| Author |
 Topic  |
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
 Posted - 18 Jun 2006 : 09:27:39
|
Not to mention that so powerful a Baatefic presence on Faerun would have been calling up Tanar'ri, too, who would have been trying to get there before a Baatezu Noble could establish a foothold on the Prime.
Which would have caused a Celestial Host. Or at least a Rilmani strike.
I haven't even started reading the trilogy yet, but I've heard so many bad things about it (lore wise) that I'm loathe to start. At least I've bought the first book... Most likely I'll buy the next two, and after I finish the other 2 dozen or so novels in my stacks, read the whole trilogy in a few days, and come back and post more in depth. ;)
That way certain people can no longer claim that I'm posting out of ignorance. (... I know what color Amlaruil's hair was. I don't need to read the trilogy to know it contradicted lore.) |
Planescape Fanatic
"Fiends and Undead are the peanut butter and jelly of evil." - Me
"That attitude should be stomped on, whenever and wherever it's encountered, because it makes people holding such views bad citizens, not just bad roleplayers (considering D&D was structured as a 'forced cooperation' game, and although successive editions are pointing it more and more towards a me-first, min-max game, the drift away from 'we all need each other to succeed' will at some point make it 'no longer' D&D)." - ED GREENWOOD |
 |
|
|
Arkhaedun
Senior Scribe
869 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jun 2006 : 11:18:51
|
| I wil say, however, that reading some of the major events in context of the actual story does change one's perspective on those changes. If you really aren't interested in the book, that's understandable, but I wouldn't let anyone drive you off just because they have a particularly strong opinion. Often times people with strong opinions are more apt to make their mind known than a host of those that enjoy a given work. |
|
|
|
Hoondatha
Great Reader
USA
2449 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jun 2006 : 14:52:39
|
Actually, lore-wise, I think the three books are some of the best we've seen in a while. They just *feel* Realms, with factions behaving the way they would, and little references to all sorts of Realms events and people. Richard really went out of his way to add that, and I appreciate it.
I think the main argument (at least from the last few posts) is that people are unhappy about the elves doing so well against a horde of fiends. I say fiends, since there are all three in Sarya's army: tanar'ri, yugoloths, and baatezu, which was driving several of us nuts in the last book (that issue wasn't really resolved, so I've decided to ignore it). I don't have much of a problem with it, Myth Drannor stood for three years against much larger numbers and no one seems to be calling that unrealistic. Seiveril pretty much has the cream of Evermeet's soldiers, clerics, and mages with him, and they're working together well. And it's been shown what happens when less-skilled armies (Hillsfar, Sembia) are attacked by the fey'ri: massive death and destruction.
As for the Upper Planes getting involved, I don't see why they would. There's *never* been a celestial army in the Realms, for whatever reason. I don't see why they would start now. This isn't the first time fiends have made power plays in the Realms before. Some of them even succeeded, and still didn't bring celetial retribution. My feeling is that if Arborea, Elysium, et al. starting sending soldiers, it would widen the conflict. Last Mythal's fiends came from two places: a mortal conjurerer with some tricks up her sleeve, and an exiled archdevil with limited resources. Bringing in celetials could provoke a wider conflict with the lower planes, and would certainly increase the devastation. As it is, by staying out the celetials gave the Allies a chance to actually win. |
Doggedly converting 3e back to what D&D should be...
Sigh... And now 4e as well. |
|
|
|
SiriusBlack
Great Reader
USA
5517 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jun 2006 : 17:03:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by GothicDan
I haven't even started reading the trilogy yet, but I've heard so many bad things about it (lore wise) that I'm loathe to start.
I'd still recommend reading the trilogy. Many people have different interpretations on how lore is handled be it a novel or a gaming product. |
|
|
|
SiriusBlack
Great Reader
USA
5517 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jun 2006 : 17:05:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arkhaedun
Often times people with strong opinions are more apt to make their mind known than a host of those that enjoy a given work.
You make it sound as if those with strong opinions are only those who dislike a work. |
|
|
|
Mkhaiwati
Learned Scribe
USA
252 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jun 2006 : 18:54:23
|
I really enjoyed these novels. I thought that the storyline and realms lore was fantastic. I was dissappointed with the characterization of the main characters in the first two books, and I agree that everything just wrapped up too neatly. There really should have been some loose ends or questions at the end.
