I was kinda dissapointed with the Races and their ability adjustments, especially the Half-Giant which only gets a +2 to strength, shouldnt be higher since a Half-orc which is a weaker creature gets a +2 Str? Humans are great to play now on Athas. You get a +2 adjustment to any two ability scores of your choice which makes it great to fine tune what you want and they receive no penalties. Mul's still rock the races with a +2 Str and +4 Con and no penalty.
The weapons and equipment section was good and enjoyed seeing the different weapon materials again.
As for classes I was shocked that they didnt go ahead and make the Gladiator Class. My Darksun campaign way back when had about 8 players it was such a popular campaign setting among our gaming circle and at least half of the players were gladiators on average. I Guess the Barbarian is the closest subsitute or the Fighter. I know with the changes to rules for warrior types in 3ed that lots of what the gladiators were would be irrelevent I still wouldve like to see them take a shot at it.
And whats this about the Paladin being on Athas? They never existed in the former campaign settings?!! Paladins on Athas?!! With no Gods and the savage nature of thw world I just cant see Paladins!
Most of the classes that were different for DarkSun play are the same as the normal 3.5 PHB. Bards have no poison use abilities and I didnt find any rules for giving non psions wild talents as they once had for ALL PC's. Was really shocked and dismayed to see that.
I really see the new rules for Darksun as mediocre at best but with work from a good DM they could be salvaged. Maybe there were wild talent rules in another issue I missed or somewhere else, maybe a different 3ed module.
WTF ........Athas is destroyed!!!
Dragon #319's take on DS 3.5
basically, there are many of us, mostly those who have a clue about Dark Sun, or at least have flipped through a Dark Sun book once in their lives, that do not like at least most of the onversion done in the Dragon and Dungeon magazines. Everything you've stated has already been a very hot topic of discussion - considering the second thread I gave has (at the time of this writing) 292 replies, and 9792 views. The other one has only a mere 46 replies and 742 views so far. Those are the two biggest threads on the subject, I'd suggest checking them out. The latter even has replies from Paizo staff, the writer of the articles, and some of WotC's staff as well, IIRC.
The important thing to think about is - there already is an official conversion for Dark Sun, found on The Burnt world of Athas, sanctioned by Wizards of the Coast. It's a far better conversion than was presented in the magazines, and I'd say well worth going there and downloading the PDF's, after all, they are free. The people at Athas.org have spent the last four years or so geting their rules right, complete with playtesting and other things - all volunteered time I might add. Then, if you don't like some of athas.org's stuff, you can either use some of the stuff in the magazines, or come up with something better for yourself.
Sweet.
;)
d00d! tH4ts w!cK3d @ws0me!!!1 LOL!
Actually, I just had an idea... Dwarves now have beards, right? And alledgedly worship the Sorcerer Kings. Both of these are basically betrayals of what we know of Athasian Dwarves.
So maybe that's exactly what it is.
I seem to recall that Dwarven hairlessness is often taken to be due to an oath a Dwarven king took ("By my beard, we will defeat this enemy" sort of thing, I think).
So maybe the bearded Dwarves have turned their back on their old society, taking up with the Sorcerer-Kings. Something in the past 300 years since the athas.org setting made it seem like a good idea to kowtow to the Sorcerer-Kings, and declare that the vow of Rkard no longer applies (perhaps the death of Borys - slayer of Rkard - is used as the excuse). And PC Dwarves are more likely to be Dwarves who have kept to the Old Ways, with no hair and no worship.
It has a nice Athasian feel to it. Treachery, the turning the almost-good to evil, days of glory past.
still hard to imagine furry dwarves though.
I quite like my Sorcerer one
'tis evil 
Originally posted by Korvar
So maybe the bearded Dwarves have turned their back on their old society, taking up with the Sorcerer-Kings. Something in the past 300 years since the athas.org setting made it seem like a good idea to kowtow to the Sorcerer-Kings, and declare that the vow of Rkard no longer applies (perhaps the death of Borys - slayer of Rkard - is used as the excuse). And PC Dwarves are more likely to be Dwarves who have kept to the Old Ways, with no hair and no worship.
Yea, cuz you know those Dwarves are just so flaky and wishy-washy, you never know what direction they're going to go from day to day, what with their Focus and all.
Originally posted by Porkchops
Yea, cuz you know those Dwarves are just so flaky and wishy-washy, you never know what direction they're going to go from day to day, what with their Focus and all.
There are 300 years for this to happen, you know... And the Sorcerer Kings could aid the process by attacking the "traditional" Dwarves. It's amazing how quick your focus can become "don't get killed by the Sorcerer Kings"
Originally posted by Korvar
There are 300 years for this to happen, you know... And the Sorcerer Kings could aid the process by attacking the "traditional" Dwarves. It's amazing how quick your focus can become "don't get killed by the Sorcerer Kings"
Yeah, I'm sure that worked for the Jews too, and the Native American Indians, and countless other ethnicities that fell under attack by madmen and were brought or almost brought to extinction. The Aztecs loving the redneck Cortez would be another good example too.
Sorry, but this would just **** me off more and make me want to not like the ones trying to bring me to extinction even more.
