It wasn't a hole in the setting because we were missing orcs, lyncanthropes or drow elves. It was a hole in the setting because it was a hole in the story of the graygem.
If the graygem is a chaotic monster generator that could create creatures and effects of any type, then it should create any creature. Thus, in effect, you can't really ban any creature at all.
I was actually thinking to put some limits on the graygem by saying that it couldn't do various things, but it didn't go over well, so we're back to square one. That is, I think that no monsters should be banned from dragonlance at all, if we want to be consistent about the possibilities of the graygem.
Thus, instead of banning monsters, I feel one should just put them into the background. Just don't feature them, but don't worry about which monsters shouldn't be there. It would be different if the monsters chosen to be banned had some thematic purpose (like Dark Sun or Ravenloft) but I could introduce a CR1 chaotic evil monstrous humanoid tommorow and it would be fine as long as I don't call it an "orc".
Anyway, that's my two cents about the graygem.
Originally posted by ferratus
It wasn't a hole in the setting because we were missing orcs, lyncanthropes or drow elves. It was a hole in the setting because it was a hole in the story of the graygem.
I'll say that Chaos can create whatever he wants. In official sense he hasn't created orcs, drow or lycas etc but if a DM wants to use it for such a purpose, he can.
If the graygem is a chaotic monster generator that could create creatures and effects of any type, then it should create any creature. Thus, in effect, you can't really ban any creature at all.
Of course you can. Just like you can ban hobbits from Dragonlance because Chaos never made them.
I was actually thinking to put some limits on the graygem by saying that it couldn't do various things, but it didn't go over well, so we're back to square one. That is, I think that no monsters should be banned from dragonlance at all, if we want to be consistent about the possibilities of the graygem.
You can still say that Chaos can do whatever he wants. He just hasn't done everything and never will.
Like I already implied previously, just because something is possible doesn't mean there is a reason for it to have happened.
So if we have a metagaming artifact that allows a DM to import any monster he wants, why are bothering to specifically single out a few, seemingly by an arbitrary decision.
You mainly object to a line just flatly stating that "These monsters don't exist." You want to know "Why shouldn't I include them in my games? What is the in world reason for not including them?"
What if The line read "The following monsters don't exist because they were never known to be created by the Greygem and have never been seen."
Is that what you are searching for? I think many people, such as myself, just assume that is the reason why. But for some reason you want it spelled out?
It's just that they don't really fit into the setting and their presence is not needed. Because of the origin story we have, the opposite number to the elves (chosen of the gods of Good) are the ogres (chosen of the gods of Evil).
Anyone who wants to have a drow-centric campaign is welcome in the Forgotten Realms, where you almost can't cross the street without running into one. Orcs are likewise redundant in this setting becasue other monsters fill their role.
This is all balanced out by the fact that ogres are more prominent on Krynn (usually they're just dumb muscle for others in Greyhawk or FR), and Minotaurs are a fully-defined, coherent race as opposed to oocasional bull-headed, maze-loving one-shots.
It's really just a storyline concept that has kept these races out of the picture on Krynn. Drow usually serve as a counterpoint to elves in most settings, but here that role is filled, plus the question of elven morality is such that a "dark twin" is not needed to contrast them. Orcs don't fit in because other races have been bumped up to the role they usually fill.
Originally posted by ferratus
If the graygem is a chaotic monster generator that could create creatures and effects of any type, then it should create any creature. Thus, in effect, you can't really ban any creature at all.
By this logic we would now have to include creatures such as gem dragons, thri-kreen, muls, half-giants, balrogs, oni, wampas, tauntauns, Minbari, Vulcans, and Klingons. And how can we have Dragonlance without Hoojibs?
This could also affect magic and other powers beyond magic, as we know it affects wild sorcery and mysticism. By golly, we now have a perfectly reasonable explanation for psionics!
That is, I think that no monsters should be banned from dragonlance at all, if we want to be consistent about the possibilities of the graygem.
What I find funny is that you're looking to set laws down about the physical embodiment of Chaos. lol
Thus, instead of banning monsters, I feel one should just put them into the background. Just don't feature them, but don't worry about which monsters shouldn't be there. It would be different if the monsters chosen to be banned had some thematic purpose (like Dark Sun or Ravenloft) but I could introduce a CR1 chaotic evil monstrous humanoid tommorow and it would be fine as long as I don't call it an "orc".
Okay, let's introduce psionics to Krynn, saying that the Greygem caused it. We won't have it in the foreground though, and we'll call it something else. Mentalism, perhaps?
I know I've sounded a smidge sarcastic throughout this post, but it was to emphasize a point.
One can use the Greygem to account for orcs being in the world of Krynn. You can continue with this thoughtline, until you have drow and psionics. As we go on, we add new races, new monsters, new types of magic, new dragons...the list goes on and on.
At what point does it stop being Dragonlance?
Really, the Greygem is the Great Excuse. It's a way that DM's can add races, monsters, etc. etc. into the world of Krynn with a logical excuse to account for it. If I want winged elves, why I can just say the Greygem caused the mutation. Or if I want big chicken men - I'm armed with the Greygem (and 11 herbs and spices).
If you're looking for a setting that is all-inclusive, try the Forgotten Realms. If you want to use the Greygem to allow orcs in your game, feel free to. After all, you're armed with the Great Excuse.
Just remember that this is an exception that only shows up in your game, and not in any official product.
Drow were created by a singular god imposing (although a willing race apparently) upon a population as a whole rather than as a random effect.
Now I do not know the history of Lycanthropy or the Orcs as a whole so I cannot say too much about that.
However like Ferratus, I am of the mind that it should be stated somewhere that while certain creatures are not "native" to krynn, there is nothing saying they cannot be used in the setting.
Originally posted by darthsylver
However like Ferratus, I am of the mind that it should be stated somewhere that while certain creatures are not "native" to krynn, there is nothing saying they cannot be used in the setting.
This is the implied truth about any setting yet published. Once the rulebook or sourcebook is in your hands, you can do whatever the heck you want with it. It's only when you start wanting other people to use your stuff that you run into trouble, and in those cases (such as those folks who write for the rulebooks and sourcebooks) there are established limits on what's included, and those are usually adhered to.
Cheers,
Cam
As an interesting point, Athas did actually have orcs at one time, but they (along with gnomes, pixies, goblins and others) were wiped out during the Cleansing Wars in prehistory. So their existence was not utterly denied. It was merely that they had been "written out" so to speak.
Same deal here. Dragonlance is a more tightly defined world than Forgotten Realms. There's a smaller number of gods and a lower number of variables in the way the world was designed by them. The Graygem wrought many changes to many races. But that doesn't mean it transformed Krynn into a copy of Toril. Toril certainly doesn't have shapeshifting sea elves or civilized minotaurs. Ogres there are not descendents of once-majestic beings, they're just neanderthalic brutes. Dragons are not intimately connected to the gods. And on it goes.
If a particular DM simply cannot be happy without orcs then by all means throw them in and use the Graygem as a deus ex machina to explain how they got there. But I don't think there's much general enthusiasm for making Krynn more closely resemble Oerth or Toril.
Originally posted by Dragonhelm
By this logic we would now have to include creatures such as gem dragons, thri-kreen, muls, half-giants, balrogs, oni, wampas, tauntauns, Minbari, Vulcans, and Klingons. And how can we have Dragonlance without Hoojibs?