I found the book enjoyable, and read it very quickly. Judging from the other posts, many others also read it quickly. I guess the bottom line is that it was a fun read. I would buy more books from the author if they were like this series. It doesn't mean I liked everything in the books, but the good definitely outweighed the bad.
I like that Zhentil Keep got some storyline and that their time wasn't wasted on this war. Same goes for Sembia. It does leave one area unanswered with regard to Sembia's relationship with the Dales. Does Sembia give up their acquisitions? It is hinted that they will leave, but much room is left for diplomacy, as well as having a return on the coin and lives and coin and time and more coin spent on the war. Did I mention the money they spent?
Most of what others found to be bad qualities (the demons, devils, and yugoloths working with each other, for example) I thought were explained in this book. The problem of the elves fighting off the evil hordes is also kinda indicative of a FR novel (of the thirty or so I've read). In RotA anyone that can swing a sword it seems can knock off a phaerimm, beholder, or illithid. (wheeee!!!) while in other novels, a single eye tyrant can frighten the you-know-what out of a hero or group of heroes. I just don't allow the nitty-gritty details keep me awake at night and go with the flow.
Mkhaiwati |
"Behold the work of the old... let your heritage not be lost but bequeath it as a memory, treasure and blessing... Gather the lost and the hidden and preserve it for thy children."
"not nale. not-nale. thog help nail not-nale, not nale. and thog knot not-nale while nale nail not-nale. nale, not not-nale, now nail not-nale by leaving not-nale, not nale, in jail." OotS #367 |
|
|
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jun 2006 : 19:41:24
|
Don't get me wrong - I'll read the books. I never buy a book I don't intend to read. However, opinions about lore that is changed or altered are not going to change due to context. That would be like saying a math problem is correct because the handwriting it's written in is pretty. :)
But I'll also note that the general personage of Myth Drannor was far more powerful than what we've seen on Evermeet, that they had at least during some points a functioning mythal, and that the Army of Darkness was by far and large made up only of humanoids, giants, orcs, gnolls, and the like, and only certain legions were fiends (and Mezzoloths at that, with a few Nycaloth officers). I'm still surprised at times that the Elves didn't wipe out the Army of Darkness, myself. ;)
And as to why the Celestials would have stepped in? I personally can't remember a horde of fiends this large, let alone one being controlled by a Lower of the Lord Planes, in Faerun before. As I pointed out, the Army of Darkness was by far and large made up mostly of non-fiends; Tiamat has a few of the least powerful fiends under her control; Gargauth has a very minimal presence in the Realms. This pretty much leaves Narfell and the Bloodstone Lands... And who's to say that Celestials didn't help in that, which we don't know about?
I think that D&D in general has been doing a lot to ignore the "upper" part of the multiverse, because the "lower" part is "cooler." This is something not unique to the novels in question though... It's permeated D&D for 3 editions.
And, of course, I'd like to see some more "stereotypical" type of characters among the Elves. 3E has focused far too much on the exceptions, and on making Elves out to be seemingly more "evil" than they have been presented in previous editions. They're not supposed to be as varied as humanity, morally and philosophically, because their psyches don't work like ours. The Sun Elves of Evermeet genuinely respect and love Amlaruil and would follow her into the Abyss - because she's the Chosen of the entire Seldarine, and the Sun Elves are religious as all get-out, and loyal above all else to a ruler who they feel is capable, which obviously the Sad Queen is if the Seldarine think so.
It's little things like that, which I've heard the novel deviates from, that I would have liked to have seen. Something that paints the Elves for what they ARE.. Not what they, for the most part, aren't. It would have been nice to see conservative LG Sun Elves (they exist, you know), a main character who actually pursued High Magic in the more traditional sense (no, I don't think an apprentice high mage's story would have been boring, even if it spanned 400 years - I like reading!), and the like.
There's been so many "exceptions" in the Realms lately that a casual glance at the WotC boards will show you that the new players don't even know what the status quo is half the time. They actually think that Drow are acceptable on the surface in some places, that the majority of Sun Elves are LN/LE, that High Magic can be pretty much any form of Epic Spellcasting used by an Elf, that all or most Mythals have capstones, etc.
