It really is one of the best articles I've read in Dungeon!!! Get it now :D
To any and all GH afficiondos, get Dungeon 117 it has an absolutely brilliant article on Istivin in it as well as an adventure based there for 11th level characters in it.
It really is one of the best articles I've read in Dungeon!!! Get it now :D
I only glanced at this. How many pages is the write-up? Is the city map woefully short on buildings? (At a glance it looked like there were only a few dozen).
To any and all GH afficiondos, get Dungeon 117 it has an absolutely brilliant article on Istivin in it as well as an adventure based there for 11th level characters in it.
You might also add that the adventure is only the first part of a story arc that continues in issues #118 & 119 ;)
..........................Omote
FPQ
Enough Greyhawk material has now seen print in the Dungeon that simply seeing the name Greyhawk no longer excites, let alone satisfies. It was once simply enough to see Greyhawk in print where there had been no Greyhawk very much before. That time is past.
I now think one can reasonably ask, “What new ground does this article explore or develop beyond existing Greyhawk canon?”
Simple details - that farmer Snodson raises hogs not cattle, lives here not there - that merchant Diux is plotting against merchant Coax - that noble house Flusterfeather rules but fears drowish incursions - that a Dire Flumph resides in the woods outside of town and is responsible for the random pie throwing incidents that so disrupted the Royal Flea Circus - will no longer suffice as anything other than the most pedestrian of design. Better than nothing but hardly something to applaud.
No. The ante is upped. In what new direction does an article take Greyhawk? None? Then it earns no great applause IMO. I found Istivin banal.
GVD
No. The ante is upped. In what new direction does an article take Greyhawk? None? Then it earns no great applause IMO. I found Istivin banal
Weird.
Prior to that article, we had no map of Istivin, no knowledge of what had happened there since the time of the "drow bubble", and certainly no idea Lolth wasn't the main culprit in the matter.
Now, we have all that + NPCs + adventures.
Hmm.. IMHO that qualifies as "breaking new ground".
But, hey, feel free to dazzle us by making up something better
Weird.
Prior to that article, we had no map of Istivin, no knowledge of what had happened there since the time of the "drow bubble", and certainly no idea Lolth wasn't the main culprit in the matter.
Now, we have all that + NPCs + adventures.
Hmm.. IMHO that qualifies as "breaking new ground".
But, hey, feel free to dazzle us by making up something better
The map is hardly any masterpiece, the detail scant. It is professionally prepared. That is it.
You need someone to tell you what happened inside the "drow bubble?" You are incapable of devising anything on your own?
I doubt this, but your reply would suggest that we must await others to enlighten us. I think not.And Lolth not being the main culprit? Please. Look what we now have for a main culprit and tell me it was worth waiting for. Its not Lolth I'll grant you but I find disingenuous the whole Uber-Demon slipping past Lolth line. I found it made Lolth look rather foolish, even trivialized to a degree. I call this the "gee-wiz villain" syndrome. The author wants to defy expectations and so settles on a "gee-wiz" villain whose main attribute it some degree of novelty. That's what we have here and in the process we devalue Lolth. Great article so far.
As for "dazzling" you, I was unaware this was a contest. I dissent from any suggestion that one must by some standard "do better" to be able to voice an opinion. Your suggestion makes you sound like a Dungeon flak or lapdog.
I doubt this is the case, but if you keep batting your emoticon eyes at me . . . Seeing print offers no assurance of quality. Or must must one "do better" before one may say Rose Estes cannot write? Everyone who has written 4 or more novels raise their hand. I thought so. GVD
Weird.
Prior to that article, we had no map of Istivin, no knowledge of what had happened there since the time of the "drow bubble", and certainly no idea Lolth wasn't the main culprit in the matter.
Now, we have all that + NPCs + adventures.
Hmm.. IMHO that qualifies as "breaking new ground".
But, hey, feel free to dazzle us by making up something better
Didja see my question about the city map? I'll have to check it out a again but it looked far too sparse.