This could also affect magic and other powers beyond magic, as we know it affects wild sorcery and mysticism. By golly, we now have a perfectly reasonable explanation for psionics!
Exactly, we could. The greygem could cause any effect we wanted it to, so it really isn't consistent to say that any monster specifically can't exist on Krynn.
That's what I'm getting at. We don't specifically ban any of the above creatures, or really all of the monsters in the MM or Fiend Folio, or Sword and Sorcery creature gallery or whatever. We just don't deal with them in official products.
I'm just wondering why we single out these specific monsters. When their exclusion doesn't really add or subtract anything from the dragonlance setting. The only thing it really seems to cause is continuity gaffs when it slips through editing. So why all this bother over a decision that was arbitrary in the first place? Why cause all this confusion that keeps people from enjoying entire adventures or stories just because of a little mistake that is inevitable?
What I find funny is that you're looking to set laws down about the physical embodiment of Chaos. lol
From my perspective, y'all are doing it too. You're saying "the graygem would never create these specific monsters", so you're putting a limit on it. I just wanted to make the limit make sense.
Really, the Greygem is the Great Excuse. It's a way that DM's can add races, monsters, etc. etc. into the world of Krynn with a logical excuse to account for it. If I want winged elves, why I can just say the Greygem caused the mutation. Or if I want big chicken men - I'm armed with the Greygem (and 11 herbs and spices).
Yes, which is why I'm saying that the greygem must be in essence all inclusive (with regards to monsters) if you want the concept to make sense. The DM is essentially deciding the monsters he is going to use in the adventure. So it is just contradictory to say "the graygem is the excuse you need to feature monsters from any product, then turn around and say "the graygem will never make these particular monsters because it will no longer be a true dragonlance game. How can I know the monsters I design not fit this "dragonlance mold" when the monsters being banned before have been banned seemingly due to random chance?
If you're looking for a setting that is all-inclusive, try the Forgotten Realms. If you want to use the Greygem to allow orcs in your game, feel free to. After all, you're armed with the Great Excuse.
Yeah, and I've said this before. I don't give a crap about orcs, lyncanthropes and any other monster you want to put on the "blacklist" (btw, is there any new ones on this blacklist?)
I just want to know why, if we can use monsters that fill the same role in adventures as the above monsters, why we can't just go ahead in use these monsters. What does the setting gain?
In essence, I want to why we're bothering to ban these monsters other than "because Tracy Hickman said so". I want to know if there is any system or design philosophy behind banning these specific monsters, and if so how will this effect future monster design.
Originally posted by ferratus
In essence, I want to why we're bothering to ban these monsters other than "because Tracy Hickman said so". I want to know if there is any system or design philosophy behind banning these specific monsters, and if so how will this effect future monster design.
And what if it all boils down to "because Tracy Hickman said so"?
The design philosophy isn't a mechanical one so much as one that revolves around the feel of the setting.
At the time Dragonlance was created, the designers felt that orcs were overused. I imagine that they wanted to get away from Lord of the Rings, where orcs are one of the primary villains (especially since LotR was such a big influence on DL). Likewise, how much were orcs used in other D&D products of the time?
What if the answer is simply "to make Dragonlance different"?
We can define a setting by what we include and what we exclude. This helps to define the feel and tone of the setting.
There may not always be a mechanical logic to this.
Good setting design isn't all about mechanics and logical explanations. You have to have a certain feel, heart, and soul to what you create.
Including orcs would give DL more of a LotR feel. Including psionics would overdo magic, and wouldn't fit the feel. Including drow would give us a Forgotten Realms feel.
So there may not be a logical explanation behind why orcs and other creatures aren't there beyond "that's the feel the designers were shooting for".
Originally posted by ferratus
I just want to know why, if we can use monsters that fill the same role in adventures as the above monsters, why we can't just go ahead in use these monsters. What does the setting gain?
You can use those monsters in your game. You can include anything you like, you don't have to worry about continuity or canon or consistency with published products. You can have Elminster in your game riding a sapphire dragon in his White Robes chasing after wererats in the Free City of Palantho-Greyhawk and nobody is going to mind.
I think the real issue here is that you're seeking legitimacy by trying to get the wider audience of Dragonlance to come around to your own way of thinking rather than just going ahead with it. I don't really see why you should care what we think - I see many people posting their own campaigns and adventures and stories about how they're using the official products, having a great time, and not stopping to ask if they can or not. More power to them.
Cheers,
Cam
Originally posted by ferratus
The greygem could cause any effect we wanted it to, so it really isn't consistent to say that any monster specifically can't exist on Krynn.
I don't think anyone is saying the can't exist on Krynn, just that they don't. There's a big difference.
Just because a species exists in the broader D&D game does not mean it HAS to be present in every single D&D campaign world.
As with Dark Sun, it's not that these races CAN'T exist on Krynn so much as that they DON'T exist there. From a game design perspective the Graygem could be used to rationalize the appearance of any race on Krynn. But that doesn't mean that every race is represented. In some cases the races were replaced, as we have Kender instead of Halflings (and until 3E Kender were very different from Halflings).
Individual DM's can do whatever they want. If they decide they think that Mystra is cooler than the three gods of magic than they can bring her in.
But just as the canon setting doesn't include gods from other worlds, it doesn't include some races.
We know that the gods did not create them as the three races created by the Gods were Elves, Irda, and human.
Why couldn't the greygem make orcs out of say humans, it could and for all we know it did. However orcs have never been encountered before and therefore are not known to be indiginous to Krynn.
While we are on this subject I wonder what would happen if an ogre mixed with an elf. Would we get a Half-Ogre or a half-elf or a mix of both or would we get an "ork."
As far as Vampires not being in Krynn I do not understand this.
Why wouldn't Chemosh make vampires. With the creation of one, more could be created almost daily. It would one hell of a way to take over the world with Undead.
Morgion could just as likely create Lycans as they (the evil ones) spread disease and destruction wherever they go.
Originally posted by darthsylver
Before the inclusion of the Half-Orc as a player race in the PHB I could accept the "Because Tracy Hickman said so" reason for why Orcs do not exist in krynn. But now that Orcs (or at least Half-Orcs) are a primary player race in the PHB I feel that we need to have some "in-game" reason as to why Orcs do not exist in Krynn.
You do realize that half-orcs were in the 1e PHB, right? Also, why is it bad to not have half-orcs, but okay to not have halflings?
As far as Vampires not being in Krynn I do not understand this.
I don't get it either. There's nothing saying that vampires don't exist on Krynn, and there is precedent with Vampire Kryl in the TotL boxed set.
And nobody said that Halflings do not exist in krynn (for all we know they are a rare offshoot of kender - Rather than Vice Versa in 2E).
And no I did not realize that orcs were in th 1E PHB. What I am trying to get at is this. Everyone seems to want to see Orcs into a huge overpopulating shock troop who seek to conquer everything. Why couldn't they just be a rare oddity that has never been encountered. I mean could you see a tribe of orcs that live secluded from the world and have never been encountered before.
The base reason is simply that the Graygem didn't create orcs. Not that it couldn't. It simply didn't.
The upside on things like Vampires is that you can use them more creatively because the place isn't littered with them. Undead are typically employed for dramatic effect in DL, not as random encounters. A good mystery adventure could surround a vampire, getting a Ravenloft sort of feel. What the menace afflicting a community is might not be so readily understood by the inhabitants.
Then why don't we just bring every character race, every monster, psionics, and every other god, mash the whole thing together and call it Forgotten Realms?