Anyway, just here to provide an opinion for someone who cares more about lore than a good plot. :)
I'll be probably picking up the next two novels after next weekend (Mmmm, money), and then reading them quickly. |
Planescape Fanatic
"Fiends and Undead are the peanut butter and jelly of evil." - Me
"That attitude should be stomped on, whenever and wherever it's encountered, because it makes people holding such views bad citizens, not just bad roleplayers (considering D&D was structured as a 'forced cooperation' game, and although successive editions are pointing it more and more towards a me-first, min-max game, the drift away from 'we all need each other to succeed' will at some point make it 'no longer' D&D)." - ED GREENWOOD |
Edited by - GothicDan on 18 Jun 2006 19:56:31 |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2006 : 04:04:56
|
I, for one, care about both lore and a good plot.
And as some of you may already know, I am not an ardent fan of the Last Mythal series. I never ever felt the main characters were well fleshed out. However, I just bought this book (along with several others), and one of these days I will read it. And when I do, I will make my opinion known.
You can count on that!  |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
Edited by - Rinonalyrna Fathomlin on 19 Jun 2006 04:05:19 |
|
|
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2006 : 08:51:14
|
I'd like to point out, too, that much of my above criticism is not idiosyncratic to Rich's series, as much as a continuing trend that I've seen in 3E in general, by the way. :)
And I'm sure I'll like the actual writing of the novels; I read Mr. Baker's "Shadow Stone," and even though I didn't approve of the lore and such (being as it was originally written for Cerilia and all), I did enjoy the read itself for its own sake. I have a feeling I'll feel the same about this trilogy. |
Planescape Fanatic
"Fiends and Undead are the peanut butter and jelly of evil." - Me
"That attitude should be stomped on, whenever and wherever it's encountered, because it makes people holding such views bad citizens, not just bad roleplayers (considering D&D was structured as a 'forced cooperation' game, and although successive editions are pointing it more and more towards a me-first, min-max game, the drift away from 'we all need each other to succeed' will at some point make it 'no longer' D&D)." - ED GREENWOOD |
|
|
|
gss_000
Acolyte
USA
17 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2006 : 09:02:48
|
I actually was very impressed by the amount of lore in this book. GothicDan, I can understand your opinion on elves but I felt like they are misfounded in this case. The main character might not be the best example of elfishness since he is impulsive, but that was done on purpose by the author to give him a flaw appropriate for an elf. But if that doesn't convince you, you see examples of high mages who are very conservative and some of the most loyal sun elves I've ever read in a FR book. Throughout the series, you actually see good elf politics where both sides have legitimate points without one side being clearly in the right, both in book one when they are deciding on whether to engage in the Crusade and in this later book when characters start to discuss what should happen after the Crusade if it does accomplish its mission statement as it were. While the discussions obviously suffer from the necessity of total page count, I still thought they were nuanced especially for those who are amiliar with Realms history.
What I found one of the best part of the book, and the series, was that the organizations represented acted intelligently, someimes for the first time in and FR series. The Zhents were finally not relegated to stupidity almost to the level of comic relief standing as happens in some books which I'd rather not mention. The Sembians as a whole were a lot more sympathetic than they usually are when it comes to the Dales region (this is not to say that I found them comletely innocent, a distinction I enjoyed).
Finally in terms of lore, and what made me ecstatic, Richard Baker did not ignore the ending to Elaine Cunningham's Evermeet: Island of the Elves. Spoiler in case someone hasn't read that book: This was the first book, both gaming and fiction, to actually mention Laumaril's secret city since that book came out something like 7 years ago. You can't get better realmslore than that.
If the book and the series has a flaw, and this is a problem I've been having with several of the newer series, it's the limited word count the author is held to. I really enjoyed the series, but I know it could have been better if Baker was given all the length he wanted. Recent authors and thei works could easily support another 50-100 pages like their counterparts do in non-shared world series. I would have liked to have seen a little more on the non-POV characters since they seem so interesting myself, but I can see how space percluded that. I found it a shame we didn't see more because some of them were so unique. It's really hard, though, to get upset about this since that is just the way things are in the business.
