Would you suggest the Ebberon Campaign Setting?

[MDSnowman]

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.

Heh I kind guessed the Aberrant Marks were involved.. but I didn't even know that Khyber marks existed before this.



I must begin planning.

 

[Kai Lord]

Kai Lord, may I respectfully suggest that you post that email to the new Yahoo group, and simply direct people there? I've set the archives to be viewable by guests.

Its mostly a copy and paste of my first post in the "Eberron and the Book of Revelation" thread, which I didn't want to link to since it was closed. But I'll take some time and post that and some further thoughts on your Yahoo site either later on today or tomorrow.

I think we're just scratching the surface of what I consider to be the biggest issue facing D&D, and its encapsulated quite strongly in Eberron. It'll be nice to have more freedom to discuss various observations, points of view, issues, and solutions to the issues outside of ENWorld.

That being said, I am pleased with the amount of respect given by those of differing points of view on this thread. Hope it continues.

I'll jump back in later today or tomorrow.

 

[Mouseferatu]

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?

Yes, it is. Fantasy, as we know it, is very important to a great many people. Changing it because a few individuals believe it contains symbology they dislike is no bette than if TSR had canceled the game completely due to the Satanist arguments raised in the early 80s.

Further, freedom of choice and freedom from religious censorship is every bit as important to some people as religion itself is to others. Even if I personally had no liking for good magic or good dragons, I'd argue this to the end of the role-playing as a hobby. Restricting options, or narrowing the definitions of what is acceptable, in order to placate a specific demographic, is almost never a worthwhile venture.

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.

I love LotR. But I'd be very upset if that was the only style of fantasy available. Some of the best fantasy out there involves sorcerer protagonists and plenty of other aspects that might not entirely fit with the view being espoused here.

I want my LotR. I also want my Belgariad, my Elric, my Conan, my Eberron, my Riftwar, my Vlad Taltos, and even my Book of Vile Darkness.

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.

Strawman. I'm not talking about applying the argument to other things. (And BTW, D&D does include provisions for risen demons and fallen angels, and good assassins. They're just not in the core rules.)

The point I'm making is that this argument is based on the notion that Christian symbolism--and, I should point out, symbolism that seems only to bother a small proportion of Christians--should trump every other use, despite the fact that such other uses are the norm in fantasy, not the exception.

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.

Again, you're going to absurd lengths. I'm talking about what has already become acceptable, not what "might" be allowable in the future. There's nothing in myth to suggest that all dragons or all sorcerers must be evil--again, unless you're pulling from one specific set of religions.

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?

To put it bluntly, it doesn't take that slant unless you want to see it that way. I've played with many devout Baptists and devout Catholics, and none of them have been even remotely bothered by what you're talking about. None of them see dragons as automatically symbolizing Satan, and all of them would be horrified at the notion that no good magic should exist in D&D because of certain real-world religious beliefs regarding magic.

A sufficiently devout Muslim might object to artwork that shows humanoid figures, as opposed to being abstract. A sufficiently devout Budhist might object to the martial arts of the monk being divorced from the spirituality. So yes, fantasy must, and will always, contains elements that could be seen as offensive to some group or another. (Heck, the very notion of other worlds is offensive to certain religious beliefs.) Fantasy, and D&D, should not set out to be offensive--but neither can it or should it remove every element that could possibly be viewed as offensive in the right light, because there would be literally nothing left.

Now, let me clarify. None of this is meant to suggest that your viewpoint isn't valid on a personal level. What isn't valid, IMO, is the idea that said viewpoint should be enforced on others.

Fantasy is what it is, and most people involved like it that way. If that weren't the case, it wouldn't be doing as well, as a genre, as it is. If you have religious objections to certain aspects of it, I respect that, and by all means you should have the right to remove those aspects from the game. But personal offense, except when such offensive aspects can be judged by an objective cultural standard, are never valid reason for censorship.

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.

Dragonmark does not equal mark of the beast unless you want it to. I don't mean to offend, but this clearly is neither the intended meaning, nor the meaning that the vast majority of people have taken from this aspect of the setting.

I'm all about cultural sensitivity in written products. But sometimes a cigar really is just a cigar, and the reader needs to take a step back and see if he's reading too much into the material. If you don't think you are, that's fine, but let the rest of us make our own decisions, rather than deciding what should be in the game.

 

[Hellcow]

Just as a note, if I make a further reply to this issue, I'll be doing so on the Yahoo group, so as to leave this thread for its original purpose.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Just as a note, if I make a further reply to this issue, I'll be doing so on the Yahoo group, so as to leave this thread for its original purpose.

Probably wise. I've already gotten close to going farther than I meant to in this thread, and I have no interest in getting it closed.

I dunno if I'll be following it to the Yahoo group--I think I've more or less said everything I can on the subject without getting angry, and I have no interest in getting info a flamewar or making an enemy of an EN World regular--but I'm glad it's there for those who want it.

 

[Kesh]

I'll get back to the original topic then.

yes, I recommend Eberron. It's a wonderfully diverse setting, well put-together, and it has an incredible number of plot-hooks built in. The only downside is a lack of a good world-map so far.

 

[Express]

I would recommend it too and have before. I really like that it takes some of the standard conventions and twists them a bit for flavor without casuing mechanical problems. My favorite example is probably the Aerenal and Valenar elves, although the pantheon and planar concepts are cool too, and Eberrons take on clerics is nice.

