree with everyone else about the pay portion, it would vary from area to area and whether it was in a rural area, large city, etc.
I would envision female archers, warriors, etc. would be encountered more in the silver marches, sword coast, and the moonsea regions. I would not envision them as predominent in areas such as say calimshan or tethyr, but still there of course.
as far as racism, I would beleive that it would pertain more to a elf vs. human, elf vs. dwarf, and others like this. I would not perceive it as a skin color. I do rememebr in the finder's stone trilogy Alias and the mage from Turmish, when she referred to him as a turmite, so it probably does exist to some degree.
I disagree with the weapon topic, in Cormyr there is an existance of the peace knot, but I do not recall it being overly used, if at all in other realms. I would envision the north, waterdeep, the silver marches, the moon sea, the dales, etc, etc. would have weapons on hand at most times. In Waterdeep, I am reading the newest novel right now, and the young lord's even sport them around. I could see at court, important business meetings, and other places where weapons, sword or otherwise would not be appropriate. and in my 20 years of this, I would then picture armed servants or guards.
As far as war between realms, I would say that it could happen and one side or the other would not be evil. Good and evil is with the eye of the beholder ( look at real life, and I don't want to elaborate or debate on that any furher than this) I recall Sembia and Cormy having issues quite often, where the talking portion of the political process has exhausted, but not much has ever come of it. Look at the last mythal trilogy, sembia is participating, at least wealthy merchants are, to the point of a perceived sembia relationship. |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4692 Posts |
Posted - 20 Mar 2006 : 04:13:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
Racism is directed toward people. Monsters aren't people: they're evil-symbolizing things. The sense of 'race' used in Tolkien-derived fantasy is not the sense of 'race' as in human ethnic groups. As long as we're dealing with heroic fantasy and not moral-relativist social realism, adventurers don't and shouldn't feel qualms at slaying orcs.
Drow, to be fair, are liminal: they're monsters for some narrative purposes but monsters for others.
The fact that you feel that you can/should kill mosters, simplely because they are another race without being racist concerns me greatly. Alos it is not a "Tolkien-derived" line, elves and Dwarves got along better in that realm.
Black skin, black heart.
Dragon flame, dragon die.
If you want RW there is only one clearly inteligent race, skin color, religion, socities are what result in racist attacks. D&D does have diffent inteligent races, of which some are quick to attack of another for the sole reason that theier are of an other race (RW such can pccur in same race just because of skin color). |
"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 |
|
|
|
scererar
Master of Realmslore
USA
1618 Posts |
Posted - 20 Mar 2006 : 05:32:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
Racism is directed toward people. Monsters aren't people: they're evil-symbolizing things. The sense of 'race' used in Tolkien-derived fantasy is not the sense of 'race' as in human ethnic groups. As long as we're dealing with heroic fantasy and not moral-relativist social realism, adventurers don't and shouldn't feel qualms at slaying orcs.
Drow, to be fair, are liminal: they're monsters for some narrative purposes but monsters for others.
The fact that you feel that you can/should kill mosters, simplely because they are another race without being racist concerns me greatly. Alos it is not a "Tolkien-derived" line, elves and Dwarves got along better in that realm.
Black skin, black heart.
Dragon flame, dragon die.
If you want RW there is only one clearly inteligent race, skin color, religion, socities are what result in racist attacks. D&D does have diffent inteligent races, of which some are quick to attack of another for the sole reason that theier are of an other race (RW such can pccur in same race just because of skin color).
I would have to share a little on this, and I mean no offense, but I would be concerned that someone else was concerned, about the thoughts of someone else and what they felt about the morality of killing orcs and whether or not that person felt guilty about it. It is a game people, look out back, it's not Orcs scampering up to the back porch, let the dog in.  ( really I was trying to be funny here, my son just let the black lab in from the rain.)
On a game level, I would be concerned if this party of "good" adventurers were running around just to see how many ors they could kill. I would have to discuss with them alignment issues, and have them act acordingly, change the style of gaming, or bring on a 3.5E orc chieftain f12 and his band of 20 level 9 cronies/ elite bodygaurds. If the adventurers were not of a "good" alignment, this would most likely fit in with the standards of the game, but I would probably steer them in a differant direction after clearing the local hills of the little buggers. |
Edited by - scererar on 20 Mar 2006 05:34:06 |
|
|
|
Denoples
Acolyte
39 Posts |
Posted - 20 Mar 2006 : 17:21:52
|
Ok, we touch on a kind of ethical and philosical discussion about utopia's, fantasy worlds, and the nature of this world.
