Elven Druid Poll

[irdeggman]

This is really not a well concieved poll.

For the following reasons:

It is structured poorly in its wording - by the way it is written it 'leads' to the answer that elven druids should be allowed (3 out of 4 choices are yes and the 1 that is a no is an extreme-case wording)

It avoids defining what is meant by druid - is it the 2nd/3/3.5 default druid (one whose powers come directly from nature) or is it the druid as defined by 2nd ed BR - that is a priest of Erik?

It is based on a rather shaky premise. There is only one place in all of the 2nd ed BR material that even refers to the 'possibility' of elves worshipping human gods (I believe that is the PS of Tuarvhiel). And even then that is just a small write up with no examples of any elves that are druids (i.e., priests of Erik given). So essentially it comes down to an incorporation of house-rules based upon what people envision (or have adapted elves in their campaigns to be) and not really anything based on 2nd ed BR setting material.

While there is sufficient color writings in the novels to describe elves as having access to more abilities and powers than a strict reading of the 2nd ed rules have - there is really nothing there to indicate a 'true druid' or a worshipping of human deities (i.e., Erik) such that the elf could be a druid.


Now -
While I have (in addition to the quotes that Kenneth posted, not necessarily trying to prove the same point but using the same rules) have quoted both the 2nd ed (core and supplemental books) and 3.5 core books in justification for an almost direct porting of the 2nd ed BR rules on druids into 3.5 no one has cited the location on the rules that states this direct porting is a 'violation' of the 3.5 rules. Some have alluded to it but have not proven their point rule-wise, at least not yet.

I am not going to re-post those quotes, mostly as a deference to Lord R - but they are there and most were posted recently.

Essentially in 2nd ed and 3.5:
Rangers can get their abilities directly from nature or from a nature deity.
Druids can get their poweres directly from nature or from a nature deity.

In 2nd ed BR rangers got their powers directly from nature.
Druids got their powers from a nature deity (Erik).

So essentially 2nd ed BR choose a specific option from the existing rules for the campaign setting. These choices/definitions are still consistent with the rules in 3.5.

[RaspK_FOG]

The poll also makes the mistake of giving false information to its reader: a decision has already been taken, and one that had to do with the real subject at hand, which was that, since there are no elven BR druids (aka priests who revere nature by worshipping Erik, since there are no elven priests at all, or at least too few of them [5 at most, 10? You get what I mean...]), elven arcane spellcasters have nature-related spells added to their spell lists!

As for the whole other points, allow me to put my 2 coppers worth of an opinion: Healing was incuded in druid spell lists due to their divine-servant stature... That is the reason a couple 3._e settings specifically say that bards are not able to cast cure spells. It has nothing to do with a druid's connection to nature!
The options of the poll should be more like: No elven druids at all! :angry:
If the odd elf (0,0001%) chose to be a priest of Erik, becoming an outcast of the wolrd, believer of gods to elves, sidhelien to humans, well, why not? In the end, if Erik has no problem... :unsure:
Yes, but give elves a background for such a thing (RaspK FOG's note: this is generally the poorest choice, as it generally is based on some people's absolute love for elves and no other reason at all, something that is bad for the game and most other players's enjoyment most of the time). :rolleyes:
Yes, definitely! :)

[RaspK_FOG]

By the way, for those of you who do not remember it, older D&D versions (I think it was in D&D 1e) presented the bard as a class combination: he had to take thief levels, then at a specific point he would advance as a fighter, and after a few levels he became... a druid! :lol:

This was thematically inspired (IMO) from the fact that bards and druids were the two higher classes of the old celtic civilisation.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Feb 9 2004, 07:20 AM
By the way, for those of you who do not remember it, older D&D versions (I think it was in D&D 1e) presented the bard as a class combination: he had to take thief levels, then at a specific point he would advance as a fighter, and after a few levels he became... a druid! :lol:

This was thematically inspired (IMO) from the fact that bards and druids were the two higher classes of the old celtic civilisation.
It was in 1st ed and I gamed with an individual that actually had a character become a bard. As I recall the advancement was thief, wizard, ranger, druid then bard (one from each class category).

As I recall the ranger spells included some real wizard type spells also and not real nature themed ones.

But anyway, this is really a moot point since BR was 2nd ed and by then the class struture had evolved drastically from 1st ed. Heck in the 'original D&D - prior to AD&D) elf was a class and not a race.

[Osprey]

As I recall the ranger spells included some real wizard type spells also and not real nature themed ones.


Yep! Rangers were essentially arcane spellcasters in AD&D(1st ed). They could memorize and cast low-level magic-user spells.

I don't think the poll was so terrible - I believe it was trying to create choices based on prevailing opinions about the elves/druid issue.

On the other hand, what it comes down to is what's appropriate for the BRCS, what should be variants, and what should be left as more extreme variants that shouldn't be printed in an official revision.

Too many variants makes the document too big. So we are back to an older thread (Royal Library, from late summer/early autumn) about what to do with them. I'm still all for easy-access on the archives here (or an equivalent, regardless of the system) that would allow lots of neat ideas and variations for personalizing and molding your Birthright campaign setting to suit.

I think, though, that it's very difficult to keep all discussion in this forum strictly "publishable BRCS material." Because this forum is also about playtesting comments, responses, and feedback, and that really feeds into everything, doesn't it? So the borders blur, and I hate to see good ideas get shoved under the rug just because they aren't going to be "official publication inclusions." For myself, and I would say many of the posters here, a lot of problems and solutions come out of our playtesting experiences, and the forum provides a place to air those things and get some perspective, insights, and ideas from one another.

Of course, it's also important for the BRCS Revision team to narrow down the specifics of what should be published as official, which variants are viable enough to include, and which ones don't make the cut.

So maybe it's time to get clear: what are the parameters for variant rules being included in the publication? At what point should we let go of certain issues, or at least shift threads over to the Royal Library for less 'official' (BRCS) discussion?

[kgauck]

The best solution to the question of varients is to keep any single document

lean and to include occasiona references to BR.net`s downloads and documents

where I can post my dwarven druid, if I haven`t already.



The contributions section is so easy to use, that there is little reason to

fill the BRCS with varients.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[geeman]

At 06:24 PM 2/9/2004 +0100, Osprey wrote:



>So maybe it`s time to get clear: what are the parameters for variant rules

>being included in the publication? At what point should we let go of

>certain issues, or at least shift threads over to the Royal Library for

>less `official` (BRCS) discussion?



This is a fuzzy line sometimes. It`s the role of a campaign setting to

have material that differs from the core materials, so sometimes I think

what gets called a "variant" really is campaign material the differs from

the core rules, and should probably be written up as regular campaign

material rather than put into its own little category. "Variant" to me

often expresses methods rather than mechanic. That is, the requirement for

random blood ability generation is a variant. I`d suggest the following

guidelines:



1. How well does the "variant" really express a campaign theme? This is,

of course, a subjective standard, but if one can point to some of the

original campaign material (not a 2e mechanic, mind you, but the themes

expressed in the colour text of the published materials) that is being

portrayed then I think its worth considering as part of the BRCS.



2. Is the "variant" too complex? That is, is it more difficult to employ

than a core rule? Again, this is a subjective standard, but if one were to

try to quantify this one should guesstimate that if the idea was "twice" as

hard to employ than the core rule then one should drop it. A simple

"lateral shift" of game mechanics (the DR=con bonus for Cerilian dwarves,

for instance) might require a bit of text, but the argument that "it`s not

how 3e/3.5 does things" is not by itself something that should be a

consideration.



