Subject: MYSTARA-L Digest - 22 Sep 2004 to 23 Sep 2004 (#2004-202) From: Automatic digest processor Date: 24/09/2004, 17:00 To: Recipients of MYSTARA-L digests Reply-to: Mystara RPG Discussion There are 14 messages totalling 680 lines in this issue. Topics of the day: 1. On that old scourge called canon (was: Darokinian language) (9) 2. Aargh... (3) 3. On that old scourge called canon (was: Darokinian language) (2) ******************************************************************** The Other Worlds Homepage: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/OtherWorlds.asp The Mystara Homepage: http://www.dnd.starflung.com/ To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM with UNSUB MYSTARA-L in the body of the message. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 09:13:27 +0200 From: Giampaolo Agosta Subject: Re: On that old scourge called canon (was: Darokinian language) Aaron Nowack wrote: > > For instance, as I recall (though I've not got the books near me to > check), K:KoA (or possibly Joshuan's Almanac) includes a sidebar that > indicates that it's common knowledge that there are other worlds which > have gods rather than Immortals, and that this is some fundamental > difference rather than just a different word. [I believe it takes the > form of a quote from a playwright NPC's plays.] It's K:KoA -- a quote from a play by Emilio. BTW, among the many odd changes introduced in K:KoA there are, IIRC, the pantheon of the Church of Karameikos being formed by Halav, Petra and Zirchev, and Desmond Kelvin being the major ally of Alfric Oderbry. > Does it _explicitly_ contradict previous canon? Not that I'm aware of. > Does anyone seriously suggest it be considered real canon? No. Well, it is canon, by definition -- only, it's canon I'm quite willing to ignore. Bye, G. -- Giampaolo Agosta http://digilander.iol.it/agathokles ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 12:25:43 +0200 From: Havard Faanes Subject: Re: On that old scourge called canon (was: Darokinian language) --- Giampaolo Agosta skrev: > Aaron Nowack wrote: > > > > > For instance, as I recall (though I've not got the > books near me to > > check), K:KoA (or possibly Joshuan's Almanac) > includes a sidebar that > > indicates that it's common knowledge that there > are other worlds which > > have gods rather than Immortals, and that this is > some fundamental > > difference rather than just a different word. [I > believe it takes the > > form of a quote from a playwright NPC's plays.] > > It's K:KoA -- a quote from a play by Emilio. This could be linked to the fact that the Norsemen, at least according to the Joshuan Almanac refer to the Immortals as gods. Perhaps, it was this difference in world views Emilio adressed in his play? BTW, > among the many odd changes introduced in K:KoA there > are, IIRC, the pantheon of the Church of Karameikos > being formed by Halav, Petra and Zirchev, and > Desmond Kelvin being the major ally of Alfric > Oderbry. That doesn't make sense at all. The Traladaran Three should be the pantheon of the Church of Traladara, not the CoK. > From what I understand, Kelvin's failure to gain princess Adriana's hand has made him a bitter man. Perhaps Oderbury has taken advantage of this bitterness and thus turned Kelvin into his ally? Håvard ===== *** Håvard R. Faanes www.stud.ntnu.no/~havardfa ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 13:25:51 +0200 From: Giampaolo Agosta Subject: Re: On that old scourge called canon (was: Darokinian language) Havard Faanes wrote: > >> It's K:KoA -- a quote from a play by Emilio. > > This could be linked to the fact that the Norsemen, at least > according to the Joshuan Almanac refer to the Immortals as gods. > Perhaps, it was this difference in world views Emilio adressed in > his play? It could, but the quote involves two characters, one of whom is from another world. > That doesn't make sense at all. The Traladaran Three should be the > pantheon of the Church of Traladara, not the CoK. They are mentioned as patrons of both churches. I know it doesn't make sense -- more or less like the IC knowledge of the difference between Immortals and Gods or the Darokinians speaking Thyatian. These are simplifications that were made in K:KoA for a number of reasons -- e.g., presenting only three types of specialty priests, allowing characters to speak Thyatian everywhere, etc. -- Giampaolo Agosta http://digilander.iol.it/agathokles ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 08:26:47 -0400 From: Chris Cherrington Subject: Re: On that old scourge called canon (was: Darokinian language) The best part of it all, we are the ones playing the game how we each like to. Many things come to interpretation of how one perceives the meaning of the text. I for one like filling in the blanks. Canon says Darokin is Thyatian; this does not fit my campaign. So I turn it around to that statement is a common rumor that is untrue. Just like everyone perceiving Hattians as overly arrogant racial thugs, or the perception is that Thyatians are that way (then they meet a Hattian). Who knew that there were three main races of humans in Thyatis before the gaz came out? Everywhere before they were all Thyatian, and they all spoke one language. Now we go back to players and explain that some Thyatians over here are more Kerrendian, and these are more Hattian, then these way over here are more Ispan… The creators of Mystara have just put the pieces together for us to fill in the blanks, no need to explain why these things are, that is for each DM to fill in the blanks for hi s particular campaign. Now when we do write for the almanacs, we still need to perpetuate common misconceptions that were started by the originators, that makes sense (but you will always see something of a “sidebar” from our experience and interpretation, after all the best imagination comes from within). ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 08:48:26 -0400 From: Chris Cherrington Subject: Aargh... Here we go again, Hurricane Jeanne is out to get me. That is #4 this year. I just spent $2000 to have the cleanup done from damages to my home, now I need to board up and evacuate again. No work to get paid, and I have to spend money. I would sell my wife, but I would miss her keeping after my kids. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 15:12:03 +0200 From: Havard Faanes Subject: Re: On that old scourge called canon (was: Darokinian language) --- Giampaolo Agosta skrev: > Havard Faanes wrote: > >> It's K:KoA -- a quote from a play by Emilio. > > This could be linked to the fact that the > Norsemen, at least > > according to the Joshuan Almanac refer to the > Immortals as gods. > > Perhaps, it was this difference in world views > Emilio adressed in > > his play? > It could, but the quote involves two characters, one > of whom is from > another world. I guess I should have checked it. :P Well, that is annoying. The existance of other worlds should IMO be common knowledge, but worlds with Gods, that just doesn't make sense. > > That doesn't make sense at all. The Traladaran > Three should be the > > pantheon of the Church of Traladara, not the CoK. > > They are mentioned as patrons of both churches. I > know it doesn't make > sense -- more or less like the IC knowledge of the > difference between > Immortals and Gods or the Darokinians speaking > Thyatian. > These are simplifications that were made in K:KoA > for a number of > reasons -- e.g., presenting only three types of > specialty priests, > allowing characters to speak Thyatian everywhere, > etc. I intend to have my Church of Karameikos go through a sort of reformation process which eventually (After bloody conflict) will produce a Reformed Church of Karameikos, which allows for both the Traladaran and Karameikan pantheons, but I don't think it should happen as early as 1010 or whenever K:KOA is set. K:KoA OTOH does this while still presenting two separate Churches. If they have the same patron immortals, then where is the root of the tension between the two? Håvard ===== *** Håvard R. Faanes www.stud.ntnu.no/~havardfa ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 15:19:14 +0200 From: Havard Faanes Subject: Re: Aargh... Do you think there is some Divine Power out there that has been offended by you playing the blasphemous game called D&D? ;) Hang in there mate, Håvard :) --- Chris Cherrington skrev: > Here we go again, Hurricane Jeanne is out to get me. > That is #4 this year. I just spent $2000 to have > the cleanup done from damages to my home, now I need > to board up and evacuate again. No work to get > paid, and I have to spend money. I would sell my > wife, but I would miss her keeping after my kids. > > ******************************************************************** > The Other Worlds Homepage: > http://www.wizards.com/dnd/OtherWorlds.asp > The Mystara Homepage: http://www.dnd.starflung.com/ > To unsubscribe, send email to > LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM > with UNSUB MYSTARA-L in the body of the message. > > ===== *** Håvard R. Faanes www.stud.ntnu.no/~havardfa ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 10:01:59 -0400 From: Chris Cherrington Subject: Re: On that old scourge called canon (was: Darokinian language) I believe the mentioning of Gods was the opening up of Mystara to the "Advanced" concepts of using the deities. Since OD&D inception, TSR made it clear that the ideas of gods was not to be used. These ideas were too advanced and was left to AD&D (1,2 and now 3.5 ed) to utilize. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 17:02:02 +0200 From: Havard Faanes Subject: Re: On that old scourge called canon (was: Darokinian language) --- Chris Cherrington skrev: > I believe the mentioning of Gods was the opening up > of Mystara to the "Advanced" concepts of using the > deities. Since OD&D inception, TSR made it clear > that the ideas of gods was not to be used. These > ideas were too advanced and was left to AD&D (1,2 > and now 3.5 ed) to utilize. I always thought the reason why Gods were named Immortals and Demons renamed fiends had to do with the "D&D is Satan worship" debacle in the US back in the 80s. But the inclusion of references to Gods in K:KoA is obviously meant for the reader to understand the difference between Immortals of Mystara and Gods of the other AD&D Settings. It is sort of annoying though, that it is presented through a play by Emilio. Few, if any of his audience would have had a chance to visit the Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk, I should think. Perhaps his play is about the Averoignians arrival from LaTerre. Not sure if that is common knowledge though. Nor am I sure whether the LaTerrans should refer to their deities as Gods... Håvard ===== *** Håvard R. Faanes www.stud.ntnu.no/~havardfa ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 11:25:49 -0400 From: Chris Cherrington Subject: Re: Aargh... ============================================================ From: Havard