-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Would you suggest the Ebberon Campaign Setting?
- Thread starter TwilightWhisper
- Start date
- Status
Kai Lord
Hero
And I think a question we need to ask is just how important is "modern fantasy"? Its just another style of make believe, like comic book superheroes or your average Rocky movie. Is good-aligned magic and powers given by made up gods really something worthy of conviction and defense? Is there a sorcerer at home lurking on this forum stroking his pet imp that just thought "wait a minute, he just offended me?"Mouseferatu said:
How come we *all* like Lord of the Rings, which goes so much farther than D&D (but not all the way, granted) at providing fantasy; elves, trolls, gallant warriors and so on, without being so blatant in its positive portrayal of those elements the Bible describes as harmful. Let's take the LOTR films and say that Gandalf was a straight up angel (or spiritual being) with unexplained powers instead of magic, (ditto for the elves) and leave everything else the same. Heck I think the books might even describe them as such. Does that story suddenly not provide everything we enjoy in fantasy? Millions upon millions of enchanted moviegoers would say that it does. And LOTR probably provided more inspiration for D&D than any one source.
The problem with that is you can literally apply that argument to anything. Its "unacceptable" to only have evil dragons, because that would be the "only" style of play? Then you must be in an uproar that D&D doesn't have good demons. We have good dragons, so where's our good demons? Why aren't they a core PHB race? What if I want to play a demon, or a good assassin? Where's the official provision for me? It isn't there! And for good reason, and its the same reason I think the designers should take a long hard look at the good magic using familiar summoners and diviners.Mouseferatu said:
You can tweak any campaign to suit your needs. You can have the good church of baby sacrificing demon paladins if you want. But that shouldn't be Core. Or official. And if you agree, then your argument that good dragons and magic are a necessity to allow for all styles of play doesn't hold any water.
But is that a good thing? Crusty mold might be a "part" of the bread in my refrigerator, but does that mean it makes my peanut butter and jelly sandwich taste better? Or that I should want it to be there?Mouseferatu said:
And I think this calls for real wisdom and reflection. Is it possible to have D&D without the religious quandries? As people often say, its only a game. So how come basketball or Space Invaders don't pose the same quandries? Or a super hero or cyberpunk roleplaying game? Look at Reed Richards or Samwise the brave. They do some pretty amazing things without getting into religious grey or black areas. So why can't we have that in our D&D? If I want to play a Spider-Man campaign, I can have it be Christian or Cthulu-esque without breaking the official core rules. Why can't it be the same with D&D? Why does it have to take the slant that it does right out of the box, when other great works of fantasy have proven that it isn't necessary?Mouseferatu said:
Why does D&D's premiere setting have to take all the good magic, summonings, and dragons and now add good marks of the beasts to our heroes' repertoires? Regardless of your spiritual beliefs or convictions, I don't think this is a good thing for the hobby.
Last edited:
Nifft
Penguin Herder
C'mon down! 
Kai Lord and Hellcow are particularly invited to start the conversation, though for the next few days anyone is free to join. After that, I'll require moderator approval to join (not a big deal, basically to keep out spammers).
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eberron-theology/
-- N
Kai Lord and Hellcow are particularly invited to start the conversation, though for the next few days anyone is free to join. After that, I'll require moderator approval to join (not a big deal, basically to keep out spammers).
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eberron-theology/
-- N
wizardneedsfood
First Post
Joined the Yahoo! group.
Hellcow
Adventurer
Obviously, religious discussion is not the topic of this thread. I would like to make one more post on this subject as the creator of the setting; Henry, as before, please remove it if you feel it is inappropriate. Otherwise, if there is further discussion of this matter via email, my email address is Keith@bossythecow.com.
To begin with, I think there's all a matter of sensitivity: to a certain degree, you have to be a scholar of the bible to know when you're treading on dangerous ground. I have a general awareness of the Book of Revelations, but if you'd quizzed me yesterday I couldn't have told you that it mentions three dragons specifically. While it doesn't surprise me that the bible speaks against sorcery or divination, I have no idea where these things are mentioned or what specifically is said. When it comes to worshipping false gods, certainly I'm aware of that -- but I also know of Greek, Norse, and Egyptian myths. As a child I loved those stories. Did that mean that I ever believed that they were true or worshipped Norse gods? No. I see polytheistic religions in D&D as the same way: a story. Just because someone plays a paladin of Dol Arrah in my campaign doesn't mean that either he or I consider him to be "worshipping" Dol Arrah; he has created a character in a story who is devoted to a force of good, no more, no less.
