Cityscape ToC

[Felon]

A lot of our modern conveniences and advanced methods for designing / building / cleaning etc. could come as easily from magic as from tech. . . more so in some cases, even. So really, there's no reason why D&D's "medieval cities" couldn't be something like (yet unlike) modern cities of whatever kind one would prefer. Magic is so rarely taken into proper consideration in fantasy worlds. Better living through alchemy! Or whetever.

I'd say Eberron provides ample evidence that some folks have given the idea of treating magic as some kind of all-purpose public utility rather extensive consideration. Others would prefer that it be regarded as a limited resource.

 

[Felon]

There's nothing wrong with animals either scavenging or feeding on filth. And druids don't have to be merely about some romaticized and idealized 18th century Sturm und Drang version of nature, which was mainly invented by people who didn't have to live there all the time.

It's like I first said, you have a nice little post-modern attitude, complete with an egalitarian outlook about filth-dwelling parasite being a perfectly valid lifestyle choice. Have fun with all that, but realize it's not for everyone. Some folks will always think of filth in a negative way.

 

[glass]

In what context are you using the term "perfectly legal"? As opposed to "defectively legal" or "illegal"? It doesn't matter if it came from the PHB, DMG, or YMCA, it's a DM's perogative to decide what's allowed or not allowed in his campaign. And the DM thinking the concept is weak is as good a reason to disallow a class as there is.

See, I think it is a terrible reason. 'The concept isn't compatible with the rest of the group', is a good reason. 'The concept is incompatible with the campaign concept we have agreed', is a good reason. Aside from that, PC concept falls squarely in the domain of the players IMO. The DM has enough to do without telling the players how they can play their characters when he doesn't have to.


glass.

 

[glass]

It's like I first said, you have a nice little post-modern attitude, complete with an egalitarian outlook about filth-dwelling parasite being a perfectly valid lifestyle choice. Have fun with all that, but realize it's not for everyone. Some folks will always think of filth in a negative way.

'lifestyle choice'?

Scavengers and things that 'live on filith' as you put it massively outnumber all other creature types everywhere, in cities and in the deepest wilderness. If they didn't, as someone pointed out upthread, we'd be up to our eyes in crap.

It is simple fact; such life as you derride is part of nature, and a very important part at that. There is nothing post-modern or egalitarian about it.


glass.

 

[Psion]

Why are druids in a city more complex than druids in a forest?

Are we still talking about the Urban Druid class from the Dragon/DCI here?

Because if we are just talking about a core druid who grew up in and around the city and eked out a living by means of the little creatures that dwell in the crevices and sewers of the city, I really don't have a problem with that.

But as to what's "legal", I'm not sold on the philosophy that just because ink is laid to page and WotC logo is stamped on cover that it becomes "legal". The "step 0" in the PHB and the disclaimer that DMs control what comes into the campaign that used to be printed first thing in every character book is all the direction I understand and respect WRT what it "legal."

The irony of this is that I disdain "core or the door" type DMs. But I absolutely do not agree with the philosophy that "if the player can dream it, he can be it." The game is a shared experience, and AFAIAC both players and DMs have a responsibility to assemble a vision of a world and game that is interesting, to include one that is not the same as every other one, nor one that is a nightmarish patchwork of possibilities.

 

[glass]

In what context are you using the term "perfectly legal"? As opposed to "defectively legal" or "illegal"? It doesn't matter if it came from the PHB, DMG, or YMCA, it's a DM's perogative to decide what's allowed or not allowed in his campaign. And the DM thinking the concept is weak is as good a reason to disallow a class as there is.

'Perfectly legal' in the sense that it is consistent with the rule of the game as written in the PHB and/or as houseruled by the DM or group.

Maybe an example would help: Say you and I are both coming to a new game, and it has been agreed that, mechanically, anything from the PHB is OK, but nothing else. So, coincidentally, we both bring 1st level half-elf druids with improved inititiative. The only difference is between our characters' attitudes to cities. You get to play yours, mine gets banned.

You can see how that could lead to bad feelings? And how avoiding that situation might be a good thing?


glass.

 

[glass]

Are we still talking about the Urban Druid class from the Dragon/DCI here?

'Still'? I never was. If it wasn't for this thread, I wouldn't know such a thing existed, and I am not sure it is needed. I have just spent the last X posts defending the idea that a PHB druid doesn't necesarily want to raze every city to the ground.

You objected to the very idea that a book on cities should talk about druids at all. I think that if fitting druids into a city adventure is more difficult than for other classes, which I don't think it is, but from your reactions you very much do, then that is just the thing that a city book should talk about.

EDIT:

Because if we are just talking about a core druid who grew up in and around the city and eked out a living by means of the little creatures that dwell in the crevices and sewers of the city, I really don't have a problem with that.

Yet you apparently do have a problem with Cityscape talking about such characters, IIRC.

2nd EDIT: Actually, looking back, your objection in post 37 isn't nearly as strongly worded as I thought, so I guess I didn't recall correctly. Looks like this is just a case of crossed wires. Anyway, about this book...


glass.

 

[Psion]

'Still'? I never was. If it wasn't for this thread, I wouldn't know such a thing existed

So you didn't understand the context of my comment about Urban Druids and am now acusing me of holding a position that I never held. I see.

Trust me. I know where I stand.

, and I am not sure it is needed. I have just spent the last X posts defending the idea that a PHB druid doesn't necesarily want to raze every city to the ground.

I've never even discussed such an issue, so you are putting words in my mouth.

You objected to the very idea that a book on cities should talk about druids at all.

Incorrect. I objected to a mechancially "special" druid for cities.

See post #58, where I clarify:

Not at all. I just don't see the niche of such a character being so broad that they need their own special druid variant any more than desert or forest.

I can understand that you didn't get my context so misunderstand me. But since I clarified last page and just clarified again, it leaves me a bit incredulous that you still insist I held a position that I never did.

Edit:

2nd EDIT: Actually, looking back, your objection in post 37 isn't nearly as strongly worded as I thought, so I guess I didn't recall correctly.

Thank you. As you say, let us move on.

 

[glass]

I can understand that you didn't get my context so misunderstand me. But since I clarified last page and just clarified again, it leaves me a bit incredulous to sit here and continue to insist I held a position that I never did.

2nd EDIT: Actually, looking back, your objection in post 37 isn't nearly as strongly worded as I thought, so I guess I didn't recall correctly. Looks like this is just a case of crossed wires. Anyway, about this book...

Like I said, crossed wires.


glass.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

It's like I first said, you have a nice little post-modern attitude, complete with an egalitarian outlook about filth-dwelling parasite being a perfectly valid lifestyle choice. Have fun with all that, but realize it's not for everyone. Some folks will always think of filth in a negative way.

To the contrary, paying attention to filth-dwelling parasites means paying attention to how nature actually works. Nature doesn't care at all about our "lifestyle choices" - either we understand how the various parts of nature interact, or we will fail to find our own place within nature - and suffer accordingly.

Is this "post-modern"? Maybe. But when the alternative is having an idealized vision of nature more appropriate to 18th century philosophers writing effetimate poetry about the supposedly idyllic life of shepherds, then I know on which side of the fence I will come down.