Didja see my question about the city map? I'll have to check it out a again but it looked far too sparse.
I'm inclined to agree that the number of buildings did look a bit sparce, but I take that to be more a limitation of cartography at that scale. The actual size of the place looks about right - approx. 3/4 mile across - for a cramped place of 12,100 people.
I've had a quick read through the adventure - I personally like it, and feel that the atmosphere could be built on quite well. I would certainly consider using it as an adventure setting, albeit adding more depth and flavour to it. I guess that suits me - a bit of flavour with a light touch that can be adapted to my campaign style.
It's great to finally be on the forum. I've been following it for the past few months and look forward to getting a little more involved.
Weird.
Prior to that article, we had no map of Istivin, no knowledge of what had happened there since the time of the "drow bubble", and certainly no idea Lolth wasn't the main culprit in the matter.
Now, we have all that + NPCs + adventures.
Hmm.. IMHO that qualifies as "breaking new ground".
But, hey, feel free to dazzle us by making up something better
I agree with Mort here. You also have to realize that many people do not have the extensive libraries of old Greyhawk to look to as you may. Maybe sombody new to Greyhawk liked what they saw, now wants to learn more about the history of the setting. PLUS, some of us are busy developing other parts of the Flanaess and would like to hear more of the other locales. Or, personally, I like to see other people's take on different areas, and that's what the Istivin article is.
.................................Omote
FPQ
I agree with Mort here. You also have to realize that many people do not have the extensive libraries of old Greyhawk to look to as you may. Maybe sombody new to Greyhawk liked what they saw, now wants to learn more about the history of the setting. PLUS, some of us are busy developing other parts of the Flanaess and would like to hear more of the other locales. Or, personally, I like to see other people's take on different areas, and that's what the Istivin article is.
.................................Omote
FPQ
I have no problem with someone new liking this. I have a problem with anyone telling me that MY opposite opinion is illegitimate until I "do better." What rot. No one would be able to criticize Rose Estes if they had not "done better" by writing more novels than she has. So Morte follows Rose I take it and to him Iuz is dead, killed by Mika Oba with a knife, because he has not "done better" than Rose who has it so? And he no doubt has not a critical word to say about the ideas expressed by Estes because he has not "done better" by writing as many novels? Rot. And double rot.
The "shut up if you have not done better" argument is entirely spurious and insulting. Morte can't present a counterargument on reasoned terms and chooses to "roll his eyes" and advise me to do better? Rot. Who is Mr. Mortepierre? Who died and left him God and judge of who may have an opinion and who may not?
I do not need some ankle biting, knee sucking fanboy who idolizes every "professional" to roll his eyes and tell me my opinion is illegitimate. Disagree? Fine. Have a reason for it? Even better. But don't waste my time with sucking up to Erik Mona or anybody else. In case you can't tell, it irritates me. :D
G
V D However, I know from bitter experience that sarcasm doesn't always travel well on the written page. So try to play nice!
For my part I like any article that has canon information, even if it is quite basic and even if it only adds a little to existing information. I am in the process of stitching together ALL info from modules, Wizards website, Canonfire, Oerth Journals, and LGG websites in a gigantic gazeteer for my own use and I find even basic information such as the information on Blackmoor a few months back to be a real help. Even reading articles with the same basic information yields a few new points in my experience. And while it is true that a DM with a bit of time on his hands (ha!) can make this stuff up himself, my characters are powerful enough to operate on an international scale now. In short, they haven't been to Istivin and it aint likely that they will ever go (so why would I want to prepare a map?) but information about the city might provide clues and pointers on more generally.
I haven't seen Dungeon 117 over here in the UK yet but I certainly intend to grab it as soon as I see it.
I have no problem with someone new liking this. I have a problem with anyone telling me that MY opposite opinion is illegitimate until I "do better." What rot. No one would be able to criticize Rose Estes if they had not "done better" by writing more novels than she has. So Morte follows Rose I take it and to him Iuz is dead, killed by Mika Oba with a knife, because he has not "done better" than Rose who has it so? And he no doubt has not a critical word to say about the ideas expressed by Estes because he has not "done better" by writing as many novels? Rot. And double rot.