Your argument doesn't hold water, move on. ;)
Note Native American cultures in America have almost completely been destroyed by programs created to try to change them into white men. The government created boarding schools for Native American children, took them from their families without consent at a very young age, and raised them -- all with the excuse of "civilizing" them.
Specifically for this discussion, note how many Native Americans are Christian today, rather than followers of their traditional spiritual ways. This was an enforced cultural change endorsed and overseen by the government until the 1960's.
It stopped in America because people started to wake up and say, "Hey, this just isn't right. We're wrong here" and weren't immediately silenced by the government (killed or imprisoned) for saying so. Even so, in just a century of organized oppression, their culture was almost completely destroyed, and for many tribes, large parts have been forever lost.
In a world of oppression and tyranny, where the government isn't beholden to its people, it is a guarantee that such a change could and would occur. Consider it 300 years of government sponsored, uncontested brainwashing. All hail the Sorcerer-Kings...
Originally posted by greyorm
I wouldn't be so certain of that, Nyt.
Note Native American cultures in America have almost completely been destroyed by programs created to try to change them into white men. The government created boarding schools for Native American children, took them from their families without consent at a very young age, and raised them -- all with the excuse of "civilizing" them.
Specifically for this discussion, note how many Native Americans are Christian today, rather than followers of their traditional spiritual ways. This was an enforced cultural change endorsed and overseen by the government until the 1960's.
It stopped in America because people started to wake up and say, "Hey, this just isn't right. We're wrong here" and weren't immediately silenced by the government (killed or imprisoned) for saying so. Even so, in just a century of organized oppression, their culture was almost completely destroyed, and for many tribes, large parts have been forever lost.
In a world of oppression and tyranny, where the government isn't beholden to its people, it is a guarantee that such a change could and would occur. Consider it 300 years of government sponsored, uncontested brainwashing. All hail the Sorcerer-Kings...
But the American White Man didn't have a focused war that should have ended with the entire genocide of the Native American peoples, every man, woman and child annihilated permanently, not merely the culture. You gotta understand - Borys was doing just that. For two or three thousand years. Then he stopped because of what Hamanu showed him. He still hated the Dwarves with a passion, but he stopped to lock up Rajaat. To the Dwarves, I'd reckon, they'd see Borys, the Butcher of Dwarves as one of the Champions of Rajaat the Warbringer. They probably also have some recorded history that the Sorcerer-Kings were Champions of Rajaat, and were in league with Borys. I'm sorry, but I just can't see any possible rationale that would make such a dedicated race as the Athasian Dwarves, who have life quests and such, to all of a sudden decide that the SK's are not only good, but worthy of worship.
Originally posted by Moont
Before we critic the "butchering" why don't we wait for the real thing to come out. I don't want to lose faith in the New DS yet. So please lets give it a chance?!?
Like Dawn, I don't know why you think that. The only other DS stuff to come on the horizon and that has been announced is Dungeon #111 which contains the other half of the monsters of athas.
Nothing I read anywhere suggested otherwise.
You're the first person I've seen that even suggests that the Dragon DS is not the final product...
Where you got your info?
Originally posted by Moont
Now I don't want to get lynched...but I've played the original Darksun and Revised Darksun and enjoyed them both a great deal! I'm starting to get sick of hearing about people dissing the new DS. Yes I understand that the Dragon Magazine 319 may have dissapointed a lot of people, but has anyone thought that maybe there were some umm....TYPO'S??? Yes it said +2 to strength for the half-giant, but this is also not the FINAL EDIT either. Before we critic the "butchering" why don't we wait for the real thing to come out. I don't want to lose faith in the New DS yet. So please lets give it a chance?!?
Umm..... If you notice, I've not mentioned, in my arguements, the racial modifications to abilities, in their specific quantities. Instead, I've been pointing out the blaring flaws in the campaign setting flavor text, which is what makes the setting, sets the theme and mood of the game. And it's almost completely wrong.
the dragon and Dungeon Magazine version isn't "Revised" Dark Sun. No, that could be applied to maybe the Athas.org PDF's, or the DS2 Boxed set, depending on your point of view. The Paizo write-ups weren't Dark Sun. It's such a difference that you can't even compare it to the other products. At best, it's an attempt to paint a Dark Sun-like picture on the vanilla D&D core rulebooks. At worst, it's a company's attempt to ignore and step on their customers, the fans of Dark Sun. Some of these things can't be typos - not unless people are in the habit of making full paragraph-long typos that end up in perfect english and make sense.
Now, for the new Dark Sun, understand - the fans of Dark Sun, through the people at Athas.org, who were sanctioned by Wizards of the Coast about four years ago to convert the rules for Dark Sun to 3.0 (and later 3.5) edition D&D, and have been dilligently doing just that, even with the little changes here and there, and a few things some of us don't like, have a far better, and more complete set of materials for Dark Sun 3.5. And it's a free download. Soon, he PDF's will even include graphics, done by some of the people here on these forums, like Dawnstealer. The rules are regularly argued about here on this forum as well - just look through the history sometime, you'll see literally hundreds of posts on different rule ideas and the like. More rcently had been an attempt to rationalize and formalize a list of the inconsistancies in the Dark Sun setting books, to attempt to have a single, unified perspective, so that when people write their own material for Dark Sun, it can all mesh together a bit better.