But in the end, I surely would recommend the series. |
|
|
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2006 : 09:10:17
|
I won't comment more on the series until I read it, I think. I'll tally up the pros and cons, then. I do severely hope that at least some of what I suspect will be proven wrong.
Though if you'd like to continue the discussion in PMs or the like, feel free. I'm always up for conversation and debate. :) |
Planescape Fanatic
"Fiends and Undead are the peanut butter and jelly of evil." - Me
"That attitude should be stomped on, whenever and wherever it's encountered, because it makes people holding such views bad citizens, not just bad roleplayers (considering D&D was structured as a 'forced cooperation' game, and although successive editions are pointing it more and more towards a me-first, min-max game, the drift away from 'we all need each other to succeed' will at some point make it 'no longer' D&D)." - ED GREENWOOD |
|
|
|
johnnype
Acolyte
5 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2006 : 20:52:51
|
Hi everyone, I'm new to these boards but thankful there is a place for us fiction fans to discuss the novels we read.
I finished Final Gate last night and although I will agree that the book was not perfect I will say that I do think it was a worthwhile read and I'm glad I picked it up. There is much worth discussing but right now what strikes me the most is the fact that Myth Drannor is once again in the hands of the elves!! I also enjoy the fact that this book marks The Return of elves to Faerun. Elves dying out and "moving on" always struck me as very Tolkien-like (-ish?). It's fine for Middle Earth but i never saw the reason to make it true among so many other settings and I for one, am glad to see that those days are over.
On a different note I wanted to say that I really enjoy reading the book and following along with my RPG collection. Lost Empires of Faerun, specifically, is loaded with info that shows up in the book including (but not limited to) mention of Flar, the Crownblade (I think that's what it's called) and Malkizid. The FRCS also has writeups for the several of the characters that show up in the novels.
That's it for now. Like I said, I really enjoyed reading the series and plan on digesting and contributing to the discussion even more over the coming days. |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2006 : 21:52:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by gss_000
Throughout the series, you actually see good elf politics where both sides have legitimate points without one side being clearly in the right...
Really? I've read the first two books, and it seemed to me like the political discussions were very one-sided, with Seveiril being in the right (with the Queen secretly agreeing with him, too), and dissenters portrayed as not only short-sighted, but also racists and nasty individuals, too. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
|
gss_000
Acolyte
USA
17 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2006 : 22:27:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Really? I've read the first two books, and it seemed to me like the political discussions were very one-sided, with Seveiril being in the right (with the Queen secretly agreeing with him, too), and dissenters portrayed as not only short-sighted, but also racists and nasty individuals, too.
I didn't feel they came off that way. They were conservative, yes, but they had a legitimate concern after the events of the past few years. I thought the Queen's position was clearly one that a weak monarch has to carefully tread (and I mean weak in the sense that it is still in it's first generation and not an absolute monarchy).
As readers we have a vested interest in one side, and that makes Seveiril's points more "valid". However, consider all we've been through in the past five years in the real world. Now imagine the same on a much larger scale to a people who live in a world where violent death is rare and every life is more valued to the culture due to the low birth rates. I think some of those positions become a lot more understandable in that light, although I don't agree with them. |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jun 2006 : 00:38:52
|
Well, you have your opinion on the matter, I have mine.
I'm not out to dampen anyone's enthusiasm. In fact, I do like the fact that Rich Baker wants to portray the elves as a "vital and growing" part of Faerun again (as he put it in another thread). However, like I said, my main beef with these novels are how thinly the characters are written--it felt like they were going through the motions of starring in a story, but didn't feel strongly about it. I've commented extensively about this before.
Much of my vehemence on the issue comes from the rave reviews these novels have been getting, when there are such better novels out there, like the Waterdeep novel (by both Cunningham and Greenwood) and the Rogue Dragons series. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
|
gss_000
Acolyte
USA
17 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jun 2006 : 04:48:46
|
Yup, it's just my opinion, which in no way invalidates others. :)
And in another example of where I'm seeing something completely different than you are I thought there were a lot of "haters" on this series, which is why I posted here for the first time instead of just lurking and reading. I also really like Rogue Dragons series and I felt both series were definite classics for FR. I can definitely see people comparing these two series since they are in some ways very similar: realms shaking, epic fights, etc. It's hard for me to compare it to Waterdeep since the scale is totally different (and I had issues with it that I'd rather not go into here).
