Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 117801" data-attributes="member: 177">*sigh*&nbsp; Well, &quot;most sources&quot; also attribute elves with a wide variety of magical powers, rather than a narrow, highly restrictive list.&nbsp; So, you'd say that whenever &quot;most sources&quot; say a thing, we should make the game adhere to that?&nbsp; I see.&nbsp; Go back, then, and look at most of the classic representations of European dragons.&nbsp; No intelligent, magic-using creatures there.&nbsp; The're all brutish, non-sentient, lizard monsters who cannot even speak.&nbsp; So we should get rid of the game dragons because they don't match the sources?&nbsp; And how many creatures don't even exist in &quot;most sources&quot;?&nbsp; Should we now remove them from the game because they are an inaccurate deptiction of &quot;most fantasy&quot;?The fact that &quot;most sources&quot; say that a thing they call an &quot;elf&quot; behave in a particular way puts no onus on the game to make them that way.&nbsp; Each game takes it's own spin on things.&nbsp; And literature and RPG characters can be very different.&nbsp; A character inliterature can be there as an icon of changelessness.&nbsp; How would you like to play a character who never changed, never grew?&nbsp; If elves are really changeless, that means they never gain levels, either.&nbsp; You want to play that?&nbsp; Personally, I think any nominally chaotic creature whos going to live for centuries isn't going to limit itself to a tiny list of spell choices.&nbsp; A nihg ageless creature must take the long view. Who knows what spells you'll need 300 years from now?&nbsp; A wizard can adapt, a sorceror cannot.&nbsp; When one has the choice to do otherwise, locking oneself into such a minicule choice of powers would be phenominally stupid.&nbsp; No matter where you go, elves are not stupid.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 117801, member: 177"] *sigh* Well, "most sources" also attribute elves with a wide variety of magical powers, rather than a narrow, highly restrictive list. So, you'd say that whenever "most sources" say a thing, we should make the game adhere to that? I see. Go back, then, and look at most of the classic representations of European dragons. No intelligent, magic-using creatures there. The're all brutish, non-sentient, lizard monsters who cannot even speak. So we should get rid of the game dragons because they don't match the sources? And how many creatures don't even exist in "most sources"? Should we now remove them from the game because they are an inaccurate deptiction of "most fantasy"? The fact that "most sources" say that a thing they call an "elf" behave in a particular way puts no onus on the game to make them that way. Each game takes it's own spin on things. And literature and RPG characters can be very different. A character inliterature can be there as an icon of changelessness. How would you like to play a character who never changed, never grew? If elves are really changeless, that means they never gain levels, either. You want to play that? Personally, I think any nominally chaotic creature whos going to live for centuries isn't going to limit itself to a tiny list of spell choices. A nihg ageless creature must take the long view. Who knows what spells you'll need 300 years from now? A wizard can adapt, a sorceror cannot. When one has the choice to do otherwise, locking oneself into such a minicule choice of powers would be phenominally stupid. No matter where you go, elves are not stupid. [/QUOTE]

Verification