As has been said many times, you love orcs, use orcs. Just don't expect buy-in from the rest of the DL fan base.
So you could have have orcs or halflings. I would just make the a rarity. Like a mutated offspring of an ogre (half-ogre) or a kender respectfully.
If I wanted halflings and orcs I'd be in the Forgotten Realms.
There's no compelling reason to bring them into Dragonlance. They don't serve any real purpose in the theme of the setting. They would just be redundant and pointless.
Hence, there's no push to include them. If you want to, that's great for your campaign. As has been said, there's not a lot of consensus as to a need from a "Demand that Margaret Give Us Orcs" perspective.
Originally posted by darthsylver
So what about lycans.
Lycanthropes don't exist as having three moons really messes with their shapechanging ability. Imagine having a werewolf who changed every time one of the three moons was in the sky. He'd be monster moreso than human.
And no I did not realize that orcs were in th 1E PHB. What I am trying to get at is this. Everyone seems to want to see Orcs into a huge overpopulating shock troop who seek to conquer everything. Why couldn't they just be a rare oddity that has never been encountered. I mean could you see a tribe of orcs that live secluded from the world and have never been encountered before.
If you feel that having orcs in your games will make them better, go for it. I've explained a few times recently why the original design team didn't use orcs.
Basically, we're getting into a circular debate here, which isn't accomplishing anything.
What we know is that certain races/monsters don't exist on Krynn. Whether we agree with this or not, it simply is.
We also know that we, as game masters, can shape our own games to suit our needs. I've used both drow and psionics (to a lesser degree) in my games in the past, and have had zero problem with my players and the "DL feel". One of my players had more problems with the Knights of Takhisis than he did psionics or drow.
We also know that we, as game masters, have any number of tools at our disposal to integrate non-standard elements into the game. The Greygem is the handiest of these, but there are others as well.
So there you have it - the official stance, the knowledge that game masters can do whatever they want in their games (canon or not), and the tools with which to shape one's game.
'Nuff said.
Originally posted by ferratus
I'm just wondering why we single out these specific monsters. When their exclusion doesn't really add or subtract anything from the dragonlance setting. The only thing it really seems to cause is continuity gaffs when it slips through editing. So why all this bother over a decision that was arbitrary in the first place? Why cause all this confusion that keeps people from enjoying entire adventures or stories just because of a little mistake that is inevitable?
Those other creatures aren't singled out, because they do not have the distinction of being a 'default' race. Orcs, on the other hand, are in pretty much every D&D world, or have been - Except Krynn. And thus, special mention needs to be given to them, spelling out in plain english that they don't exist - Emphasis on the don't. The Graygem can, indeed, make orcs. But it didn't, officially. If you want to change this, that's your call. This applies likewise to lycanthropes, psionics, drow and everything else it is generally spelled out is excluded.
This seems to be a problem for you, also, because later on these little details were forgotten by authors that either didn't read the 'creatures that don't exist' memo, or didn't heed it. But officially, they still don't exist, because of precedent. Consistency is clearly impossible to maintain, but they're trying. So some folks screwed up. This has been acknolwedged. You might be better off to just let it go. But that's your call.
Yes, which is why I'm saying that the greygem must be in essence all inclusive (with regards to monsters) if you want the concept to make sense. The DM is essentially deciding the monsters he is going to use in the adventure. So it is just contradictory to say "the graygem is the excuse you need to feature monsters from any product, then turn around and say "the graygem will never make these particular monsters because it will no longer be a true dragonlance game. How can I know the monsters I design not fit this "dragonlance mold" when the monsters being banned before have been banned seemingly due to random chance?
Honestly? It's a judgement call. The exclusions were not totally random, really. People have stated before why they were left out, but what seems to be tripping you up is that it's not a flavor/in-setting reasons, it's a design reason. What you're going to have to understand is that, while out-of-setting, these reasons are no less valid. It sucks, but that's the way of it.
The good side of this is that anything you create on your own is probably okay. And definitely okay, in your own world.
(btw, is there any new ones on this blacklist?)
Not that I know of.
I just want to know why, if we can use monsters that fill the same role in adventures as the above monsters, why we can't just go ahead in use these monsters. What does the setting gain?
Less clutter? Let's try and look at this a different way. I'll use an analogy.
Imagine you're an artist. You decide you want to paint something - I would've said portrait, but let's keep this open-ended. You just want to paint something. So, the first thing you do is make an arbitrary decision about what you want to paint in your head - a portrait, an image in your dream, something totally random an abstract, some cubism, still-life, whatever. That earlier vague 'something'. Once you've made that arbitrary decision, you make yet another arbitrary decision, this time about what colors and artistic styles you want to use in painting this picture. Once you've made that arbitrary decision, you go and collect your materials, get yourself focused, and set about your task.
Just like painting a picture, a game designer goes through this process - First an arbitrary decision about what kind of setting you're going to design, then some more arbitrary decisions about what kind of stylistic influences you're going to use - what races, what sort of magic, what nations, etc, etc, etc. And once all these arbitrary decisions have been made, the designer will then sit down and get to work.
It just so happens, in DL, the arbitrary decision was to exclude orcs, drow, lycanthropes, and psionics while including things like the Solamnic Knighthood, Dragonlances, a set of 21 deities, the Qualinesti and Silvanesti elves, and the Cataclysm.
In essence, I want to why we're bothering to ban these monsters other than "because Tracy Hickman said so". I want to know if there is any system or design philosophy behind banning these specific monsters, and if so how will this effect future monster design.
As near as I can tell... they were overused, or they would have detracted from other elements of the game, or the established cultural/stylistic activity of a particular race just didn't fit the world. That's vague, but that's how it is. Examine orcs, drow, lycanthropes, and psionics and determine what might be pivotal about each of them as in individual that was excluded from Dragonlance. That's my best advice.
Originally posted by Cam Banks
I think the real issue here is that you're seeking legitimacy by trying to get the wider audience of Dragonlance to come around to your own way of thinking rather than just going ahead with it.
No Cam, I've said this 10,000 times. I'm not going to use orcs, lyncanthropes or drow in a Dragonlance campaign.
I just want a good solid reason as to why we are banning these specific monsters, and what the setting really gains from it.
Now, Dragonhelm says it helps alter the "feel" of the setting, but I just don't see it. How is it different in feel from the LOTR setting if I can use hobgoblins in place of orcs with every adventure that features orcs? I don't even have to change the stats. So why are we bothering?
Same with the drow. If we're going to try and be different, I don't want to see graceful elven cities carved from stone and elves with darkvision. I also want to know why the drow are excluded, but other monsters which have been a big part of the Forgotten Realms setting (such as the dracolich) are accepted.
Finally, I want to know the reasons behind future banning of monsters. For example, if it is decided that dinosaurs do not belong in a dragonlance setting, then I want to know what the reason is so I don't blunder around making monsters with same problems for the setting that dinosaurs have.
What about Yrthak? It has never been a dragonlance monster, having been made for 3e. Is it banned because it didn't exist in the canon?
Originally posted by The Udjat
This seems to be a problem for you, also, because later on these little details were forgotten by authors that either didn't read the 'creatures that don't exist' memo, or didn't heed it. But officially, they still don't exist, because of precedent. Consistency is clearly impossible to maintain, but they're trying. So some folks screwed up. This has been acknolwedged. You might be better off to just let it go. But that's your call.