3. Will people use it? If it seems like more people will use it than not

then it should be "core" campaign material. If it seems like a good

percentage of people (10% maybe) will use it than it could be written up as

a variant.



4. Most importantly, the issue of whether variants should be included in

the BRCS document should probably be, "would it have gone into the original

BR Rulebook?" Lots of things brought up by the BR community should IMO go

into an offical BR update document, but not necessarily the BRCS

itself. The things covered by the BRCS should be the things covered in the

original BR Rulebook, and should be given about the same treatment. Where

the material is brief in that document the BRCS should be similarly brief.



Having said that, I should note that I agree with Kenneth that the BRCS

should be as lean as possible. However, I would suggest that the best way

to go about doing that is to cut some of the more redundant stuff by

applying some of the above guidelines to decide if it should be dropped or

moved to another updated BR document. For the former, there is a lot of

stuff that most gamers are pretty familiar with in a D20 product. We don`t

need, for instance, the standard character class information for the

Magician PC class even though it is "new" to the setting. It really is

very similar to existing classes, so I don`t think we need the

"Adventures," "Characteristics," "Alignment," "Starting Package," etc.

sections for it. We do kind of need the table, but the rest of the

description could be handled much as the other character classes are in the

document. (Personally, I`d also lose the spontaneous casting aspect of the

class and make it more like the wizard for reasons of theme, simplicity and

parity with existing classes--then the table could also be dropped.) On

the other hand, the Noble is a bit more of a leap from standard core class,

so that one should probably have the standard description as it does in the

Playtest--though one could probably take a blue pencil to it.



I`d also pare down the text in a couple of the chapters, most notably

chapters 3, 4 and 8. A lot of that material could go into updated versions

of the BoM and the BoP, and some of it should be dropped entirely. At a

guess, around two thirds to three quarters of Chapter 4 belongs in an

update of the BoP--and I`m not sure some of it needs be described at all in

that text. The information on the Afterlife, for example, is over a page

of text and really could be dropped. There is no specific reason for

including it that I can see, and I doubt most people will use it in any

way. It`s not bad material, mind you, but it smacks of an individual

homebrew`s interpretation of some rather obscure cosmological issues,

rather than basic campaign material, and should either go in some other

document or be removed. (If it had been sent to the message boards by a

person in the BR community, I`m pretty sure it`d be the kind of thing that

someone would suggest belongs in the "Royal Library" section.)



Similarly, things like the material on magic items (chapter 8) should go in

an update of the BoM or BoP. I can see putting it in the playtest version

of the BRCS since it`d be pretty difficult to play an updated version of

the setting without it, but it`s quite detailed for inclusion in the

"basic" setting.



I`d also reconsider a few of the monster/character descriptions in chapter

9. Some are definitely worthwhile (the ones that were on cards in the

original boxed set) but we don`t really need write ups for elven horses,

caracdir, meharmain or skuhlzecki. Those belong in their respective BR

text update, as do several others.



Lastly, while I can sympathize with the desire to write a document that has

uses beyond BR... it`s just not the role of the BRCS to be that

document. I think you should lose the material having to do with using the

BR domain rules in any other setting. Not only is it not the role of the

BRCS, but it seems to me to have colored some of the thinking that went

into the update of the domain rules--in particular allowing things like

non-regents to control BR domains, and RP costs for domain actions. The

BRCS update should not IMO be developed with an eye towards use in any

setting other than BR.



Gary

[RaspK_FOG]

I think you misunderstood what Osprey meant, Gary: his saying "variant" means variants on the standard BR rulings, not standard core rulings. For example, the DMG presents a variant for AC rolls, where the standard 10 base for AC is accounted as a take 10 action, and creatures may roll 1d20 against any or all attacks (DM's choice how this should be handled) instead of "taking 10"; similarly, standard rules for BR now present elves in one manner, while there could also be a variant, like Teloft's take on sidhelien...

[ConjurerDragon]

Gary schrieb:



> ...

> Having said that, I should note that I agree with Kenneth that the BRCS

> should be as lean as possible. However, I would suggest that the best

> way

> to go about doing that is to cut some of the more redundant stuff by

> applying some of the above guidelines to decide if it should be

> dropped or

> moved to another updated BR document. For the former, there is a lot of

> stuff that most gamers are pretty familiar with in a D20 product. We

> don`t

> need, for instance, the standard character class information for the

> Magician PC class even though it is "new" to the setting. It really is

> very similar to existing classes, so I don`t think we need the

> "Adventures," "Characteristics," "Alignment," "Starting Package," etc.

> sections for it. We do kind of need the table, but the rest of the

> description could be handled much as the other character classes are

> in the

> document. (Personally, I`d also lose the spontaneous casting aspect

> of the

> class and make it more like the wizard for reasons of theme,

> simplicity and

> parity with existing classes--then the table could also be dropped.)



Especially as the Wizard Specialists in the 3.5 Edition have been made

more balanced as far as I´ve read, the Magician as double-specialized

Wizard should not really need something like spontaneous casting which

he did not have in 2E.



> On the other hand, the Noble is a bit more of a leap from standard

> core class,

> so that one should probably have the standard description as it does

> in the

> Playtest--though one could probably take a blue pencil to it.



Take a blue pencil to it? What does that mean?

bye

Michael

[geeman]

At 10:40 PM 2/9/2004 +0100, Michael Romes wrote:



>Take a blue pencil to it? What does that mean?



Sorry... obscure publishing reference. Print editors traditionally use a

blue pencil when marking manuscripts--and generally being edited means

cuts--so by "taking a blue pencil to it" I mean that it needs to be revised

or rewritten (and preferably shortened.)



Gary

[kgauck]

> Take a blue pencil to it? What does that mean?



In printing, a blue or green pencil are the marks of the proof-reader and

the editor. Red pencil is used by the printer. This way as galleys (the

rough draft) are handed about everyone knows who is making which comments

and notations.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[geeman]

At 11:15 PM 2/9/2004 +0100, RaspK_FOG wrote:



>I think you misunderstood what Osprey meant,

>Gary: his saying "variant" means variants on the

>standard BR rulings, not standard core rulings.



What I`m suggesting is that this fits into a bigger picture. A lot of the

things that are being suggested as "variants" really should be included as

the straight campaign material, not boxed out as variants at all, and that

several things (sometimes whole sections) of the Playtest if examined using

the proposed criteria will be more easily recognized as the either things

can be omitted or moved to another document.



"Variants" are things like you mentioned (the DMG`s variant AC rolls) are

different methods of portraying the same basic concept. Something like

elven access to the druid character class (or other access to druidic

magic) is something that either should go right into the setting (not as a

variant but as core campaign material) or not at all. It may, however, be

more appropriate to another text on the subject rather than the update of

the "Rulebook" depending on how it falls out according to the proposed

criteria.



Gary

[Kzintosh]

Druids are followers of Erik. Elves do not accept the human gods...thus, no priests/esses of Erik amongst the elves. Simple enough. -_- Unless you go with the 0.0001% of elves who choose to follow the human gods. :blink:

[Ming I]

irdeggman wrote on Feb 9 2004 at 01:41 PM
This is really not a well concieved poll.

