"in 1st Edition...every DM...assumed that Corellon Larethian put out Gruumsh's eye"?

Sanguinemetaldawn

First Post
From the front page...

"This has always been true to some degree; even back in 1st Edition, just about *every* campaign every DM ran assumed that Corellon Larethian put out Gruumsh's eye..."

Eh? What?
As a 1st Ed player, that would have been news to me...

"His name is never spoken by non-shaman orcs, who refer to him as he-Who-Watches or He-Who-Never-Sleeps. Gruumsh's symbol is a great unwinking eye, which represents the belief that Gruumsh watches each and every orc and judges him fit or unfit. Gruumsh himself has but one large eye in the center of his forehead.
...
To become a shaman of Gruumsh, an orc must pluck out his own left eye."

...and no reference to Corellon shooting anyone's eye, or stealing it or anything else.

Deities and Demigods 1st Ed.

and

"Shamans tell of the battle between Corellon Larethian (the chief elven god) and Gruumsh, in which Corellon tried to shoot out Gruumsh’s eye (sacrilege!) with his bow, but failed of course..."

Unearthed Arcana 1st Ed., page 119 (and Dragon magazine 62)


From what I can tell the "lost his left eye" comes from 2E Monster Mythology. If Carl Sargeant wants to re-write D&D the way he feels like, its no big deal, though Gruumsh's right eye "migrating" to the middle of his head is a pretty lame ret-con.



I'm not sure why the title statement is so jarring...

Monster Mythology didn't come out until 1992. 1st Ed. Deities came out around 1980/81. So no 1st Ed. gamers "assumed that Corellon Larethian put out Gruumsh's eye", because that story wasn't around at all during 1st. Next, some 2nd Ed. gamers didn't think that either, because 2E was around for years before Sargeant's MM was released.


So hearing that makes me think "Is he pretending to be a 1st Ed. gamer when he clearly isn't? If so, why?
Does really know the history of the game?"

Really my unease comes from a worry that these guys just don't know the game itself very well...

Its not so much about breaking traditions/D&D history/canon.
Its more a sense of...I want the writers/designers to know the traditions so they can break them properly.

...

I just realized what it is. That statement is a window into how these designers think.
It sounds like they think 1st Ed. is classical history or something, like using a telegraph to send messages. They feel comfortable making these wildly inaccurate generalizations offhand, because 1st Ed. players, like dinosaurs and trilobites, don't exist anymore.


Wow. That statement and what it implies, more than all the weirdness of 4E from designer weblogs, tells me what WotC really thinks of me as a customer.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Deuce Traveler

Adventurer
joshmvii said:
Is this really all that important? It's slightly inaccurate on their part, but seriously, who cares?

My thoughts exactly. I like the fact someone pointed out the error, but there isn't a reason to inflate this into a major issue.
 

Herobizkit

Adventurer
I think both references could be considered anecdotal. If you ask the Orcs, Gruumsh took out his own eye; if you ask the elves, Correleon shot Gruumsh's eye out. Either way, it gives a fair reason for the races to fight one another, and isn't that what D&D pantheons are all about? ;)
 

Grymar

Explorer
I played 1e and couldn't have told you that the example was wrong. I'd suggest you try not to be so offended over small misstatements.
 

an_idol_mind

Explorer
I would dispute the statement that every DM had that myth as part of the campaign. However, I don't think the error in D&D trivia is a reflection of anything bad on the designer's part. I don't agree with the assumption that some have that the 4th edition designers need to have been playing for 30+ years in the first place.
 

DaveMage

Slumbering in Tsar
Sanguinemetaldawn said:
From the front page...
...

I hear you. Slavicek stated in another article that the "cyclops" hadn't been done in third edition (link) . (Apparently he missed the fact that the cyclops was actually done *twice* in 3E - once in Deities & Demigods and once in Shining South.)

But, WotC is looking ahead, not backwards. Will it matter? Only if those who want them to be more respectful of the past traditions vote with their wallets. If enough people don't give a hoot about the traditions and buy 4E, well, who are we traditionalists to argue with success?
 

the Jester

Legend
This story is solidly embedded in 1e lore. It originally comes from Dragon magazine's "Point of View" articles, on the demihumans, and was later "officialized" around about UA.

For the record.

(If you're going to attack the historical accuracy of a gaming myth, make sure you have your facts straight! :p :lol: )
 

Piratecat

Sesquipedalian
That's weird. I could have sworn that I had that 'knowledge' during our 1e campaign. It's so ingrained that I'm surprised that's not the case!
 

Vascant

Wanderer of the Underdark
While I do understand the OP's thoughts, the designer's attitude has been present in several articles but I don't think or take it personal. I have come to realize that 4e, WotC and the designers no longer consider myself as their target market and thats a business decision. So don't take it personal if you do not agree with an article's opinion or thoughts, it just means it probably wasn't written for you to read...
 

Remove ads

Top