Yeah, but some were trying to be consistent with the canon, such as the designer of "Wild Elves". He knew that no drow existed on Krynn, so he had a bunch crash land on Krynn with a spelljammer. It wasn't a particularly bad adventure (I've seen worse set on Ansalon such as Oaklords) but it is declared non-canonical because it features drow elves. On other hand though, we've got the illithids crashing into Taladas but they are just fine because they lost their psionic powers. Which makes me wonder if the drow elves would have been fine if they had become pale. ;)
The point is it doesn't really bother me. I never got upset about Clothilda the half-orc (or whatever her names is) in the DLCS because I knew that she was fullfilling the role of a half-orc even though she was a half-ogre. But I wonder why we don't just use half-orcs if we are going to use the half-orcs archetypes.
People have stated before why they were left out, but what seems to be tripping you up is that it's not a flavor/in-setting reasons, it's a design reason. What you're going to have to understand is that, while out-of-setting, these reasons are no less valid. It sucks, but that's the way of it.
Yes! You understand me! That is exactly what is tripping me up. One other thing too, and that's because the design reasons aren't consistent.
For example they want to exclude orcs because of the picture they are trying to create, then why didn't they exclude hobgoblins and other humanoids who have a tendency to throng in hordes?
Less clutter? Let's try and look at this a different way. I'll use an analogy.
Imagine you're an artist. You decide you want to paint something
It just so happens, in DL, the arbitrary decision was to exclude orcs, drow, lycanthropes, and psionics while including things like the Solamnic Knighthood, Dragonlances, a set of 21 deities, the Qualinesti and Silvanesti elves, and the Cataclysm.
See the real problem isn't that the decisions were arbitrary, it is that they are arbitrary without any real purpose. Even if you are painting a picture, you have an end goal of what you want the picture to look like.
So when we use hobgoblins, subterranian elves (Lucanesti, Hess), the cat-people) it seems like we are saying "I won't make a picture of you, but I will draw a picture of your identical twins".
As near as I can tell... they were overused, or they would have detracted from other elements of the game, or the established cultural/stylistic activity of a particular race just didn't fit the world. That's vague, but that's how it is.
Overused eh? No dracoliches then. ;)
I would probably feel a lot better about things, and being to look past them, if we could all agree to the following:
1) Drow and other underdark monsters do not exist because Dragonlance has always been more about the Dragon than the Dungeons.
2) Psionics do not exist on Krynn, so we shouldn't have monsters that are described as having psionic powers.
3) Orcs and Lyncanthropes do not exist on Krynn because we felt they were overused in other settings, but we have no plans to blacklist any other monsters. The greygem allows any monster to have a place in dragonlance, and is all-inclusive when it comes to the monsters that can feasibly exist in the setting.
Otherwise, give me some solid thematic do's and dont's for designing monsters around.
It is the same way with everything (or almost everything) else that is not a part of the DL setting. We do not hace orcs but we do have something that is close or almost identical to them - hobgoblins. Same can be said for Lycans - the cat people (not exaclty like lycans but close enough to cause a bump in the road).
Orcs are used, ad nauseum, in Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms and countless other D&D settings.
They decided that they wanted a more symetrical setting, where the alignment balance, Good/Neutrality/Evil was more prominent than in most other settings.
Finally, they DID NOT want to copycat Tolkein and crank out a Middle Earth with more dragons in it.
Symmetry was provided by elves, humans and ogres being the three primary species. Since orcs exist in opposition to elves in most settings, and since ogres (often underused elsewhere) were given that role in Krynn, that left orcs sort of adrift in terms of what role they filled.
This was no different than the absence of orcs, ogres, gnomes and others in the Dark Sun setting. One could have argued that an Athasian orc would be cool, and that orcs could surely survive on Athas. Yet they weren't there.
Also, in addition to ogres occupying the orcs traditional role as opposite-number to the elves, Draconians had been added as the "magically-created hordes of evil". That only reduced the need for orcs even more.
Since everything that was inserted onto Krynn was for the purpose of advancing the theme of the setting, and since orcs were redundant, they were simply excluded.
One could easily complain and argue for the inclusion of ANY monster race onto Krynn. Let's have a secret island filled with orcs/drow/illithids/normal gnomes or halflings/dowhar/Athasian elves/kytons/githyanki/neogi/etc/etc/etc......
And you could. But since D&D has literally hundreds of monsters to choose from, and since the designers of the settings wanted a clean slate, they didn't decide to just arbitrarily include every option they had. All the job openings were filled and they saw no need to try and squeeze in everyone else as a diversity initiative, so Krynn became an orc-free environment.
Originally posted by ferratus
Yeah, but some were trying to be consistent with the canon, such as the designer of "Wild Elves". He knew that no drow existed on Krynn, so he had a bunch crash land on Krynn with a spelljammer. It wasn't a particularly bad adventure (I've seen worse set on Ansalon such as Oaklords) but it is declared non-canonical because it features drow elves. On other hand though, we've got the illithids crashing into Taladas but they are just fine because they lost their psionic powers. Which makes me wonder if the drow elves would have been fine if they had become pale. ;)
I hate little 'cut arounds' like that. 'Let's exclude this!' 'Oh, it's excluded? Then I'll have them come from another world. Yeah...' Some may argue that they'll be less populace, but that's a pretty weak argument to me.
I don't even like the existence of Illithid in Taladas, though I know next to nothing about Taladas. I guess you have to kinda think of Ansalon and Taladas as two separate worlds, sometimes.
The point is it doesn't really bother me. I never got upset about Clothilda the half-orc (or whatever her names is) in the DLCS because I knew that she was fullfilling the role of a half-orc even though she was a half-ogre. But I wonder why we don't just use half-orcs if we are going to use the half-orcs archetypes.
There's subtle differences, but they're there. Most importantly, the fact that ogres have a rather rich history and a very important place in the world in DL. I don't feel Orcs would've had this special place. For one, ogres have never struck me as a horde race, whereas orcs clearly are in every other place I've seen them. This means Half-ogres have a slightly different place to be coming from here. I could see them sticking with their ogre half a lot easier, for instance. There's some logic behind it, even. But half-orcs in an orc society always seemed like a 'had no other choice' scenario.
I hope that made sense. Anyway, the counter argument could always be made, that the history of orcs could have easily been changed to fit where ogres are now. Or Draconians, for that matter. But I feel with ogres and draconians there was a clean slate - literally in the case of Draconians, but more just because of lack of use for ogres. DL gave them a definite place in the world.
Yes! You understand me! That is exactly what is tripping me up. One other thing too, and that's because the design reasons aren't consistent.
For example they want to exclude orcs because of the picture they are trying to create, then why didn't they exclude hobgoblins and other humanoids who have a tendency to throng in hordes?
Well, yes and no. They're consistent in the sense that they're excluding something from the setting, but they're not consistent in what they're excluding. Or 'reducing' might be the more appropriate word. Anyway, they take out orcs for one reason, drow for another, lycanthropes for another - all unwanted elements, but not for the same reason. Make sense?
You've asked several times 'Why orcs if not hobgoblins/goblins?' I keep meaning to answer this, and keeping missing my chance. Here's a counter-question: Why both? Or, I guess, all three? I've always felt D&D as a whole has too many species that do pretty much the same thing. We've got kobolds, goblins, hobgoblins, orcs, trolls, ettins, ogres, gnolls, bugbears, and all sorts of other races I can't think of that have traditionally filled the role of 'savage neanderthal-ish monstrous-looking vaguely-humanoid creature that rages against all things good and civilized from their place in the wilds and the wastes'. This is something that always bugged me, but bugs me a lot less with DL. You've caused me to ask my why this is so. Certainly the elimination of one of these, orcs, can't possibly be the ultimate reason.
