What are your opinions on the Forgotten Realms?

Remove all ads!

Yes, it would be stupid to claim that Tolkein's work is just a pastiche of western mythology. Its clearly not. Neither is the simple existance of elves and dwarves (I make no such claim about halflings!!!) indicative of plagiarizing Tolkein, as Azardu seemed to be saying.

Tolkein's versions of these races have distinctive characteristics, many of which are present in Greenwood's work but not in the general D&D writeup or in other published D&D worlds.

Maybe you like that, maybe you don't. Personally, it doesn't matter to me. My objections to the FR are completely different.

Aloha
Vormaerin

 

I actually like FR. I think J.R.R. was influenced by Nordic mythology as well; lots of giants, trolls, dwarves, elves and rings to rule them all.

The ideas have been in circulation for a long time as far as the races and creatures go. The whole D&D scene capitalized on it a bit, and its a stable, unshocking kind of world to stage a game in I suppose. Maybe I'm a bit boring, but I like it, I like the quasi Euro-medieval mish-mash that it is. I used to play some other games, mostly sci-fi RPGs, but none of it stuck with me as well as the FR scene.

 

Wow, people have put a LOT of thought into this topic. Honestly, I could hardly care less. I read some of the early Forgotten Realm novels when they first came out, and enjoyed them much more than the Greyhawk Adventures (ie. The Demon Hand )

In terms of cRPGs or P&P games for that matter, it doesn't really matter. You are going to run into high powered NPC's like Drizzit or Elminster, whether they have a background in fiction or if the designers have to invent them on the spot. You're also going to have malicoius dieties and demigods messing with your life.

If I was allowed to pick, I think I'd rather play a game in Krynn, or even in the world of Terry Brook's Shannara (sp?)

However, I'm fairly confident that the world wouldn't influence the plot too much one way or another.

***for BG2 - Krynn based .... you are the bastard child of the green-gemstone man, or the son of Kitiara & Lord Soth, or the spawn of Tahkis .... you go between Haven, Solace & Palanthas doing the same quests, however instead of all the undead, you'd have more draconians.

 

Tal: Before there was ever such a thing as advanced dungeons and dragons, before the second edition. In the time of the vanilla dungeons and dragons. That was when Gygax and some others founded TSR and started putting out Dungeons and Dragons. There you will find elves, dwarves, halflings/hobbits, orcs and dragons too, obviously. And it was that world, that Gygax used for his games, that was called Greyhawk. Forgotten Realms was made the main setting sometimes during 2nd edition I believe, and was removed from that position again with the advent of 3rd edition. Greyhawk has held that position both before and after Forgotten Realms had it. And Forgotten Realms too existed before 2nd edition came, so I don't see why you bring second edition into it all. Oh, and what basic monsters and races are you referring to? I'm kind of wondering if we are talking about the same ones...

Vormaerin: I only pointed out that many of the races and monsters Tal said Greenwood got from Tolkien, came from Gygax and his DnD world, who undoubtedly got his inspiration from Tolkien.

[This message has been edited by Azardu (edited October 29, 2001).]

 

And I was pointing out that there is a difference between having elves, dwarves, etc and having elves that once ruled everything, are slowly retreating from the world, have a mystical island they live on, and don't die but rather "leave the mortal land".

Besides, the FR setting was introduced while 1st edition was still around. It replaced Greyhawk when Gygax got the boot. It was a while before second edition came out. However, I think we've both made are points by now.

Mathetais, I agree that the few "greyhawk adventures" books I've read were awful. I haven't read any of the FR ones. The series Gygax wrote (Gord the Rogue) for greyhawk was actually pretty decent, but he got kicked out of TSR before he finished. As a result, he rather spitefully blew up the all of Oerth in the concluding book. Anyway, malevolent deities and powerful wizards are par for the course. I don't like the FR because there are SO MANY powerful archmages (half of whom seem near immortal). More importantly, I can't stand gods who are just powerful mortals. Who wants to play in a world where your shoeshine boy might wake up the God of Hard Work one morning? Or spend sixty years diligently worshipping the Goddess of Luck, only to have her assassinated just as you are about to collect your reward. Bleh.

Aloha
Vormaerin

 

Man oh man. I have been planning to go out tomorrow to buy books on the FR but now with all these talks I'm not too sure. You guys aren't saying that the FR world sucks, are you? I have never read an FR book before and now... sigh. So is it really worth anything to go and buy their stories? After playing through BG and ID I really wanted to read more about their world but now I'm not too sure.
I've read some of the greyhawk stories tho my opinion is not considered too highly for them. To me, they just lack the feeling that I got from reading other fantasy books...
Sigh...

 

Forgotten Realms rule, it's a detailed world with much history so great to play D&D in. Only one world is even better and that is Middle Earth, for I know more about that, read all books of Tolkien and not all about Forgotten Realms (Tolkiens books are better)

 

I consider all the detailed history in FR a flaw, actually. Most anyone I know have read some books about the Forgotten Realms, and will subsequently know more than they should about the world. Thankfully, I have not yet spotted any Greyhawk novels in stores here, and that keeps me and the other players in my group from knowing to much about the world. How fun would it be if one of you as a DM made changes to parts of the history or some of the cities in the FR, and suddenly a player would go: "But that's not how it happened!" and "But that's not the ruler in this city!" etc, you probably catch my drift. Other than that, if you like superpower heroes going around beating everything at insane powerlevels, you'll probably like the novels put out.

