| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Kalevala |
Posted - 26 Jun 2007 : 21:24:33
OK, I've just read Shadowdale and Tantras, and I'm bothered by a couple of things that happened/was mentioned in the books. I'm looking for some insight but please keep in mind that I haven't read Waterdeep yet 
1) I don't know much about Storm Silverhand but I was under the impression that she's a good-hearted, just, and intelligent adventurer. Granted, she thought she'd lost a very dear friend, but is it really like her to jump to conclusions and go on a fit of blood-lusted rage and condemn Midnight and Adon with such little evidence? (They were sentenced to death for "killing Elminster")
2) When Myrkul killed "all the assassins in the Realms" to give Bane more power, wouldn't that mean that big names like Artemis Entreri should've been dead since the ToT?
3) What is the "Council of Wizards in Waterdeep" that Elminster mentioned in the end of Tantras? Is it still active? Where can I find more info on the Council?
edit: changed the abbreviation ToB (=typo) to ToT. Dunno what I was thinking about. The Time of Bubbles, maybe?  |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 25 Jul 2007 : 01:47:09
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
I think it's important to note, also, that Ao was not something Ed created. TSR come up with the concept of Ao and he was brought into the setting during the Time of Troubles -- through the 1e to 2e change over. As it stands, Ed has no idea on where TSR came up with the concept of Ao.
He doesn't? That's kind of funny. Maybe TSR just liked the idea of one god being in charge of everything? |
| The Sage |
Posted - 22 Jul 2007 : 15:57:17
I think it's important to note, also, that Ao was not something Ed created. TSR come up with the concept of Ao and he was brought into the setting during the Time of Troubles -- through the 1e to 2e change over. As it stands, Ed has no idea on where TSR came up with the concept of Ao.
|
| Kalevala |
Posted - 22 Jul 2007 : 15:24:21
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
Aye, Faiths and Avatars says it's a "Supreme Being." Mostly TSR said that that was the DM, or that's whats been said throughout the years.
Really? Talk about breaking the fourth wall...  |
| Kuje |
Posted - 22 Jul 2007 : 14:58:29
quote:
Originally posted by Kalevala
I don't know what to make of the revelation at the very end, indicating that even Ao has a master. Is "the overgod of overgods" thing ever revisited elsewhere?
Aye, Faiths and Avatars says it's a "Supreme Being." Mostly TSR said that that was the DM, or that's whats been said throughout the years. |
| Kalevala |
Posted - 22 Jul 2007 : 11:52:41
Just thought I'd come by to say I read the Waterdeep novel the other day.
The only odd thing I noticed in this one, was that Cyric didn't take the opporunity to kill Adon when he had the chance on top of the Blackstaff tower. Sure, he was in a hurry but it couldn't have taken him more than a couple of seconds since Adon was helpless.
It was a great read although we didn't get to 'see' much of the city because the majority of the events took place in Khelben's tower.
I don't know what to make of the revelation at the very end, indicating that even Ao has a master. Is "the overgod of overgods" thing ever revisited elsewhere? |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 02 Jul 2007 : 04:05:54
Ah yes, the Avatar trilogy . . . that's what we were talking about. Thanks for the helpful dweomer Wooly (ahem . . . sorry about the accidental topic obscurement I helped to cast). |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 02 Jul 2007 : 03:32:37
*Wooly wanders in and casts Detect Topic on the scroll* |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 01 Jul 2007 : 18:27:25
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
And now its computer games, earlier it was movies. Let us not forget the comic-code. Before that it was literature. I would say that the string of suicides following Goethe's The Sorrows of Young Werther was a clearer case than Judas Priest and D&D, but it has gone out of fashion to blame books, so little is said of this any more. Something must be blamed for kids not turning out as planned and each generation needs its scapegoat.
Anyway, as for the logics of the moves done by the post-Gygax management of TSR, the stories of these are many.
Well, it's still literature, at least in the States. There are a lot of people who have taken many books to court over "witchcraft" claims. Especially the Harry Potter books. There's a mother down in the south who has lost FIVE court cases and she still insists that those books need to be removed from schools. The sad thing about the court cases is that she publically admits, every time she loses, that she's never read the books, so she doesn't even know what is in the books.
Yea, there are always individual cases all over the world, but it seems to me that the huge cases where great outrage from people with little knowledge of the topic in question are generally left to other areas now. This does not make the cases that come forth less ridiculous; I seem to remember a school getting sued because a pupil had read swearwords in a book.