I hope I haven't made it sound like I think anyone who has a different opinion is wrong. Not my intent, I just like to defend my position when someone rebutts it. |
|
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jun 2006 : 05:03:28
|
I really liked this book. I really think in the end that it pulled off what the outcome of the series was to be very well, and I liked the context of the ending. I will say that while I liked the first book, I didn't see much character development, and the second book felt really rushed, as if a lot had to be crammed in and assumed to get to the final book where the REAL story started.
That having been said, a lot that concerned me coming out of the second book was dealt with in the third book. I could be crazy, but it seemed like the third book was more connected to Realmlore than the other two. Not that there weren't references in the first two, but the lore seemed a little more . . . obscure in this one, and a bit more natureally connected to the story than just being given in a back drop of the overall situation.
I am thrilled about the Zhent developments in the novel. I like the political situation as it stands, though I really want some rulebook to define a few of the things that happened that were a bit up in the air by the end.
I like the feeling that the elves not only survived, and beat out evil, but actually made some gains as well. That having been said, the Zhent issue looms large, so it wasn't a complete "happy ending" for the elves either. |
|
|
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jun 2006 : 05:33:51
|
quote:
I also really like Rogue Dragons series and I felt both series were definite classics for FR. I can definitely see people comparing these two series since they are in some ways very similar: realms shaking, epic fights, etc. It's hard for me to compare it to Waterdeep since the scale is totally different (and I had issues with it that I'd rather not go into here).
That really doesn't bode well for me... I read the first of the Rage novels, and I despised it, lore-wise and how "mechanical" it felt... I really didn't like a single thing about it.
I really hope that the two trilogies aren't similar.. I don't like RSE's, I don't like battle scenes much (I usually skip over much of them), I don't like metaplot (in FR at least), and I really don't like how the newer novels try so hard to blatantly fit into the 3E D&D rules. (Like in the Rage, the Bladesinger [Who felt to me like a human with wings who could cast spells and use a sword - no poetry or Elven style detailed at all] sticking very closely to the RoF's bladesinger spell list.) Since FR was made to be a novel/story world before a D&D world, I prefer to see things as they are in FR - not as they are in D&D - unless they happen to be the same. And I believe Rich said specifically that he does try to stick to game mechanics when he writes his books.
I don't know. I guess I just don't like in general the new direction the novels, as a whole, are headed. Not trying to be offensive - I just am trying to get across, specifically, what I dislike about the newer novels. It's impossible to do this without a little negativity.
I suppose I could always start reading Elfblade to cheer myself up. :) By far my favorite FR novel so far has been Evermeet. |
Planescape Fanatic
"Fiends and Undead are the peanut butter and jelly of evil." - Me
"That attitude should be stomped on, whenever and wherever it's encountered, because it makes people holding such views bad citizens, not just bad roleplayers (considering D&D was structured as a 'forced cooperation' game, and although successive editions are pointing it more and more towards a me-first, min-max game, the drift away from 'we all need each other to succeed' will at some point make it 'no longer' D&D)." - ED GREENWOOD |
Edited by - GothicDan on 20 Jun 2006 05:38:54 |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jun 2006 : 01:15:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by gss_000
Yup, it's just my opinion, which in no way invalidates others. :)
And in another example of where I'm seeing something completely different than you are I thought there were a lot of "haters" on this series, which is why I posted here for the first time instead of just lurking and reading. I also really like Rogue Dragons series and I felt both series were definite classics for FR. I can definitely see people comparing these two series since they are in some ways very similar: realms shaking, epic fights, etc. It's hard for me to compare it to Waterdeep since the scale is totally different (and I had issues with it that I'd rather not go into here).
I hope I haven't made it sound like I think anyone who has a different opinion is wrong. Not my intent, I just like to defend my position when someone rebutts it.
Understandable.  I'm not a "hater" of anything (or anyone, for that matter), I'm just a person who picked up some books, read them, and didn't find them to be as great as a lot of people have said they were. That's life.