Faanes Do you think there is some Divine Power out there that has been offended by you playing the blasphemous game called D&D? ;) Hang in there mate, Håvard :) ============================================================ With winds over 100mph, Hang On is more in line to what we have been experiencing. As for the divinity being offended, it is probably more due to the fact I haven’t been playing enough ;) It’s funny too, I was supposed to be flying out to Dallas for a new job, they cancelled the flight to allow me to evacuate my family from Hurricane Ivan, that was two weeks ago. Now they are canceling the flight again as Tropical Storm Ivan (yes the very same system that blasted Alabama and went straight up to Pennsylvania and headed south to hit me as severe thunderstorms that caused my ceiling to leak, has reformed in the Gulf of Mexico and is striking land again!) One storm and it has had 3 landfalls. There is something out there trying to tell me something, “Get out of Florida!”. 8-) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 11:35:58 -0400 From: Chris Cherrington Subject: Re: On that old scourge called canon (was: Darokinian language) ============================================================ From: Havard Faanes Date: 2004/09/23 Thu AM 11:02:02 EDT I always thought the reason why Gods were named Immortals and Demons renamed fiends had to do with the "D&D is Satan worship" debacle in the US back in the 80s. ============================================================ That is true, the game Dungeons & Dragons was explicitly named as devil worship. In fact the little pamphlet that caused all the hoopla even directly stated the game teaches the player spells to charm their parents into buying more books. My dad made me get a job, so I know that was not true. So OD&D took the stance that there were no gods or demons, only immortals and fiends. AD&D took the other route and said that since this game was more advanced, new players would now the difference between a game and reality and stop trying to cast charm spells on their parents to buy more books ;) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 14:17:26 -0400 From: Chris Cherrington Subject: Re: On that old scourge called canon (was: Darokinian language) ============================================================ From: Havard Faanes K:KoA OTOH does this while still presenting two separate Churches. If they have the same patron immortals, then where is the root of the tension between the two? ============================================================ Visions of Monty Python’s “The Meaning of Life” comes to mind. It’s like the difference between Catholics and Protestants. (I don’t want to start any flames by the RW mentions of religious differences). Nor do I want to see Thyatis taking part of Karameikos back and sending a bunch of Thyatian Church Loyalists to keep one corner of the country in good standing (we have enough of that in the RW). 8-P ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:03:11 -0700 From: The Stalker Subject: Re: On that old scourge called canon (was: Darokinian language) On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 19:24:38 -0500, Aaron Nowack wrote: > The Stalker wrote: >> On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 22:25:49 -0500, Aaron Nowack >> wrote: >>> >>> So you believe the MAs should work on the assumption that the Nucleus of >>> the Spheres still drains Energy? >>> >> >> When did I say that? Indeed, I stated that those areas where canon should >> be questioned are those where canon contradicts itself, as was clearly the >> case here, since G:KoM simply did not take the end of WOTI into account, >> and instead simply repeated the outdated information from Gaz 3 instead. > > WotI states that the Nucleus of the Spheres switches to drain Entropy in > 1009 AC. > > G:KoM states that the Nucleus of the Spheres drains Energy in 1013 AC. > > There's nothing explicitly contradictory about those statements. > Nothing says that something didn't happen to make the Nucleus of the > Spheres switch back to draining Energy, so that's the obvious way to > include all canonical statements on the matter. > I see, so you're suggesting that the NoS was changed back during 1010 to 1012 without it being described in any of the PWAs for those years, despite the fact that those are precisely the three most extensively covered years described in canon of all of Mystara's history... But if canon states that Darokinian is a dialect of Thyatian, then it must simply be wrong. Would that be on the principle that double standards are better than none? Hmmm, maybe there is more to this than I thought. After all, while WOTI mentions a shift to draining from Entropy instead of Energy, it only does so under the Phase III adventure, but not in the timeline itself. That means it only happens if someone (the PCs) successfully reprogrammed the NoS. Note that this does not preclude the other events of at the end of the war (Alphatia sinking, etc.), since both WOTI and Mark of Amber mentions the possibility that those events might have been caused by the Doomsday Weapon responding to the energy released by the Alphatian wizards attacking Glantri. If G:KoM proceeds on that basis, then there is nothing wrong with restating the rules for draining Energy, since only the PCs can have changed it. This would fall under the same heading as the question of whether Etienne/Rad returns to Glantri after the events of Mark of Amber, which is a