The future of Greyhawk - PreVote Discussion

things like the Shadow Weave, silver fire or spellfire (I'm not sure if it exsist on Oerth) would be eligible for such limitation.

Click to expand...

These do not exist on Oerth.

Oh for cryin' out loud...

What did I ever do to you, Darrius of the Guardians? Huh?

There was no need to attack my opinions like that, alright. It just gets annoying, when I get jumped on for simply saying what I think. I wasn't arguing with anyone. There was no one to defend, there was no need to refute my opinions.

There was no reason to launch a personal attack against my opinions. None.

...

... *sigh*

... I need to calm down... sorry for getting so touchy like that... I've been getting flamed a lot for no reason lately, and your post, while not that flamey, was the straw that broke the camel's back...

I'm not going to respond to most of your statements, not because I consider myself "above them" (of course not), but because:
1) Most of the statements are opinions, and I'm fine with people having different opinions than me.
2 ) Most of the statements are somewhat hostile, and I don't like fighting.


However, I am going to respond to certain statements, which have some basis in fact.

1)

Darrius of the Guardians said:

To clarify for them: Drow either be in disgusie, like what is done, with demons and devils; or be allowed *within* the tavern only.

Click to expand...

By 'clarify', I did not mean I didn't understand the proposed restriction (as can be sentences which followed that sentence). I was asking if one of the WizOs could edit the wording of the the proposed restriction as displayed in the first post to make it more neat.

2)

Darrius of the Guardians said:

This is...inacurate of the times though. The Tavern is set on Oerth near Greyhawk City (kinda), street urchins in the middle ages often did hang out in the taverns to hit drunks up for money.

Click to expand...

Darrius of the Guardians said:

What you are saying, is that the tavern owner would be ok with non-inteligent predators who stand as high as some patrons do (q.v. halflings)? And personally, I have seen more wild animals played annoyingly than well.

Click to expand...

In my argument against children being allowed in the CRT, I claimed
-that children are rarely roleplayed well, and
-that the presence of children would be unrealistic in a tavern.
You attempted to negate both by assuming that the taverns of Greyhawk mirror those of medieval europe.

You then proceeded to argue against animals being allowed in the CRT, with the claims
-that animals are rarely roleplayed well, and
-that the presence of animals would be unrealistic in a tavern.
And animals not being in taverns is, of course, inconsistent with medieval europe.

Even putting aside the knowledge that Greyhawk is a fantasy world and thus doesn't have to line up with medieval Europe; what we have here are double standards. Condition Y can't be more important than condition X in one argument, then irrelevant in the next. You can't have it both ways. So we've got to make up our minds: is the historical accuracy more important? (In that case, both animals and children would be allowed.) Are the decisions in this thread to be decided with generalities about what would be "realistic" or allowed in a fantasy world? (In that case, nobody would "know" because fantasy is whatever we want it to be.) Or are the likes and dislikes of the roleplayers most important? (In that case, everybody knows what they want, and the majority of players are pleased with the results.)

I think it's a given that the our likes and dislikes are most important. So I think we all need to quit it with the pseudo-logic (and yes, I have been very guilty of this too, which can be seen if you read my first post on this thread.) Fantasy world pseudo-logic is used to disguise and excuse one's own opinions, wants and intentions. I don't think that I, or anyone else, should do things like that, especially not on a thread as influential as this one.

I read Darius' post as being for kids and against animals. You read it the other way around. Maybe I haven't had enough sleep lately.

To me, if a setting is getting "tighter" then it means the customs and rules are being focused on. For a setting to me more realistic we need to judge it using logic and against the closest real life models. Greyhawk is modled on medieval Europe and (appart from when Siani's playing up her character's more eastern feel,) the CRT has a very medieval Europe feel.

"Anything goes" is the mark of a looser, more high fantasy setting.

So it'd make sense that things like kids and animals are less common or more restricted against in the tavern - neither would be a high source of tavern income, both are sources of trouble without the likelihood of financial reimbursement. Animals are animals - their instincts do not follow the same lines as people. And street urchins would be hitting up drunks for the same money the tavern would be trying to get out of them. Both would steal food if given half a chance.

