| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Tanthalas
Senior Scribe
Portugal
508 Posts |
 Posted - 16 Jun 2015 : 08:15:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
It's in the book, so it happened. There's no question that Joelle magically charmed Arietta with a Chosen-empowered charm and had sex with her (off page). Arietta was confused afterwards, once the charm had worn off. The only real question is whether or not the reader interprets it as a rape. It's really not much different than slipping someone a drug - and remember, Joelle's intention was to ultimately get Arietta to commit suicide "for love" (she didn't), so the deeper intent for violent harm was there.
And like I said, people should read the book themselves and make their own conclusions. In my opinion you're greatly exaggerating those scenes in the book. |
Sir Markham pointed out, drinking another brandy. "A chap who can point at you and say 'die' has the distinct advantage". |
 |
|
|
Rymac
Learned Scribe
USA
316 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jun 2015 : 08:36:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
I am intrigued by Eltheron's post above though. When you say "crossed the line", do you mean "shouldn't have featured at all" or was there something about the scene that wasn't fit to publish? Rape is an unfortunate fact of our human existence. It also exists in the animal world as I recall.
If we can write about murder wthout blinking an eye, why can't authors write about rape? This query flows on also from the recent Game of Thrones hullabaloo. Watching or reading about a murder scene doesn't make me want to kill someone. Same with rape, incest, joining a circus and worshipping Odin. I'm reading about a made up place with made up people and made up events.
I'm clearly not getting it. What did Troy do that "crossed the line"?
-- George Krashos
I'm more interested in reading the book now, since it pushes boundaries. Troy didn't cross a line IMHO. It has more to do with America's ingrained puritanical roots, but yet its penchant for blood sport and violence. Even the more liberal among us still get easily outraged by scenes on television and movies or what we read in a book.
Yet people buy the books and keep on watching. Go figure. |
|
|
|
Garen Thal
Master of Realmslore
USA
1105 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jun 2015 : 17:05:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Things are changing, and society is coming to accept broader definitions of sexuality than what was acceptable before -- but we've got a long way to go, there. Because of that, I think that we're still several years away from WotC giving us a novel with a prominent gay male protagonist.
Prominent, and out, perhaps. But there are at least two gay male characters (Mehen and Maranth Goldfeather) in Erin's Fire in the Blood, and I'm fairly sure that Ashes of the Tyrant, which focuses a lot on Mehen’s story, is going to feature the twins’ adoptive dragonborn father fairly prominently.
(Edited for a spacing issue.) |
Edited by - Garen Thal on 16 Jun 2015 17:07:16 |
|
|
|
Eltheron
Senior Scribe
740 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jun 2015 : 08:10:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rymac
I'm more interested in reading the book now, since it pushes boundaries. Troy didn't cross a line IMHO. It has more to do with America's ingrained puritanical roots, but yet its penchant for blood sport and violence. Even the more liberal among us still get easily outraged by scenes on television and movies or what we read in a book.
Yet people buy the books and keep on watching. Go figure.
Ehhhhhh, I should perhaps clarify - this book really doesn't push any boundaries in a way that challenges the reader in the way I think you're thinking. I just think it's very poorly written in that it breaks credibility of the Realms' inherent good-vs-evil defining characteristics.
Game of Thrones, that definitely pushes boundaries. But it does so in a way that is consistent with the meta-reality of GRRM's world. GoT has a fluid dynamic of good and evil, where it's intentionally crafted to go against many classic Tolkien/D&D defining characteristics. In D&D gaming play, and in the Realms, you can go "gritty" and very dark, but ultimately good is good and evil is evil. Many of the complaints about the 4E Realms were because too many shades of grey were loaded into the Realms (non-evil orcs, kindly drow having a population explosion, an influx of Far Realm aberrations and even Drizzt getting confused about blurring lines).
Now for some, they loved that blurring of lines, as the black-n-white good vs evil was swept away in favor of blurred variations of gray. But I think it's one of the things that also pushed people away. I'm also fully aware that many contract authors and designers really strived to push that, partly because they believed the Realms was always that way (and having seen Ed's home Realms, that's partly true). But the canon Realms, it's actually fairly black and white when it comes to questions of good and evil. When an author starts to blur that line, particularly by having a Chosen of the goddess Sune start doing things that are unquestionably evil (perhaps in the name of pragmatism), it breaks trust with the reader. There are expectations in this world: evil is not tolerated by good gods or people, and evildoers get their comeuppance.
Violate that expectation, and it's bad writing. It's offensive to the reader's known expectations and beliefs about that universe. People would similarly hate GRRM if he, for instance, flipped over to a typical Tolkien-esque heroic/high-fantasy worldview.