For the following reasons:

It is structured poorly in its wording - by the way it is written it 'leads' to the answer that elven druids should be allowed (3 out of 4 choices are yes and the 1 that is a no is an extreme-case wording)

It avoids defining what is meant by druid - is it the 2nd/3/3.5 default druid (one whose powers come directly from nature) or is it the druid as defined by 2nd ed BR - that is a priest of Erik?


First, "OW, my feelings!" :lol:

Second, I think that all choices are laid out for the reader of the poll. I leave all justifications for the choice up to them. People can have a laundry list of reasons why Elves in Cerilia will never be druids, or why they would never play an elven druid, but in the end it still ends up being "Unequivocally, no". Same thing goes for elven druids not being the standard PHB (2e or 3.x) version of a druid but something else. The reasons for the choice could be that the reader entertains notions of arcane spellcasters with access to a nature school, or the druid class with wild-shape (animal) removed and something thrown in to replace it, but the choice remains the same. It isn't the reason for the choice, or the mechanics on how to do it, but the actual choice that's important.....at least to me.

Third, by druid I meant the standard PHB (2, or 3.x) druid class, not the "specialty priests who have the abilities of the standard druid class" that 2nd edition Birthright uses. If Erik's priests are the druid class then they are limited to druidic alignment, ability score requirements, etc. If Erik's priests are called druids but are really specialty priests with the druid's abilities (plus some more goodies), then they are not bound by these constraints. And before anyone says anything, the same should go for the Paladin class, or more aptly the Holy Warrior class (so no bringing up Cuiraecen :P)



It is based on a rather shaky premise. There is only one place in all of the 2nd ed BR material that even refers to the 'possibility' of elves worshipping human gods (I believe that is the PS of Tuarvhiel). And even then that is just a small write up with no examples of any elves that are druids (i.e., priests of Erik given). So essentially it comes down to an incorporation of house-rules based upon what people envision (or have adapted elves in their campaigns to be) and not really anything based on 2nd ed BR setting material.


The premise is "shaky", if you believe that the choices for the source of druidic powers are mutually exclusive (i.e. Druids can receive their powers from a god, OR they can receive their powers from nature). I happen to believe that they aren't mutually exclusive, and thus most elven druids would receive their powers from nature, and most human druids would receive their powers from Erik.

As to house-rules, yes, that's completely true, but haven't other house rules made it into the d20 BRCS? A conversion wouldn't entertain notions like changing racial ability score modifiers. It wouldn't remove or change racial traits/abilities like halflings losing shadow walk and dimension door. It would simply change the 2e version of the product into its 3.x representation and be done with it. However a revamp (which can be anything from "trivial" to "total") has the ability to actually make modifications to the existing material and/or introduce entirely new concepts, or build on "lightly touched-on" ones.

Just so I'm not flogging a deceased equine, what is the d20 BRCS actually trying to accomplish? Is it a conversion or a revamp? (If there are more choices, please let me know)

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Ming I@Feb 10 2004, 03:01 AM

irdeggman wrote on Feb 9 2004 at 01:41 PM
This is really not a well concieved poll.

For the following reasons:

It is structured poorly in its wording - by the way it is written it 'leads' to the answer that elven druids should be allowed (3 out of 4 choices are yes and the 1 that is a no is an extreme-case wording)

It avoids defining what is meant by druid - is it the 2nd/3/3.5 default druid (one whose powers come directly from nature) or is it the druid as defined by 2nd ed BR - that is a priest of Erik?


First, "OW, my feelings!" :lol:

Second, I think that all choices are laid out for the reader of the poll. I leave all justifications for the choice up to them. People can have a laundry list of reasons why Elves in Cerilia will never be druids, or why they would never play an elven druid, but in the end it still ends up being "Unequivocally, no". Same thing goes for elven druids not being the standard PHB (2e or 3.x) version of a druid but something else. The reasons for the choice could be that the reader entertains notions of arcane spellcasters with access to a nature school, or the druid class with wild-shape (animal) removed and something thrown in to replace it, but the choice remains the same. It isn't the reason for the choice, or the mechanics on how to do it, but the actual choice that's important.....at least to me.

Third, by druid I meant the standard PHB (2, or 3.x) druid class, not the "specialty priests who have the abilities of the standard druid class" that 2nd edition Birthright uses. If Erik's priests are the druid class then they are limited to druidic alignment, ability score requirements, etc. If Erik's priests are called druids but are really specialty priests with the druid's abilities (plus some more goodies), then they are not bound by these constraints. And before anyone says anything, the same should go for the Paladin class, or more aptly the Holy Warrior class (so no bringing up Cuiraecen :P)



It is based on a rather shaky premise.* There is only one place in all of the 2nd ed BR material that even refers to the 'possibility' of elves worshipping human gods (I believe that is the PS of Tuarvhiel).* And even then that is just a small write up with no examples of any elves that are druids (i.e., priests of Erik given). So essentially it comes down to an incorporation of house-rules based upon what people envision (or have adapted elves in their campaigns to be) and not really anything based on 2nd ed BR setting material.


The premise is "shaky", if you believe that the choices for the source of druidic powers are mutually exclusive (i.e. Druids can receive their powers from a god, OR they can receive their powers from nature). I happen to believe that they aren't mutually exclusive, and thus most elven druids would receive their powers from nature, and most human druids would receive their powers from Erik.

As to house-rules, yes, that's completely true, but haven't other house rules made it into the d20 BRCS? A conversion wouldn't entertain notions like changing racial ability score modifiers. It wouldn't remove or change racial traits/abilities like halflings losing shadow walk and dimension door. It would simply change the 2e version of the product into its 3.x representation and be done with it. However a revamp (which can be anything from "trivial" to "total") has the ability to actually make modifications to the existing material and/or introduce entirely new concepts, or build on "lightly touched-on" ones.

Just so I'm not flogging a deceased equine, what is the d20 BRCS actually trying to accomplish? Is it a conversion or a revamp? (If there are more choices, please let me know)
Ming I - I wasn't trying to 'hurt' your feelings and I hope that you won't take it that way. I have noticed over the past couple years that polls tend to have the same problems I cited in the one you started.


As far as house-rules remaining in the BRCS (remember to use the revised Chapt 2 here instead of the 1st version) - please give me some specific examples. I know that I personally tried to 'veto' inclusion of things that seemed too much like house rules in the development period. Many things can be seen as house rules but are actually things that were sort of outside of the 2nd ed rules - domain actions, blood abilities, etc. These were compiled using some system that appeared to be condusive with 3.0 (now 3.5), many of which were based on ideas people had posted over the years.

As far as what is the BRCS trying to accomplish - here is a couple of links to past discussions that may shed some light on this.

The Plan:
http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=1267

BRD20 Design Philosophy:
http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=1431

Gary - there is no plan to have separate BoM and BoP conversions. The rules portions (spell descriptions, mechanics, etc.) are supposed to exist in the BRCS and the philosophy of casting (like that presented in the BoM) should be worked into the Atlas under the descusions of the various cultures.