subject most of us try to avoid, since it is really an individual decision for each DM to make for his campaign. I'll go with having the NoS draining Entropy since the PCs actually did successfully reprogram the NoS in my campaign, but apparently not in yours. I'd have preferred they had also included rules for the other possibility (NoS draining from Entropy), but since the PCs of most campaigns either did not reprogram the NoS or else don't care, I guess I have to accept the decision on the basis that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. I should thank you, however, since this actually makes G:KoM look like a much more coherent product in my eyes. Still, that does not resolve the problem. Rather it makes it obvious that the question of the NoS is one that canon wants to be an individual choice for each campaign. Since most campaigns are not going to be bothered with it at all, that is probably just as well. At least my campaign will not face the problem of magic being continuously drained away by the NoS, since the NoS now drains from Entropy. In yours, that apparently did not happen and so the NoS will still drain from Energy, which means the conflict of WOTI is still unresolved and that the DoD will eventually expand to a full week at some point as the rad force continues to climb. The Mystaran Almanac team has apparently decided that, assuming there are at least 21 members of the Brotherhood of the Radiance, someone did reprogram the NoS in the MA timeline, or else the rad force (which was said to be 478 in 1013, which is the year of G:KoM) would since have cause a full week without magic on a yearly basis. >> Somehow I think you already knew that, however, or are you suggesting that >> the reference to Darokinian as a Thyatian dialect in K:KoA is a similar >> oversight? > > An oversight? Probably not. > > What it is, however, is a poorly thought out change in a throwaway line > in one of the later products for the line, which are fairly notorious > for having less concern for previous canon and less quality control then > they probably should have. > I'd agree to some extent for G:KoM, but not for K:KoA. It was cowritten by Allston, after all, who can hardly be said to have no respect for previous material (he wrote much of it). Note that this is also the author of the original Karameikos gaz, which was the first gazetteer that formed the basis of all the subsequent gazetteers. As I've agreed with H=E5vard, they've sadly left out a lot in K:KoA, but then there are limited number of pages in any RPG product. The information about Alphatia in DOTE was also rather scarce, but I'm about not to discount anything in DOTE on that basis. And how do you figure it to be a throwaway line? They could have simply not written it, and yet they did. Why? It's not as if it's just a typo. A typo I would indeed ignore, just like I ignore that the same description states that the Merchants' Council (not the Merchants' Guild) rule Darokin and that Corwyn Mantua (instead of Mauntea) is the head of it. These seem to be obvious typos to me, and so I ignore them with confidence. I guess you would also ignore the information about Stefan's grandchildren then? On the same principle, maybe we should ignore all the Red Steel material, since it conflicts with the original X9: Savage Coast adventure? > For instance, as I recall (though I've not got the books near me to > check), K:KoA (or possibly Joshuan's Almanac) includes a sidebar that > indicates that it's common knowledge that there are other worlds which > have gods rather than Immortals, and that this is some fundamental > difference rather than just a different word. [I believe it takes the > form of a quote from a playwright NPC's plays.] > > Does it _explicitly_ contradict previous canon? Not that I'm aware of. > Does anyone seriously suggest it be considered real canon? No. > Since you say yourself that this is given as an in-character reference by an NPC, how can you seriously suggest that this is to taken as relevant as something that is openly stated as a fact? By the same logic we could argue that Zendrolion really was forced to kill Lucinius because he had been driven mad by Alphatian magics, since the DOTE player's book for Thyatis actually says so. Surely you jest... >> I think not, which actually means that your comment here is >> inflamatory. You can now continue into troll kingdom without me... > > Sigh. > > Stalker, you can't seriously be suggesting that I'm flaming or trolling, > can you? > I can't? Since I had already stated that I did not find the idea unreasonable, your frequent use of how unreasonable (and that is the precise word you chose) the idea is, it seemed rather obvious to me that you were beginning to redicule me when you could not simply dismiss the idea itself. When you then choose the particular topic of the changes to the NoS to "prove" your point after I explicitly stated in a conversation with H=E5vard that it was precisely one of those areas of canon that really should be discounted (H=E5vard and I talked about this in the KoA topic that= grew out of this topic), it seems very clear to me that you chose that particular point deliberately to antagonize and redicule me after you could not simply dismiss my argumentation, and so that by casting doubt upon me, you could discount my argumentation by extension. How did you think I would react to that? You knew how I felt about that topic (since I've said so just a few days ago), and yet you chose to throw