I would say read it if you want to see what happens in the book, but don't read it if you are just doing so to find boundary-pushing or grittiness. It really has neither, IMO. It's just bad writing, because after having been used and violated by someone she'd considered a friend, Arietta should have had far more of a reaction than she did - even if you're only considering how close she was being pushed to commit suicide.
I will say, I also got to a similar place of disgust with one of Salvatore's novels - I think it was perhaps Neverwinter. There's a scene where Drizzt is talking with a commoner woman and she basically describes how no one is trustworthy anymore: not her fellow villagers, who were murdering each other over vegetables, not any of the people in various organizations, etc. The imagery painted in that moment of the common people was completely contrary to how I've viewed the Realms for years. I suppose it was meant to display how gritty and dark the world had become, but honestly it felt like bad parody.
|
"The very best possible post-fourteenth-century Realms lets down those who love the specific, detailed social, political and magical situation, with its thousands of characters, developed over forty years, and want to learn more about it; and those who'd be open to a new one with equal depth, which there just isn't time to re-produce; and those repelled, some past the point of no return, by the bad-taste-and-plausibility gap of things done to the world when its guardianship was less careful."
--Faraer |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jun 2015 : 16:35:45
|
Greyhawk was VERY B&W - ALL Drow were evil, so were all orcs, etc. The Greyhawk Wars tried to blur the lines a bit with Rary becoming a traitor and everything else, but at the end of the day, it was still very much B&W.
With The Forgotten Realms, I never really saw that. I always saw many shades of grey. Elminster - who is often looked upon like FR's "superman" is morally ambiguous, just less so then most others. Remember, Elminster (FR's closest thing to a 'real good guy') was tasked by Mystra to protect the Red Wizards (be destroying the Simbul even, if necessary!) The Blackstaff is as morally ambiguous as you get - he made deals with the Zhentarrim and is all about 'the greater good' (as HE sees it... which is a slippery slope). The Chosen aren't the 'Justice League' because they are NOT 'fighting for good', they are there to promote magic. It just so happens the best way to do that is in open and free societies... so 'good' is byproduct of what they are really doing. Halaster, Larloch, and so many others have also played both sides when the mood suits them.
We have a couple of 'Mustache twirlers', and even a few 'boyscouts' (and girlscouts) type villains and heroes, but even they have been shown to have their questionable moments (like Wulfgar becoming an angry drunk).
So in reality, I think it was 3rd edition that embraced this 'Shades of Grey' thing almost to a fault, and 4th tried to reset things back to be more 'generic D&D', or B&W, and thats when they got the severe fan backlash. They tried to define things TOO much, and in FR, its so much better when things are left vague. Thats what makes Ed's world feel so REAL - you're never really sure about anyone's motives.
Nope - the Realms doesn't blur lines... because there never really were any to blur.  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 18 Jun 2015 00:30:16 |
|
|
|
Dark Wizard
Senior Scribe
USA
830 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jun 2015 : 23:13:34
|
Much like what Markus neatly summarized, I've always perceived the Realms to contained varied shades of gray by default, more so than was shown during the cautious "Keystone Cops" days of foolish Zhents and bumbling villains. The marketing is another matter, because when Eberron came about, it was marketed as the pulpy, morally ambiguous setting to the Realms' shining high fantasy B&W utopia. That was a mistake.
This unfairly pigeonholed the Realms into a very narrow definition when we've always seen some of the gray shades peek through when the authors could sneak them pass the editors; and in recent years, 3E onwards, the editors are much on the same boat as the authors on this issue.
The loss of support from some fans stems not from this "gritty" outlook, that was present in the 3E already. There are many others things contributing to backlash. A big part of it (IMO) was the hypocrisy of what the 4E team said versus what they did. In part this is due to the claim to aim for the gritty side (points of light), but over reaching and ended up making aspects seem caricatures of the dark fantasy tropes, many of which were unnecessary as there are similar examples available in the former Realms.
There was a certain complexity of things, all balanced on a razor edge, that made the old Realms feel plausible but tenuous. By stripping it away, the simplified setting tipped over and the new status quo rang false despite the marketing claiming it was the newly improved and darker Realms. The shades of gray in the Old Realms worked because there was enough light to make it feel bearable, likeable even, and a worthwhile place to make home. It had true shades of gray.
The New Realms, due to emphasis on these darker components without the rest of the systems in place built up over the years, removes that likeability, while keeping all the dull and dark components. I wouldn't even call it dark since it has moved a bit into caricature going by what I've read and what is being discussed here.