A separate conversion for each of the books simply accomplishes nothing and I don't think that you will find people who have the time to put into that widespread long lasting project. Heck, some of us have put almost 3 years of our lives into this project so far - that is generally considered to be a lot, unless of course you are an elf :lol:

The BRCS was supposed to include the essential (basic rule info) from the BR Rulebook, BoM, BoP, BoR and Blood Enemies. Now there is something to be said for a separate monster manual, but that might be best handled by individual posts - like your awnshegh ones. The only thing that really should be decided and included in the BRCS is the design criteria for an awn/ersh, IMO.

[ryancaveney]

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Kzintosh wrote:



> Druids are followers of Erik. Elves do not accept the human

> gods...thus, no priests/esses of Erik amongst the elves.



One could just as easily say, "Druids are spellcasters who get their

powers from a close relationship with nature. Hence many (most? all!?)

elves are druids, as are those nonelves who call nature by the name of

Erik or [whatever it is gnolls would call it], etc." It`s not quite as

cut-and-dried as you seem to think.





Ryan Caveney

[geeman]

irdeggman writes:



> Gary - there is no plan to have separate BoM and BoP conversions.

> The rules portions (spell descriptions, mechanics, etc.) are

> supposed to exist in the BRCS and the philosophy of casting (like

> that presented in the BoM) should be worked into the Atlas under

> the descusions of the various cultures.



OK. I`d still suggest that something like the proposed criteria might work

as a method of deciding what should go where (or at all) in the documents

that are planned. I understand the objection to putting together whole new

documents, though I think they could definitely be viable texts for the kind

of "variant" rules that seems to be the issue here--not that I`m

volunteering to write them or anything.... ;) Lots of the discussion of

things under the "Nature school for Elves" thread, for intance, would work

as a chapter of an updated BoP.



A while back someone sent me a list of the proposed documents that were

going to be updated, and I could have sworn they included things like the

BoM and BoP (but I could be remembering badly... it was quite some time

ago.) What are the planned update projects?



Gary

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by geeman@Feb 11 2004, 04:30 AM
A while back someone sent me a list of the proposed documents that were

going to be updated, and I could have sworn they included things like the

BoM and BoP (but I could be remembering badly... it was quite some time

ago.) What are the planned update projects?



Gary




Gary, here is a link to a thread where it was posted that an update of teh BoM and BoP was not going to be done. (Note the comment dated June 2002)

http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=679

It did talk about a book of scions and a book of guilders, but mostly those plans have faded as the BRCS and Atlas took form. The 'major' scions will be included in the various sections of the atlas, same as the guilders.

The only other potential is a Monster Manual of some sort, but no one has really planned on putting together one.

The products planned are:

BRCS (a revision sometime this year)

The Atlas project - which Ian has outlined as being 4 sections and a few others for demi-humans (possibly)

That should really be all that would be necessary to run any sort of campaign.

The BRCS will contain the 'rules' and the Atlas will contain the 'flavor/color' along with the cultural breakdown info (again like the Player's Secrets).

What else could you really need to run a setting (except for a Monster Manual, but then again almost all of those are standard from the MM anyway)?

At one time several posters talked about having a running netbook, but that would entail committing the editors to far too long a writing/editing comittment than should be reasonably expected.

[geeman]

At 05:57 PM 2/11/2004 +0100, irdeggman wrote:



>Gary, here is a link to a thread where it was posted that an update of teh

>BoM and BoP was not going to be done.



OK, thanks for the info.



>At one time several posters talked about having a running netbook, but

>that would entail committing the editors to far too long a writing/editing

>comittment than should be reasonably expected.



IIRC the suggestion was more to have a downloads page that was in a sort of

e-zine/netbook format (at least the last dialogue on the issue seemed to

lean that way.)



Gary

[irdeggman]

Yup, Ian was working on an e-zine but like all great plans that one seemed to have fallen on harder times and conflicting committments (gosh I really hate it when work gets in the way of my play time ;) ).

I do think a BR e-zine would be a real good thing. I've seen the Alternity one (Action Check and its replacement Last Resort). They are very good products, fan-based and written. They focus on 'new' ideas, much like what Dragon magazine was revolved around.

Eventually this would be a good thing, but I would think that it would be a prerequisite to getting the BRCS and Atlas projects out first - just so there is a common basis for writing.

[Iishmauel]

here is an idea i just came up with for a possible elven druid, which i might be trying out soon, or perhaps others have already come up with it, i don't know

Elves can be druids if they are blooded, only blooded elves have a close enough connection with the land because of the divine blood that flow thru their veins, and thus they can have their spells powered directly from the land

this can also work with the history of the Birthright world because before the battle at the mountain, they were being pushed back because of the foreign priestly magic, and after the battle the new magic that would have been avalable to some of them was still foreign to them, so it went largly unused/undetected, and there is just now some of the elves discovering this new power and how to use/access it.

anyhow, thats all for now.. my thoughts arn't completly formed on this yet.. but i just thought i'd throw it out there

[RaspK_FOG]

Interesting thought, but I believe there is an inherent flaw to it:

If I am not mistaken, most blooded elves would be scions of Azrai, right?

I don't quite think of scions of Azrai as druids; it just doesn't fit!

[Iishmauel]

you might have a point on aztai's bloodline and druids... but i don't know as i see that as a large problem to the idea

the racial breakdown by bloodline goes on page 34 of the playtest, it goes

30% Azrai
20% Reynir
20% Vorynn
10% Brenna
10% Basaia
5% Anduiras
5% Masela

so that still leaves 70% of blooded elves as non-Azrai blood

[kgauck]

> so that still leaves 70% of blooded elves as non-Azrai blood



The assumption behind RaspK_FOG `s comments above are that as allies of

Azrai, elves might have proportionatly larger share of Azrai`s blood than

the random tables suggest. This is a reasonable supposition, though its not

borne out by the elves described in the materials.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Iishmauel@Mar 7 2004, 07:16 PM
here is an idea i just came up with for a possible elven druid, which i might be trying out soon, or perhaps others have already come up with it, i don't know

Elves can be druids if they are blooded, only blooded elves have a close enough connection with the land because of the divine blood that flow thru their veins, and thus they can have their spells powered directly from the land

this can also work with the history of the Birthright world because before the battle at the mountain, they were being pushed back because of the foreign priestly magic, and after the battle the new magic that would have been avalable to some of them was still foreign to them, so it went largly unused/undetected, and there is just now some of the elves discovering this new power and how to use/access it.

anyhow, thats all for now.. my thoughts arn't completly formed on this yet.. but i just thought i'd throw it out there
Again, this is based on house-rules type of logic. The fact that people are trying to 'rationalize' via game mechanics (and rewriting the BR history) having elven druids in a setting that specifically stated they didn't exist.

The 2nd ed BR material was very clear on this subject. I mean they are absolutely clear. There can be no doubt, no matter how anyone reads the material that all druids in BR are priests of Erik (2nd ed terminology), that elves have no gods, and that elves don't worship the human gods (alright this one had some play added via the PS of Tuarheival which stated that there might be some elves that worship human gods {although there are none that were ever cited in any 'officially' published material} but that they were 'forbidden' from proslytizing in elven lands, hence no elven run temple holdings)

I personally cannot suppport inclusion of something so clearly founded on house-rules logic into the BRCS. If someone can find somewhere in 'official' 2nd ed BR material that shows me where I am in error in my statements, please point them out to me so that I can re-evaluate my opinion.