The "shut up if you have not done better" argument is entirely spurious and insulting. Morte can't present a counterargument on reasoned terms and chooses to "roll his eyes" and advise me to do better? Rot. Who is Mr. Mortepierre? Who died and left him God and judge of who may have an opinion and who may not?
First of all, what you need to do is breathe and calm down. Wouldn’t want you to have a heart-attack on my account.
Second of all, did I touch a nerve? I re-read my post and, frankly, I fail to see where I might have insulted you, proclaimed myself uber-king of these boards or - even worse - hinted in any way that everything Rose Estes wrote was “canon” to me. Heck! I didn’t even mention her name!
I especially love the way you translate what I said into insults directed at you and then take offense at it. I used ONE smilies in my entire post and, all of a sudden, you use one (or more) in each sentence as if to underscore the fact that I have - apparently - overused them.
My point was similar to the opinion expressed by Omote.
Yes, as a veteran DM of WoG I don’t need anyone to give me anything to make my campaign work. I can come up with something on my own and, indeed, have frequently done so in the past. Yet, it is nice not only to see new quality material published about WoG but also to have such material easily available as opposed to obscure bits of WoG lore that one has to dig up in issues of Dragon Magazine no longer published.
In-between a full-time job, a family, and handling two player groups, sometimes some of us have less time to devote to campaign preparation. When that happens - guess what? - we’re happy to be able to fall back on info already published because it’s noticeably easier to modify something than to develop it entirely on your own. Especially when your own campaign deals with another area of the Flanaess.
For info, I don’t consider Rose Estes’ novels “canon” but I had fun reading some of them. Still don’t see why you brought her into this argument though.
And, no, I never said you weren’t entitled to your opinion. My point was that when you criticize something by offering only marginal explanation about what the product is lacking, then you should be prepared to offer something better to underscore that it was - indeed - “banal” as you put it.
Dungeon offered us a map - limited as it was - where we had none before. Yes, I could have come up with one using City Designer-Pro but it would have taken time.
Dungeon offered us an update of what happened in the area since the time of Lolth’s bubble. It respected canon and yet managed to introduce a few new elements. No, nothing Oerth-shattering but enough to grab my attention.
Dungeon gave us a rough outline of who’s who in the city and even of some major NPCs, not to mention encounters. Oh sure, could have done the same but, again, it saved time.
And, finally, the magazine offered us a 3-parts story arc linked to the city.
Since I suppose you buy Dungeon as well and that you do so - at the very least - to find some ideas to build your own adventures, IMHO Dungeon fulfilled its part of the deal.
No, it wasn’t a major module about WoG.
No, it wasn’t a boxed set describing in minute details Istivin and the surrounding lands.
No, it didn’t offer some new mind-blowing concept that would forever change our perception of WoG.
But, then again, it hadn’t promised any of that either.
Oh, and for the record, I don’t “suck up” to Erik Mona. On the other hand, I am ready to defend what he is doing because - right now - he is the only one in a position to offer us "official" WoG material regularly.
I know that entire paragraph sounds like a big suck up, but that is just how I (and many others) seem to feel.
..........................Omote
FPQ
............................Omote
FPQ
Second of all, did I touch a nerve? I re-read my post and, frankly, I fail to see where I might have insulted you, proclaimed myself uber-king of these boards or - even worse - hinted in any way that everything Rose Estes wrote was “canon” to me. Heck! I didn’t even mention her name!
I especially love the way you translate what I said into insults directed at you and then take offense at it.
You are correct Mortepierre. You touched a nerve.
You said, and I quote, "But, hey, feel free to dazzle us by making up something better.
" close quote. At this point, the substance of the Istivin article is irrelevant; it is simply the medium for your message which is a dismissal of my opinion based on on my not having made up "something better," followed by a rolling of the eyes emoticon.
