AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

I've been whipped by a fan belt.

Good times.

Although monster race chars such as goblins and kobolds Half orcs and ogrillions can be played as good, neutral or evil the one thing i must say is, react to them how your character would, you dont have to accept them just because they are there and say they are good if your character would not accept them.

I have characters that would accept them or some of them and characters that would not, racisim is rampent through the realms

Calling a Palladin Ogrillion an evil barstard might make him cry, but its a good laugh aint it?

Players handbook writes

Quote:

"Chaotic neutral is the best alignment you can be because it represents true freedom from both society's restrictions and a do-gooder's zeal"

Playing a monster, a monster that truly is a monster, not some cutesy domesticated creature, is actually somewhat difficult on Amia. By default toons will not treat you as a monster due to toons & players wanting to avoid conflict, toons think you are cute, players & toons both go with the status quo of NOT attacking monsters(City of Tolerance blah blah), lack of other monsters to play with, bored epics laying the smackdown and etc.

In the past several years I can count on 2 hands the amount of times my filthy, disgusting, totally not cute, vile, despicable, filthy, oderous, foul Goblin Og has been treated as a Goblin. Most of the time he is treated as somekind of retarded deformed Hin.

Teufel Eldritch wrote:

Most of the time he is treated as somekind of retarded deformed Hin.

A goblin by any other name *cough*

Anyway, it is definently quite hard to both play and interact with a monster type PC. Most of the time, when one of my characters has come across a kobold or goblin in Frontier North, I just have to rp "taking a defensive stance" before waiting to rp with them, or attack, or what have you... when in any other case, you'd simply run up and begin attacking such a creature anyway. You're really forced to metagame to avoid such titles as griefer and get in trouble with PvP rules. Sadly, the IC truth is that "I just got ambushed by 3 mobs of creatures that look just like you in this place, sorry if I didn't know you were some +40 Int wizard that speaks better common than most folk."

I saw a group of evil drow today in the troll caves! I was so excited! You know drow are getting on a pretty sad good/evil level when then evil ones make you giddy because all the ones you normally see are nudist prancers.

Don't expect ever evil drow by themselves to act all arrogant and cruel - they're evil, not stupid. Pretending to be good is one of the easiest ways to get around ... hell you don't even need to pretend to be good, just be polite.

I ran into evil drow once. My character wasn't of a mood to pick a fight with them but then some elf in our party started a fight with them and I narrowly avoided being enslaved. It was probably some of the coolest RP I've had.

Yurell wrote:

Don't expect ever evil drow by themselves to act all arrogant and cruel - they're evil, not stupid. Pretending to be good is one of the easiest ways to get around ... hell you don't even need to pretend to be good, just be polite.

Tell that to 99% of evil Drow I see >.>

TormakSaber wrote:

Yurell wrote:

Don't expect ever evil drow by themselves to act all arrogant and cruel - they're evil, not stupid. Pretending to be good is one of the easiest ways to get around ... hell you don't even need to pretend to be good, just be polite.

Tell that to 99% of evil Drow I see >.>

People seriously do that? I've been in parties where paladins have kicked the elf out for harassing my poor, innocent drow ... well, if you choose to be openly evil when there are a group of people coming at you, that's your choice I suppose.

Yurell wrote:

[Drow] are evil, not stupid.

I so will take that as a quote.

Because its true!

hehe.

And I am part of the 1% tormak mentioned, wee!

Yurell wrote:

I've been in parties where paladins have kicked the elf out for harassing my poor, innocent drow ...

Only on Amia.

Mr Mago wrote:

Yurell wrote:

I've been in parties where paladins have kicked the elf out for harassing my poor, innocent drow ...

Only on Amia.

I'd imagine it would happen anywhere where most drow are good and are out to help the community. Like ... Amia, *runs out of examples*

"Most" Drow are not good and do not try to help the community.

TormakSaber wrote:

"Most" Drow are not good and do not try to help the community.