I am not opposed, nor should I try to insert my opinion into an individual campaign, to incorporating this into anyone's indiviudal house-rules. It is your (in general) campaign and as long as you make it clear to your players what you are doing up front it is all good. :D

[geeman]

At 12:10 PM 3/8/2004 +0100, irdeggman wrote:



>I personally cannot suppport inclusion of something so clearly founded on

>house-rules logic into the BRCS.



I concur with irdeggman on this one. Personally, I`ve never seen the big

need for elven druids in BR. I`d like it if they had some access to

natural magics, but the druid class itself is just too specific a thing in

BR to try to reflect any nature orientation for Cerilian elves. It`s much

more important to reflect the cultural/social/biological differences of

Cerilian elves from those of the D&D core rules by NOT giving them access

to a druid class than portraying their nature orientation by allowing them

to level up as druids IMO. In general, it makes the campaign look like the

core rules in a way that strikes me as missing the whole point in

developing campaign materials in the first place, but in particular it`s

got more to do with the specific character of BR elves and the way the

druid class works.



Gary

[The Jew]

The Variant: elven nature magic affinity, removes most of the need for a Druid class since elven wizards would now have access to a good chunk of nature oriented spells.

[RaspK_FOG]

First thing I would like to say, I don't meant to insult anyone here, OK? Thank you.


Now, to the matter of elven druids: it seems to me that people generally like to thing of their ideas as correct (that does include me as well, or else I wouldn't be thinking I was right enough to make such an assumption), unless something big falls on their heads, claiming their ideas being wrong with proof. If the evidents are true, most people will back off and admit defeat...

On the other hand, some people won't admit being wrong; a number of reasons may contribute to that, which is right now beside the point, which happens to be the application of motifs that are not supposed to be applied in some occasions: in this case, the application of the druidic motif on the Sidhelien.

Unlike other races, both dwarves and elves always had hardcore fans... This fact is based on the nature of these two phantastical races, and thus cannot be reasoned with in most cases, as the fanaticism is good-natured and actually harmless most of the time. In some cases, however, it does lead to a big trouble, ranging from slight annoyance to all-out migraines.

To be honest, I feel weary of all this mess: people who will do anything to defend their favourite race, even if it leads to imbalance and the promotion of perfekte, phantastische Rassen. It is absurd that people are content not with dealing with matters of racism, but actually introducing them in campaigns! I know that most elves hate humans, but this applies mostly on Birthright; you have no idea how many snobbish elves I've seen in my palying esperience: it simply degrades play and gives others the excuse of saying that RPGs are games that promote racism and other such nonsense!

Long story short, do not override campaign specific material for no particular reason and try to think why some such things were done so; sure, I do not thing it is appropriate for orks to favour water in their magicks (Sovereign Stone), I even think that fire would be a better choice, but I generally like the setting and don't think I will ever modify that part of the setting just so it fits better to my tastes...


As for elves being scions of Azrai, the assumption was based on the simple logic that, unlike humans, elves do not have their bloolines mingled a lot, right? And most elves in Deismaar fought beside or near Azrai, right? Wouldn't that make almost all blooded Sidhelien scions of Azrai? I tend to think the tables did not take that into account; they seem to work based only on the standard allocation (which should logically apply to humans and maybe dwarves, but elves?!), and thus dismiss the notion that elves do not have that many generations from back then...

I suggest you rework on that table, and I am sorry for having forgotten to mention it earlier: my memory does fail me in some very awkward ways...

[Osprey]

As for elves being scions of Azrai, the assumption was based on the simple logic that, unlike humans, elves do not have their bloolines mingled a lot, right? And most elves in Deismaar fought beside or near Azrai, right? Wouldn't that make almost all blooded Sidhelien scions of Azrai? I tend to think the tables did not take that into account; they seem to work based only on the standard allocation (which should logically apply to humans and maybe dwarves, but elves?!), and thus dismiss the notion that elves do not have that many generations from back then...


Here is my best reasoning for why the tables put elves as they are concerning commonality of bloodline derivations:

The thing is, most of the elves changed sides during the battle, suggesting not only a change of agenda but a change of heart. And that aside, the elves were in large part decieved by Azrai into joining his forces, a deception they realized only in the midst of the grand melee at Deismaar. It was only after this changing of sides that the god-blast happened...

Now as I understand bloodlines, the derivations were determined perhaps in part by physical proximity to individual gods when they detonated, but mainly by how closely their ideals and lives corresponded to the essences of the different gods. Since the majority of elves were essentially noble-minded individuals who fought for their ideals of protecting the natural world, obtaining justice for crimes against the land and their race, and righteous vengeance against the Deceiver, Anduiras was the essence most absorbed by the elves who became blooded. Azrai is listed as second most common, a fact explained by proximity, the small faction led by Rhuobhe who were fanatically aligned against the humans no matter the price, and perhaps by the fact that in changing sides they themselves became deceivers, mirroring the god who deceived them.

That's my best attempt at an explanation, for what it's worth.

[Osprey]

DOH! Boy do I feel silly...here I was writing, thinking for some reason that Anduiras' derivation was most common among elves, and Azrai's second most common...why I had that impression, I really don't know. Perhaps this was influenced by the fact that out of the elven regents presented in Ruins of Empire, only the Manslayer is credited with having a bloodline of Azrai.

Perhaps the BRCS designers can explain why they listed elves as most commonly having bloodlines of Azrai? That would be nice, as I know it doesn't make sense to me based on my understanding of how derivations were determined at Deismaar.

[kgauck]

I think if we took the published materials as a guide the derivations of

Vorynn and Reynir would be the most common for elves.



One of the problems with using these kinds of sources is that only the

royals are covered comprehensivly. What proportion Azrai derivations have

among the nobility depends, I think, on just haw dark one`s view of the

elves is. This would involve more than bloodline, but such things as the

Gheallie Sidhe and the prospect for good relations with humans, a

willingness to cooperate against abominations, &c.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[irdeggman]

Why do the random bloodline derivation tables have the Azrai deriviation has the most frequent one for elves?

The random tables were generated with a common percentabe , in decending order of frequency. Then the 'appropriate' derivations were 'added in' this follows the D&D patern of using common frequencies, like BAB being either good, average or poor or saving throws being either good or poor.

OK that explains why the frequency % are the same for all races (that is the most, next most, etc. derivations).

Why was Azrai chosen for the 'most frequent' one for the elves?

Well the single largest detemination was the proximity of the character to the fallen god, the next was the scion's inclination. The latter took a higher order of importance when determining whether or not a scion ended up with a 'true' bloodline or not.

The elves were closest to Azrai. As Kenneth pointed out the published major elven scions have deriviations other than Azrai, except for Rhoubhe. But these are 'selected' individuals and not necessarily the populace as a whole.

Elves as a race have been at war with every other race, except halflings and Orogs at one time or another during their history. There was the Ghaele Sidhe against the humans, etc. Since as a race they live forever, there hasn't really been a long time for them to change their philosophy on things in general - so they have a lot of baggage to overcome whereas humans, for instance, have had many generations to change how they perceive things.

Elves followed none of the human deities and in fact rejected them (and basically still do) so using the factor of them following the principles of the deity is rather shaky at best. Even goblins recognized the human deities, and feared/respected them - part of that pantheon of deities thing.

The 2nd ed tables had only 1 frequency table that was not broken down by race so all scions had roughly a 9% chance of having an Azrai deriviation and a 20% chance of having an Andurias one. A little broken, I don't think anyone disagrees with this statement.