And it's not just Dark Sun that this is happening with. Each of the campaign settings that were active when TSR collapsed, and that WotC didn't release themselves, had been passed to fansites as well. Ravenloft and Dragonlance were for a while, but then other companies got permission to release published books, as you will find at most gaming stores. apparently, this concept comes as a shock to people. Heck, for several months (or was it a year), when WotC started this fansite-operated program for the alternate campaign worlds, they had it prominately on the front page of the D&D website. The link to Athas.org is even listed right in the description for this very forum in the "Other Roleplaying Worlds HQ", the category which has the various campaign setting forums under it, to include Dark Sun's. Sometimes I think I'm the [u]only person who has ever seen that link or bothersed to check it out[/u[ (I know, it's not the case, but sometimes it feels that way).
To sum up, don't post a blanket-rant about people ranting without verifying that what you're complaining about is actually true.
Anyway... welcome to the forums, my rant is done.
Originally posted by Moont
Now I don't want to get lynched...but I've played the original Darksun and Revised Darksun and enjoyed them both a great deal! I'm starting to get sick of hearing about people dissing the new DS. Yes I understand that the Dragon Magazine 319 may have dissapointed a lot of people, but has anyone thought that maybe there were some umm....TYPO'S??? Yes it said +2 to strength for the half-giant, but this is also not the FINAL EDIT either. Before we critic the "butchering" why don't we wait for the real thing to come out. I don't want to lose faith in the New DS yet. So please lets give it a chance?!?
Umm, the magazine article *is* the final edit. The +2 STR for half-giants comes straight out of the new Psi book. What is this "real thing" you claim is coming out? As far as I know, there is no further products coming out; the whole point was to sell the new psi book, and DS was the only major D&D world where psionics ruled.Although, give them a few years to **** about with D&D and create a 4th edition, then a 4,5 then 4.7 so on.... maybe they will then publish Dark Sun again when everyone is so jaded with the game nobody cares.
Originally posted by Brython
There are no Dark Sun products in the pipeline from Wizards.
Although, give them a few years to **** about with D&D and create a 4th edition, then a 4,5 then 4.7 so on.... maybe they will then publish Dark Sun again when everyone is so jaded with the game nobody cares.
Most of us aren't jaded about Dark Sun. I'm, personally disgusted by the write-ups done in Dragon and Dungeon, however, there is the PDFs from Athas.org that are much better, and I have all of the Dark Sun gaming materials as well as most of the novels. You'll find that these past four years, there have been many people who have been working on the fan-operated version of Dark Sun (called DS3). And those of us who have studied & used the Athas.org version, are usually nonplussed about what was done in Paizo's articles.
Originally posted by xlorepdarkhelm
I'm sorry, but I just can't see any possible rationale that would make such a dedicated race as the Athasian Dwarves, who have life quests and such, to all of a sudden decide that the SK's are not only good, but worthy of worship. [/b]
Most Native cultures were thousands of years old...then white man came and destroyed those cultural traditions, beliefs, and histories within under a century, so I don't believe your point regarding the time the dwarves were persecuted really holds. It only takes a very short time to wipe something from a culture.
The reason for this is simple: dwarves aren't BORN knowing they hate the SK's or Borys -- that's a cultural teaching, not a "racial memory." As such, it is very easy to stamp out this hatred by simply raising young dwarves in a cultural environment which does not include such feelings or history.
Within a society dedicated to the worship and veneration of the SK "god-kings," the SK's and their templarates would never let the older dwarves undermine their authority, anyways, so it would seem to the younger generation only a few "dangerous crackpots" on the fringe would be proclaiming these bad things about the divine SKs (and vanishing shortly thereafter).
Since the dwarven elders could NOT openly speak out against the SKs (as I mentioned above), since there would be knocks on the doors by templars and the elders would disappear into the night -- enslaved, executed, or sent away to have (re)educational chats with the templars, resistance to the ideas of the larger culture among the younger generation would be sparse and weak.
Since there are few dwarves in the cities, and their communities are small, they would be immersed in a culture of dedication and worship of the SK's -- and you know how children are. Just look at inner city youth and the culture they adopt, regardless of the desires or cultures of their parents.
If raised by the surrounding culture to believe the SK's were divine and worthy of worship, the younger dwarves as a group simply wouldn't believe the older generation(s) claims and their anger. And unlike African-American youth who are raised with leaders speaking out against the oppression of the larger culture around them, there would be no speaking out against the culture -- no counter-culture to grab onto, because that would be viciously and quickly stamped into the ground by the templarate.
Like any other race, dwarves aren't going to automatically remember or know anything other than what they're taught, what's reinforced by their culture.
So, yes, I can see it happening easily.
Even confronted with historical facts, I can see dwarves denying the SK's -- their precious lords and masters, overseers of their lives -- ever had anything to do with the slaughter of dwarves. It's either revisionists, or outright lies created by those politically motivated (which would be exactly what the templarate would proclaim about dissenters, and most -- except "evil" revolutionaries -- would buy into this).