Really? I had thought that there were more active surface drow than UDers atm, especially in the Eli department. If I'm mistaken, Itake back what I said.

If there are, it's only for reasons it is probably not polite to discuss in public.

I would like to see more and more monster race PCs actually play the stereotype though, or at least, something close to it.

I blame the "Deekin effect"...

Also remember that the do-gooder Drow we all love to hate, with the stupid scimitars, was the key character in some of the earliest Forgotten Realms novels.

His character, like it or not, is a staple of what the Forgotten Realms is all about. He shows that, rarely, those of an evil background can be good. There's even a story of him encountering good goblins. A large amount of the setting was developed in B-Grade novels about this dark elf.

Also, I dislike saying that Good as an alignment isn't the same as good, morally... why call it Good then?

Quote:

Good Vs. Evil
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose. Being neutral on the good-evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them.

Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior.

Seems to match up with most common beliefs regarding what is good and evil, in fact. Differences of opinion will occur between those that are good, but truly good people are not cruel, for instance. One may legitimately hate those that are cruel to innocents, and demand punishment, whereas another may promote forgiveness. Both are still good, but the difference there is based on method, not alignment.

However, hating all goblins because they are goblins, and that reason alone, is not good. Hating even demons, perhaps, for simply being demons, whilst logical, is not good (it's not evil either, just to clarify). An acceptable good thing would be hating them for their actions, which are near definitely evil (of course, there is still the possibility of a good person not hating even the worst of people, for various reasons).

The act itself may not be inherently good, but you can still be good and commit the act.

Yurell wrote:

The act itself may not be inherently good, but you can still be good and commit the act.

Correct. Good characters can commit evil acts, and evil characters good acts. It's all about the general feel for the character.

For instance, one could play a good character that spends all of his time helping the starving, for no reason other than the fact that he is a good person.

However, he could still be racist, with an illogical, unfair hatred of, say, Gnomes (god, I hate gnomes), refusing to help them for whatever reason.

He'd still be good, but with a flaw. Good does not mean perfect, after all.

Conversely, an evil character could go out and murder his hated enemies and their families, torturing them to death, but treat those that have not offended him with generosity and even genuine kindness.

TormakSaber wrote:

If there are, it's only for reasons it is probably not polite to discuss in public.

C'mon. We might as well show 'all' the dirty laundry while we're at it...

I suspect it's becaus they want an OP char on the surface, the 'easy' way?

I told you. I'm not getting into it. Stop asking.

This is on amia. On amia, kobolds are cudly, drow are more likely good than not, and the majority of mosnter races are not monstrous. All red dragons are evil stops being true the moment I make a rdd who is in fact not, which the rules fully allow me to. Ignoring amia's reality is a valid stance, but it does make one's character evil, racist, biggoted and everything else.

Ron is wrong, as his argument does not apply when you can point out more than a dozen characters that disprove the racial stereotype.

bluntpencil2001 wrote:

Also remember that the do-gooder Drow we all love to hate, with the stupid scimitars, was the key character in some of the earliest Forgotten Realms novels.

His character, like it or not, is a staple of what the Forgotten Realms is all about. He shows that, rarely, those of an evil background can be good. There's even a story of him encountering good goblins. A large amount of the setting was developed in B-Grade novels about this dark elf.

Novels =/= Canon Lore. There's a significant difference there

The Novels are a creative medium made to entertain, provide drama, and all the rest as told by a writer's (R.A. Salvatore) own perceptions on the area, with various creative things 'made up'. Alot of it doesn't actually mesh with Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting if you actually compare it.

bluntpencil2001 wrote:

Also, I dislike saying that Good as an alignment isn't the same as good, morally... why call it Good then?