It should also be noted that there really wasn't any randomness applied to published NPCS, they were created the way the designers wanted the NPC to be and hopefully they didn't break the random rules in the process, althought this wasn't a requirment. If you notice there is not a single elven scion listed with the long life blood ability. Obviously because the designers wanted them to have abilities and not some that gave them no benefit at all.

So the bottom line in the the basis for selection of frequency of derivation for elves and blood line deriviations was that they were closest to Azrai and only rejected his following at the end - this does not mean that they rejected his philosophy only his leadership and they didn't trust any of the human deities.

Now why do the elven leaders published have derivations other than Azrai, most frequently is Andurias I believe? This is because those deriviations promote greater leadership than does Azrai's. Azrai's leadership is more of a selfish one, elves as a race aren't selfish so their natural leaders would reflect the pull of their bloodlines, which would lead to having significantly other derivations than Azrai in those in charge. Well, that's my opinion anyway.

[Airgedok]

There is an inherent dificulty with converting 2nd edition material to 3/3.5 edition rule sets. This is the basic shift in the design philosophy of D&D. The first incarnations of the game 1st and 2nd edition were about creating balance through restriction. Classes and Races were all heavily restricted and the worlds reflected this. Including birthright. BR made a MINOR shift with the druid in that it made them ALL nature clerics of a specific god. This did little to upset the spirit of teh rules from 2E. A greater rule change was no elven clerics, but again this was still not a large diparture from the "spirit" of teh old rules. It was a large deaparture from teh rules themselves in restricting the elves from the cleric class but it wasnt a large shift in the spirit of the rules which were all about creating balance through restrictions. Enter 3rd edition.

3rd edition is about freedom. It tries to create balance without using restrictions to create balance. This is causing friction while BR is converted to 3e. The players or many players are rebeling from what they see as a violation to the spirit of the new rule set. They want freedon. Enter the traditionalists they see the desire for elven druids as a fundemental violation of the birthright setting.

If the idea that ALL druids in birthright are clerics then elven druids appear to be a direct violation of the setting. But this is a slap in the face to common sense. Of all the cultures that would druids would flurish in its the sidhelean. The druids are a logical extention of the nature connection that the elfs have in this setting. So to have them restricted is 100% counter intuitive. Yet Druids are clerics in birthright.

The best solution would be to make druids as the class is presented in the PHB a arcane spell caster that has learned to cast spells in natural armour, restricted to non-human or to the rare human . Then create a special nature cleric class for clerics of Erik. This i think would be more in teh spirit of both the campaign setting and the new rules edition. Its obvious to me that the reason it wasnt done in the first place with the original rules was because it was easy and a new class that mirrors a druid in many ways seemed redundent and with commercial publications you have time contrants and profit margins. It takes both time and money to create a balanced class. We dont have these retraints. Taking a cleric and modifing its skills and special abilities to to be more nature orientated would seem closer to the intention of the nature clerics.

There is also a fundemental difference in teh cosmology of teh birthright setting and the core rules. Arcane magic is a speerate power source for spells from nature and deities. But in birthright you have divine magic directly from the divine beings and arcane magic that is directly dirived from nature. This causes areas where direct conversion doesnt fit well. This shift in cosmology is a huge diparture to the core rules of both 2e and 3* edition. Nature's magical manifistations have always been divine magic in birthright they are arcane. So rangers and druids which are nature spell casters are divine spell casters in teh cosmology of birthright they should be arcane. Birthright sidesteped the issue with druids by making them nature clerics but it does so in a manner that has caused the unsatisfied feeling that has sparked teh whole elven druid debate. What should be done is to make the character classes in the game fit the cosmology of the setting. Making a ranger an arcane spell caster that can cast spells like a bard (ie in light armour they dont suffer spell failure) and use Int instead of wisdom as its spell casting stat. has a better feel for birthright and if a Erik cleric class is created specific for teh nature clerics make druid use Int as well and have them arcane spell casters. They dont suffer arcane spell failure when they use armour with no metal. The shift in the nature spell casters in terms of the speical rules to excempt them from standard arcane spell failure, has presedent with the special rules for arcane spell casting with 3.5 bards. So these minor changes shouldnt cause a huge up roar.

What i think the Arcane druid ranger and the creation of a special nature cleric class does is solve all the major issues with the elven druid without violating the spirit of birthright or the freedom created in the new edition of D&D. These changes also seem to make the cosmology of birthright fit better. The changes are also balanced as much as they are in the core rules. Changing wis to int shouldnt cause a fundemental shift in balance. The real issue with this proposed idea is creating and balancing the new nature cleric class. But adding a class isnt unpresidented either we have the magician and the noble class.

Is there any fundemental reason why we cant add these changes? They do add size to the final download but they, i feel, create a better solution and they DONT add a varient which many GM dismiss out of hand.

Does this not solve all the objections to the elven druid and all the justifications for allowing teh elven druid? If it does shouldnt serious consideration be made to working on these changes?

[geeman]

At 07:26 AM 3/13/2004 +0100, Airgedok wrote:



> 3rd edition is about freedom. It tries to create balance without using

> restrictions to create balance. This is causing friction while BR is

> converted to 3e. The players or many players are rebeling from what they

> see as a violation to the spirit of the new rule set. They want freedon.

> Enter the traditionalists they see the desire for elven druids as a

> fundemental violation of the birthright setting.



While I hate to disagree with so well thought out and articulated argument,

I do feel obliged to point out that there were plenty of people who argued

for elven druids before 3e came out. Now that 3e is out it does, perhaps,

seem less sensible to keep the campaign-based restrictions that were

initiated under 2e, but one does so in a 3e conversion for the same reasons

that they were done in the previous edition--to convey the campaign themes.



Gary

[kgauck]

I count 316 messages in the "Nature School for elven wizards" thread, which

started in May of 2003 and was most recently posted one month ago today (the

13th).



It started with Elrond`s very sensible question, why is it that, `no elf

(other than a ranger) can cast (for example) a "pass without trace" or a

"speak with animals".`



Responces to this extended from "its the setting, no tinkering" to "let`s

have a nature school of arcane magic for the elves" (Elrond`s own

suggestion) to allowing elven druids.



You can view the entire thread at:

http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1651



The people who argue that its setting and no tinkering should be accepted,

and both Gary and irdeggman have stated this possition by way of explanation

(not argument, I am sure both have stated some interest in it) today, tends

to be unsatisfactory to many folks. Its hard to provide a good explanation

for why elves don`t cast nature and animal oriented spells. This is, of

course the point of Airgedok`s approach to the problem in terms of

restrictions and balance. But simply opening up druids (even arcane druids)

to the elves creates the problem for many people in that this slot is

mentally already occupied. All of which argues for a specifcally Sidhe

class or nature, and I would argue as well, elementalist arcane spellcaster.

Only such a class can provide balance in its spell list (one of the problems

with just adding a Nature school best artuiculated by Ryan Caveney), can

exploit the setting material (indeed I would call the class Taelinri), and

thereby provide nature spells to elves without offending the setting

purists. Mark Aurel has provided a basis to make such a class, I have

provided a basis, and I believe there are others. I doubt (without a poll

telling me differently) that this any other solution would satisfy as many.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[Airgedok]

Originally posted by geeman@Mar 13 2004, 04:40 PM
At 07:26 AM 3/13/2004 +0100, Airgedok wrote:



> 3rd edition is about freedom. It tries to create balance without using

> restrictions to create balance. This is causing friction while BR is

> converted to 3e. The players or many players are rebeling from what they

> see as a violation to the spirit of the new rule set. They want freedon.