I agree that good and evil do not exist in this world. But they do exist in a fantasy world. It's one of it's appeals. Though I oppose to most wars in this world, I do still have a romantisized idea of war. Because fighting for something 'good' is just something honorable. The problem is you can't fight for 'good' in this world. So that's one of the reasons why people created these fantasy worlds.
So we have this black-and-white world. Someone said that orcs and the goblinoids aren't people but 'just monsters'. But obviously they are people, at least to me, but they must be clearly in the 'black' area. Orcs have language, emotions, society, culture, their own morals and ethics, etc. So I don't see how one could say that they aren't people. I tried to try justifying killing orcs on sight because both sides would agree that the nature of orcs, and the like, oppose so much with the nature of humans, and the like, that it can only be settled by conflict.
But still, like someone else said, even if killing any orc is clearly in the interest of human civilization and thus is justified, this still doesn't meant it is a good act. It would be a neutral act. One could argue that actively seeking out orcs to kill them would oppose a good alignment, even if it would be in the interest of all humans. Of course acting solely in your own interest would be wrong in this world. So it is a complex issue.
I wanted this to be strictly black and white. It should not be possible to make an argument to nuance the polarisation between the two sides. For this there should be no exceptions. The nature of the conflict that cannot be resolved should be in the basic nature of the two creatures. So for example Drizzt or other non-evil drow should only be explained by the idea that they aren't pure blooded drow. It shouldn't be a relative culture that is just the way it is but could be totally different by some chance. So drow would never be able to change their ways and therefore either the humans die or the drow/orcs die. The clear black and white polarisation remains and conflict can be romantisized.
But black-white doesn't do justice to the real world. It may even suggest that our world is also a black-and-white world, which is a dangerous idea. So I think grey should be added also. So then you have the problem of making a clear difference between where the grey area starts.
If you look at the history of war, which I did, you will see an endless string of war everywhere. War doesn't even have to be justified. It's just 'us versus them' and then we are talking about just humans. So in the real world it wouldn't be that strange for Silverymoon or Sundabar to have a all out war, which would be very strange in the realms. It would even distort the whole moral fiber of the realms. But in the real world that is just what happens.
I guess we now live in a time where going to war isn't that logical as it used to be because of the utter destructiveness of war nowadays which is incomparable with how it was in ancient or medieval times. Let's take Europe. We had constant wars throughtout history. But now we have had a long time of peace. People argue it is because of democracy, but of course this is not true. It's what Einstein and Russelt said, war just isn't feasable anymore with the destructive technology we have. If Europe was stupid enough to continue their tradition of war they would destroy their civilization.
So I guess it is an issue of fantasy and utopia vs history.
As for racism. I meant to start some debate about all forms of racism. Surely racism between orcs and humans would be of a different nature as those between dwarves and elves. I agree that the idea of killing orcs 'because they are monsters' is a racist idea. Actually it is the method used by leaders to turn humans into killers. Humans don't want to kill other people, but when they are monsters the problem dissapears. But humans, dwarves and elves surely have different genes and cultures that could cause all kinds of problems, depending on the exact nature of the fantasy world. Furthermore, if there is no racism you can still wonder how segregated or integrated the different races really are. |
Edited by - Denoples on 20 Mar 2006 17:26:46 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36875 Posts |
Posted - 20 Mar 2006 : 18:00:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Denoples
I agree that good and evil do not exist in this world.
Not to get into it too much, but I think any student of history would disagree with this statement. Many, many things done in the real world, by nations, groups, and individuals, would certainly qualify as evil. |
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!  |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 20 Mar 2006 : 19:38:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Denoples
I agree that the idea of killing orcs 'because they are monsters' is a racist idea. Actually it is the method used by leaders to turn humans into killers. Humans don't want to kill other people, but when they are monsters the problem dissapears.