Now, if you want to argue that dwarves have racial memory, then go for it. Dwarven hatred can't be stopped in that case. They'd remember hating Borys and the Sorcerer-Kings.
However, as standard DS doesn't say anything about dwarves having racial memory, young dwarves have to be taught to hate the SK's. As such, the whole basis of their hatred can be undermined and erased from the larger culture through a terrible but simple progrom of cultural re-education carried out over only a few generations.
Cultural reprogramming isn't all that hard, especially not given three centuries of effort by very, very powerful individuals. Let's not even discuss the magical and psionic methods that would be avilable to the SK's to help things along...and alongside methods like torture, imprisionment, brainwashing, and execution (none of which would be spared use given the governments we're talking about).
The plan would be to take the dwarves when they are young, during their formative years, and train them the way you'd want them to grow. Children are very, very impressionable and easily molded -- they have to be, even dwarven children, or they would never embrace their own culture.
If the child is too young to have any memory or dedication to their own cultural traditions (and children always are), then the cultural traditions you raise them with become theirs.
Even if confronted later, their formative years have passed, and it would be difficult to change their minds (consider humans and how hard most adults are to change, especially when confronted with different ideas about spiritual concerns -- now add dwarven stubborness!).
Those put through some sort of progrom would argue like fundamentalists confronted with evidence their faith or spiritual leaders were in error. This would be the exact same reaction you would get from human worshippers of the SK's, but the human might be easier to convince otherwise.
Most individuals are just not rational about facts, because the fact is, most people aren't rational about them in real life. For example, go have a discussion with a fundamentalist Christian about Biblical errancy or biological evolution (as opposed to creationism) to get an idea of what I mean.
As I said, look at the number of Native American Christians...thousands of years of spiritual dedication supplanted by a foreign religion, which considered that dedication abominable and evil. And despite the efforts of the older generation to save their culture and beliefs, the children rejected it based on their new (programmed) belief system.
Look at the Norse, as well...all it took was one bastard of a king killing his own people for not adopting the Christian religion, and Norway not only became Christian (as it remains today), but considers this vicious, bloody king a Saint!
So, to reiterate the points:
1) lack of history and education (reading & writing outlawed)
2) only education on the issues is from the surrounding culture
3) no racial memory of the SKs being "bad"
4) resistance to the idea of SKs as gods non-existant
5) (nearly) all resistance is crushed/thoroughly reeducated
6) those who are seen resisting are labelled crack-pots and liars by the larger culture (and thus seem as such)
So, as an outsider it might be easy to state "because of this and this and this, they never would!" but looking at it from inside an Athasian's shoes, it almost definitely would happen.
I'm looking at human history, culture and behavior, here, and extrapolating. I mean, seriously, how do you think the SKs have kept power over the masses for so long? It certainly isn't by repeating the true history of Athas and letting opposing ideas flourish. It isn't a reign kept over people who realize they really are enslaved to a mortal sorcerer.
I'm betting the masses do believe in the divinity and ruling right of the SKs, and worship and follow them truly, rather than everyone simply paying lip-service. Rebellion would have happened a great deal more if not, and it is doubtful the SKs would have been foolish enough not to establish their divinity as "fact to the populace" thousands of years ago, stamping out any competing viewpoints (if any ever arose in the first place!).
Wiping out dwarven hatred of the SKs would just not be that hard in the cities. Outside of it, much more difficult, and that's where the resistance would come from, but dwarven communities in the cities...resistance and opposition to the SK and his proclaimations would be the first thing the templarate would watch for and crush -- the majority would be like their surrounding culture, because the SKs would make them conform. It wouldn't be like an American melting-pot at all.
Originally posted by greyorm
Most Native cultures were thousands of years old...then white man came and destroyed those cultural traditions, beliefs, and histories within under a century, so I don't believe your point regarding the time the dwarves were persecuted really holds. It only takes a very short time to wipe something from a culture.
Unless you go and wipe out all of the Dwarven adults, you'll have a problem. You see, they tend to be long-lived, and keep grudges. And what I was saying is that your analogy using the Native Americans is flawed. Native Americans weren't being hunted to extinction for thousands of years by the white man. The white man came, took over, and had been indoctrinating them into white man culture, not killing every man, woman and child simply because they exist. The analogy I've (and Nyt's) used with Jews is a bit more on-track. They were hunted genocidally. The Native Americans weren't.
The reason for this is simple: dwarves aren't BORN knowing they hate the SK's or Borys -- that's a cultural teaching, not a "racial memory." As such, it is very easy to stamp out this hatred by simply raising young dwarves in a cultural environment which does not include such feelings or history.
Which brings up another good point - most Dwarves don't live int he City-States. Many live in the outlying villages. So, you're talking about that in 300 years, the Dwarves outside the city-states have been reduced in number significantly, and the young ones get indoctrinated for 150 years (about the age they become adults, IIRC) by all of the Sorcerer-Kings to come and worship them. These same Sorcerer-Kings who are constantly plotting against each other, stop what they are doing to indoctrinate an entire race to worship them. this is really beginning to sound very far-fetched.