You are engaging in the most spurious and lazy type of argumentation. Your message is - "Your opinion is less than legitimate unless and until you have proven the equal of the author you would criticize." You suggest that unless I have made up "something better" my opinion may be dismissed with a rolling of the eyes, sarcasm symbol.
Rose Estes is an example of where your "do better or shut up" argument utterly fails. If one must do better before one can voice a legitimate opinion, then one cannot criticize any author, to include Rose Estes, until one has "done better" than she. Since Estes has written more than 4 novels, to "do better" one would need to have written more, or at least one novel. Obviously, it is not necessary to "do better" than a novelist before you may criticize a novelist. Your argument is insulting.
It is the mewling cry of the ignorant fanboy when anyone dares to criticize his heroes. He can't express why the piece stands up against criticism and so falls back on the pseudo-egalitarian argument that you cannot criticize legitimately unless you have equaled or bettered what you would criticize. Reduced to the absurd - you could not find fault with a wine or beer unless or until you could make a better wine or beer yourself - you could not find fault with a TV show or movie unless or until you could produce or write a better TV show or movie yourself. Obviously, these propositions are untrue but they follow from the denouement you chose to use for your post.
I am giving you credit for understanding the import of your own words. You may plead thoughtless use of language if you would prefer, however.
I despise this type of slyly lazy thinking that enshrines anything in print with an immunization from criticism because there is the anticipation that no critic will have equally seen print and thus will not be able to counter the "do better or shut up" retort.
And if I have "done better" and could prove such (perhaps by having won some type of recognized awards) are you prepared to get on your knees before me? If you would then have not done better than I, I would then hold the cards you now believe to be trump. So, are you prepared if someone has done better to surrender YOUR opinion because YOU would not have "done better?" I doubt it. Yet, you trot out your ignorant argument and give it the added spice of rolling eyes. [Of course, I make no such claims to "doing better" and would not engage in such filthy argument even had I "done better."] Your argument has the potential to lead to a life spent on your knees before those who have "done better" than you have. Such a life belongs to the ignorant fanboys of the world.
So long as you, or anyone else, trots out the "shut up or do better" argument, I will class them with the ignorant fanboys. Fanboy is as fanboy does.
Yes. This touches a nerve with me. We all have out pet peeves. One of mine is this type of mindless idolatry. It offers nothing to anyone. The object of affection receives mindless praise but nothing engaging. The fanboy lobotomizes himself. The critic is left to deal with the guffawing ignorance of the uncritical mind. I would rather a thousand times over to have my opinion or work shredded by an intelligent response than get one of these toadying "do better or shut up" replies/defenses.
The reason this particular type of argument is so annoying to me is that it dresses itself up in a superficial and false egalitarianism. It is akin to a politician draping themselves in the flag and declaring that any who disagree with them are unpatriotic, as if the first invocation of patriotism defines all later discourse as either patriotic or unpatriotic. It is not so simple a matter. "Shut up or do better" is too similar in its intent. It is slyly lazy argumentation for twits and sheep.
Perhaps, you honestly did not understand the import of your own words. Assuming you did understand what you were saying and how, I take insult and with justification.
GVD
I would also like to say that I partiularly enjoy the work of Erik Mona. In no uncertain terms am I trying to "suck up" to him.
..........................Omote
FPQ
I have no argument with this. I too believe Mr. Mona to have a great deal of demonstrated talent. I also think he screws the pooch every so often, particularly when something like an innate over cautiousness or over reverence for canon takes hold over him. I would love to see Mr. Mona throw caution and canon to the wind and give us a look at Greyhawk ala Mona, not just warmed over canon. The Istivin article is a lost opportunity for Mr. Mona to give us a look at his own unique vision for Greyhawk. [I also think some of the critical choices involved in framing the article have unintended, negative consequences, particularly the treatment of Lolth, but that is another matter.]