Yes, leaders get troops to treat physical, living people as imaginary/fictional/mythic things. That is, they instill a category error. Other people are not really monsters. But monsters, in fiction, are monsters. They are unlike people, and have a different storytelling purpose from people (humans, dwarves, elves, etc.).
I imagine we all agree that demons and devils are utterly inhuman monsters. Now, there's a phenomenon in recent fantasy of moving towards social naturalism where the line between person/monster blurs or shifts closer. Obviously you can treat orcs as people. But that's a process of moving from a symbolically heightened world like legend and dream to a world that's like our quotidian one but looks a bit different, the process that Tolkien described occurring in Middle-earth's Fourth Age and which John Clute in the Encyclopedia of Fantasy calls 'thinning'. It is, in my view, fundamentally a process of entropy and death that demeans and diminishes our imaginations and makes for a less powerful field for storytelling.
In the (brilliant) Firefly pilot, note Jane's impulsive reponse to the Reavers 'They ain't human!' The impulse to wall off unpleasant aspects of humanity as 'not us' is not entirely a positive one! And we learn in Serenity that Joss also thinks along those lines. But I think that's a difference between (hardish) science fiction and fantasy. |
Edited by - Faraer on 20 Mar 2006 19:53:23 |
|
|
|
Denoples
Acolyte
39 Posts |
Posted - 21 Mar 2006 : 01:21:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Not to get into it too much, but I think any student of history would disagree with this statement. Many, many things done in the real world, by nations, groups, and individuals, would certainly qualify as evil.
Wrong, not evil. If those acts were evil, and they occur much more often that a person that is not a student of history would imagine, then humans are evil.
Hmm, I am not sure if humans and their allies that oppose monsters that are only symbols of evil make a better story. I know it is one of the properties of fantasy, like I explained, but I think the black-and-white-ness of a story is a weak point. Maybe I am a bit more science fiction inclined. But lets take the drow. They are just as much people as any other elven race. The only difference is that they are evil, right?
When we take orcs we go a bit further. Not only are they evil, they are also savage and barbaric. But they are still people because their goal isn't to be evil. They just don't have any morals and ethics. They symbolise evil people, not evil itself.
I would agree that the tanar'ri and the Baatezu and the other fiends do symbolise evil.
It's interesting to see some people do not seem to agree with this. |
|
|
|
scererar
Master of Realmslore
USA
1618 Posts |
Posted - 21 Mar 2006 : 01:47:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Denoples
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Not to get into it too much, but I think any student of history would disagree with this statement. Many, many things done in the real world, by nations, groups, and individuals, would certainly qualify as evil.
Wrong, not evil. If those acts were evil, and they occur much more often that a person that is not a student of history would imagine, then humans are evil.
Hmm, I am not sure if humans and their allies that oppose monsters that are only symbols of evil make a better story. I know it is one of the properties of fantasy, like I explained, but I think the black-and-white-ness of a story is a weak point. Maybe I am a bit more science fiction inclined. But lets take the drow. They are just as much people as any other elven race. The only difference is that they are evil, right?
When we take orcs we go a bit further. Not only are they evil, they are also savage and barbaric. But they are still people because their goal isn't to be evil. They just don't have any morals and ethics. They symbolise evil people, not evil itself.
I would agree that the tanar'ri and the Baatezu and the other fiends do symbolise evil.
It's interesting to see some people do not seem to agree with this.
I can see that this debate could get a little messy. I would agree with Wooly and I too will not get into it in much detail, but from a RW perspective Wooly is correct.
To keep this in the realms, There would be many factions who could be considered good, evil, and in between. Look at the Zhents, they attack the dales on a yearly basis, they plot and war with others just to keep things choatic. I would have to agree that jkust because 2 nations are warring with one another would not have to mean that one or the other would be evil, but I bet you a pay check that each side "thinks" of the other as evil. (I spent 12 years in the Army and know a thing or 2 about this) I think it is just human nature to feel that you are the one doing the right thing and the other guy is wrong, but this all comes from individual perspective and what is the norm of society. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36875 Posts |
Posted - 21 Mar 2006 : 01:48:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by Denoples
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Not to get into it too much, but I think any student of history would disagree with this statement. Many, many things done in the real world, by nations, groups, and individuals, would certainly qualify as evil.