So I would suppose it's not wrong to say the Realms' fall in popularity is due to the encroaching gritty trend, but it's not due to a so called Shades of Gray that was already present. I would say the setting started to feel too "grimdark" and that can be laughable if taken too seriously (i.e. Warhammer treads similar lines, has its successes and has its silly moments). |
|
|
|
Mr Dark
Seeker
50 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jun 2015 : 23:13:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Greyhawk was VERY B&W - ALL Drow were evil, so were all orcs, etc. The Greyhawk Wars tried to blur the lines a bit with Rary becoming a traitor and everything else, but at the end of the day, it was still very much B&W.
With The Forgotten Realms, I never really saw that. I always saw many shades of grey. Elminster - who is often looked upon like FR's "superman" is morally ambiguous, just less so then most others. The Blackstaff is as morally ambiguous as you get - he made deals with the Zhentarrim and is all about 'the greater good' (as HE sees it... which is a slippery slope). Remember, part of Elminster (FR's closest thing to a 'real good guy') was tasked by Mystra to protect the Red Wizards (be destroying the Simbul even, if necessary!) The Chosen aren't the 'Justice League' because they are NOT 'fighting for good', they are there to promote magic. It just so happens the best way to
do that is in open and free societies... so 'good' is byproduct of what they are really doing. Halaster, Larloch, and so many others have also played both sides when the mood suits them.
We have a couple of 'Mustache twirlers', and even a few 'boyscouts' (and girlscouts) type villains and heroes, but even they have been shown to have their questionable moments (like Wulfgar becoming an angry drunk).
So in reality, I think it was 3rd edition that embraced this 'Shades of Grey' thing almost to a fault, and 4th tried to reset things back to be more 'generic D&D', or B&W, and thats when they got the severe fan backlash. They tried to define things TOO much, and in FR, its so much better when things are left vague. Thats what makes Ed's world feel so REAL - you never really sure about anyone's motives.
Nope - the Realms doesn't blur lines... because there never really were any to blur.
If you look at when I came into the setting, there was a lot of B&W going on. The greybox had orcs and goblinoids as evil, there were no misunderstood monsters, the heroes were painted with flair and there were Snidely Whiplashes everywhere. The novels in that time were similar but you have to remember TSR's draconian rules on novels.
However, coming from the gaming side of the setting and running the Realms in a more B&W, Tolkienesque way it was a shock to see how the novel setting differed from the implied standard of the game setting. Now I know WOTC began to change that but when you see the setting go from the above to more grey in a matter of 14 years (setting time, not real time) it can be a shock to many. |
Canon stops where the table begins. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jun 2015 : 00:47:11
|
In the early supplement The Savage North, orcs were mentioned (in the High Forest) as living alongside the elves of the forest. Certainly not friends, but there was an 'uneasy truce' going on. Both staunchly defended the forest itself from outsiders, so they had common interests. Those orcs did not raid, and certainly were not 'evil' - they were just savage and wanted to be left alone.
Another early supplement - Old Empires - had a half-orc ruling a city.
On the flip-side, we had several mentions of 'highly xenophobic elves' in forests all over the Realms, most of whom 'shot first and asked questions later' (even against other elves). Evil humans are a given, but we also had many examples of 'evil dwarves' (and even an evil dwarven realm) and even a few 'bad apple' halflings. As for gnomes - their 'dark' cousins were literally called grey (they were more neutral than good or evil).
I've been around since the OGB as well, but I guess we each walk away with a different idea of The Forgotten Realms. But isn't that the beauty of it? If each of us sees something differently - after reading the same exact paragraph(s) - then you really can't get much more 'shades of grey' then that. I recall having heated arguments with LordKarsus (on the WotC boards) about the same exact entries in the GHotR - we each read the same entries and got a totally different take from them. Thats what makes Faerûn feel so real to me - everyone interprets the events differently... just like the RW.
Sure, the top layers (stuff we read) may seem a little B&W, but its the stuff that isn't mentioned - those 'hidden layers' - thats where all those shades of grey are hiding. When the goodly wizard 'Wooldolpho the kind' is said to 'disappear for months at a time', you may see him off doing charity work in Tethyr... I may see him as raping goblins in Chult. We may never know what he was really doing... and thats how FR shines. We can make it our own. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 18 Jun 2015 00:49:31 |
|
|
|
BEAST
Master of Realmslore
USA
1714 Posts |
|
|
Mr Dark
Seeker
50 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jun 2015 : 07:36:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I've been around since the OGB as well, but I guess we each walk away with a different idea of The Forgotten Realms. But isn't that the beauty of it?
*raises glass* Excellent point, sir! |
Canon stops where the table begins. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
How much control does WotC have over its authors?