Here's what I've determined: DL does various things to all of these races to diversify them and spread them out. Maybe not enough, but it's done. Orcs are eliminated outright, as the chief of these races. Ogres are rewritten into the setting to be more interesting an less bland. Gnolls, kobolds, trolls, and bugbears get driven into obscurity (not a good solution in my opinion). Goblins and hobgoblins are left generally untouched in that same genre, being the only real horde armies in my opinion (I don't understand why many claim Draconians take the place of orcs. I feel they're more of an elite magical mutation, better than the horde armies, more intelligent, but less numerous). I never see much more than goblins and hobgoblins portrayed as the monstrous hordes in dragonlance. They seem to be the predominant fodder.
Kobolds, gnolls, trolls, ettins, bugbears.... We know they exist, but they're mere lack of numbers seems to make them more interesting. But maybe that's just me. I'm more driven to look for culture, society, and purpose in these races. It's weird.So I guess my short answer is: They wanted less of what orcs did, and eliminating orcs was the best way to do this.
See the real problem isn't that the decisions were arbitrary, it is that they are arbitrary without any real purpose. Even if you are painting a picture, you have an end goal of what you want the picture to look like.
So when we use hobgoblins, subterranian elves (Lucanesti, Hess), the cat-people) it seems like we are saying "I won't make a picture of you, but I will draw a picture of your identical twins".
I see your point, here. I don't really know much about the Lucanesti or cat-people, and I rather hope they aren't clones of shapeshifters and drow, as you seem to indicate. If they are, it's probably the work of trying to bring these elements into the setting, trying to reverse the earlier decision, but still keeping shapeshifters and drow to a minimum by building them as 'something else' in the setting.
But you'll see my above opinion on hobgoblins.
Also, rather than thinking of it like drawing an 'identical twin' ;) Think of it as using a different shade of red, a less bold blue, etc, etc. That's how I see it, anyhow.
Overused eh? No dracoliches then. ;)
I'd be thankfully rid of dracoliches, shadow dragons, fire dragons, etc if it were my decision.
I would probably feel a lot better about things, and being to look past them, if we could all agree to the following:
1) Drow and other underdark monsters do not exist because Dragonlance has always been more about the Dragon than the Dungeons.
2) Psionics do not exist on Krynn, so we shouldn't have monsters that are described as having psionic powers.
3) Orcs and Lyncanthropes do not exist on Krynn because we felt they were overused in other settings, but we have no plans to blacklist any other monsters. The greygem allows any monster to have a place in dragonlance, and is all-inclusive when it comes to the monsters that can feasibly exist in the setting.
Otherwise, give me some solid thematic do's and dont's for designing monsters around.
How 'bout a little edit to the above 3.
1. I actually mostly agree. More about dragons than dungeons, but still about dungeons to a degree. There's tons of ruins, caverns, etc to explore. But DL isn't really about an underground world, an underdark, except as it relates to dwarves, gnomes, and a few other underground races. But it shouldn't be nearly extensive enough for drow, illithid, deep gnomes, deep dwarves etc. Underdark races.
Although we do get dark dwarves. Hm.
2. Agreed! Wholeheartedly.
3. I guess I agree. I think anything beyond orcs and lyncanthropes (unrelated to the above 2) is pretty much a personal decision. Anything's feasible.
So actually, I guess there's almost nothing to edit about your three. I think they're appropriate, anyway.
And I am not even going to get into Selasia (underwater kingdom between Taladas and Ansalon).
Originally posted by ferratus
Overused eh? No dracoliches then. ;)
I hate to say this, but dracoliches as originally presented would not exist on Krynn. Dracoliches are the creation of the Cult of the Dragon in the Forgotten Realms.
Mind you, this is something that has spread to other settings over time, and I would have no problem allowing them in DL. Undead dragons just seem to fit the bill.
Even so, I agree that Taladas needs to be explored. Perhaps one of the themes of this brave, new Fifth Age should be greater contact between the continents. Maybe now that Ergoth is getting their mojo back they might start making more contacts across the sea...
It is true that the big world-affecting stuff always seems to go down in Ansalon.
Originally posted by The Udjat
I hate little 'cut arounds' like that. 'Let's exclude this!' 'Oh, it's excluded? Then I'll have them come from another world. Yeah...' Some may argue that they'll be less populace, but that's a pretty weak argument to me.
The way I see it is that Dragonlance is another variation on the fantasy realms. Thus, the designer probably didn't feel all that worried about adding drow, as long as it was consistent with the backstory because the flavour of dragonlance is traditional fantasy.
It feels to me sometimes that Dragonlance really doesn't have a sense of itself. It wants to run all the standard cliche adventures but make the grandiose claims that it isn't a cliche fantasy setting itself. I don't think so though. Much as it might shock all of you who genuinely love DL, the setting isn't really all that different in feel from Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms or Middle-Earth.
Could it be someday? Perhaps, but we'd have to let more than just orcs fade into the background, and new monsters and cultures would have to rise with a good thematic theme. I would suggest building upon the "dragon" part of the title, just like they did in the original modules.
I don't even like the existence of Illithid in Taladas, though I know next to nothing about Taladas. I guess you have to kinda think of Ansalon and Taladas as two separate worlds, sometimes.
Now there is something I never thought about? Could orcs, lyncanthropes or fire giants exist on other continents on Krynn? ;)
There's subtle differences, but they're there. Most importantly, the fact that ogres have a rather rich history and a very important place in the world in DL.
I've always felt D&D as a whole has too many species that do pretty much the same thing. We've got kobolds, goblins, hobgoblins, orcs, trolls, ettins, ogres, gnolls, bugbears, and all sorts of other races I can't think of that have traditionally filled the role of 'savage neanderthal-ish monstrous-looking vaguely-humanoid creature that rages against all things good and civilized from their place in the wilds and the wastes'.
Yeah, that's my point, because every single one of those creatures you mention (save orcs) exist in Dragonlance, and with exactly the same traditional fantasy role.
One of the coolest adventures for Dragonlance was "Rise of the Titans" and one of the coolest parts of it is the backstory explaining the rise of the various ogre subraces. It was hagiographical and not factual, but it was all intertwined with the lost glory of the Ogre empire. This was something that was actually filled with flavour text. It wasn't clearly laid out though, because I'm not quite sure whether ogre-magi and hags are specific clans, or whether they are just that rare ogre child that hearkens back to the ogre's lost glory.
Anyway, so we take all those monsters, group them together thematically, and make them an integral part of the setting. That's what we need to see more of.
So what are gnolls, kobolds, and hobgoblins/goblins doing to fit themselves into an integral part of the setting? Why aren't they overused or detracting from the setting like the orcs? From my perspective, orcs are just a very small face in a very large crowd.
Gnolls, kobolds, trolls, and bugbears get driven into obscurity (not a good solution in my opinion). Goblins and hobgoblins are left generally untouched in that same genre, being the only real horde armies in my opinion (I don't understand why many claim Draconians take the place of orcs. I feel they're more of an elite magical mutation, better than the horde armies, more intelligent, but less numerous).
Yeah, Hobgoblins are the orcs for dragonlance in every single way, so excluding orcs doesn't really change much of the feel of the setting. That was my point when I said the monsters we've excluded do not make dragonlance unique, especially when we use others that do the same job.