Anyway, I do *like* it that elves have been some gains...to be honest, I was never too keen on the way Evermeet was considered the be-all end-all for many elves (especially gold elves). Evermeet is nice, but in truth I don't find it all that interesting--basically, all of my characters adventure on the main land and love it, including the elves that came from Evermeet to begin with. So, more places for elves on Faerun is a nice thing for me.
However, I think the Rogue Dragons series is better written because the author doesn't lose sight of the fact that the story is about certain people, not just about epic events. In the Last Mythal series, I felt as though the events were far more important than the people who were living through them. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jun 2006 : 01:30:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by GothicDan
I don't know. I guess I just don't like in general the new direction the novels, as a whole, are headed. Not trying to be offensive - I just am trying to get across, specifically, what I dislike about the newer novels. It's impossible to do this without a little negativity.
No, by all means make your opinion known. I'm not that fond of the whole Realms-shaking event marketing myself. Even though it's not exactly new, it feels like these RSEs happen more often than they used to.
But then, I've been wondering if part of my feelings are based in ego-centric nostalgia. I think one truth about fandoms, for many people, is that the fandom was at "it's best" or at it's "peak"...when one first joins and everything is so new. Then, when things change again (as they always do), people complain because they aren't like they were in "the good old days".
I have to wonder if I would have despised the Time of Troubles if I got into the FR before that particular RSE took place. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jun 2006 : 02:38:54
|
| I don't know. I dislike much of the results of the ToT (if not the ToT itself) and I got into FR way, way after it happened. :) |
Planescape Fanatic
"Fiends and Undead are the peanut butter and jelly of evil." - Me
"That attitude should be stomped on, whenever and wherever it's encountered, because it makes people holding such views bad citizens, not just bad roleplayers (considering D&D was structured as a 'forced cooperation' game, and although successive editions are pointing it more and more towards a me-first, min-max game, the drift away from 'we all need each other to succeed' will at some point make it 'no longer' D&D)." - ED GREENWOOD |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31727 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jun 2006 : 02:48:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
I have to wonder if I would have despised the Time of Troubles if I got into the FR before that particular RSE took place.
I didn't despise the event itself, disliked it perhaps... but I certainly did not want the overall results of the ToT to be included within my FR campaign. I wanted my FR to stay true to the original 1e FR, rather than reflect the change-over to 2e, as the ToT did.
Thus, I've still got Bane, Bhaal and Myrkul... along with Mystra 1.0 in my Faerunian pantheon.
|
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
Edited by - The Sage on 21 Jun 2006 02:49:36 |
|
|
|
hammer of Moradin
Senior Scribe
USA
758 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jun 2006 : 05:31:46
|
My main gripe is about the lack of dwarves in all three books! The second book was in a dwarf-rich environment, and we did not even see any of the usual political differences between the two. I can understand there being no Dales dwarf presence, since there are only a few small communities, but surely it has some impact on dwarves, positive or negative.
I did enjoy this series. It accomplished what I expected of it, and did so without delving on the past, yet still mentions events leading up to what happens. The elves return, evil is checked, and cool lore is to be had.
I do have to agree with some of the concerns about the demons, devils, and the elves. Other evil races should have been used rather than having whole armies of the infernal outsiders. Which begs the question, whatever happened to the drow? I know they abandoned Sarya at the end, but they did not do much other than make an assassination attempt. They were not even mentioned in the final battle that I can recall.
Still, a worthy series for any Realmsanados. Especially if you read the first two already.
Too bad Rich had limited space, because I would have liked to see events unfold from a 'common' elf's POV. An emerging hero who plays a pivotal role in the end, but is not the savior, or somesuch nonsense. |
"Hurling himself upon his enemies, he terrified them with slaughter!"
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium
Candlekeep proverb: If a thing is said often enough, fools aplenty will believe it to be true. |
|
|
|
SiriusBlack
Great Reader
USA
5517 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jun 2006 : 13:40:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
But then, I've been wondering if part of my feelings are based in ego-centric nostalgia. I think one truth about fandoms, for many people, is that the fandom was at "it's best" or at it's "peak"...when one first joins and everything is so new. Then, when things change again (as they always do), people complain because they aren't like they were in "the good old days".