What tavern has ever permitted the comings and goings of wild animals (unless that is their theme)? How do you define a tame one? Species would certainly play a part. Familiars unaccompanied would be treated like wild/strays of the same species/form because you can't expect the whole staff to be able to tell this raven appart from that raven...

And the idea that drow, vamps, demons etc need to disguise themselves or at least attempt to not be noticed makes a hell of a lot of sense. We're not talking about a general fantasy world here. We're talking about one where races which are generally evil have about the legal standing of small rodents and whom locals woud take out with a "kill first, don't bother asking" mentality to protect their town/families/livelihoods. The tavern may be considered neutral ground, but that doesn't mean the owner would want to risk townsfolk turning against its very presence and torching it to the ground.

- Autora

Nevine said:

Those things are optional. Which means we (as in us) were/are going to vote on/clarify those topics anyway. The skeleton proposal, from what I understand, is going to make up the backbone of the "restricted" setting. The other/optional list is what the mini-votes will be for.

On the subject of children, while it may be true that urchins frequented taverns in the days of yore, for our purposes it's a logical idea. Establishments "back then" weren't nearly as dangerous as the Crossroads. Also, I agree with the statement Darrius made about annoying animals, but extend it to children as well.

As far as no spellcasting unless necessary goes.. It wouldn't make sense, given that the current owner (Siani) is a spellcaster herself and thus very much comfortable with magic. Barring future changes of ownership.

Offworld magic wouldn't necessarily be limited to magic from other game systems, things like the Shadow Weave, silver fire or spellfire (I'm not sure if it exsist on Oerth) would be eligible for such limitation.

Click to expand...

so I could vote for a "more strict setting" just to find out that it becomes so restrictive I can't play in it with half of my characters?

maybe we should vote the limitations before we vote on the settings? so at least we're all voting on the same settings instead of this vague one we have now?

I hope you mean as in "a dozen votes on restrictions to make up the setting" rather than "half a dozen votes on restrictions for each setting option"...

Otherwise we'd probably be looking at the setting done in... oh, 2007? lol

Cystuni said:

so I could vote for a "more strict setting" just to find out that it becomes so restrictive I can't play in it with half of my characters?

maybe we should vote the limitations before we vote on the settings? so at least we're all voting on the same settings instead of this vague one we have now?

Click to expand...

If we voted on the things you consider to be "vague" after the vote was made on how restrictive the setting was going to be, then yes, you may not be able to play with half your characters as they are. Really, if you're considering the "restictive" option, you should be voting on it for its merits alone and understand that you might have to be flexible on what you can play. Or rather, how you play whatever you choose.

We could have votes for clarification now, but if the room ends up being "loose" in the end, we just wasted a few weeks of ours and the staffs time.

Honestly, I wish the staff would have taken a stance on this from the start. Either saying that one of the rooms will be "anything goes/free-for-all" and one will be "structured/defined". Or, at the very least, say that one room will be "anything goes/free-for-all" (within the bounds of the fantasy genre). And I do think one of them needs to be just that. Not only to make the "I can't play my characters" standpoint a moot one, but for there always to be an option. Right now there is not much of a difference between Juxta and the Keep, besides one being set in a marketplace and other in a tavern. Excluding the times a WizO may get onto someone in-character about misusing the setting. I can go from the Emporium, where I see a demon, to the Crossroads where I see that same demon waltz in and have an ale five minutes later.

It'd be nice to have two distinct flavors. Sometimes you want _______, sometimes ________. (Insert favorite flavors)

:whatsthis An aside to Adele, as much as I love the idea of a room completely true to the setting.. Beyond evil outsiders (demons/devils/daemons), the undead, and possibly aberrations (illithids), I'd drop voting on any racial restrictions. It's what brutally murdered CEP. People weren't "there" then, and they definitely aren't now.

As a freebie, I'll answer this question too, for anyone that may be thinking it: "How would my character end up in the new "unrestricted" room? How do they know?" Well Timmy, I'll tell you. If your character would be "unplayable" (by which I mean you are unwilling to even try to disguise your character because it stifles your "creativity") by definition of the proposed "restricted" setting, your character is just as likely to end up in the new room as they were to end up at a tavern in the Domain of Greyhawk, that was probably already hostile to them, to begin with.