Simplicity of understanding. Also, in Core Dungeons and Dragons, it really is that simple.

bluntpencil2001 wrote:

Seems to match up with most common beliefs regarding what is good and evil, in fact. Differences of opinion will occur between those that are good, but truly good people are not cruel, for instance. One may legitimately hate those that are cruel to innocents, and demand punishment, whereas another may promote forgiveness. Both are still good, but the difference there is based on method, not alignment.

That's all based off of Greyhawk, which is a completely different setting to Forgotten Realms.

bluntpencil2001 wrote:

However, hating all goblins because they are goblins, and that reason alone, is not good. Hating even demons, perhaps, for simply being demons, whilst logical, is not good (it's not evil either, just to clarify). An acceptable good thing would be hating them for their actions, which are near definitely evil (of course, there is still the possibility of a good person not hating even the worst of people, for various reasons).

Your understanding of the Alignment System when in Forgotten Realms' case is pretty heavily flawed. I'd suggest cracking out the FRCS, looking at various important NPCs and actions within that, and events, and the alignments of those associated with them - you'll be quite readily surprised.

Look at many of the gods, too, and the god's alignment when applied to what they do - as well as what their clerics can be with not only not-falling, but being supported by their god and not changing alignment.

Sheverashan Clerics of all Alignments (Including Chaotic Good) will kill a Drow on sight. Moreso, they'll kill people who willfully associate with them. Most mainland elven cities will vary between two simple responses to Drow (Despite them having a good aligned deity) - Kill them outright, or wound them heavily and leave them for dead somewhere where a cleric -might- stumble upon them. Every Elf, and it's defined very heavily in Forgotten Realms, hates Drow and will often kill them outright - but the majority of elves are Good Aligned, and there are no Evil Elf Deities. Sheverash, who preaches their absolute -slaughter- without remorse, is only Chaotic Neutral, and that's got more to do with the fact that it also includes blindly killing people who associate, and will go to lengths such as torture.

Ignore your pretty novels, for they are not canon lore, and any lore in the Greyhawk Books (Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and Monster Manual) is superceded by any information which counters it in Forgotten Realms.

One of the Triadics (Tyr or Torm - I always get them mixed) is heavy on -killing and defeating evil without remorse-. And without hesitation. A Lawful Good Deity for Paladins, at that. In fact, in 2E, a Paladin could fall for backing down from an Evil Creature of any type, unless that creature completely yielded (in which case they'd be taken to a church to be dealt with) or otherwise utilized one of their other paladin codes against them (eg; no striking an unarmed opponent (monks count as armed for that))

It's pretty heavily illustrated that in Forgotten Realms - Vengeance is not by any means an evil act. Whether that be between individuals, between groups, or between entire, realms sparring entities. Neither is the elimination of evil. Killing Evil is Good. Killing Good is Evil.

You can say I'm wrong, but i'd love to see your FR Sources that don't come out of a novel. And even still, DMs get the say on a Setting, though you'll find this one lines up ... extremely well... with FR.

Cucumber wrote:

This is on amia. On amia, kobolds are cudly, drow are more likely good than not, and the majority of mosnter races are not monstrous. All red dragons are evil stops being true the moment I make a rdd who is in fact not, which the rules fully allow me to. Ignoring amia's reality is a valid stance, but it does make one's character evil, racist, biggoted and everything else.

Ron is wrong, as his argument does not apply when you can point out more than a dozen characters that disprove the racial stereotype.

Oh, btw. Nice Sockpuppet, Valas. Still subverting your ban?

One of the problems I see is that those who play races that typically or considered evil cry foul when treated as such because they chose to play that character as good aligned. Accept that others will see that good aligned goblin as a evil creature and when your treated as a evil goblin by some paladin just realize the player is just playing their character. On the same note, a paladin that decides to be nice to a goblin (am just using goblin as a example here) and that goblin decides to rob or harm or even run away from him then accept that as well.

In such a word as this do not assume that the typically evil race is good, go by what is typical and not what the few untypical ones may be.

Aren't the official novels considered canon, though?