A little of topic, but the book 100 banned books from Checkmark books takes a closer look at some of the more interesting cases, from the age of the inquisition to modern school library cases.
|
| Kuje |
Posted - 01 Jul 2007 : 16:53:06
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
And now its computer games, earlier it was movies. Let us not forget the comic-code. Before that it was literature. I would say that the string of suicides following Goethe's The Sorrows of Young Werther was a clearer case than Judas Priest and D&D, but it has gone out of fashion to blame books, so little is said of this any more. Something must be blamed for kids not turning out as planned and each generation needs its scapegoat.
Anyway, as for the logics of the moves done by the post-Gygax management of TSR, the stories of these are many.
Well, it's still literature, at least in the States. There are a lot of people who have taken many books to court over "witchcraft" claims. Especially the Harry Potter books. There's a mother down in the south who has lost FIVE court cases and she still insists that those books need to be removed from schools. The sad thing about the court cases is that she publically admits, every time she loses, that she's never read the books, so she doesn't even know what is in the books. |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 01 Jul 2007 : 14:25:13
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
Yeah, in the United States, there were two big "infamous" events that fed into the anti-D&D craze, the first one being the disappearance of Dallas Egbert III, around which there was a lot of misinformation that got into the press, not the least of which being that the guy may not even have done much D&D playing outside of going to one of the early conventions. The theory on this one was that D&D made him "detached from reality," and so he wandered off from his college. He was eventually found, and he himself didn't seem to ever reference D&D in his reason for disappearing (these events were, rather horribly, fictionalized in the Made for TV movie Mazes and Monsters, but at least it gave Tom Hanks his (unintentional) comedic debut).
The second big event in D&D hysteria had to do with Irving Pulling II, who committed suicide, ostensibly because he play D&D (although, as with most cases, there was a lot more going on in his life besides D&D). This even occurred in 1983, and his mother's lawsuit against the school he went to was in the courts in 1984.
The point being, 1985 was probably the beginning of the lessening of the hysteria against the game. By 1989, when 2nd edition came out and the Avatar Trilogy was written, most of the same people that were claiming that D&D was the bane of humanity had moved on to blaming heavy metal music for all of societies ills.
Sometimes I wonder if every generation has to have its Frederick Wertham.
And now its computer games, earlier it was movies. Let us not forget the comic-code. Before that it was literature. I would say that the string of suicides following Goethe's The Sorrows of Young Werther was a clearer case than Judas Priest and D&D, but it has gone out of fashion to blame books, so little is said of this any more. Something must be blamed for kids not turning out as planned and each generation needs its scapegoat.
Anyway, as for the logics of the moves done by the post-Gygax management of TSR, the stories of these are many.
|
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 01 Jul 2007 : 01:47:02
Yeah, in the United States, there were two big "infamous" events that fed into the anti-D&D craze, the first one being the disappearance of Dallas Egbert III, around which there was a lot of misinformation that got into the press, not the least of which being that the guy may not even have done much D&D playing outside of going to one of the early conventions. The theory on this one was that D&D made him "detached from reality," and so he wandered off from his college. He was eventually found, and he himself didn't seem to ever reference D&D in his reason for disappearing (these events were, rather horribly, fictionalized in the Made for TV movie Mazes and Monsters, but at least it gave Tom Hanks his (unintentional) comedic debut).
The second big event in D&D hysteria had to do with Irving Pulling II, who committed suicide, ostensibly because he play D&D (although, as with most cases, there was a lot more going on in his life besides D&D). This even occurred in 1983, and his mother's lawsuit against the school he went to was in the courts in 1984.
The point being, 1985 was probably the beginning of the lessening of the hysteria against the game. By 1989, when 2nd edition came out and the Avatar Trilogy was written, most of the same people that were claiming that D&D was the bane of humanity had moved on to blaming heavy metal music for all of societies ills.
Sometimes I wonder if every generation has to have its Frederick Wertham.
|
| Kalevala |
Posted - 01 Jul 2007 : 01:31:15
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
We're looking at explanations like someone at TSR actually liking the bowdlerization, extreme gutlessness, and Lorraine Williams's nuttiness.
Wow. Nice to know... then again not. Makes me sad somehow. |
| Faraer |
Posted - 30 Jun 2007 : 17:53:54
quote:
Originally posted by Calrond
Knowing what I know now, I wouldn't either. I'd either recommend Homeland, Elminster: Making of a Mage, or one of Elaine's books.
No doubt, the Avatar books are a bad introduction. You have these specific misportrayals, the fact that in 1989 only Ed Greenwood and Jeff Grubb of published novelists had a good feel for the Realms, the committee-designed weirdnesses of the plot, and a dramatic structure based on upheaval to a world a new reader doesn't yet inherently care about.
quote:
Originally posted by Kalevala
I don't know but I'd guess that the heat coming from the media in the States/Canada was pretty substantial. They had to make a business decision under problematic circumstances.