That's a very interesting assessment and one that could hold weight with many FR fans I've encountered online here and elsewhere. |
|
|
|
Kuje
Great Reader
USA
7915 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jun 2006 : 17:28:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by GothicDan
I don't know. I dislike much of the results of the ToT (if not the ToT itself) and I got into FR way, way after it happened. :)
As did I since I didn't know there were sourcebooks for FR until I found them in the local hobby store and 2e had been out for years when that happened. I got into FR because of the old SSI games and the novels and I never realized, as I said, there were sourcebooks until a random stop into Crazy Egors one day and then I was like, oh! MINE! Must get sourcebooks! |
For some of us, books are as important as almost anything else on earth. What a miracle it is that out of these small, flat, rigid squares of paper unfolds world after world, worlds that sing to you, comfort and quiet and excite you... Books are full of the things that you don't get in real life - wonderful, lyrical language, for instance, right off the bat. - Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jun 2006 : 01:38:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by SiriusBlack
That's a very interesting assessment and one that could hold weight with many FR fans I've encountered online here and elsewhere.
Thanks. Good comments by all, btw... |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
|
Hoondatha
Great Reader
USA
2449 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jun 2006 : 20:39:17
|
Well, I'm one of those who joined up in the early days of 2e, and also one that hates much of 3e. I think much of it comes, not so much from nostalgia, but from a sense that the designers back then cared more about the established lore than the designers of today do. This is, of course, an over-generalization; there are designers today who do a good/great job (Serpent Kingdoms comes to mind, as does Waterdeep), but a number of really stupid changes were made at the start of 3e (this whole Great Tree nonsense), and others then compounded them, and we're now stuck with it. That's a large part of my dislike of the current system, and why I still use Second Edition.
Btw, for those who say that Bane showed more "character" than Xvim or Cyric, I have an (unsarcastic) question: where did he show up in 1e lore to give us a look at his character? Bhaal, yes (Moonshae Trilogy), but I don't remember Bane doing much in either novels or sourcebooks, and I have most of them. I'm curious where the Bane love comes from. |
Doggedly converting 3e back to what D&D should be...
Sigh... And now 4e as well. |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jun 2006 : 20:46:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
Well, I'm one of those who joined up in the early days of 2e, and also one that hates much of 3e. I think much of it comes, not so much from nostalgia, but from a sense that the designers back then cared more about the established lore than the designers of today do.
You see, as far as I'm concerned, that mentality is just another part of nostalgia--the vague (and often not too well supported) sense that "back then, people cared more". I've heard that many times before, regarding all sorts of things. Granted, I know very well that controversial design decisions have been made in recent years, but according to everything I've read from even older FR fans, this isn't exactly new.
I'm not disagreeing with you or telling you what to think, just suggesting that these sentiments (that I believe everyone feels now and then) may not all be based in truth so much as emotion.
|
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
Edited by - Rinonalyrna Fathomlin on 22 Jun 2006 20:49:41 |
|
|
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jun 2006 : 23:28:53
|
| The decisions aren't new, per se, but we're privy to less of the behind-the-scenes mechanics going on at WotC - which makes it seem less personal. :) |
Planescape Fanatic
"Fiends and Undead are the peanut butter and jelly of evil." - Me
"That attitude should be stomped on, whenever and wherever it's encountered, because it makes people holding such views bad citizens, not just bad roleplayers (considering D&D was structured as a 'forced cooperation' game, and although successive editions are pointing it more and more towards a me-first, min-max game, the drift away from 'we all need each other to succeed' will at some point make it 'no longer' D&D)." - ED GREENWOOD |
|
|
|
Hoondatha
Great Reader
USA
2449 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jun 2006 : 04:55:30
|
I'm no stranger to nostalgia, but in this case, my nostalgia is fed by the depressing facts that I've seen. I don't like much of the larger decisions made over the past few years. I don't like the respect, or lack thereof, given established lore. I was not, and remain not inherently opposed to a Third Edition. I take issue with the Third Edition that they made.
And arguing that we aren't being objective is silly. It's pretty much been proven that *nothing* anyone does is objective. As we say in Shadowrun, even a paranoid has enemies. Just because a belief is colored by emotion does not mean it cannot also be right. |
Doggedly converting 3e back to what D&D should be...
Sigh... And now 4e as well. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Final Gate (spoilers)