So first, there's the issue to which you have to be fairly on top of things to know you've made the comparison in the first place. Next is the degree to which similarities will be extended. Why are there three progenitor dragons in Eberron? Above, below, between -- no more, no less. From what I've heard, Exalted has dragons for the four cardinal points; who knows, on a different day we might have gone with that. The "dragons" themselves are dragons onliy in legend; at the moment, we are talking about a ring of stone, a planet, and a underworld -- not seven-headed beasts. If you changed the world "dragon" to "giant" or "spirit" (with "spiritmarks" and "spiritshards") would it be any better? Beyond the fact that there are three and that they are described as dragons, where are the matching issues? The three beasts of revelations rise from the earth or the sea -- they aren't described as *being* the earth or the sea. Siberys has been destroyed; even if you saw it as being a dragon in any meaningful sense of the word, it's not coming back to do anything. It was, for that matter, destroyed trying to fight a force of evil, so the idea that the mark of Siberys is ultimately the Mark of Satan certainly doesn't match our intent. There's no overall force of evil in Eberron that equates to Satan, and the worst fiends that do exist have been bound by the forces of good. The dragonmarks and their commercial aspects are there, but they don't appear on the hand or forehead, and the reason they have an impact on commerce is because of the economic value of the abilities that they grant, not because of some sort of "we will only deal with those who have been marked". The Mark of Khyber -- which would be a closer analogy to the Mark of the Beast, since Khyber is generally acknowledged to be a force of evil -- is more of a curse than a blessing, and a war was fought to destroy all thouse who bore Khyber marks. My point here is only that we did not mean to make any comparison, and that the comparisons have to be drawn: yes, there are dragonmarks, no they do not appear on the right hand or forehead, no, they do not appear on "everyone, small and great, rich and poor"; so the question is, how far back to we have to pull before no-one can find any negative comparisons? Do you start bringing biblical scholars in as well as playtesters to ensure that you haven't accidentally crossed a line?
I don't know that I'd consider myself in the Inner Circle, but I see your point. And again, I respect your opinions, and I'm sorry Eberron doesn't work for you; as I said before, I never intended to cross that line with any of the things that have disturbed you. But for that reason, I don't see D&D being altered in the future to address these concerns. Whether or not I know the specific details, sure, I can be reasonably certain that the bible doesn't support the use of magic or familiar spirits. So would it be a bad thing if these were removed from the game or relegated to the forces of evil? I think that Mouseferatu has pretty much said what I could or would say on this. One of the purposes of D&D is to allow players to recreate their favorite fantasy novels, such as Tolkein, Jack Vance, etc. KL, you have a quote from Tolkein in your signature. But Tolkein has good wizards. Galadriel uses divination. The names of the dwarves of The Hobbit are, if memory serves correct, drawn directly from the Prose Edda. Is it wrong to allow a player to try to emulate Gandalf? Should I not put Galadriel in my adventure? It would certainly be possible to strip or restrict these elements, and I know that there are fantasy RPGs that have intentionally done just that. But at the same time, that would deny the person who wants to replicate the world of Jack Vance the opportunity to do so. D&D is a tool set; you're free to do with it as you will, and others will do as they will. While I do understand your concerns, I just don't see WotC making such broad changes in the future.
Again, I'm sorry that Eberron has offended you, and I wish you the best with games of the future. If you want to continue the discussion with me, please use the email address about. I also encourage you to go to James Wyatt's website (www.aquela.com) -- as a devout Christian who does work for WotC, he'd probably be the best equipped person to really answer this question.
To begin with, I think there's all a matter of sensitivity: to a certain degree, you have to be a scholar of the bible to know when you're treading on dangerous ground. I have a general awareness of the Book of Revelations, but if you'd quizzed me yesterday I couldn't have told you that it mentions three dragons specifically. While it doesn't surprise me that the bible speaks against sorcery or divination, I have no idea where these things are mentioned or what specifically is said. When it comes to worshipping false gods, certainly I'm aware of that -- but I also know of Greek, Norse, and Egyptian myths. As a child I loved those stories. Did that mean that I ever believed that they were true or worshipped Norse gods? No. I see polytheistic religions in D&D as the same way: a story. Just because someone plays a paladin of Dol Arrah in my campaign doesn't mean that either he or I consider him to be "worshipping" Dol Arrah; he has created a character in a story who is devoted to a force of good, no more, no less.