That's the thing, in 1989 it wasn't, and this doesn't resemble any normal business decision. We're looking at explanations like someone at TSR actually liking the bowdlerization, extreme gutlessness, and Lorraine Williams's nuttiness. |
| Fillow |
Posted - 29 Jun 2007 : 20:20:13
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
...
Even though Artemis Entreri has always been called an assassin, I don't believe he has ever actually been statted up as one -- not the 1E class, the 2E kit, or the 3.x PrC.
In Hall of heroes, TSR 9252 (AD&D), Artemis is statted as a Seventh-Level Human Fighter & 11th-Level Assassin
In Villain's Lorebook, TSR 9552 (AD&D), he's statted as an 11th-level thief/15th level fighter |
| Kalevala |
Posted - 29 Jun 2007 : 18:52:21
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
Point of view is what I mean.
Ah, my mistake 
quote:
Originally posted by Thauramarth
So the Council of Wizards would just be a gathering of likeminded mages.
Makes sense. You're probably right. Thanks for clearing that up!
quote:
Originally posted by Calrond
Still, I just felt like Mystra should have known better.
Yeah, that's what I thought too. Of course, your theory of not thinking rationally could explain it (that's how I explained it to myself), but it could also be just the author's dead line. Who knows!
On the topic of first read, I'd probably go with Elaine.
quote:
Originally posted by khorne
Why did TSR submit to those (extremely censored so I don't get banned) mothers in the first place?
I don't know but I'd guess that the heat coming from the media in the States/Canada was pretty substantial. They had to make a business decision under problematic circumstances. Whether that decision was a good or a bad one is anyone's guess, but it sure made things more complex for the gamers.  |
| khorne |
Posted - 29 Jun 2007 : 08:41:03
quote:
Originally posted by The Hooded One
The Great Assassin Kill-Off was mandated by TSR management of the time (i.e. staff designers were ordered to do it by their employer), so as to appease "Angry Mothers From Heck" and make the D&D game less "Satanic" and evil (devils went away, demons went away, assassins went away - - by those names, at least, purely so some pulpit-thumper couldn't wave a rulebook and thunder that the game contained them. Which would keep the game out of a lot of markets, or so the thinking went.
Yes, Storm is depicted wrongly (so are Sharantyr, and Mourngrym, and a lot of other folks, too). Sigh.
love to all,
THO
Why did TSR submit to those (extremely censored so I don't get banned) mothers in the first place? |
| Kuje |
Posted - 29 Jun 2007 : 06:33:25
quote:
Originally posted by Calrond
Good point. It explains how Meleghost Starseer (LE) and Elminster (CG) can legally, by the rules, worship the same goddess with the one-step alignment system in place, even though they were both Mystrans before the Time of Troubles. I wonder if that's the only reason, though.
Well, 1) Only divine casters have to be one step, so anything that is not a divine caster is excluded from that rule and 2) there was no one step rule until 3/3.5e. |
| Calrond |
Posted - 29 Jun 2007 : 06:04:20
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Calrond
By the way, THO, if you read this, do you have any insight on why TSR decided to kill Mystra and replace her with Midnight? Was it Ed's call or did they do it for dramatic effect to kick off the Avatar Trilogy? I'm stumped on this, but it puts to mind a question I'll post on the Ed thread.
There were some changes to spells and spellcasting betwixt 1E and 2E... Killing Mystra was prolly the in-game way of explaining this. Remember, that was the point of the ToT: to give in-game explanations for rule changes.
Good point. It explains how Meleghost Starseer (LE) and Elminster (CG) can legally, by the rules, worship the same goddess with the one-step alignment system in place, even though they were both Mystrans before the Time of Troubles. I wonder if that's the only reason, though. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 29 Jun 2007 : 05:48:31
quote:
Originally posted by Calrond
By the way, THO, if you read this, do you have any insight on why TSR decided to kill Mystra and replace her with Midnight? Was it Ed's call or did they do it for dramatic effect to kick off the Avatar Trilogy? I'm stumped on this, but it puts to mind a question I'll post on the Ed thread.
There were some changes to spells and spellcasting betwixt 1E and 2E... Killing Mystra was prolly the in-game way of explaining this. Remember, that was the point of the ToT: to give in-game explanations for rule changes. |
| Calrond |
Posted - 29 Jun 2007 : 05:25:08
quote:
Originally posted by Kalevala
quote:
Originally posted by Calrond
Aside from that, I thought the books were pretty good.