Wrong, not evil. If those acts were evil, and they occur much more often that a person that is not a student of history would imagine, then humans are evil.
No, evil is the correct word. Various things that real-world humans have done to each other have been nothing short of evil. Heck, some acts done by supposedly civilized humans far exceed the acts of some of fantasy's monster races.
Some humans are evil. Many more are good. You can argue about whether or not we are predisposed towards one or the other, but the simple fact remains that no fictitious monster race has done something in a fantasy world that was not first done by humans in the real world.
Evil exists. It is a sad truth of the world we live in, but it is a truth nonetheless. |
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! |
|
|
|
Denoples
Acolyte
39 Posts |
Posted - 21 Mar 2006 : 02:22:23
|
| Could you define evil then? |
|
|
|
scererar
Master of Realmslore
USA
1618 Posts |
Posted - 21 Mar 2006 : 02:28:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Denoples
Could you define evil then?
good and evil are perceptions of the norm of what each of our individual societies make of it. I would have to access that all of us could agree upon what are common elements for a defination of what "evil" is. I think that you are getting way too deep, as far as determining if a monster type creature in the realms would be considered as evil and the morality of killing them, it is a game after all, alignments should be kept to as close as possible but other than that game on. However, each of us, would determine what evil is. Just like my earlier example of two armies fighting each other, both are going to veiw their little lives and pursuits as what is right for them. So to determine one set definition of "evil" would most likely be impossible, but we all could come to some common conclusions of what the norms of our societies would consider it to be. sooo... back to the reams hey.
And just to keep it the realms, I would refer you to the alignment section of the sourcebook, for a D&D game version and definition of what evil is, and probably start to steer away from RW.  |
Edited by - scererar on 21 Mar 2006 02:41:22 |
|
|
|
Denoples
Acolyte
39 Posts |
Posted - 21 Mar 2006 : 16:24:08
|
I don't think Wooly Rupert will agree with that, based on what he said before.
In my opinion evil would need to be absolute, so disregarding perspective. I think this would be solely a theistic concept.
If you apply that what the rulebook states then most famous historical leaders would be evil, at least in the way they did their jobs. I mean, if you are going to lead a country during a war you cannot afford to show altruism, respect for life and concerns for the dignity of sentient beings. If you take WWII, all sides commited awful war crimes. But at the same time these people could be really nice in personal contact.
Actually the definition proposed by the rulebook really conflict with intensive factory farming, that would be clearly evil as well.
But in the realms, would it be possible for a person to commit many acts of great evil and many acts of great good as well? The rulebook does state it is a conscious choice. It also states that neutral people do acknowledge being good or evil is a objective commitment. And I find the idea that some neutral people are just committed to a 'balanced view' even stranger. I mean, what does this mean? That one does something 'mean' every once in a while to prevent becomming one of the 'good guys'? I do agree that a fantasy world needs a balance between good and evil because one cannot exist without the other, it is a contrast. But I don't really get the 'balanced view' idea.
This all does lead to some problems of presenting a realistic and balanced fantasy world instead of having a 'silly fairytale'. Not to say one is 'better' than the other but the problem is there, at least so it appears to me. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36875 Posts |
Posted - 21 Mar 2006 : 17:17:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by Denoples
It also states that neutral people do acknowledge being good or evil is a objective commitment. And I find the idea that some neutral people are just committed to a 'balanced view' even stranger. I mean, what does this mean? That one does something 'mean' every once in a while to prevent becomming one of the 'good guys'?
That's a common misconception with the neutral alignments. Being balanced doesn't mean being good one day and being evil the next. It simply means being somewhere in the middle.
To use an analogy... Picture a little old lady crossing the street. If you were good, you would be inclined to help her. If you were evil, you might be more inclined to push her in the path of a school bus. If you're neutral, you're just going to let her go her way and you'll go yours. You're not going out of your way to do a good deed, nor are you going out of your way to do someone wrong. |
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! |
|
|
|
Denoples
Acolyte
39 Posts |
Posted - 21 Mar 2006 : 17:53:24
|
Yes, but those people are not committed to either evil or good.