But the best thing for me is that it is clearly mean to be a third edition sandbox. All though I don't totally agree with the tagline "Everything thats DnD " is in Eberron just about everything is. Its clearly meant for this edition, with no converting or making allowances for things. Theres alot of fluff here with little change to the crunch.


My final point would be that as a new setting you dont have the weight of history or canon working against you. Right now its a wide open playground with mostly lowish level npcs. My hope is that future novels and tie ins dont effect the canon too much, like FR.

IMHO.

 

[aurance]

Probably wise. I've already gotten close to going farther than I meant to in this thread, and I have no interest in getting it closed.

I dunno if I'll be following it to the Yahoo group--I think I've more or less said everything I can on the subject without getting angry, and I have no interest in getting info a flamewar or making an enemy of an EN World regular--but I'm glad it's there for those who want it.

Your previous reply was a very reasonable and logical one, and there was absolutely nothing inflammatory about it. I was about to write something similar, but couldn't have said it better than what you said.

 

[Menchi]

I agree with Aurance, Mouseferatu. You put forward a clear, reasonable and logical reply. I also agree with you on virtually every issue. Sometimes a cigar really is just a cigar.

Bringing things back to topic...

One of the strengths of Eberron, for me, is how cohesive it is as a setting. Everything links together nicely and it allows for a wide variety of game styles. Add to this the fact that it doesn't feel like an element is just added for its own sake, but rather to provide more scope and depth to the setting. Fantastic.

I also love the pulp feel - can't wait to get started running this game.

Conan

 

[Kai Lord]

Yes, it is. Fantasy, as we know it, is very important to a great many people. Changing it because a few individuals believe it contains symbology they dislike is no bette than if TSR had canceled the game completely due to the Satanist arguments raised in the early 80s.

In a discussion like this it really isn't prudent to just throw out assumptions as if they're facts. Fantasy is "very important to a great many people" but only a "few individuals" dislike symbology that glorifies things the Bible states are harmful? Do you have any idea what the best selling book of all time is? Harry Potter? The Player's Handbook? Not even close.

The Guinness Book of World Records lists The Bible as selling 2.5 billion copies since 1815. Let's see Harry Potter mania keep that pace. So if we're going to throw out words like "many" and "few" when describing people who are into the Bible and those who are into "good" sorcery, let's put those adjectives in the right place.

Further, freedom of choice and freedom from religious censorship is every bit as important to some people as religion itself is to others. Even if I personally had no liking for good magic or good dragons, I'd argue this to the end of the role-playing as a hobby.

Freedom of choice. I want to be able to choose a core D&D that suits my convictions as to what's right and wrong cover to cover. So why don't I get that choice? Statistically the majority of America claims to be Christian (not that I buy it, but I'll just humor the statistic for the time being.) The majority of America does not read fantasy novels and it does not play D&D. So why is core D&D going to narrow my choices to that which is already in the PHB just to appeal to your minority demographic? I thought that was "almost never a worthwhile venture."

I'd love it if every aspect of gaming adhered to what I believed to be right and wrong, but I'm not even fighting that battle right now. I'm advocating a core rule set that is simply more "universal" in its flavor. I think something more LOTRish should be core. And yes, I'd even advocate making the stipulation that the Gandalf's of the world aren't actually "wizards" in the traditional sense. Then you appeal to various demographics with alternate theologies or philosophies. If I can't have "Christian D&D", then I want it True Neutral, where I can seamlessly add the morality I believe in without throwing out half the book or completely redescribing it.

If you want to buy the "Good Magic Handbook" or purchase issues of Dragon that feature good metallic dragons, then that could be your choice to make.

Strawman. I'm not talking about applying the argument to other things. (And BTW, D&D does include provisions for risen demons and fallen angels, and good assassins. They're just not in the core rules.)

Oh now your argument doesn't apply to other things? So are you arguing in favor of allowing for all styles of play or not? Because if good dragons should be allowed for people who want to go there, then by that logic good demons should be Core as well. Do you even realize why those rules for good assassins and demons aren't in the Core Rules? Its for good reason. And I believe that same reason applies to magic as well. You can say "but the good dragons of Eastern mythology give a precedent, and therefore should be accounted for," and I can say "well, there's also real life people who worship demons." That doesn't mean we need to throw it all into the Core Rules.

Again, you're going to absurd lengths. I'm talking about what has already become acceptable, not what "might" be allowable in the future. There's nothing in myth to suggest that all dragons or all sorcerers must be evil--again, unless you're pulling from one specific set of religions.

"Already become acceptable?" By whom? Are you trying to suggest that the majority of people in America or the world thinks that sorcery is a good thing? If so, then that's flat out wrong.

To put it bluntly, it doesn't take that slant unless you want to see it that way.

With all due respect, that's a flat out falsehood. The Bible says that sorcery and the summoning of familiar spirits, among other D&Disms, is absolutely evil. The PHB, on the other hand, lists, in black and white, certain familiars as being good aligned, and many, many spells and even a clerical domain as being "good" or the province of good aligned characters. That's not me seeing a slant that isn't there. Those are elements that are diametrically opposed, in black and white.

I've played with many devout Baptists and devout Catholics, and none of them have been even remotely bothered by what you're talking about.

They aren't bothered by games that put a positive spin on things which the Bible declares as harmful or destructive? Then they're opinions as Christians really don't carry any weight.

By the way, don't think for a second that you've made an "enemy" of me, I try to relegate that title to things that are not of flesh and blood.