Vormaerin: Point taken. By the way, I thought Mystara replaced Greyhawk when Gygax got the boot...

 

Tal: Read my previous postings. I never argued the enviroments and the habits you mentioned. All I mentioned was the races, classes and the basic monsters, the first three things you brought up. That all those other things are obvious copies of Tolkien's work I am not going to deny. However, you cannot deny that the races and basic monsters and most of all the character classes are from regular Dungeons and Dragons, as originally created by Gygax & co, which in turn are most likely influenced by Tolkien. Understand now?

 

Hey, Azardu, I think you can safely say that horse is dead now, okay? Everyone understands your point. What no one understands is why you think it in any way counters Tal's point. The Forgotten Realms uses the D&D rules. So does Greyhawk, Dark Sun, Planescape, Spelljammer, and Dragonlance (among others). None of those others come across as blatant clones of Tolkein.

Its ABSOLUTELY NOT POSSIBLE to avoid being influenced by Tolkein within the fantasy genre. Even authors like Michael Moorcock, who despise Tolkein, are influenced by him if only in the negative.

The Realms go beyond "influenced by" and reaches towards "copies from". Pointing out that other designers are in the first group does nothing to absolve Greenwood of being in the second.

There is no substantive argument going on here. Lets all just let it go, okay?

Aloha
Vormaerin

 

In Robert Jordan's world in the Wheel of Time series, you don't find anything copied from or influenced by Tolkien's Middleearth. However, I know people who see Tolkien as the founder and owner of the whole fantasy genre, and that everything in fantasy after him are just bad copies and then nonworthy reading, playing or whatever.

I believe that Tolkien may own the story of his books, but abolutely not for example the creatures elves, dwarves, hobbits or orcs. So he made his elven languages and invented their history, but he did not invent the elven pointy ears or the dwarven gold treasures. We are here talking about entertainment phenomenons who have been a great success in stories for hundreds of year, and you don't have to be influenced by Tolkien to use them.

So Elminster might be a Gandalf copy, but I think he's not. He's a wizard, a small piece in the puzzle which makes games, books and other things popular among people like us, and Tolkien in Middleearth used that just as the Forgotten Realms inventors have done with their world.

 

Mollusken, you're right that Robert Jordan has made a very detailed world which does not derive from Tolkien. But the first hundred or so pages of The Eye of the World are extremely Tolkienesque - Jordan has admitted it himself, saying it was done to make the world seem more familiar. Just think about Moiraine "There is a place where the wolves, I mean the Trollocs, will not go" Sedai and Lan "I'm a Ranger and the heir to a lost line of kings" her long-time companion

 

Actually, Mollusken, that just plain isn't true. Halflings and Orcs are absolutely a creation of Tolkein. You aren't going to find any half sized 19th century english countryfolk running around anywhere else. While there are assorted nasty monsters in myth, the big tribes of ugly critters called 'orcs' is unique to Tolkein. Before Tolkein, "Orc" was just an early british (forget exactly which language) term that meant essentially 'foreigner'. In european myth, the organized races of 'bad guys' were almost invariably giants. Goblins and such were generally mischevious and/or malicious mining fae.

Dwarves have a stronger 'historical' basis, but you'll find that in myth they are solitary creatures or live in small clans, crafting powerful artifacts for odd and supernatural prices. Not much evidence of vast kingdoms of axe wielding warriors. The norse Dverge and Tolkein's Khuzdul are certainly cousins, but I think its pretty clear which line of the tree the 'modern fantasy' dwarf comes from.

The elves are far and away the most well developed of the races in the myth. In fact, I'd say most fantasy elves have more to do with the sidhe and alfar sources than with Tolkein. The main reason elves (and similar creatures) are so common in fantasy literature is because of how strong the archetype is.

As for Greenwood, did he plagiarize Tolkien with malice aforethought? I haven't the faintest idea, but I doubt. Even if I did think so, Elminster certainly isn't the example I would rest my case on, since he and Gandalf both come from a long line of quasi divine wizard advisors featuring such luminaries as Merlin and Malagigi. But it does seem to me that Greenwood, et al take far less care to personalize and integrate their source material into a fresh, interesting perspective than has been done with other game worlds.

Is the whole Realms unadulterated crap? No. But the stitching shows more than one would hope and I personally dislike some of the materials chosen. C'est la vie.

Aloha
Vormaerin

[This message has been edited by Vormaerin (edited October 31, 2001).]

 

Tal: I'm sorry to have annoyed you. I never really intended to counter your point.
And yes, I did assume you didn't understand (you basically said I was wrong in what I said), but now afterwards I see that I might have been a bit vague in explaining what I meant. My fault, obviously. But as Vormaerin said, people understand my point now.
And by the way, why the need to insult me, which I assume in your case was intentional. And also, did you not yourself reply when you had nothing to add. I'd like to be sarcastic about this, but I won't. As you said, this discussion is over. Once again, sorry to have annoyed you.

Oh, and one last thing, trying to somehow label me as childish or anything for replying, as I see a hint of in your last post, won't work, I always reply when insulted.

Wow. This topic sure took an unexpected turn...

 

Well, Azardu, I think you might want to think about your presentation a bit. You ended several posts with comments like "Clear?" and "Understand now?". Perhaps you meant these as simple inquiries, but they came across as argumentative to me (and presumably Tal). The short, sharp imperative/exclamatory nature of the sentence structure (or single word) reads as accusatory in the absence of other contextual clues. Something like "I hope that's clearer now" doesn't have that same sense of stridency.

Aloha
Vormaerin