Now, I'm going to take a crack at some of these extremely confounding proposals that may not be completely self-explanatory. Please, Adele/ISRP staff correct me if I'm wrong in my interpretation.

WizO_Adele said:

Drow either be in disguise as the Demons and Devils, or allowed to be themselves *within* the tavern only.

Click to expand...

The drow of Greyhawk are beings of magical and irrevocable evil, much like fiends, they are born evil. Drow of just about any other published setting today (including the Forgotten Realms) are inspired by.. No, they are weaned on the legend of these original terrors of the Underdark. You won't find any Drizzt Do'Urden's or followers of an Eilistraee-like goddess on Oerth. In all likelihood, people who see a drow are going to run the other way. And if there were reports of drow activity in the Keep, Greyhawk would burn the Keep to the ground and salt the earth so nothing ever grew again. Okay, that's a bit of an exaggeration...maybe.

WizO_Adele said:

Vampires either be in disguise or otherwise restricted in activities.

Click to expand...

All forms of undead should be in disguise really.. Anyway. This means don't suck the life out of someone while everyone can see you. Baring your fangs probably isn't a good idea either.

WizO_Adele said:

Limitations on slavery.

Click to expand...

This one probably shouldn't even be optional, but whatever. You see, slavery is illegal within the Domain of Greyhawk and while, yes, the Keep could be considered on the frontier, but that doesn't mean Domain law isn't being broken. A character might bribe officials to look the other way in regards to his/her offense, "Because, hey, look how far out we are. Who cares?" Or perhaps the Keep is akin to Waterdeep, where people who own slaves do bring their slaves even though slavery is outlawed. Waterdeep is sort of a "getaway" for those in service and Waterdeep doesn't try to free them as long as it isn't practiced within the lands of the city.

WizO_Adele said:

Limitations on offworld and/or unique magic.

Click to expand...

Another for the shouldn't be optional category. Offworld and/or unique magic means...offworld and/or unique magic. Previous examples include, but are not limited to: The Weave/Shadow Weave, silver fire, spell fire, magic methods from other published game systems or perhaps that of homebrew. Basically anything that isn't native to Oerth! I'm sure Greyhawk gurus such a Siani and a few other patrons would gladly elaborate on the types of magic found in the setting beyond your basic arcane/divine/psionics.

WizO_Adele said:

Anything else proposed

Click to expand...

This means Adele is open to suggestions. Wait.. This means Adele is open to reasonable suggestions that can fit in with the skeleton proposal. So, basically, anything in this here prevote thread that gets seconded, thirded or viewed as a generally good idea by most and Adele herself as worthy of atleast getting a vote.

I've got to admit, both Nevine and Autora made some very good, sensible points.

And that happy teacher smiley is hilarious.

*applauds nevine, with a nice happy "HERE HERE!"*

I agree with all the restrictions... why? Cause none of my characters would be effected!

*Ding*

Question- Is there an option available, where we can choose to leave the CRT room, just like it is currently? I am not saying that this is what I chose, but I thought I would ask for the clarification, in case others were wondering..

Thanks kids..

EDIT: Children, in the tavern... so annoying.

the only problem i see witht he setting is how most of the poeple/things get there. and i noticed celestials werent metioned there, so it doesnt seem quite right that everything else that is not normal be barred/restricted. i would say to things like the drow being hated or demons and the like is this- they have been coming to this area for years now and the locals are used to such things. now as for the dragon rule, i didnt see any comments on that but as i am the only one i have ever see play a true dragon in dragon form i feel obligated to protest this one. granted its kind of strange but as none of them are large enough to damage anything by just being there and moving around and the like i see no reason to say they must wear human form, and since none of the ones i play can do that,if this passes i wouldnt be able to play them in the setting, which would be unfortunate as i enjoy playing there. if it were made to have a better way of saying how things get ther(option c i think)it would be fine in my opinion