GVD
And one more thing, I think that there are a great deal of us out there who DO NOT want Greyhawk to go in a new direction. Remember how all of the "old-schoolers" fel by the Greyhawk wars? As you well know, not everybody loved that direction the setting took. I think that it is not time for a new direction per se, but to finally fill in all of the gaps of the GH setting before it goes through another upheaval (or new direction). That is the exact reason I like the Istivin and Hardby articles. It (very well IMHO) fills in the gaps nicely. Good, wholesome, filler.
............................Omote
FPQ
I readily acknowledge that your opinion has support in history and is shared by a number of people. I do not share it, however.
I believe Greyhawk, or any setting, must grow or stagnate. I think how the setting is evolved is vitally important in this and, if done more deftly, may prevent future "Greyhawk wars" reactions. But there will always be those, more or less, resistant to change.
I also would not confine any designer to simply creating "Good, wholesome, filler." That is not a fate I would want, nor would I wish it on anyone else.
I love that you describe Mr. Mona's Istivin article as - "Good, wholesome, filler." I'm certain he would be delighted that you like his work and express its quality so well. I actually agree with your description; it is "Good, wholesome, filler." I disagree that this should be Mr. Mona's goal and that he should take any pleasure in finding his work accepted by the reading audience on these terms. If it were me, I'd be appalled to hear my work so described. But as others have expressed similar sentiments, I think you are on to something - "Good, whole, filler." I think Mr. Mona can do much better and I call upon him to do so.
With respect to the Hardby article, I have to say that I would not even call it "Good, wholesome, filler." That article is one of the most maddeningly bad pieces I think I have ever read. And I do mean ever. I cannot even easily put into words how bad it is IMO for it engenders for me such a strongly negative reaction. I am stunned that it was written as it was, stunned that it was published in the form it was and stunned that so many like it. Just amazing. Greyhawk's "Plan 9 From Outerspace." I don't ask anyone to share that opinion as I am not articulating my reaction well or at all but I will say the "Hardby" article engendered quite the firestorm locally, so I am not totally alone in finding it less than what might have been hoped for.
GVD
I guess GVD doesn't like the Hardby article either.
I would agree that EM should not like, or grow content with the term "good wholesome filler." However, I believe that the intent of the Istivin article was to facilitate the adventure that goes along with it, not the other way around. In that case, Istivin becomes a setting in itself, and thus mearly filler for the WoG. As I said above, I would like the WoG to be fleshed out a bit more before going on to a new direction. But in order for that to happen, there must first be some stability with the setting. GH has never been a stable setting in any sense of the term, and that is one reason that GH may have been considered a failure in the past. EM, and Dungeon has the unique ability to fix this problem by releasing (albieit slowly), the "new stable GH" within the magazine medium. Since I think we'll never be lucky enough to see the GH setting re-released as a whole, seperate book or box, I think this is the best we can hope for, and I will support it.
As to the topic of Morte and his comment regarding GVDs opinion, I can't speak for him but I will say that it came across to me as the old, "if you can't say something nice...".
...............................Omote
FPQ
You said, and I quote, "But, hey, feel free to dazzle us by making up something better.
At this point, the substance of the Istivin article is irrelevant; it is simply the medium for your message which is a dismissal of my opinion based on on my not having made up "something better," followed by a rolling of the eyes emoticon.
It's called "sarcasm". You might wish to look it up.
You are engaging in the most spurious and lazy type of argumentation. Your message is - "Your opinion is less than legitimate unless and until you have proven the equal of the author you would criticize." You suggest that unless I have made up "something better" my opinion may be dismissed with a rolling of the eyes, sarcasm symbol.
It is the mewling cry of the ignorant fanboy when anyone dares to criticize his heroes. He can't express why the piece stands up against criticism and so falls back on the pseudo-egalitarian argument that you cannot criticize legitimately unless you have equaled or bettered what you would criticize. Reduced to the absurd - you could not find fault with a wine or beer unless or until you could make a better wine or beer yourself - you could not find fault with a TV show or movie unless or until you could produce or write a better TV show or movie yourself. Obviously, these propositions are untrue but they follow from the denouement you chose to use for your post.