But the rulebook mentioned that some people are committed to a balanced view, so they must actively pursuit this balance. I found that curious because it at least approaches what you called 'a common misconception'. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36875 Posts |
Posted - 21 Mar 2006 : 18:12:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Denoples
Yes, but those people are not committed to either evil or good.
And that's what being neutral is about: not being committed to either end of the alignment spectrum.
quote:
Originally posted by Denoples
But the rulebook mentioned that some people are committed to a balanced view, so they must actively pursuit this balance. I found that curious because it at least approaches what you called 'a common misconception'.
Actively pursuing Balance is working to keep one side or the other from being too powerful. If the good guys are gaining power, you slow them down, either by placing setbacks in their way or by somehow knocking them back (cause a trade war, stir up the local monster populace, etc). Ditto for evil -- when they are ascendant, you slow them down -- maybe by helping a group of adventurers get into an important evil stronghold, or turning the aforementioned monsters against them, etc.
What actively pursuing Balance does not entail -- and this is the common misconception I spoke of -- is being good one day and evil the next. Pursuing Balance means keeping both sides balanced; it does not mean stomping puppies one day and building a nunnery the next. |
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 21 Mar 2006 18:13:47 |
|
|
|
scererar
Master of Realmslore
USA
1618 Posts |
Posted - 22 Mar 2006 : 03:12:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by Denoples
I don't think Wooly Rupert will agree with that, based on what he said before.
In my opinion evil would need to be absolute, so disregarding perspective. I think this would be solely a theistic concept.
Well I am glad that I don't post at this site, with regards to what Wooly agrees or disagrees to, in mind . However I do respect his opinion, as well as everyone else here (besides,look at how many times the man has posted, I would imagine this topic has come up at some point in the past, in one form or another ).
I will stick to my guns with what I posted earlier, and continue, for games purposes to keep it simple with the game definition of what evil is. "My" realms, is just fine within these guidelines. |
Edited by - scererar on 22 Mar 2006 03:21:32 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36875 Posts |
Posted - 22 Mar 2006 : 06:38:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by scererar
Well I am glad that I don't post at this site, with regards to what Wooly agrees or disagrees to, in mind .
Yeah, I don't worry about that, either. That guy thinks he's important just because he's a Giant Space Hamster...  |
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! |
|
|
|
Denoples
Acolyte
39 Posts |
Posted - 22 Mar 2006 : 13:11:24
|
| Well you said you agreed with him and continued explaining a question that was aimed at both of you. I guess someone got confused somewhere. |
|
|
|
scererar
Master of Realmslore
USA
1618 Posts |
Posted - 23 Mar 2006 : 02:16:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Denoples
Well you said you agreed with him and continued explaining a question that was aimed at both of you. I guess someone got confused somewhere.
that would be you my friend. I think we can move this thread forward if we wanted to . I was very interested in your original post and replied accordingly, but it has turned into a what is evil thread. I am willing to give opinions and debate different ideas, but lets move forward a little hey. Are there any other parts of your original posting that you would like to discuss, debate, or otherwise.
Oh and just in case, yes wooly I am trying to play nice |
Edited by - scererar on 23 Mar 2006 02:17:14 |
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
Posted - 20 Oct 2009 : 10:56:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
Female archers in the Silver Marches, clearly in my opinion there will be many. At times perhaps making the bulk of the ranged weapon troops (let the guys go and sling swords and get covered with blood *wink*here all I might do is break a nail) depending on the needs of defense. As much like USA expansion females learned how to shoot and kill foes from a distance, in the chaotic and boderless lands of FR this is a survival skill that not learned means you die. I would expect that at least 10 percent of hired troops would be female, militas (reserves call from the population) if over 50 percent would be females it would not surprise me.
While I agree that both genders would participate in the defence of the Silver Marches, I think that archery is perhaps the branch of the armed forces where they would be least suited.
Contrary to inaccurate D&D-isms, shooting a warbow demands enormous upper body strength. And while I don't want to sound sexist, males do tend to have much more upper body strength.