Wiping out dwarven hatred of the SKs would just not be that hard in the cities. Outside of it, much more difficult, and that's where the resistance would come from, but dwarven communities in the cities...resistance and opposition to the SK and his proclaimations would be the first thing the templarate would watch for and crush -- the majority would be like their surrounding culture, because the SKs would make them conform. It wouldn't be like an American melting-pot at all.
The Dwarven communities in the cities is a rather small percentage of the Dwarves in general - they detest the Sorcerer-Kings more often than not. there's still the problem of indoctrinating an entire race, between each of the disparigent (sic) cities, which all have their own sorcere-king with his or her own agendas, usually (but not always) dealing with the progress/lack of progress towards becoming a Dragon. They also have their own Templarates, which members of different city's Templarates usually have a policy of "torture, dismember and kill" when dealing with other SK's Templars. somehow, these independent groups, with all of their diverse agendas, decide to focus on the Dwarves, and make them worship Sorcerer-Kings. sure, it would take a ton of resources (on a resource-lacking world), and a century or so, but it's what they decide to do. Yep. So, now they have Dwarves worshping their Sorcerer-Kings. Glad they got that out of their systems.
Originally posted by greyorm
I wouldn't be so certain of that, Nyt.
Note Native American cultures in America have almost completely been destroyed by programs created to try to change them into white men. The government created boarding schools for Native American children, took them from their families without consent at a very young age, and raised them -- all with the excuse of "civilizing" them.
Specifically for this discussion, note how many Native Americans are Christian today, rather than followers of their traditional spiritual ways. This was an enforced cultural change endorsed and overseen by the government until the 1960's.
It stopped in America because people started to wake up and say, "Hey, this just isn't right. We're wrong here" and weren't immediately silenced by the government (killed or imprisoned) for saying so. Even so, in just a century of organized oppression, their culture was almost completely destroyed, and for many tribes, large parts have been forever lost.
In a world of oppression and tyranny, where the government isn't beholden to its people, it is a guarantee that such a change could and would occur. Consider it 300 years of government sponsored, uncontested brainwashing. All hail the Sorcerer-Kings...
You bring up some good points, but like xlorep said earlier, these are dwarves you are talking about.
If it were any other race I would probably concede the point to you and see it happening.
Dwarves on the other hand wouldn't give in to this kind of bullying, they are too hard headed and focused as a race to do so.
Originally posted by xlorepdarkhelm
Unless you go and wipe out all of the Dwarven adults, you'll have a problem. You see, they tend to be long-lived, and keep grudges. And what I was saying is that your analogy using the Native Americans is flawed. Native Americans weren't being hunted to extinction for thousands of years by the white man. The white man came, took over, and had been indoctrinating them into white man culture, not killing every man, woman and child simply because they exist. The analogy I've (and Nyt's) used with Jews is a bit more on-track. They were hunted genocidally. The Native Americans weren't.
Aztecs were too.
I was wrong with the Native American thing, but it's still up there IMO.
Originally posted by xlorepdarkhelm
this is really beginning to sound very far-fetched.
Glad I'm not the only one seeing this...
In my function as the most powerful mage around (at least on my world) I may let the dwarven spirit of Ahab the Unyielding speak to you, he is an athasian dwarf from the gladiator pits of Nibenay:
"Never will I bow before a sorcerer-king again. My people have always been proud and strong in the face of danger. Rkard himself never backed down to Boris and neither will we bow to any sorcerer-king. For to do so, we must betray the vow of Rkard and cannot rest in our graves forever more. We would sooner grow beards than do that."
Seems like they have grown beards and become heroic paladins in service to the sorcerer-kings...
It's just a bad way, of opening Dark Sun to more "mainstream" players. Any true athasian will burn it down to ashes...
What?
Mach would have got away with that. Dawn too.
Originally posted by Jon, Oracle of Athas
"Burn, baby, burn - Disco inferno!"
What?
Mach would have got away with that. Dawn too.
Yeah, but you would've bolted them for it ...
Yeah, but you would've bolted them for it ...
Definitely...
What's your point?
Originally posted by Jon, Oracle of Athas
Definitely...
What's your point?
Point? I have to have points now?
*straps on rubber boots*
sun-blasted hypocrite.
Mach would have got away with that. Dawn too.
But only because I was in "Disco Fever." And dress like Huggy Bear.
"Do the Hustle! Do Do Dit doodoo doodoo DO DO!"
Yeah! Feel the rhythm?! Wild, man!
There is the same problem, to a somewhat lesser degree, with immigrants to our country and their children (immersion of the youth in our culture creates a rift between the traditional parent and the localized child). Of course, our society is more open and accepting of other cultures and ideas than any society built and maintained by the SKs (more on this further below).
In fact, dwarven hard-headedness only works for the SKs in this situation: once corrupted, once raised as a worshipper of the SK, believing in the truths he proclaims, no one -- not their parents nor even a dwarven elder -- would be able to sway them away from their cultural beliefs (SK-imparted though they might be).
As to the whole genocide issue: Borys was responsible for that, and it took place thousands of years ago. None of the SKs are currently trying to murder all the dwarves, so there is no immediate, current danger of their being wiped out, and not by the individuals trying to force them to worship (important).
