D&D 5E D&D Beyond: Raven Queen

[QuietBrowser]

Wait, what’s stupid about sentient talking ravens? IRL crows aren’t even that far from either trait, fantasy ravens tend to have the traits of crows and ravens combined bc ppl are lazy, and often speak and show signs of sentience. Why do you need a god in the mix to make it “make sense”?

We have Kelemvor and Wee Jas that did the same thing as the Raven Queen. Raven Queen is very similar in fact to Wee Jas.

Also which stupid talking Ravens. The only ones I can think of that do that are the Wereravens.

In old canon for Ravenloft, it's home to both Ravenkin, a race of a sapient talking ravens the size of AD&D halflings, and to Wereravens, both of whom are Good aligned and dedicated to battling evil; Ravenkin even had a PC writeup in Dragon #262. The setting is also home to the Corvus Regis, which are sapient but evil talking ravens loyal to Azalin, the lich-king darklord of Darkon.

 

[Azzy]

This anti-corvidist rhetoric will not fly!


Also am I the only one that got that you were making a joke?

edit: ah man, you were just being pedantic about cladistic classifications?

lame.

Was is really pedantic given that the word "crow" literally doesn't refer to any specific species, but rather to a large swathe of birds (including ravens) to find a bit of humor in a statement that essentially was "fruits and apples"? If it was pedantic, it certainly wasn't about cladistic classifications, but about the general definition and usage of the common English word "crow".

Now, I started being pedantic when people (wrongly) told me that ravens aren't crows, and thus I linked to multiple dictionary entries. Of course, I'm also equally open to people telling me that squares arn't rectangles, and apples aren't fruits, too.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Was is really pedantic given that the word "crow" literally doesn't refer to any specific species, but rather to a large swathe of birds (including ravens) to find a bit of humor in a statement that essentially was "fruits and apples"? If it was pedantic, it certainly wasn't about cladistic classifications, but about the general definition and usage of the common English word "crow".

Now, I started being pedantic when people (wrongly) told me that ravens aren't crows, and thus I linked to multiple dictionary entries. Of course, I'm also equally open to people telling me that squares arn't rectangles, and apples aren't fruits, too.

I mean, yeah that is very pedantic. Colloquially, “crow” pretty much always refers to the forbids with “crow” in their common name, not to corvids that don’t have “crow” in their name.

If a usage is common, nearly ubiquitous, it is correct. Because use defines meaning in all non-formal/nonspecialised contexts. “Correcting” common usage with jargon, technical definitions, or the like, is exactly classic pedantry. Also, referring to ravens as corvids is more technically correct.

Edit: and “apples aren’t fruits” would be more like someone saying that ravens aren’t birds, since we are being pedantic.

In old canon for Ravenloft, it's home to both Ravenkin, a race of a sapient talking ravens the size of AD&D halflings, and to Wereravens, both of whom are Good aligned and dedicated to battling evil; Ravenkin even had a PC writeup in Dragon #262. The setting is also home to the Corvus Regis, which are sapient but evil talking ravens loyal to Azalin, the lich-king darklord of Darkon.

Ok, that sounds fine. Was it the delivery that people have an issue with?

 

[Jer]

I have sometimes a feeling that when they were making deities for 4e they pretty much picked Wee Jas, focused her portfolio more around death and painted her hair black. Because a lot of it fits. Mostly LN (well 4e didnt have LN, but her description makes think of that) the few backstory elements hinting her having been a powerful spellcaster in mortal life as a nod to the mess of Wee Jas' portfolio.

Honestly I thought I had read somewhere that The Raven Queen was basically Wee Jas put through the "Ultimate Marvel"-type filter that the rest of D&D was put through for 4e. I can't find the source now, but I was sure there was an interview or something where someone copped to Wee Jas as at least a major influence on the Raven Queen for 4e.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

BTW, who else is going to just completely ignore the whole “they look old when they’re in the Shadowfel” idea?

Probably the single most eye roll inducing lore element they’ve introduced in 5e.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

BTW, who else is going to just completely ignore the whole “they look old when they’re in the Shadowfel” idea?

Probably the single most eye roll inducing lore element they’ve introduced in 5e.

Probably will ignore it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Probably will ignore it.

Just a weird thing to change, right?

 

[gyor]

BTW, who else is going to just completely ignore the whole “they look old when they’re in the Shadowfel” idea?

Probably the single most eye roll inducing lore element they’ve introduced in 5e.

I agree 100% this was a bad idea.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I agree 100% this was a bad idea.

I love a lot of what they’ve said about the elves and Eladrin and Shadar-kai and stuff, but some of it just...confuses me. Not on a direct level. The lore itself isn’t confusing, the decision making is confusing.
What purpose is served by making shaded-kai look old in the Shadowfel? Like, older editions still exist, so a change like that needs to accomplish something.

Tangent: Why are halflings blessed with divine luck and a weird complacency, with a few every generation getting wanderlust? Why is there the assumption that halflings couldn’t win a war? They aren’t frail. They are smaller and lighter which has as many logistical advantages as it has battlefield disadvantages, if not more. They are noticeably more coordinated and agile than humans, small targets, can make better use of less cover, have no disadvantage on the back of a swift mount with a shortbow, and would make very effective light cavalry, and canonically can ride on dogs and wolves and such without harming them. Imagine Halfling light cavalry on big horn sheep bred for speed and ramming power as much as for trainability. Small races need to fight differently than big races, that’s all. Ill never grok this assumption that they should/would suck in a real fight.

It’s even weirder with gnomes, since they have illusion magic and talking to small beasts. Seriously consider the battlefield applications of Minor Illusion, and the logistical benefits of speaking to small beasts (and thus being much better at domesticating and training them). Hell, critters could be put to excellent use in sabotage! For minor illusion, the ghost sounds application should be obvious in terms of the battlefield, but the visual illusions literally lets you creat terrain that isn’t there, hiding an army, because literally every soldier can cast that illusion. Combine with rock gnome engineers, and watch the enemy fall before they know what hit them. And the +2 intelligence? Lol yeah it’s not muscle that wins wars, you guys, it’s logistics, brains, and creativity when things go south. /tangent

 

[Azzy]

I mean, yeah that is very pedantic. Colloquially, “crow” pretty much always refers to the forbids with “crow” in their common name, not to corvids that don’t have “crow” in their name.

Um, no. As the three dictionaries I linked point out, the common usage for "crow" is not limited to birds with the word "crow" in their common name. That limited usage is even noted in the definitions. It seems more like a personal definition rather than common usage.

If a usage is common, nearly ubiquitous, it is correct. Because use defines meaning in all non-formal/nonspecialised contexts. “Correcting” common usage with jargon, technical definitions, or the like, is exactly classic pedantry. Also, referring to ravens as corvids is more technically correct.

Fortunately, I wasn't using jargon, but common usage as shown by multiple dictionaries (the purpose of which is to reflect common usage). So, no, no pedantry on my part (in my initial statement). Seriously, there's no room for debate here—I've shown sources that point out common usage.