it in my face, even though it was obvious I could not respond kindly. That's trolling. I might as well have said that I like ice cream, just to have you say that people who like ice cream are stupid and then claiming that it's not your fault if I like ice cream. It also annoys me how you assume authority on the issue. I have consistently admitted that my position was a personal one, while you have stated rather matter-of-factishly that to having Darokinian as a Thyatian dialect is "unreasonable", even if there is canon support for it. You did not say that this was simply your opinion as much as you suggested it was a fact that could not be questioned unless one was 'unreasonable'. Well, while you can obviously do what you will in your campaign or the material you write, that does not mean everyone else has to agree with you or even that they are fools if they do. To be equally blunt, I'll do whatever I please IMC or material I write with or without your approval. You will not hear me arguing that everybody else here must agree with me, however. For example, I had Alphaks burn down the Alphatian armada during WOTI when I ran it IMC because I strained credibility that a few fleeing Glantrians starting a fire among some skyships could cause a firestorm that burned down all of Aasla before the city's fireslayers could put the fire down. This was a personal choice, however, and you won't see me knocking other people over the head because they don't do the same in their campaigns. After all, canon supports them if they do otherwise. >>> I'm not the type to go throwing out canon just because I don't like it. >>> However, lets be perfectly clear - we're not dealing with a major, >>> indisputable fact here. >>> >> >> It is indisputable that K:KoA says so. > > What is not indisputable is that such a statement is supported by the > bulk of canon, which is what I meant. > You have agreed yourself before that the comment does not contradict previous canon. >> Please remember that this began >> when Giulio asked why the MA put Darokinian as a Thyatian dialect and if >> there was canon material in support of this. > > So? > > The thread then moved on to the question over whether or not that made > any sense or contradicted previous canon. > You have agreed before that it did not actually contradict previous canon. Where you did not agree, however, was on the subject of what you felt made sense on the basis of Darokin's past. Well, let me quote from another "hated" source, the Character Book from the Mystara Player's Survival Kit (p.6 under the description of Darokin): "The last two centuries have seen major influxes from Glantri (nonmages who objected to the establishment of the magocracy there), Ylaruam (those who had supported the Thyatian or Alphatian conquerors, expelled when the nation gained its independence), and Karameikos (Traladarans incensed by the Thyatian takeover of their homeland), not to mention the recent refugees from Alfheim." While this source is another "hated" product, this quotation really does only paraphrase data found in previous canon. Now, take a look at all those people who came to Darokin from those 'major influxes' and ask yourself this question: Which language are they all most likely to have in common? To me the answer supports the comment in K:KoA rather than the opposite, and please note that it does not conflict with the reference you've quoted earlier from the Dragonlord trilogy, since the events of that source take place before AC 500, while this references to 'major influxes' talk only of the last two centuries (AC 800+). >> Why are you getting angry with for pointing to that source? > > The only thing I'm at all angry about is the implication that I'm a troll. > Fortunately there is a simple solution to that: Simply cease to make comments that will obviously antagonize other people. > Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm angry. > If you merely disagree then we have no problem. If you give the impression of stating only facts that are indisputable, however, then there will be a problem if those 'facts' contradict canon references. - The Stalker ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:06:31 -0700 From: The Stalker Subject: Re: On that old scourge called canon (was: Darokinian language) On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 15:12:03 +0200, Havard Faanes wrote: (snip) > > I intend to have my Church of Karameikos go through a > sort of reformation process which eventually (After > bloody conflict) will produce a Reformed Church of > Karameikos, which allows for both the Traladaran and > Karameikan pantheons, but I don't think it should > happen as early as 1010 or whenever K:KOA is set. > AC 1012 > K:KoA OTOH does this while still presenting two > separate Churches. If they have the same patron > immortals, then where is the root of the tension > between the two? > Without going into the subject of whether these churches should or shouldn't have the same patron Immortals, just try to compare to the real world: Christianity and Jewism also share the same God. Plenty of tension there, methinks. Or just look at the branches within Christianity itself, particularly during the medieval ages. Even today, there is plenty of tension between Catholics and Protestants, even if they are all Christians. - The Stalker ------------------------------ End of MYSTARA-L Digest - 22 Sep 2004 to 23 Sep 2004 (#2004-202) ****************************************************************