In this case, I hold that my analogy stands, as the the SKs are not trying to kill off the dwarves. The SKs would be indoctrinating them into their cultures rather than killing them, exactly as they would be doing with everyone else with in their domain of rule (also, see below, in my response to one of your premises, for more on this).
If there were such a danger as genocide happening right now, with the SKs responsible, I could see your point about the difference, but there isn't. It's ancient history by the time of even the first boxed set. As such, it has no bearing on the argument of whether their youth would or wouldn't accept such cultural modification.
As to dwarves living in the city-states compared to those outside it: I agree. It's foolish to homogenize the beliefs, attitudes or behaviors of entire races. So claiming the dwarves would never, ever worship the SKs is as foolish as claiming that they all worship the SKs, especially given their history. So, what we're talking about is ratios and probabilities, and how those are affected by location and settlement periods.
Now, the article states that most dwarves live in the cities ("dwarves do not have communities to call their own anymore...dwarves are found intermingled with the human populations of the city-states"). If true, then we can see exactly how this cultural shift occurred, as outlined in my previous post, even without overt SK interference, and presuming just typical templarate enforcement of doctrine (and to a lesser extent the inevitable cultural drift of later-generation foreigners in new lands).
(Reiteration of the latter: if mom and dad dwarf worship by paying lip-service to the SKs, generations down the line, most of the children -- immersed in the local culture from birth -- won't just be paying lip-service.
In fact, this sets up a great conflict between generations: those raised traditionally against the younger generation, immersed in the local culture from birth and thus more open to its ideas, some of whom might be their own children!)
If this is not true, if dwarves are most populous outside the city-states beyond the reach of the SKs and their templar enforcers, then your point has much more weight to it and I would concede.
These same Sorcerer-Kings who are constantly plotting against each other, stop what they are doing to indoctrinate an entire race to worship them. this is really beginning to sound very far-fetched.
If you were a brutal tyrant pretending to be a god, and had a group of individuals living in your territory who refused to go along with that, would you or would you not expend the resources necessary to indoctrinate them?
Note I'm not saying the SKs did this together as a group, I'm saying that each would individually pursue this agenda within their own territory, as they would with any rebel group which failed to toe the line and accept their "divine" decrees on issues within their territory.
If you (as a brutal tyrant) do not, you risk escalating rebellion(s) and a collapse of the supporting structure of your society as foreign ideas about your worth regarding worship and obeisance spreads to other groups currently under your control. We're talking basic social engineering, here.
Otherwise, you've made an excellent case as to why the SKs also wouldn't work to stamp out the Veiled Alliance. It is, after all, the exact same problem: multi-kingdom group resisting SK's will, poisoning the populace against your rule and the uncontestable truth of your word (and that latter is important -- if your word is not treated as absolute truth, if someone is allowed to argue with you, the stage is set for rebellion -- dictatorships do not thrive on being questioned. Hence, dwarves who do not buy the party line are a bad thing).
All this sets up a wonderful cultural conflict as well: traditional dwarves from the outlands against their "traitorous" city-born brethren, who, of course, are unflinching in their support of their divine overseer, of whom they are but instruments of will.
(In fact, consider this(!): race makes no difference to the dwarf in his interactions -- only relation to focus. That's a great reason right there: the SK, or his templars, are the ones providing the necessary focus for the dwarf's life: build this wall, dig this ditch, carve this mural, etc).
So, if we are given second or third generation dwarves (or possibly even more established) living in the cities of the SKs, we must agree that by the time of the current generation, (through various means) the SKs would have had to persuaded the dwarves of the current generation against their traditional opposition of their inherent divinity, or have the dwarves killed.
As dwarves still exist in the cities, we must assume the success of this progrom. We can assume that the progrom exists because such indoctrination (and the same various techniques) applied to the other resident generations of the city-states is inferred in the background material available about how the SKs run their affairs of rulershp (as well as from deduction based on these), and there is no reason dwarves would be excluded from the same.
Even if there are clans in the deserts following an entirely different way of life, and utterly opposed to the SKs, that does not preclude the possibility (even likelihood) of the above. This situation, of differing cultures based on settlement location and the cultural generation of the involved individuals, seems most feasible to me and allows for both possibilities.
Ultimately, the question is taste: if you don't like the idea of dwarves worshipping SKs, if it violates what you perceive to be the spirit of Athas, then don't use it. But don't use the same breath to deny the fact that such a state of affairs could logically exist, as presented.
I'm just providing the rationale for those who want to use it, and perhaps a greater glimpse into life under the Sorcerer-Kings in either case, as I, myself, don't mind the idea of SK-worshipping dwarves at all. No more than I mind SK-worshipping humans, half-giants, or muls.
Xlor, your not alone anymore!
But really, its great to see ideas that are explored, which I really like about Xlor's posts and this one from you greyorm (aka Raven).
I did too at first but my personal life being what it is I don't have the energy anymore to dig deep to find relevant things to say.
So I'll just shut up, then :D
Originally posted by greyorm
I'm just providing the rationale for those who want to use it, and perhaps a greater glimpse into life under the Sorcerer-Kings in either case, as I, myself, don't mind the idea of SK-worshipping dwarves at all. No more than I mind SK-worshipping humans, half-giants, or muls.