That little detail has always bugged me a bit, because some of the writers have some pretty liberal interpretations of the previous lore from what I understand. And that, of course, creates some weird inconsistencies within what is accepted as canon. Which is not a problem per se, it can be mended by DMs picking which interpretation they want for their campaign.

The novels ARE canon, I'm afraid, otherwise their characters wouldn't be mentioned in the FRCS, which I have sitting right here.

Page 177 has quite a nice big picture of R.A Salvatore's crappy hero, followed by a summary of what he's all about.

So, I'm sorry, but as poorly written as it is, Crystal Shard et al, are canon lore. Caution and fear of the Drow is only logical, but hatred only considered good based on their actions. People should roleplay good Elves that viciously hate Drow... but this hatred is not a good act. Like I said before, good people have flaws.

A real life example: I am from Scotland. If I lived here 700 years ago, when the English used to come up here and slaughter our men and rape our women, it would be perfectly reasonable for me to hate them... but it would not be good. If I murdered someone for the crime of being English and existing... that would be bad. If I killed a man in defence of my village, or even my country, that may not be so bad.

That Chaotic Neutral deity mentioned who promotes slaughter of Drow? His clerics who do so, murdering Drow indiscriminately, killing, say, the hero mentioned, for instance, would be Chaotic Evil, or simply Chaotic Neutral and stupid. They could still easily be clerics of said deity, since he allows for evil clerics.

To be fair, some of the alignments of deities are a bit screwy... I would have some trouble playing an evil cleric of Kelemvor, for instance, with the canon lore given in the books, although evil clerics of Helm are certainly possible, such as those seen in Maztica. This trouble, though, could offer creative new possibilities.

Of particular interest, for example would be Paladins of the Red Knight on one side of a battle, faced by Blackguards of the Red Knight on the other. Both worship her due to her nobility and strategic prowess, but find their morals elsewhere, perhaps from the influence of other deities, or their own personal beliefs.

...Forgive me, but

What is "CANON" ? I follow this debate with great intrest, but i'm getting more and more confused.
Could you elaborate the basic principles?

What is canon lore?
What goes first - Server lore, or "novel" lore? (PnP Books) ?

One would assume that the lore from the books is canon up to a certain date, from which events on the server would have begun to have an effect upon the world at large.

Canon lore is "official lore", or lore that has been approved by WotC or whoever happens to be the owner of Forgotten Realms right now. We also consider anything Ed Greenwood says pretty much canon. Ed is the original creator of Forgotten Realms. I think Iron knew that it is in his contract with WotC that anything he says is canon, too.

Mind that Amia's acceptance of canon lore ends where 4th edition begins. 4th edition never happened on Amia, we started our own server canon from that date. But stuff that happened before applies. Of course, Amia has always had history simultaneously with the rest of the Realms, and that is also our very own canon lore. I guess it is better to call it "server lore", though, despite it being very official on Amia. "Canon" in D&D context applies to stuff any campaign set in FR can use, though the word has a bit wider meaning in general language.

Last edited by IronAngel on Wed, Dec 09 2009, 16:53 PM, edited 1 time in total.

"Canon lore" refers to information that is accepted as "official" for the Forgotten Realms. This includes anything published by TSR/WotC in FR game supplements, novels or online articles, as well as Ed Greenwood's answers on Candlekeep. Technically, all lore from these sources stands until they're contradicted by more recent lore.

Canon lore does not include articles in the Dragon and Dungeon magazines (though they had the license to use D&D stuff) or video game content.

Homebrew lore is not canon. On Amia, we accept all canon lore prima facie. However, if it is historically later than 1373, if Amian custom lore contradicts it, or if DMs have explicitly stated otherwise, the Amian interpretation applies.

(Edit: or what Nekh said.)

So yes, novels are quite 100% canon. They may not always be good (though often they're better than the 3e game supplements), but the diversity of interpretations is only a good thing: it means DMs and players can safely exercise their good judgement and creativity, and stay within the limits of Forgotten Realms that the pluralism of literature has secured.