While it is possible that a woman might be strong enough to use a warbow, I don't recall any convincing evidence that one historically did. As a matter of fact, the vast majority of modern men aren't strong enough to use the Mary Rose bows. It takes more than a decade of daily practise to build the necessary upper body strength. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
|
|
|
Ozzalum
Learned Scribe
USA
277 Posts |
Posted - 20 Oct 2009 : 11:28:24
|
You know, Icelander, I always wondered about that. Ever since high school gym class I wondered how it had become standard that women would just naturally end up wielding bows.
However, since this is a fantasy setting, I expect that the female archer is too iconic to be dislodged easily. But aside from bows, would there be any other weapons that women would naturally gravitate towards? I recall something about naginatas being preferred in the real world. I'm assuming polearms are attractive because they allow you to stay outside a bigger opponent's reach.
And if evil doesn't exist in the real world, I may just have to invent it. It's a growth industry, I hear. |
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
Posted - 20 Oct 2009 : 12:02:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ozzalum
You know, Icelander, I always wondered about that. Ever since high school gym class I wondered how it had become standard that women would just naturally end up wielding bows.
I'm still wondering why elves are portrayed as slender and fine-boned but still natural archers. Comes from the game rules emphasising one attribute (Dex) over the combination of skill and strength that real world archery demands.
quote:
Originally posted by Ozzalum
However, since this is a fantasy setting, I expect that the female archer is too iconic to be dislodged easily. But aside from bows, would there be any other weapons that women would naturally gravitate towards? I recall something about naginatas being preferred in the real world. I'm assuming polearms are attractive because they allow you to stay outside a bigger opponent's reach.
Hmmm... I expect that the most popular military weapon for any person would be the spear. Polearms of all sorts come a close second. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
|
|
|
goatunit
Acolyte
USA
31 Posts |
Posted - 21 Oct 2009 : 17:04:58
|
In the case of the Silver Marches, there is a certain frontier sensibility which governs when and where it is appropriate to carry a weapon. With the possible exception of Silverymoon, I think most settlements would expect individuals to have a weapon handy. This is probably not the case in more civilized areas.
As for racism in the Realms, it is an unfortunate side-effect of the alignment system that we must assume universal morality within the game. In that morality, racism is evil in nature (as opposed to merely ignorant) and so we tend to find only evil characters being racist. This is not always the case, but it's a solid rule of thumb. Similarly, wars tend toward a clear good vs evil conflict. Again, this needn't always be true.
I would tend to agree with Icelander regarding female archers, but within the context of the game there is no attribute penalty or benefit associated with gender. Furthermore, Mr. Greenwood has made it clear on multiple occasions that the vast majority of good-aligned societies in the Realms do not practice gender-discrimination. I find this to be too anachronistic for my personal tastes, and eschew that detail in my own games - but in a by-the-book Realms game, women should make up approximately 50% of any given military unit.
Finally, the wages of a peasant are going to differ from state to state in the Realms, but the historical peasant did not earn anything. He served at the pleasure of his Lord in whatever capacity and was compensated with room, board and safety. |
|
|
|
goatunit
Acolyte
USA
31 Posts |
Posted - 21 Oct 2009 : 17:16:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
No, evil is the correct word. Various things that real-world humans have done to each other have been nothing short of evil. Heck, some acts done by supposedly civilized humans far exceed the acts of some of fantasy's monster races.
Some humans are evil. Many more are good. You can argue about whether or not we are predisposed towards one or the other, but the simple fact remains that no fictitious monster race has done something in a fantasy world that was not first done by humans in the real world.
Evil exists. It is a sad truth of the world we live in, but it is a truth nonetheless.
I think our friend is arguing that morality is defined by culture. Good and Evil exist, in so much as we perceive them and react to them, but they are not universals. They do not exist without man to perceive (and perform) them. |
|
|
|
Ozzalum
Learned Scribe
USA
277 Posts |
Posted - 21 Oct 2009 : 17:36:47
|
I would really expect that everyone in the Silver Marches would be carrying. I can't imagine walking around, knowing about the existence of random encounter tables, and not being armed. I would also expect that having what passes for the local authorities tell you you can't carry weapons would really limit the number of people willing to live or trade in those localities.
On the topic of female soldiers... How many DM's actually have about a 50-50 split in male female representation in armies, militias, or random bandits? There's no real in game reason that they aren't equally represented but I wonder if that is commonly ignored. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Some questions about Faerun society.