You never cease to amaze me Raven.
Well done.
And heya Nyt, Jon! Good to see you both!
As to paladins and sorcerers in DS...
Well, I've been trying to make an "elemental champion" class...something like a druidic defender devoted to the elemental spirits of Athas, and their battles with the destruction wrought by the para-elements, based on the paladin.
Sorcerers, OTOH, I see as only useful for heathens like myself who despise the official psionics system, where sorcerers then take their place as the functional equivalent (though with an alternate spell-list from that of the wizard).
Though I recall someone on the mailing list once mentioning sorcerer might be used as the base class for necromancers and ceruleans, rather than wizard.
I suggest new threads, in both cases, if anyone wants to discuss either class in DS!
Originally posted by greyorm
I suggest new threads, in both cases, if anyone wants to discuss either class in DS!
Yes, I think you're right... Perhaps when I get home...
OTOH
Hmmmmm...On The Other Hand? Overt Tactical Officer Handling? Openly Turning Owl Head?
My question is where does the original information that dwarves have no beards and don't follow Sorcerer-Kings (at least some of them) come from?
The only reference I can find to dwarves and beards of any kind comes from the Dark Sun novels and not the rules books printed for 2nd edition (did I miss something). Even the Athas history and timeline printed in the various suppliments for 2nd edition don't mention them not having beards or much of anything else to do with the "history" you learn in the novels.
And both the original and revised boxed sets mention dwarven templars...so at least some of them most certainly do follow Sorcerer-Kings.
I find it far more likely that what people take for "dwarven racial identy" is just the stuff you learn about that small group of dwarves you meet in the novels. Those dwarves might have no beards for the reasons laid out in the novels and they might not server Sorcerer-Kings for those same reasons but I doubt very much that applies to all dwarves in general. The "novel dwarves" may even be the most like ancient dwarves or whatever but that doesn't mean that all modern dwarves are like that. In fact, the original material says flat out that some of them are templars. And I imagine the only reason all the art in 2nd edition had the dwarves bald was for the same reason it had all the other races bald (except for elves)...it's pretty darn hot on Athas!
Kilamar
But beyond that argument (which nobody can win), the point is that nowhere in any printed game material does it say that dwarves (either as a race or as individuals) don't grow beards or other hair, etc. So while I'm sure that many of them don't for one reason or another (heat, ancient pact, etc) I'm also just as sure that some of them do if they wish.
And, as for following Sorcerer-Kings we have already proved that they did that.
I'm not a big fan of the Dragon Dark Sun material but I don't see any issues with the dwarves or sorcerers personally. Heck, in the original DS material it also says that the vast majority of dwarves actually live in the city-states, under the rule of the Sorcerer-Kings (though it does not say that all of these follow Sorcerer-Kings just to be clear).
I don't agree with paladins or monks being in the setting however, and the Dragon material does leave a lot of the flavor rules out (like weapons breaking, etc). Anyway, just saying that I don't think the Dragon stuff is 100% worthless or off track.
the point is that nowhere in any printed game material does it say that dwarves (either as a race or as individuals) don't grow beards or other hair, etc.
Actually, yeah it does: In the dwarven description in the original rules book it states that. I'm at work, so I don't have my book in front of me, but I'll post the quote when I get home. The whole deal with them shaving themselves (or worse, dipping themselves in lye - ouch) came from Wisdom of the Drylanders, a short info-book by Brax. As far as I know, the information contained within came from Brax and not any canon material.
Monks: Monks are specifically mentioned in the City of Nibenay book in Ivory Triangle and Nyt remembers them being mentioned for another city as well (Raam?). Paladins? No. No paladins on Athas. No argument there.
Plenty of monks there too.
Originally posted by Dawnstealer
Villichi! Should have known it was them. Your fixation on villichi is almost as strong as my fixation on dwelfs.
:D
Alway had a fondness for long limbed, pale, females that can kick my butt. Add a touch of goth and they would be perfect.
So, though I still may have missed some off-the-wall reference, there is nothing in the racial descriptions of dwarves (or half-dwarves) to even suggest that they are unable to grow body hair or that, as a race, they are unwilling to. The only reference I have ever seen or heard of to that effect is in the Prism Pentade books and that only talks about one clan of dwarves (who are, admittedly, most like their ancestors but that's not the issue here). So while all of this makes very little difference to any DM (you can do whatever you want with your games for sure) it does show that dwarves weren't messed up all that badly (if at all) in the Dragon treatment of Dark Sun.
In my games (but I play 2e anyway) I don't see any problems with my dwarven PCs having a beard or hair if they wish (though I don't see any problems with them following the "ancient vow" either). Simply, I don't see any reason to restrict them either way, especially as their is no game material to back that up. Anyway, Dragon isn't so bad, I just wanted to see them get SOME credit, they did at least TRY to bring Dark Sun back. :D
Other than a distinctive build and usually hairless heads, dwarves do not stray too far from a human appearance.
There's 1 reference, and I do see that it says "usually".