I certainly agree with gnolls, kobolds, trolls and bugbears being shoved into the background is not a good solution as well. If you really want to get away from orcs, these races should be redefined into something that speaks to a core element of the setting. If there is no core element to speak to, why not just let orcs be in the background as well? If it is just about canon, then say it's just about canon. We shouldn't be pretending that something orginal happened or that we've made ourselves distinct enough to stand out from the crowd.
Now, dragonlance does have a distinct reputation among the gaming populace, but let's not start asking why that is.
1. I actually mostly agree. More about dragons than dungeons, but still about dungeons to a degree. There's tons of ruins, caverns, etc to explore. But DL isn't really about an underground world, an underdark, except as it relates to dwarves, gnomes, and a few other underground races. But it shouldn't be nearly extensive enough for drow, illithid, deep gnomes, deep dwarves etc. Underdark races.
Although we do get dark dwarves. Hm.
Shadowpeople and worms that eat solid rock too. Tunnels running for miles under Sanction, Nereka, and numerous other places. Mold men known as Disir. So certainly there is a lot to bury if there isn't an underdark. I also think that Shadowpeople are lot more problematic than drow for exactly that reason.
3. I guess I agree. I think anything beyond orcs and lyncanthropes (unrelated to the above 2) is pretty much a personal decision. Anything's feasible.
Yeah, there is other stuff too. Only Hill Giants exist, because they are giant mutations of ogres. This is also an odd duck, because we have ogre mutations with special powers (ogre-magi and hags) and we have giant sized ogres, but not together. At least not occuring naturally. That's a little odd thematically too.
Hopefully the Beastiary will have a comprehensive list of monsters that are blacklisted.
Originally posted by ferratus
I just want a good solid reason as to why we are banning these specific monsters, and what the setting really gains from it.
I think Udjat went a long way to answer this question for you - it was a design decision made early on to make the setting a little different from other settings. Halflings replaced by kender, gnomes are into technology, steel pieces instead of gold pieces, dragons are myths, no clerics, wizards have to pass a Test or die, etc. Some of those are later resolved as they were central to the setup for the Chronicles, others have remained as staples of the canon. The lack of orcs, lycanthropes and drow elves is the same thing.
Now, Dragonhelm says it helps alter the "feel" of the setting, but I just don't see it. How is it different in feel from the LOTR setting if I can use hobgoblins in place of orcs with every adventure that features orcs? I don't even have to change the stats. So why are we bothering?
You do have to change the stats, because the only thing orcs and hobgoblins have in common is that they're both evil and they both have 1 Hit Dice. I've mentioned this before, but you always fail to recognize it.
The goblin races have their place in Dragonlance. So do the lizardfolk races, the ogre races, and other basic groups. They're established, and anything that gets introduced into the setting needs to slot itself into those broad groups. If you wanted to introduce orcs, it'd be a simple case of making them part of the goblin races. But that would be a house rule, and since you don't want to introduce them anyway, it's a moot point.
As for newer 3E monsters et al, you may want to look into upcoming products for information on which creatures are included in the Dragonlance setting, and which aren't, and how to include monsters that aren't standard into your games. That might help.
Cheers,
Cam
Originally posted by ferratus
Anyway, so we take all those monsters, group them together thematically, and make them an integral part of the setting. That's what we need to see more of.
Funny you should mention that.
Cheers,
Cam
Originally posted by Cam Banks
I think Udjat went a long way to answer this question for you - it was a design decision made early on to make the setting a little different from other settings. Halflings replaced by kender, gnomes are into technology, steel pieces instead of gold pieces, dragons are myths, no clerics, wizards have to pass a Test or die, etc. Some of those are later resolved as they were central to the setup for the Chronicles, others have remained as staples of the canon. The lack of orcs, lycanthropes and drow elves is the same thing.
You do have to change the stats, because the only thing orcs and hobgoblins have in common is that they're both evil and they both have 1 Hit Dice. I've mentioned this before, but you always fail to recognize it.
Orcs are little stronger, Hobgoblins are little smarter, and they carry different weapons. Oh yeah, and Hobgoblins have 1 extra hit point.
They don't however, make much of a difference in terms of flavour text except for alignment, and that only affects how the DM plays them, not how the monster acts itself. Now, if you could say that the thematic part of including hobgoblins over orcs is a tendency to prefer lawful creatures over chaotic ones, I could go along with it. Otherwise, what is really their difference?
The goblin races have their place in Dragonlance. So do the lizardfolk races, the ogre races, and other basic groups. They're established, and anything that gets introduced into the setting needs to slot itself into those broad groups. If you wanted to introduce orcs, it'd be a simple case of making them part of the goblin races.
Yeah, pretty much one face among many, which is why the decision to ban them in the first place is a little baffling to me. I would think one would want to do significant pruning of the goblin races to have any impact.
As for newer 3E monsters et al, you may want to look into upcoming products for information on which creatures are included in the Dragonlance setting, and which aren't, and how to include monsters that aren't standard into your games. That might help.
Well, just as long as there is some thematic reasons for the new blacklist, and not just based on which monsters you and Andre don't like, then I don't care.
If we put Cam and Terry in a room with a table some chairs and a few topic cards including "Graygem", "Magic, and "Historical elements" would either of them leave that room alive...?
-Primus
Originally posted by Primus, the One and Prime
If we put Cam and Terry in a room with a table some chairs and a few topic cards including "Graygem", "Magic, and "Historical elements" would either of them leave that room alive...?
It's only a game, Primus, it really isn't as important as it looks.
Cheers,
Cam
Viva la Modrons!
Originally posted by ferratus
They don't however, make much of a difference in terms of flavour text except for alignment, and that only affects how the DM plays them, not how the monster acts itself. Now, if you could say that the thematic part of including hobgoblins over orcs is a tendency to prefer lawful creatures over chaotic ones, I could go along with it. Otherwise, what is really their difference?
You must be reading a different Monster Manual than me, Terry.
There's as significant a difference between hobgoblins and orcs as there is between any two other baseline race. And I'm not entirely sure what you mean by alignment only being how a DM plays the character, rather than how it acts - for all intents and purposes, these are the same thing. Orcs are chaotic, hobgoblins are lawful. Hobgoblins are an organized, martial, and agile race of advanced goblins, while orcs are a brutish, aggressive and hardy race of neanderthals with bestial features.Hobgoblins exist in the Dragonlance campaign as the leaders and primary military specialists of the goblin race. They dominate the lesser goblins because of their greater intelligence and skill at arms. They're favored by warlords because they follow orders and understand tactics and strategy. Lord Teode may have been an obese petty tyrant, but he was a dangerously cunning opponent who clawed his way up the totem pole.
We don't need orcs in Dragonlance. Their violent hordelike role is already filled by ogres, bugbears, and sligs, and even some tribes of human nomads. they were left out of the setting as one more aspect of core D&D that could be done without, and that's how it's been. Solid reason enough, surely.
Cheers,
Cam
Originally posted by Primus, the One and Prime
I wonder-
If we put Cam and Terry in a room with a table some chairs and a few topic cards including "Graygem", "Magic, and "Historical elements" would either of them leave that room alive...?
-Primus
Primus, you’ve stumbled upon my most sinister plot yet! Indeed, we could make this into a card game such as Magic: The Gathering.