So first, there's the issue to which you have to be fairly on top of things to know you've made the comparison in the first place. Next is the degree to which similarities will be extended. Why are there three progenitor dragons in Eberron? Above, below, between -- no more, no less. From what I've heard, Exalted has dragons for the four cardinal points; who knows, on a different day we might have gone with that. The "dragons" themselves are dragons onliy in legend; at the moment, we are talking about a ring of stone, a planet, and a underworld -- not seven-headed beasts. If you changed the world "dragon" to "giant" or "spirit" (with "spiritmarks" and "spiritshards") would it be any better? Beyond the fact that there are three and that they are described as dragons, where are the matching issues? The three beasts of revelations rise from the earth or the sea -- they aren't described as *being* the earth or the sea. Siberys has been destroyed; even if you saw it as being a dragon in any meaningful sense of the word, it's not coming back to do anything. It was, for that matter, destroyed trying to fight a force of evil, so the idea that the mark of Siberys is ultimately the Mark of Satan certainly doesn't match our intent. There's no overall force of evil in Eberron that equates to Satan, and the worst fiends that do exist have been bound by the forces of good. The dragonmarks and their commercial aspects are there, but they don't appear on the hand or forehead, and the reason they have an impact on commerce is because of the economic value of the abilities that they grant, not because of some sort of "we will only deal with those who have been marked". The Mark of Khyber -- which would be a closer analogy to the Mark of the Beast, since Khyber is generally acknowledged to be a force of evil -- is more of a curse than a blessing, and a war was fought to destroy all thouse who bore Khyber marks. My point here is only that we did not mean to make any comparison, and that the comparisons have to be drawn: yes, there are dragonmarks, no they do not appear on the right hand or forehead, no, they do not appear on "everyone, small and great, rich and poor"; so the question is, how far back to we have to pull before no-one can find any negative comparisons? Do you start bringing biblical scholars in as well as playtesters to ensure that you haven't accidentally crossed a line?
Kai Lord said:
I don't know that I'd consider myself in the Inner Circle, but I see your point. And again, I respect your opinions, and I'm sorry Eberron doesn't work for you; as I said before, I never intended to cross that line with any of the things that have disturbed you. But for that reason, I don't see D&D being altered in the future to address these concerns. Whether or not I know the specific details, sure, I can be reasonably certain that the bible doesn't support the use of magic or familiar spirits. So would it be a bad thing if these were removed from the game or relegated to the forces of evil? I think that Mouseferatu has pretty much said what I could or would say on this. One of the purposes of D&D is to allow players to recreate their favorite fantasy novels, such as Tolkein, Jack Vance, etc. KL, you have a quote from Tolkein in your signature. But Tolkein has good wizards. Galadriel uses divination. The names of the dwarves of The Hobbit are, if memory serves correct, drawn directly from the Prose Edda. Is it wrong to allow a player to try to emulate Gandalf? Should I not put Galadriel in my adventure? It would certainly be possible to strip or restrict these elements, and I know that there are fantasy RPGs that have intentionally done just that. But at the same time, that would deny the person who wants to replicate the world of Jack Vance the opportunity to do so. D&D is a tool set; you're free to do with it as you will, and others will do as they will. While I do understand your concerns, I just don't see WotC making such broad changes in the future.
Again, I'm sorry that Eberron has offended you, and I wish you the best with games of the future. If you want to continue the discussion with me, please use the email address about. I also encourage you to go to James Wyatt's website (www.aquela.com) -- as a devout Christian who does work for WotC, he'd probably be the best equipped person to really answer this question.
Belegbeth
First Post
Kai Lord said:
Exactly. This is why DnD should *NOT* be edited in order to suit (anyone's particular, and no doubt contestable, interpretation of) the Bible.
We live in a pluralist society, and people can run a DnD campaign anyway they see fit. Leave demons, devils, and good dragons in the rules -- people who have a problem with them can remove them from their home campaigns.
Kai Lord I would like to know why you didn'tlike the setting. email me at dagnir7879@yahoo.comKai Lord said:Elephant, you've got mail too assuming I wrote your email addy correctly. Turanil, I understand not wanting to by a book with any writing in it, but that's part of the risk when you pay a fraction of the cost to get something used instead of new. It'll otherwise be in pristine condition. But given your location, you definitely won't have to worry about happening upon my copy in a used book store.
Thanks
Enforcer
Explorer
1. I wholeheartedly recommend Eberron. I really really like it. I like the pulp, I like the intrigue, I like the Mike Mignola style art, and I love the mechanics.
2. Nitpick: In Exalted there are five dragons, not four. One for each element and direction. East/Wood, North/Air, West/Water, South/Fire, and Center (literally the center of Creation, the name for Exalted's setting)/Earth.
3. As a Jew, and therefore having my only familiarity with the Book of Revelations coming from bad movies like End of Days, I never would have thought of if/how Eberron has similarities with that book of the New Testament. I think it's interesting, though given Mr. Baker's statements it won't have any effect on the game I plan to run.
4. I'm pleased that this thread has elicited the information that the War of the Mark was fought not only to purge those with Aberrant Marks, but also those marked with the Mark of Khyber. If that was in the ECS, I certainly missed it.
2. Nitpick: In Exalted there are five dragons, not four. One for each element and direction. East/Wood, North/Air, West/Water, South/Fire, and Center (literally the center of Creation, the name for Exalted's setting)/Earth.
3. As a Jew, and therefore having my only familiarity with the Book of Revelations coming from bad movies like End of Days, I never would have thought of if/how Eberron has similarities with that book of the New Testament. I think it's interesting, though given Mr. Baker's statements it won't have any effect on the game I plan to run.
4. I'm pleased that this thread has elicited the information that the War of the Mark was fought not only to purge those with Aberrant Marks, but also those marked with the Mark of Khyber. If that was in the ECS, I certainly missed it.
- Status