As for races: whether a race is inherently good or evil is irrelevant. Even if a specimen happened to be good, it doesn't make it evil to kill it if you have a justified belief that it's evil. Such matters of metaphysics or biology don't affect RP.

As for alignment: I wouldn't say there's just one way to look at good and evil. Good can be different from what you see consider good in the real world, or it can be the same. It all depends on the player and the DM. We don't have any explicit, detailed criteria for good and evil that the entire server subscribes to. Player A may play a Good character like Player B plays a Neutral character, while DM X may think PC A is Chaotic and DM Z thinks he's Lawful. There is no IC relativism, but it would be foolish to pretend there's one clear OOC standard that's enforced and accepted by all players and DMs. It's more like "Do what thou wilt, within reason."

Muspelkvist wrote:

What goes first - Server lore, or "novel" lore? (PnP Books) ?

The "Server Lore", of course. After all, we're playing on Amia- A NWN server. Not PnP, and definently not a novel.

There's things we allow from PnP. Maybe even some we'll allow from novels. But there are probably more things we disallow from PnP and novels than we allow. Amia's Lore and rules, as determined by the DM's, is where the buck stops.

Edit: Blast. Iron beat me to it.

It's best to assume that most novel lore didn't happen, unless you confirm with a DM first.

DM lore comes first, which is generally server lore, and where it might not be, then server lore comes second. Official Forgotten Realms products from Wizards of the Coast, versions 3.0 and 3.5, would come a close third, but keep in mind that most of DM lore and Server lore *is* official product lore.

It does get more confusing by the fact that we are somewhat of a mishmash of versions, plus NWN as a game has things that are not in the official Wizards of the Coast products, but which are nonetheless official lore for now. Like Greater Sanctuary.

Likewise, the products may say certain things which are nonetheless unnacceptable here without DM approval, such as spells, subraces, or classes.

Actually, Amia's acceptance of canon lore ends at the whim of the DM. We are not mindless slaves to a setting manhandled by schlock fantasy writers and nerds.

IronAngel wrote:

As for races: whether a race is inherently good or evil is irrelevant. Even if a specimen happened to be good, it doesn't make it evil to kill it if you have a justified belief that it's evil. Such matters of metaphysics or biology don't affect RP.

If a Paladin, say, killed our twin scimitar wielding friend, under the logical assumption that he was evil, he would still have to atone, correct?

That would imply that the act was evil, but not intentionally so... a crime which can be atoned for quite easily... even if it is murder. Evil of somewhat logical ignorance as opposed to evil with intent.

EDIT: I'm assuming that we aren't using divinations that can determine alignment. If we are, with due caution, no Good Drow should be murdered by Good people.

Last edited by IronAngel on Wed, Dec 09 2009, 17:14 PM, edited 2 times in total.

Contrary to Cori, I'd say that you can with relative safety assume all canon lore applies, unless it's been specifically overruled by DMs - but with the reservation that you may have to yield and forget it, if it's ever overruled later. (The Amia Timeline actually states that canon events, including all novels, did happen up to 1373.) You have to keep in mind and be prepared to adjust to what Yossarin said: we can declare something null and void at whim, though we obviously rarely do that without a good (and probably predictable) reason. It would be unreasonable to check with DMs every time you want your PC to come from a certain guild in a certain town, or be a veteran of some specific war. Chances are, you know more about it than the DMs anyway, if you've done your research.

Of course, it does not mean you can assume you're from a family of Grimlocks or that you can cast all manner of PnP spells. But that's not a matter of canon lore vs. server lore, that's a matter of staying within the rules and reason.

Blunt: I would make a call on the spot, with the circumstances in mind. To kill something (in war, for example) that happens to be good against all expectations and reasonable assumptions, is not automatically evil, I wager. It might be in some situations, maybe.

bluntpencil2001 wrote:

IronAngel wrote:

As for races: whether a race is inherently good or evil is irrelevant. Even if a specimen happened to be good, it doesn't make it evil to kill it if you have a justified belief that it's evil. Such matters of metaphysics or biology don't affect RP.