The Cam deck has such great cards as Knowledge of the Aesthetics, Strength of the Dino, and Zesty Zealander.
The Terry deck is equally as sinister with such great cards as Magical Mayhem, Crafty Canadian, Summon Emma Xela, and Perplex Forum.
This game is equally interesting as all the “cards” are actually soap tiles. Yes, my friends, it’s “Magic: the Lathering”!
Plus, there’s a bonus Dragonhelm deck that includes such great cards as Inspiring Speech, Can’t We All Just Get Along?, and Run Like A Chicken.
Magic: The Lathering – A new collectible soap tile game, found as less reputable gaming stores near you!
The Lathering. That's great. lol
Originally posted by The Udjat
And the super-secret Dragonhelm card: 'Admits Psionics are Out!'
Oh, you just watch it! When the Expanded Psionics Handbook comes out, I’ll be writing up Dragonhelm’s Guide to the Psionics of Krynn! ;)
The Lathering. That's great. lol
Hey, at least it’s a clean joke. lol
::Modron comes in carrying a box marked "Rim shot"::
No you fool, you don't exist in this campaign setting!
Originally posted by darthsylver
I understand where you guys are coming from when you say that it is all to make the setting have a DL feel. Before the inclusion of the Half-Orc as a player race in the PHB I could accept the "Because Tracy Hickman said so" reason for why Orcs do not exist in krynn. But now that Orcs (or at least Half-Orcs) are a primary player race in the PHB I feel that we need to have some "in-game" reason as to why Orcs do not exist in Krynn.
We know that the gods did not create them as the three races created by the Gods were Elves, Irda, and human.
Why couldn't the greygem make orcs out of say humans, it could and for all we know it did. However orcs have never been encountered before and therefore are not known to be indiginous to Krynn.
While we are on this subject I wonder what would happen if an ogre mixed with an elf. Would we get a Half-Ogre or a half-elf or a mix of both or would we get an "ork."
As far as Vampires not being in Krynn I do not understand this.
Why wouldn't Chemosh make vampires. With the creation of one, more could be created almost daily. It would one hell of a way to take over the world with Undead.
Morgion could just as likely create Lycans as they (the evil ones) spread disease and destruction wherever they go.
FYI, half-ogres *do* exist in Dragonlance. Caramon tangles with one in the second of the three Legends books.
I suspect Lycanthropes were not included because of the chaos their shapechanging would undergo due to having three moons. Or not.
Nowhere does it say Vampires don't exist. They're just not as common. Vampires are easy to include, because they're so capable of blending into human societies....they can be there and nobody knows.
But the point is not that you, in your home game, can't use these races, so much as it is that to date, in the official setting, these races don't exist. Just because the Greygem *could* create a race doesn't mean it *did*.
Banshee
Originally posted by Banshee
FYI, half-ogres *do* exist in Dragonlance. Caramon tangles with one in the second of the three Legends books.
I suspect Lycanthropes were not included because of the chaos their shapechanging would undergo due to having three moons. Or not.
Nowhere does it say Vampires don't exist. They're just not as common. Vampires are easy to include, because they're so capable of blending into human societies....they can be there and nobody knows.
But the point is not that you, in your home game, can't use these races, so much as it is that to date, in the official setting, these races don't exist. Just because the Greygem *could* create a race doesn't mean it *did*.
Banshee
This is an amazing summary of pretty much the entire argument to date and the conclusions drawn. Or rather, one side of it.
Thank you.But FYI, darthsylvar mentions nothing about half-ogres not existing, just about half-orcs. And full orcs, for that matter. But you're dead-on about the half-ogre Caramon fights in the arena.
And Kryl says vampires do exist! :D
Take a look at gnomes 100 - dragons 0.
This sourcebook has drow, werebears, drider and regular illithid. Man the gnomes really break the rules.
They're all robots?
Originally posted by The Udjat
This is an amazing summary of pretty much the entire argument to date and the conclusions drawn. Or rather, one side of it.
But FYI, darthsylvar mentions nothing about half-ogres not existing, just about half-orcs. And full orcs, for that matter. But you're dead-on about the half-ogre Caramon fights in the arena.
And Kryl says vampires do exist! :D
Well hey.....the thread's so long, with so many variants on similar arguments, I felt a good 'ol summary was in order!
Now that you have a new baseline, continue
Wasn't the half-ogre that Caramon fought the leader of the bandits? I didn't think he was in the arena...
Banshee
Originally posted by Baron the Curse
In my opinion a better approach for Dragonlance would be this, instead of excluding anything they should have just not showcase what they don’t care to use. Don’t say drows don’t exist at all, just give a passing reference to them and don’t use them in any novel or gaming product. But at least they are there.
In a way, this is how Sov. Press handles psionics.
Unsung Heroes (as well as other products) specifically say that psionics don't exist on Krynn.
The Sov. Press approach is to not address psionics one way or another. By this approach, psionics isn't incorporated into any of Sov. Press' products, but the DM can use psionics if he wishes.
I could see taking a similar route with some monsters/races, such as drow or mind flayers. However, there would still, IMO, be some monsters that are specifically not in Krynn, such as orcs and lycanthropes.
I agree with Baron's approach to handling the material that DM's use at home. Just don't worry about what they are doing, or if they are using the wrong monster or special ability. Just ignore drow, psionics, orcs and everything else.
On the other hand, I think the official series bible should be much more rigid and a greater willingness exibited by authors to learn what elements should be included and excluded for a dragonlance story or game product.
But maybe that's just me.
Anyway, that's why I like to see guidelines placed on what's blacklisted and what's not. It's hard enough to deal with the gnolls, kobolds, bugbears, trolls, ettins, and giants when they're constantly lingering in the background. I'd rather have a definitive place for them, or none at all.
Good riddance orcs, drow!
What's next? The Red Robe Wizards of Thay?
Originally posted by The Udjat
I think the trouble with not excluding things / placing limitations is that we've come to a point in the D&D progression (this point was reached long ago, really) where there are so many sentient creatures in the world that it's kinda ridiculous. And when a DM is looking for believability in their world/setting/story it becomes extremely hard to achieve when you don't ask questions like 'what are the drow doing during all of this?', and the same question repeated for each and every race. It simply doesn't make sense that a given species wouldn't want to react to some major event, especially if it provides them an opportunity for advancement. Thus, I feel really bad trying to justify things by saying 'Yeah, they exist, but they're off in the background...' - It's just a poor way of doing it. But I also don't want to kick out anything that's supposed to be in the setting, because I don't like having things be 'non-canon'. And such.
But maybe that's just me.
Anyway, that's why I like to see guidelines placed on what's blacklisted and what's not. It's hard enough to deal with the gnolls, kobolds, bugbears, trolls, ettins, and giants when they're constantly lingering in the background. I'd rather have a definitive place for them, or none at all.
Good riddance orcs, drow!
Those are good points. I'd considered these issues with regards to the FR, but hadn't applied them to DL. One of the things that I like about DL is that there are maybe only 50 sentient races, instead of 5000. It's a little more cohesive
Putting too many races into the game is overkill. DL has always been more focused, by not trying to throw everything into the game.
Banshee
So leaving some races to the background is not a poor way of handling them, it is the best and most cohesive way of doing things. It’s ludicrous to come up with a reaction for every single sentient being during a major event. Tell me how Medusa’s of Ansalon felt about the War of the Lance? What about the Rakshasa? Did the Fey unite to repel the dragonarmies? In short it doesn’t matter, these elements have to stay in the background until they are needed to enhance a story.