After all that's said and done, I second that! Although, contrary to many people, I wouldn't recommend them as the first FR books to be read by a new guy.
Knowing what I know now, I wouldn't either. I'd either recommend Homeland, Elminster: Making of a Mage, or one of Elaine's books.
Also, I'm not so sure Mystra was portrayed correctly now that I think of it. Surely she knew that she couldn't just sneak past Helm with her in her borrowed body and him still a full deity. And even if she didn't have access to the Planes, she could have given Midnight instructions on how to get to Nirvana (I think Mystra resided in Nirvana then, rather than Dweomerheart, I seem to remember that reference in Shadowdale, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.) and what to do once she got there to find the Tablets of Fate, since that's what Mystra wanted to get back to her home plane for, and Midnight was going to have to travel the Planes anyway to get the second tablet.
Of course, maybe she was portrayed correctly, and we shouldn't expect a fallen deity to be acting rationally. To go from nigh omnipotence to mortal frailty would be a heck of a psychological shock. Still, I just felt like Mystra should have known better. She would have made a better teammate than casualty.
By the way, THO, if you read this, do you have any insight on why TSR decided to kill Mystra and replace her with Midnight? Was it Ed's call or did they do it for dramatic effect to kick off the Avatar Trilogy? I'm stumped on this, but it puts to mind a question I'll post on the Ed thread. |
| Thauramarth |
Posted - 28 Jun 2007 : 19:58:36
quote:
Originally posted by Kalevala
3) What is the "Council of Wizards in Waterdeep" that Elminster mentioned in the end of Tantras? Is it still active? Where can I find more info on the Council?
I think that the "Council of Wizards" is not an organization, but rather an impromptu gathering of mages during the Time of Troubles. I.e., there were a number of mages that senses that the Fate of the Realms would be decided in Waterdeep, and head there. There is a snippet of rumor in FRE2 - Tantras (the adventure), whihc states "1. Mages have disappeared-not just from Tantras, but from all across the Reach-and are said to be gathering in Waterdeep." In addition, the heading for Tantras in the Forgotten Realms Adventures hardback indicates that the wizardess Tarntassa "went to Waterdeep in the Time of Troubles".
So the Council of Wizards would just be a gathering of likeminded mages.
EDIT: erased duplicate replies.
|
| Faraer |
Posted - 28 Jun 2007 : 18:30:24
quote:
Originally posted by Kalevala
Meant to ask, what's POV (other than Point of View)?
Point of view is what I mean. |
| Kalevala |
Posted - 28 Jun 2007 : 11:49:45
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
Jim Lowder has said that out-of-character Storm is unreliable narration from the perspective of the POV characters, but I haven't gone back to the book to try to read it in that light.
Meant to ask, what's POV (other than Point of View)? |
| Kalevala |
Posted - 28 Jun 2007 : 11:42:32
quote:
Originally posted by Reefy
The portrayal of Storm has been (widely?) criticised before. It doesn't seem in character to me either.
quote:
Originally posted by The Hooded One
Yes, Storm is depicted wrongly (so are Sharantyr, and Mourngrym, and a lot of other folks, too). Sigh.
I thought as much. I've also read just two books about Elminster (Making of a Mage and El in Myth Drannor) in which he was still young, but the grumpiness he had going on in these Avatar books really surprised me. Sure, he's old now but I thought he was beyond grumpy at times... more like angry for no reason.
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
thus the all assassins were killed. Yes, it read what it meant but later material, especially 3/3.5e material, has since changed that to only those assassins that worshiped him were killed.
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
Indeed. WotC altered that particular Realmslore tidbit in the FRCS on pg. 264. As it stands now, only the assassins that worshipped Bhaal were killed, not ALL assassins were killed.
Well, that cleared that up. Thanks. There really should be a foot note somewhere in the reprinted Avatar books to check FRCS pg. 264 for an updated clarification
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Part of the point of the ToT was to transition over from 1E to 2E. In 1E, assassin was a separate class. While anyone can kill another person for money, not all killers-for-hire could be considered members of the assassin class.
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
I've taken this to mean that only those with the assassin class died (which means any hitherto unstatted character can easily be said to survive the event).
quote:
Originally posted by TobyKikami
I remember Salvatore explaining he'd argued to higher-ups that Entreri wasn't an assassin per se, just a "fighter/thief that gets paid to kill people."
If this is indeed true and even part of "the reason" behind some assassins surviving  , then...
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
I always thought the "kill all people described by the rules as assassins" thing was stupid, because classes are just supposed to be ways of describing a character--that is, incidental. I see it as an example of putting rules over story.