If a Paladin, say, killed our twin scimitar wielding friend, under the logical assumption that he was evil, he would still have to atone, correct?

That would imply that the act was evil, but not intentionally so... a crime which can be atoned for quite easily... even if it is murder. Evil of somewhat logical ignorance as opposed to evil with intent.

Not necessarily, I believe. Paladins always eventually turn up in these discussions about Good and Evil, but true to past, usually end up getting boiled down and some improper oversimplified answer.

As it is with all paladin cases, it depends on the circumstances and every minutiae of information present. To ask "If a paladin kills Drizz't, is that good or evil" is a failed question. Did he back down first? How did paladin X meet Drizzt? Who's the paladin's god? What was going on at the time? How was Torm feeling today? What did the paladin have for breakfast?

I think Won's rule of thumb "killing evil is good and killing good is evil" is more just a general way to understand how some deities view their own dogma. There is no absolute guidebook for this stuff.

It's more like what Iron said "Do what you may, but have reason" for your actions. Reasoning to different ends is the one thing that keeps the same god that says "Kill evil on site without remorse" and the one that says "Abstain, turn the other cheek, and offer help" in the same alignment. Even the "good gods" have different reasoning for "good" among them.

It's not needed to overanalyze the whole metaphysics of Good and Evil and Law and Chaos. 1) because it's not like it's going to change anything in the game we play, anyway 2) because the alignment mechanics are pretty much a concrete template laid over an OoCly and ICly subjective field(except in the matter of mechanics) and 3) because unless you're dealing with gods , falling, and smiting, it really makes little of a difference what it means exactly OoCly. For in those cases, Good and Evil are dependant upon the deity's reasoning, not some OoC, infallible conception we as humans haven't even gotten completely figured out over the course of centuries of philosophy.

Fair points well made, actually. It does, of course, depend on circumstance, war being a perfect example of muddied waters here.

I would hazard a guess that unintentional evil done by a paladin, or even a cleric of a specific deity, such as accidentally killing a good person, or intentionally killing a good person, believing them to be evil and dangerous, would generally only warrant an atonement once the individual found out about the mistake, which may be because of a temporary fall, for the aforementioned paladin, or because of a passing inhabitant of Ten Towns screaming about how one just killed a hero.

Good people trying to make up for their mistakes often makes for a good story.

Back to monsters....

One of the problems I have, a totally personal issue to be sure, is my monster characters have there spawn points near lowbie places, Brokentooth Cave/The Brambles for instance, & IC'ly my Gobs should attack those near the cave, but I don't as a player because I am afraid, yes afraid, of having my lvl 30 CvC/PvP a lowbie. I don't want some lowbie getting irate because a highbie killed him, I don't want a bunch of OOC drama, I don't want the (misplaced) guilt of having smashed a lowbie. I just can't bring myself to smash lowbies, even if it's totally valid, realistic & right of me to do so. Not a Amian issue as much as it is a Teufel issue.

I'd say what Iron said about accepting novels as canon would be accurate if only because whether you pick a specific town from a specific novel, or make one up off the top of your head, I'm not going to know the difference anyway, nor are many(if not most) players, unless they've read that specific novel as well.

So who cares.

But if you start babbling to most people about "canon" lore from a novel, regarding a nations-war, or a guild-war, or some other thing, you are likely to get a blank stare, or a response based not off lore, but off, again, the assumption that you've made it all up as part of your backstory.

As I (and likely most people) have no idea about what year a certain novel was supposed to happen in, it's still safer (in my opinion) for the average to not count novels as canon without confirmation.

That's true what you said about the dates, I suppose. If you don't know when a novel takes place, it's best to check. It's very easy to check if you know where to look, though. But it's true that no recent novels that have been published in the past few years apply to Amia. We're talking about novels that have been published over five years ago, basically.