Hence there's a little more selectivity. Remember that in using any given creature you are by necessity taking some attention. Hence, particular monsters tend to dominate. In Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk, ogres are rarely little more than slightly more challenging muscle and have little dramatic point otherwise. In both those worlds orcs have relevant places because they either control large swathes of the land or are in the process of moving large armies.
Dragonlance assigned that role to ogres instead, and also overhauled their concept to make it more mythical. A lot of the minor pockets of creatures that pop up do so because they add a dramatic element (like spectral minions) to a specific scene.
Orcs, I'm sorry to say, aren't very exciting and a small group of them would just be seen as pig-nosed goblins by most people in Ansalon. Their addition would be mostly pointless.
Drow would just be so nauseatingly copycat it isn't even funny. Gary Gygax created them way back when in Greyhawk and they were just so cool that they were plundered for use in Forgotten Realms, which is little more than a big grab bag of stuff stolen from other places to begin with. Adding them to DL would be the most transparent piece of fad-worship imaginable.
Keep DL as litter-free as possible I say!
Originally posted by Psionycx
Orcs, I'm sorry to say, aren't very exciting and a small group of them would just be seen as pig-nosed goblins by most people in Ansalon. Their addition would be mostly pointless.
Drow would just be so nauseatingly copycat it isn't even funny. Gary Gygax created them way back when in Greyhawk and they were just so cool that they were plundered for use in Forgotten Realms, which is little more than a big grab bag of stuff stolen from other places to begin with. Adding them to DL would be the most transparent piece of fad-worship imaginable.
Keep DL as litter-free as possible I say!
My point is that a DM doesn’t have to come up with a reaction for every single sentient being when a major event occurs in a campaign.
As for orcs and drows that’s just a matter of taste. The orcs have been use to death but remain a favorite encounter for many while the drows suffer from overexposure and stereotyping. The greatest injustice done to the drow has to be Menzoberranzan and Lolth. I know very few gamers the can get pass R.A Salvatore’s novels.
Here is a setting that did it right. The Scarred Lands are similar to Dragonlance in the aspect that it is a post-apocalyptic world with a heavy emphasis on the gods. Yet they have three Monstrous Manual filled with unique creatures in addition to the Core Manual. The setting doesn’t lack anything in detail or suffer in mood because of this. As for their drow they took a different unique approach, which gets away from all the spider-worshipping, female dominance that is the staple of the FR drow.
I don’t have a need for orcs in my campaign but I wouldn’t say they don’t belong because there is no reason why they shouldn’t.
As for the copycat comment, we pay money for our books right? So each DM is going to use what they like from what they buy. But that comment is grossly unfair so if you want to discuss copycat we can start with the similarities between Bahamut and Tiamat vs. Paladine and Takhisis. Or lets just get to the root and discuss Leiber’s, Tolkein, and Moorcok and how their work influenced Dungeons and Dragons.
Paladine and Takhisis resemble Bahamut and Tiamat only superficially. But granted, they are core elements of D&D that were spun to fit into this setting.
But what of it? Very few people even think of Paladine as "the Platinum Dragon". It's more an alternate form for Fizban the Fabulous.
It is, however, worth noting that while both Bahamut and Tiamat have been around D&D forever, they are not especially overused. In fact, until late 2E neither of them really popped up outside the Monster Manual.
Orcs, got hordes and hordes of 'em.
Drow? It's gotten to the point where you can go anywhere on Toril without running into one. Usually with a Good alignment and lots of wisecracks.
Yes, you can certainly toss them into Dragonlance. But the lingering question is: why?
A bunch of (enter your monster/race of choice here) get somehow tossed into another plane (e.g. by means of a Prismatic Spray -spell), which would be Krynn in this case.
Now they are stuck in this new strange world and try to establish their rightful place here.
As for the special case of a distinctive deity the race originally followed, try it that way:
Deities get their powers from the faith of their followers, therefore one could say, the more followers a deity has, the more powerful it gets.
No followers: no power
A lot of followers: a lot of power
In my special case that means, the Eye of Gruumsh (together with 43 orcs, that got kicked from Greyhawk with the (Anti-)Heroes) tries to establish a place for Gruumsh within the pantheon (which of course is quite difficult since this whole balance-of-powers thing in DL)
What I'm trying to say with this is:
Gaming isn't about strict rules, it's about having fun and there certainly is only one rule for RPGs:
There are no rules, only imagination!
Canon exists for a shared world experience.
I just want a good solid reason as to why we are banning these specific monsters, and what the setting really gains from it.
Uh, cause they never evolved on Krynn? You know we never had orcs, halflings, and beholders on our earth. Why? Cause that's the way things went, I don't think we gain much from it, except for the fact a lot of weaklings are around cause they weren't killed off by evil orc things
The point is, these monsters aren't banned from Krynn so much as they never existed there. Look at it from a "real" (well as real a standpoint as you can with a fantasy setting). Certain things don't exist on earth just cause. We don't have three armed, no-eyed sloths cause they never came about, maybe a few nudges along the evolutionary chain and they'd show up, but they didn't.
I don't think the D&D neutral setting (which was once Greyhawk but not really anymore) has a three armed, no-eyed sloth either. Does that mean WotC is banning that creature?!?! No, they just don't think they need it in their world. Orcs aren't need in Krynn, as are a few other monsters, maybe to keep the world distinct, or seperate it from the other lines, or maybe just cause they never had a chance to evolve on the world.
That's just my two cents.
Oh, and keep your eye out for that three armed, no-eye sloth, if you ever find one, lemme know, 'kay? ;)
~Me
As far as the lycans, I agree with others here that the multitude of moons really messes with the whole transforming thing. I think the designers saw this and went, ah well we dont need them anyway. Going from a story standpoint, if there were lycans and vampires, then the whole entire continent would be them what with clerics not being around for 300 years, and then again for 30 more years shortly after that. Having either of those two monsters would completly throw off the balance of the world. It just makes sense.
As far as the drow, what point is there for an evil elf race when the elves in all their goodness are evil already. They are their worst enemies, couple that with a very undeveloped underdark then again the question becomes why are they necessary? They arent, their slot in the world scheme is filled nicely by the elves themselves being complete jerks.
Finally psionics, well i have no answer for this one. Probably because the wizards of high sorcery have such a stranglehold on magic, and from story elements it makes sense why they do. I wouldnt be surprised if in a few years in a major story most if not all sorcerors are converted or killed. To back to status quo. But then again, who knows what the gods are going to do now that they are back.
Over all, looking back at the history that has been set up in the game, i think they pretty much go out of their way to explain why the races that are there are there, and gives a pretty good idea as to why the others are not necessary or would just be illogical.
After saying all this, heck its your game, do what you want. Just dont expect the company that is putting out the DL stuff to care what you do. I put a blue goblin in a goblin invasion, for communication purposes. They were rare births, just like fire giants are rare births by the hill giant race, and ogre magi are rare births by ogres. You could consequently add a race like the drow that way, a sect of wandering exiled elves get washed over by the graygem and all their children are drow, or a group of hobgoblins that give birth to orcs, or chemosh looking at the cosmos and seeing vampires and starts creating them, same with morgian. So its conceivable, but not necessary. The whole flavor thing, I think is a strong emphasis on balance, balance of the gods, balance of the world, balance of the races. It is pretty dark on krynn right now, but as all things it will get better and achieve a more neutral aspect.
my 2 cents.