I despise this type of slyly lazy thinking that enshrines anything in print with an immunization from criticism because there is the anticipation that no critic will have equally seen print and thus will not be able to counter the "do better or shut up" retort.
And if I have "done better" and could prove such (perhaps by having won some type of recognized awards) are you prepared to get on your knees before me? If you would then have not done better than I, I would then hold the cards you now believe to be trump. So, are you prepared if someone has done better to surrender YOUR opinion because YOU would not have "done better?" I doubt it. Yet, you trot out your ignorant argument and give it the added spice of rolling eyes. [Of course, I make no such claims to "doing better" and would not engage in such filthy argument even had I "done better."] Your argument has the potential to lead to a life spent on your knees before those who have "done better" than you have. Such a life belongs to the ignorant fanboys of the world.
So long as you, or anyone else, trots out the "shut up or do better" argument, I will class them with the ignorant fanboys. Fanboy is as fanboy does.
Yes. This touches a nerve with me. We all have out pet peeves. One of mine is this type of mindless idolatry. It offers nothing to anyone. The object of affection receives mindless praise but nothing engaging. The fanboy lobotomizes himself. The critic is left to deal with the guffawing ignorance of the uncritical mind. I would rather a thousand times over to have my opinion or work shredded by an intelligent response than get one of these toadying "do better or shut up" replies/defenses.
How eloquent and how so wrong at the same time.
I use sarcasm in one sentence, not even a full paragraph, and you choose to go on a crusade against me.
I never asked you to "shut up" or not to offer an opinion. I'll agree I could have developped that better in my first post but I felt the second cleared up that issue.
Yet, again, you dismiss it all, convinced you have seen right through me (who's judging the other now, eh?) and wrap yourself in your - apparently wounded - pride.
Where - please point out - did I say/state/proclaim that this argument was about sucking up to the author of the Istivin article?
What incensed me in your first post was that you attacked an honest effort to bring us more WoG goodies in a time when they are hard to come by and yet offered as only explanation that you found it "banal", as subjective a term as can be.
By stating that any DM worth his bag could have come up with the same description of city life, you insult directly the author of the article. Care to offer an apology of your own?
Moreover, since you must obviously count yourself among those "DM worth their bag", how about coming up with your own improved description? Should take only an hour of your free time, right? (hint: this was sarcasm too)
Then you point out that since the WoG material contained in the article failed to break new ground, it was banal. Well, I am sorry but that's not good enough.
Most "offical" articles published these days about WoG are about better explaining the setting and expanding our knowledge of it. The Istivin article did just that, so I find it hard to fault it given no one among the Dungeon staff promised to deliver anything "better and beyond that".
Please offer us some example of what "breaking new ground" could be. Take your pick. It need not even be one of your ideas. I am honestly curious to see the kind of new idea that could bring back interest to WoG without alienating most of the die-hard fans.
As to the topic of Morte and his comment regarding GVDs opinion, I can't speak for him but I will say that it came across to me as the old, "if you can't say something nice...".
Thank you Omote. Glad to see some folks around here still get it.
What incensed me in your first post was that you attacked an honest effort to bring us more WoG goodies in a time when they are hard to come by and yet offered as only explanation that you found it "banal", as subjective a term as can be.
By stating that any DM worth his bag could have come up with the same description of city life, you insult directly the author of the article. Care to offer an apology of your own?
Moreover, since you must obviously count yourself among those "DM worth their bag", how about coming up with your own improved description? Should take only an hour of your free time, right? (hint: this was sarcasm too)
Para 1 (above) Response -
Banal = Drearily commonplace and often predictable. Hence, my comment that anyone could come up with much the same. I used the word and explained why I thought it appropriate. The term is not subjective if you understand its defination and read what was written before that term was used in summation.