I babble all the time about novel events and obscure references on my loremaster PC. I try not to make up anything related to history, and to base all my other IC theories on existing lore. It's part of the fun of playing a scholar, and I imagine that's what makes it fun for other people, too: I may drop in relevant tidbits of information at times, and you can be fairly certain that I didn't just make it up. You can relate it forward, and expect people to either know about it, or at least be able to find out with some quick research. If you go to another loremaster PC, you might even learn something new related to it. It's actually a part of the world we play in, and it makes it feel all the more detailed.

When you realize that the game designers actually created over thousand individual names for the years, and many years actually have events that allude to the name, it's a whole new level of cool. FR isn't just a bunch of nonsense, a lot of it is actually very well developed, and several designers and authors have worked on their ends of the same storylines. I think it would be a waste to ignore all that, if you're gonna play FR in the first place. That insane amount of detail and cumulated lore of 40 years is what makes FR superior to other settings.

I personally don't play FR. I had no idea what FR even was until probably two or so years into playing NWN.

I don't even play D&D. I knew of D&D, of course. But I knew virtually nothing of it when I started NWN.

No, I play NWN. And more specifically, since NWN isn't good enough to hold my attention on it's own, I play Amia.

Thus, what I know now of D&D and FR, is because it was beneficial to learn bits of it for Amia.

Personally, the things I like about lore pc's, are:

1) That you provide an entertaining story, based on "official" lore or not, I really don't care. I won't know anyway. Some of the best RP I've ever seen was Yossarin inventing lore behind an item I rewarded in a quest. Yossi's lore for the item was spouted so smoothly and confidently, it felt like he'd been the one running teh quest and giving the item out. I had a teensy bit of lore for the item - anything I make always has lore behind it - but it paled in comparison. Basically, the "lore" you spout has to sound realistic. YOU need to convince me, not your story, not your sourcebooks.

2) I care more about Amia-related lore than non-Amia. You can spout all the backstory about the fall of Netheril that you want. I might be somewhat entertained if you do a good job (see "1" above). But if you can spout off a good tale about the fall of Benwick, I'll be *much* more interested, and impressed. Must also adhere to "1", above, though.

While we're discussing dits and dats, May i ask if there's any Webbpage that's "Wiki" oriented regarding Faerun lore?

Lets say i wanted to know more about ...Gnome history, About Garl Glittergold - Where would i find it?

There's nothing particularly useful around, anymore. FRWiki has been updated to 4e stuff, which makes it quite unreliable.

It's good for one thing, though: the articles often list their sources, so you can see which books deal with the subject.

You can also Google stuff, there's a lot of official material posted online too. And Candlekeep is the best source for obscure details and fascinating discussions, though not for a lot of basic information.

But all in all, you'd be better off buying or otherwise acquiring the books yourself. You can get a lot of old, excellent material for free here:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/downloads

But if you want to buy something, you're in for a shock - as far as I can find the WotC store doesn't have a search function for its Dungeons and Dragons stock >.>

Muspelkvist wrote:

While we're discussing dits and dats, May i ask if there's any Webbpage that's "Wiki" oriented regarding Faerun lore?

Lets say i wanted to know more about ...Gnome history, About Garl Glittergold - Where would i find it?

FR Wiki, even before they, mostly, updated it to 4e, is very flawed. That's not to say it's all BS, there are some things that are correct and aren't 4e. I'd try to keep away from it, for the most part though.

In regards to lore on Gods, the best page to check is here. Keep in mind, even those pages have some homebrew information, so it's best to check the books to be sure. Also, it's older information, so there's more lore to the gods than what's said there now. There are a few gods missing, some gods that are now dead in Amia times, some gods that were dead and came back, etc. etc.

As for mechanics of the game, I have two sites I check: This one and this one. It has lore in there too.

Da monstah' trouble.

Who is online