In the Prism Pentad, and every other Dark Sun novel that deals with Dwarves it mentions how Dwarves are bald. Plus, with the exception of a little tuft of hair on the picture in the Dark Sun Monsterous Compendium Appendix II, dwarves are shown completely bald & hairless in every picture. This is another case of a potential Inconsistancy, which arises from the lack of ability to communicate between novelists and game designers during the final days of TSR's existence. It has been commonly accepted that Dwarves are bald on Athas - there are many more sources that state they are bald than there are that say otherwise. I know I originally had been one of the "genetically bald" pushers, but I do see merit in the idea that they ritualistically shave themselves, or apply some sort of ointment to kill off the hair. The novels state that the idea of hair is repulsive to Dwarves. However - I still think making them be born bald helps with the unique feel of Athas. It helps make Dark Sun be different from other fantasy settings, by retaining distorted pictures of "common" races. As there are many more Dark Sun sources that state they are bald (not counting the ones that don't say one way or the other) than those that say they have hair, I'm of the mind that they should remain bald. However, if you want to moan about it, complain that it is unjustified, and that Dwarves can have hair - so be it. There are many other things that are inherently flawed in the Paizo write-up to cotend with than nit-picking over a detail like this. Which is not to say that Dark Sun isn't flawed to begin with - as the myriad of Inconsistancy threads that had been started/discussed on this forum a little while ago reveals.
It's a matter of if you believe that the novels are a good source of "filler" or "descriptive" text that helps round out the Dark Sun setting or not. If not, then you probably only want to rely on the game setting material, which to me would be lakin to cutting the Dark Sun setting in half, but so be it. I'm not saying that there aren't inconsistancies and mistakes in the novels. I'm not even saying that there aren't any in the gaming materials. I'm saying that using what you can from all of it helps better define the world.
However, since none of the main description of the dwarves as a PC race say anything about that I don't see any reason to assume that's the case for all dwarves or even most of them. The monster description are for the very basic (not always most common, etc). But, anyway, it IS at least one game reference to them "usually" being bald and that helps.
As for the Dark Sun books, I consider them to be "history" and game material for the most part but I don't think the represent the entire world or even an entire race. What I'm getting at is that I agree with the idea that many (maybe even most) dwarves generally shave their heads and beards but I don't see any reason to assume that they are born hairless (other than you just want to do it that way which is fine of course). I personally prefer the PC to have the option of shaving, etc. And while I agree that one of Dark Sun's best traits is its treatment of the races (making them different) I think dwarves that shave are different enough. lol
And, just for the record, I wasn't moaning or nit picking. More than anything else I just found it curious that there is this push that Athasian dwarves are naturally bald or that they all shave (ie: that none of them ever have any body hair) when there isn't really anything to back that up. So, even from the start, I was more looking for why this came about. It certainly doesn't bother me that other people see it this way, I just wondered why they do.
Finally, I agree with you about Dragon's treatment of Athas. While I don't think it's 100% bad I do think it's about 98% junk. I just wanted to see them get SOME credit and as it happend to fall in line with something I was already curious about, why not post it? Wasn't trying to step on any toes...dwarven or otherwise. :D
But hair on Athas, I would think would be something most people wanted to get rid of, except maybe the nobility and rich folk who owned slave fan bearers. Specially since I figure on Athas, daytime temps are prolly higher, and throw in dust/sand storms, combat, etc. Then, Throw in slave conditions, which most certainly means lice, or potentially worse Athasian varieties of hairbugs. . . and you have conditions that do not favor hair and beards.
As for the matter of allowing Dwarves to grow beards and hair? Sure, but. . . Make em suffer. -2 to Search/Spot/Listen. . . Sorry, but have you ever had a really sweaty beard on a hot day? It is very distracting - definately warrants the -2 for unfavorable conditions. Hehehe, So yes, I am evil enough to serve Our Lord and Master.
All the flipbook art from the TSR releases show bald Dwarves, all the small npc pictures show bald dwarves.. in fact there is no reference or picture of a bearded dwarf in any of the 2nd ed. material or novels except for the Ancient Dwarves.
If you want beards so badly, just rule in your RP group that Dwarves have beards.
Personally I don't mind the hairless dwarves.. it makes them stand out from the traditional ale-drinking, farting, chicken-eating and foul smelling dwarf. :P
If you don't want to alter the material, then you can always import some bearded dwarves from Toril, Oerth or even via Spelljamming if you are one of those Crazy SJ loonies. :P
It's not that I want beards so badly. lol First off, it's just a debate for the sake of picking the brain of other intelligent people (so no need to get upset if anyone has, though it doesn't seem like it just for the record). Anyway, my point is that I see very little to suggest that all dwarves on Athas have no hair. I see quite a bit to suggest that 99% of them shave but that's not the same thing as not having the ability to grow hair as many seem to think. Regarding Dragon's treatment of dwarves, saying that many males have close cropped beards doesn't go against the Athas that I know. I'm sure many of them do have close trimmed beards just as I'm sure many of them follow the ancient vow from the Prism Pentad novels and shave clean. But nothing, even a tiny bit, suggests that they CAN'T grow hair. This is my only point...that and trying to see that Dragon gets at least a bit of credit (and no I don't work for them and yes I think the Athas they came up with stinks). Anyway, my stand.