Para 2 (above) Response -
By stating that, IMO, any DM worth their dice bag could come up with much the same, I was not insulting the author, I was offering a criticism of the work. When you cannot distinguish between criticism of what is written and an insult to the author, you have entered fanboy land. It is possible to rip what an author has written without necessarily insulting the author. To imagine otherwise is to suppose that any criticism is insult. That is hogwash. Criticism does not automatically equal a personal insult. That you think so marks you as one of the fanboy clique. People have good and bad days, and authors produce better works on some occassions than on others. To note that the author has the equivalent of a bad day and produced less than the best work is not an insult. It is not a zero sum proposition - unless you are a fanboy who sees any criticism of their heroes as insults to those heroes.
Para 3 (above) response - Here we go again. Because I criticized the work, you challenge me to present an "improved description." In other words, no one can offer criticism unless they are prepared to offer an alternative that is "improved" or better. Your argument still boils down to - If you don't like it, shut up or do better. That argument is spurious. It would silence every critc not prepared to "do better" or to offer something "improved." Critics may legitimately criticize without having to do better or offer any alternative. That you fail to grasp this suggests again the fanboy.
You cannot hide behind "sarcasm." I accept that you were being sarcastic. As you apparently don't understand, your admitted use of sarcasm does not make your comment any better, more acceptable or appropriate. It makes it worse because you pile your sarcasm on top of a spurious argument. You are not content to advance a spurious argument - that any critic must "do better" or have their criticism be seen as illegitimate - you have to be sarcastic about it as well. It is this combination - a seemingly smirking pride in an argument too clever by more than half - that was irritating.
You have, however, explained yourself at length and I feel no further irritation. I might as well be irritated that the sun rises in the east each day -you are what you are. I'm certain we will get along fine as long as I remember to always agree with your opinion or remain silent.
GVD
As to the topic of Morte and his comment regarding GVDs opinion, I can't speak for him but I will say that it came across to me as the old, "if you can't say something nice...".
...............................Omote
FPQ
Well put. "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all." That is the complete aphorism you quote in part. That is almost exactly what Morte is saying, with the option of being allowed to "say something" critical if you are prepared to "do better."
Let's take that aphorism. "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all." Apply it to slavery, women's rights, National Socialism, Communism, art, literature, music, comic books, movies, TV shows, beer, food etc. What do you get? What is the consequence of not saying anything if you cannot say anything "nice?" You get a blind acceptance of the status quo and what you have been given from whatever source.
To not say anything, unless it is something nice, is self-censorship. It is to give up thinking for yourself and value being "nice" more than being true to your perceptions.
Every dictator would love it if everyone believed, "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all." They would never be called to account. There would be no accountability. We are not talking dictators but this is very sloppy thinking in any case.
"If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all." That is advice for little children who have yet to develop the capacity think critically and who regularly encounter matters more advanced or complicated than they can yet fully assimilate at their age. It should not be a motto for anyone past the age of 17 to live by.
GVD
Fine. We get it. You didn't like the Istivin article. Lots of other people liked it just fine. Move on now, please.
.................................Omote
FPQ
Now if Dungeon was free I could excuse Mona's ineptness and the consistent yawn-inducing articles he allows to see print, but wasting money on it makes me angry.
Until then, the Mona fanboys can have this:
since they obviously can't quit thier blubbering when someone questions thier almighty leader.
He, my fellow Greyhawkers,
Why do you argue so vehemently about this?
The question here was not: Do you want to join us when we go to the Paizo building and kiss Mr Monas backfront?
The thread was a short notification about new WoG material on Dungeon!
If it goes around: Did you like the article? Aaah, no, had even forgotten where Istivin is exactly located.
If this comes up to: Do you like Mr Mona? Then I must say, hell yeah!
As he is the only one providing us with new material from time to time.
If I say that I liked Mr Gygax Hommlet/ToEE series and would have wanted him to make even more for WoG, would you say that I
and 
his 
with my 
? But that's my oppinion, and although you might critisize me for that, that would not bother me...
So hey, as here gather many intelligent Oerthians (I mean you) who I consider my friends here at these boards, calm down
.I think you share too much of our affection for the game and the imagination to insult each other because of unimportant bullsh
*apostle of peace* :inlove:
:inlove: Common, let's be friends again!
You know what follows.