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
Apparently some designers didn't get, at the time, that a class is just a collection of skills represented in the rules that certain characters just happen to have in common
...Amen to this...
quote:
Originally posted by The Hooded One
The Great Assassin Kill-Off was mandated by TSR management of the time (i.e. staff designers were ordered to do it by their employer), so as to appease "Angry Mothers From Heck" and make the D&D game less "Satanic" and evil (devils went away, demons went away, assassins went away - - by those names, at least, purely so some pulpit-thumper couldn't wave a rulebook and thunder that the game contained them. Which would keep the game out of a lot of markets, or so the thinking went.
...although I do understand the reason (while not neccessarily agreeing with the method). I guess the Realms are just too big for anyone to keep track of all these details, so they have to keep re-writing something every once in a while.
quote:
Originally posted by Reefy
3) I'm afraid my memory of the books is a little fuzzy, but my guess would be the Watchful Order of Magists and Protectors. See any sourcebook on Waterdeep, such as City of Splendors: Waterdeep, or the 2E City of Splendors box set.
Yeah, I though of the Watchful Order too, but when you think about it, the Council of Wizards doesn't really sound like what the Watchful Order is about, so I dismissed the idea.
I've read both of those sources through previously, and I don't recall any mention of the Council of Wizards in either one of them.
quote:
Originally posted by TobyKikami
Storm gave me pause - but not as much as Cyric being referred to repeatedly as part of the "heroes" collective after cutting a bloody swath through the Twisted Tower. I actually kind of liked him in those books, especially stacked up against the general Shadowdale mob mentality depicted therein, but come on.
LOL, I really thought so too
quote:
Originally posted by Calrond
Aside from that, I thought the books were pretty good.
After all that's said and done, I second that! Although, contrary to many people, I wouldn't recommend them as the first FR books to be read by a new guy. |
| Calrond |
Posted - 27 Jun 2007 : 19:51:55
Right, you can be the dictionary definition of an "assassin" without having the first level of Assassin.
Shadowdale and Tantras were actually the first two Realms books I ever read, and I only learned afterward that the characters weren't portrayed correctly (especially Storm and Elminster). Aside from that, I thought the books were pretty good.
But they still pale in comparison to the Shadow of the Avatar Trilogy. That is, IMHO, some of the best Realms writing to date. |
| TobyKikami |
Posted - 27 Jun 2007 : 15:48:30
Yeah, witch-hunting!Storm gave me pause - but not as much as Cyric being referred to repeatedly as part of the "heroes" collective after cutting a bloody swath through the Twisted Tower. I actually kind of liked him in those books, especially stacked up against the general Shadowdale mob mentality depicted therein, but come on.
Side note on the assassin thing - at a book signing, I remember Salvatore explaining he'd argued to higher-ups that Entreri wasn't an assassin per se, just a "fighter/thief that gets paid to kill people." |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 27 Jun 2007 : 01:59:05
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
That whole policy is still mysterious, though, because as far as I know, that controversy was, at least in the short commercial term, massively beneficial for D&D.
The other thing that I thought was strange about the whole "sanitizing" policy is that, at least where I lived in the Midwest, the controversy was largely dead by the time 2nd edition came out. Granted, that's highly annecdotal on my part, but even the media seemed to have moved on . . . no more 60 minutes pieces, 700 Club rants, "Mazes and Monsters" made for TV movies . . . |
| The Hooded One |
Posted - 27 Jun 2007 : 01:57:52
True, it was indeed. However, the management of the time (and here I'm looking right at the top layers, not at the creative folks) were not known for their logic.
There was a REASON a certain female sometime owner of TSR was known as "the Whim Queen."
love,
THO |
| Faraer |
Posted - 27 Jun 2007 : 01:54:12
That whole policy is still mysterious, though, because as far as I know, that controversy was, at least in the short commercial term, massively beneficial for D&D. |
| The Hooded One |
Posted - 27 Jun 2007 : 01:41:13
The Great Assassin Kill-Off was mandated by TSR management of the time (i.e. staff designers were ordered to do it by their employer), so as to appease "Angry Mothers From Heck" and make the D&D game less "Satanic" and evil (devils went away, demons went away, assassins went away - - by those names, at least, purely so some pulpit-thumper couldn't wave a rulebook and thunder that the game contained them. Which would keep the game out of a lot of markets, or so the thinking went.
Yes, Storm is depicted wrongly (so are Sharantyr, and Mourngrym, and a lot of other folks, too). Sigh.
love to all,
THO |
|
|