> Enter the traditionalists they see the desire for elven druids as a

> fundemental violation of the birthright setting.



While I hate to disagree with so well thought out and articulated argument,

I do feel obliged to point out that there were plenty of people who argued

for elven druids before 3e came out. Now that 3e is out it does, perhaps,

seem less sensible to keep the campaign-based restrictions that were

initiated under 2e, but one does so in a 3e conversion for the same reasons

that they were done in the previous edition--to convey the campaign themes.



Gary













I think there is a fundemental reason why the call for the elven druid has been apart of BR setting conversations from the get go. The original rule doesnt make sense, it feels wrong to how the magic cosmology is presented in teh setting and it feels wrong to how the elven culture is presented. I think I explaign prety conviencingly why it was done this way. I also think that we dont need to be bound by those reasons. The creaters of the BR setting erred when they made the druid a nature priest and excluded elves. It was a forced change in the setting that doesnt "feel" right. Had they modified the druid to remove its healing or modified the healing spells significantly (ie no instant healing) and then in turn added a nature prest they would have made the setting's elven class restrictions "feel" better.

i dont think we should be blind to the failings of the setting. i think we can add a druid to elves and in turn keep them from having priests with healing spells.

Fact divine magic in Birthright is NOT nature magic period.

Fact arcane magic in birthright IS nature magic

Fact divine magic in D&D 2e and 3e is both divine and nature

Fact arcane magic in D&D 2e and 3e is a seperate magical source from deities or nature.

I think that these four facts are creating a fundemental problem in the conversion process. Arcame magic using classes just dont feel like they are nature magic users. The one diving magic using class that really feels like it uses nature magic is the druid yet under the setting rules its prohibited. i dont think this can be simply ignored. The setting rules as they stand just dont feel right and dont make sense at all. Is there no room for a solution? Or is the setting dogma despite its errors?

[RaspK_FOG]

A common error, made by many people in various situations, is the following:

Fact divine magic in Birthright is NOT nature magic period.

Fact arcane magic in birthright IS nature magic

Fact divine magic in D&D 2e and 3e is both divine and nature

Fact arcane magic in D&D 2e and 3e is a seperate magical source from deities or nature.

I think that these four facts are creating a fundemental problem in the conversion process. Arcame magic using classes just dont feel like they are nature magic users. The one diving magic using class that really feels like it uses nature magic is the druid yet under the setting rules its prohibited. i dont think this can be simply ignored. The setting rules as they stand just dont feel right and dont make sense at all. Is there no room for a solution? Or is the setting dogma despite its errors?

The logic behind this argument is based on the concept of linear "trees"; that is, each branch of the tree can only have other branches or ending parts, and the branches do not work together (interact). On the other hand, in real life, there can be no real isolation, which in Birthright means: There are two forms of arcane magic: Lesser magic, and True magic. Lesser magic is mostly based on one's own skills.
True magic is nature magic.
There are two forms of divine magic: Nature-dependent magic, and Priestly magic. Priestly magic comes from one's patron/matron deity.
Nature-dependent magic is nature magic.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "Airgedok" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2004 10:27 PM





> Arcame magic using classes just dont feel like they are nature

> magic users. The one diving magic using class that really feels

> like it uses nature magic is the druid yet under the setting rules

> its prohibited.



You know, the real problem here is that at some point they imported the

standard D&D notion of the elf as a wizard and stuck us with that

understanding of things. So the alternate theory of nature magic which you

are advocating here requires abandoning the standard D&D view for a setting

specific view. Things would be peachier had they not imported so much

standard D&D in at the begining.



The old 2e druid handbook makes the point that much of our understanding of

wizards is often taken from figures better understood as druids, and they go

on to claim Merlin as a druid rather than a wizard. Had this been the

prevailing view in the halls of BR HQ when the setting was being written.



Its this kind of thing that leaves me very suspicious of ideas found in the

core rules as solutions to problems in the setting.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[RaspK_FOG]

If you are going there, let me tell you that I have change dmost of the core classes for the new campaign I design: barbarians get more bonuses while enraged but lose these benefits when they are not (and are berserkers, not "barbarians"), arcane spell-casters are vastly different, and I brewed a new magic system based on the magic system of Soverign Stone...

[geeman]

At 05:27 AM 3/14/2004 +0100, Airgedok wrote:



>The setting rules as they stand just dont feel right and dont make sense

>at all. Is there no room for a solution? Or is the setting dogma despite

>its errors?



Personally, I don`t think this is an error of the setting. Rather, the

argument that BR elves should have access to druidic magic is simply

ignoring the campaign materials in favor of the core materials. There are

scads of reasons why the campaign materials exclude elves from the druidic

class that get cited whenever this topic comes up, but for some reason (I

think a basic desire to equate the typical D&D elf with the BR elf since

D&D elves are much simpler, comprehensible, easier to play and less alien

than BR elves) those reasons just don`t seem to satisfy. Setting dogma

can`t really be "in error" pretty much by definition. It can contradict

other campaign material (and thus be in error with itself) but when it

contradicts the core materials the campaign material supercedes core

material. D&D elves are like buttered popcorn. BR elves have no

butter. Neither one is in error, it`s just the way they`re served

up. Allowing BR elves access to the druid class contradicts several BR

themes. That`s fine if one wants to do it in a homebrew--in which themes

are subject to the inclination of the DM, but it`s pretty much the point of

having a campaign setting to express themes that differ from the core rules.



I should also note that IMO the problem is not simply barring elves from

healing magic. BR elves do not strike me as the type of creatures who

would engage in several of the powers of the druid character

class. Wildshape is an important feature of druids, and not something that

seems particularly appropriate for the Sidhe connection to

mebhaighl. Furthermore, the class features of the druid character class

strike me as being particularly inelegant for portraying the BR elven

attitude towards nature. The weapon and armor proficiencies don`t seem

appropriate for the Sidhe, nor does granting elves access to the whole

druid spell list seem apt. Offhand, the druid spell Meld into Stone, for

instance, seems a bit of an odd way to go about expressing BR elven nature

magic IMO, as do most of the spells having to do with fiery blades,

controlling/manipulating insects or vermin, etc. One objection I have to

the portraying BR elves` interest in nature by using the druid character

class is that the druid character class is accompanies a range of nature

oriented abilities, spells, etc. that aren`t on the whole apt for BR

elves. Portraying the Sidhe attitude and ability with magic requires more

care than that. Essentially, it`s trying to use a big mallet to strike a

very subtle tone.



Gary

[Osprey]

Wildshape is an important feature of druids, and not something that
seems particularly appropriate for the Sidhe connection to
mebhaighl.

While I agree with most of the rest of what you stated about druids as inappropriate, I actually think shapeshifting might be a very appropriate power for the Sidhelien, especially if they still bear any resemblance at all to their SW cousins, the Seelie...be it real or illusion, changing forms is part and parcel to any race with any sort of fae-ish characterization.

Now, that being said, I also feel that the actual spell Polymorph Self works better than Wild Shape in representing that ability, because of the power to change into multiple forms limited mainly by the caster&#39;s imagination and ability...the elf who turns into a dragon or a displacer beast is better served than the one who can become a wolf or hawk at will, and it helps emphasize the magical and truly fantastical powers of the elves, rather than the more primative limitations of Wild Shape.

I like the Sidhe having primarily arcane magic, and being sorcerers and wizards over druids (and it&#39;s only now that I&#39;m fully realizing this), because it emphasizes the way they were portrayed from the start: they have evolved to a higher state, especially with their magic and technology. As Green Knight said in another post (and I thought it one of the best articulations of druids and priests of Erik), druids are more of an ancient form of nature priest, a throwback as it were. I like this because it fits well with any real-life basis for them, which is that they are an older, more primal kind of priest/sorcerer/wise man, who understands their god(s) as they are represented in elemental and life forces...

"In every rock and tree, in every blade of grass, staring back from a clear crystal spring, there will I see the face of Erik. The wind brushes my cheek and ruffles my hair, and I know His hand touches me."

Heh, as a spontaneous example.

But what comes with the Sidhe&#39;s evolved understanding is an escape from a more primative understanding, and a loosening of the bounds that restrict druids. Once upon a time, in their ancient beginnings, I bet many elven spellcasters did in fact resemble druids. But over the aeons they&#39;ve learned how to better understand and manipulate the mebhaighal, and so their capabilities are greatly expanded...even if they have perhaps lost some of the elemental purity and simplicity of the druid-like approach.

The key here is understanding that true magic is far more sophisticated and flexible than druidic magic, and that&#39;s why I think, for the Sidhelien, it represents evolution and progress (and within the mechanics, one only need to compare spell lists and class restrictions to see how true mages have so much more potential and possibility than the narrowly-restricted, taboo-laden druid, and thus understand how the true magic would appeal to freedom-loving elves).

So ultimately, with some flavoured expansion of the basic setting, I think that elven druids, even if they did exist in some elementalist-style form, are an artifact of the Sidhelien past rather than a living part of the present world (though who knows, one here or there might still be tending some remote patch of woods for the last few thousand years, forgotten even by her own people...)

Ideas, building blocks, points of views, take it or leave it as you will...

Osprey

[Airgedok]

Beyhold&#33; we have seen teh birth of a new religion. BR material is dogma and any tinkering with in is heresy.

The idea that a setting cant be in error by definition is utter lunacy. Ever heard of contradiction? The rules present contradictions that other have seen.

NO DRUID spellcaster gets his power from nature itself they get that power from the erik. The druids are not nature spell casters they are a specilty priest. Many of you hold the setting as gospole yet when the setting contradicts itself you ignore it.

The idea that humans have magic that makes them better intune with their natural suroundings than the elves of BR is simply a single example of the contradiction in the settings statements and the rules it uses. Almost everyone i know that is familiar with BR sees this contridiction this error. Its not a fall back to core D&D elves. Bloody hell its a statement on how BR elves are farther removed from nature because of teh very rules of the setting. Any person can see this if they are not blind to dogma. Why is there even a discussion of adding a school of nature to the arcane spell casters? Why do people think the elves should have a druid-esk like class? Almost everyone see the inherint problem But there are too many people far to bound to a setting that cant see its failings.

These people attack others claiming they are hack and slashers. They ignore actual points presented or wont even admit that there is a problem with the setting. Its insane.

There was not a single logical reason given to why my point cant be discussed on its merits. i even presented teh druid with no more healing ability than the bard and yet people couldnt get past the name. People arent actually willing to discuss the issue, its become a religion to many and any diviation from the text is heresy.
If people cant even seen the problem at hand but instead blame the people saying their is a problem then is overly appearent that there is no room for discussion.

For the majority of people I&#39;ve talked to the BR setting&#39;s elves dont feel right and its not because they dont feel like core rules elves. They dont feel right because they feel disconected magicly from their enviorment yet magicly they are said to be very close to it. That is what is at the heart of the issue. Stop blaming people for seeing this, they are not transfering their desire for core rules elves to teh BR setting they are seeing a real problem. Theirs enough people telling you this that perhaps you should at least question your dogma.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "Airgedok" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 10:04 PM





> Beyhold&#33; we have seen teh birth of a new religion. BR

> material is dogma and any tinkering with in is heresy.



You would suppose that people would put al this work into a setting they

regarded as easily disposable?



> The idea that a setting cant be in error by definition is utter

> lunacy. Ever heard of contradiction? The rules present

> contradictions that other have seen.



The setting is full of contradictions and just stupid references. But the

proper method to resolving these problems involves applying reason to the

existing setting materials, not running back to the core rules.



> NO DRUID spellcaster gets his power from nature itself

> they get that power from the erik. The druids are not nature

> spell casters they are a specilty priest. Many of you hold the

> setting as gospole yet when the setting contradicts itself you

> ignore it.



http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=2141

As quoted in the listed thread, here, the 2e Complete book of druids allowed

setting material or DM fiat to determine whether druids were specialty

priests or nature spell casters. They spend a page and a half on the

subject.



> The idea that humans have magic that makes them better intune with

> their natural suroundings than the elves of BR is simply a single

> example of the contradiction in the settings statements and the rules it

> uses. Almost everyone i know that is familiar with BR sees this

> contridiction this error.



Actually its not neccesarily a contradiction. Depending on how a elves

opperated, one could very easily design an "elf" class that provided as

innate supernatural powers all of the abilities in question. As RaspK_FOG

wrote over in the thread, "A Variant for the Sidhe", refering to Tolkien`s

elves, "elves wielded subtle and powerful magicks naturally." Since this

matches the setting, making many of these nature powers class abilities (or

just Sidhe feats) actually makes more sense than spellcasting, which less

much less subtle or innate than simply being able to speak with animals or

pass into trees as innate abilities.



> Any person can see this if they are not blind to dogma. Why is

> there even a discussion of adding a school of nature to the arcane

> spell casters? Why do people think the elves should have a

> [druidesque] class? Almost everyone see the inherint problem

> But there are too many people far to bound to a setting that cant

> see its failings.



Why project this unflattering interpretation onto those who disagree?

Everyone sees the contradiction, the but one can do so without embracing

your proposed solution. Whatever solution is best has to come from within

the setting, otherwise you are simply exchanging one set of contradictions

for another set.



> They ignore actual points presented or wont even admit that there

> is a problem with the setting. Its insane.



Hyperbolic today, are we? No one fails to see that its less than ideal when

elves are unable to get access to certian abilities, either through spells,

feats, or class abilities. The problem lies in how best to present these

powers to elves without making an already strongly advantaged class a +2 or

+3 ECL race.



> There was not a single logical reason given to why my point cant

> be discussed on its merits. i even presented teh druid with no more

> healing ability than the bard and yet people couldnt get past the name.



Perhaps it is you who are so dogmatically attached to adding druids to elves

that you can`t accept that people may prefer alternatives. As I see it, the

discussion really revolves around alternatives, not about keeping these

powers awat from elves. If one believes, as I do, that an arcane

elementalist with strong nature powers is a better solution than the

standard druid, its not because we think druidical elves is an anathema, its

because we think that solution is inferior to our prefered solution. Of one

thinks everything can be best resolved by a nature school to wizardry, they

are reasonable to reject other alternatives. Of one were a partisan of

granting these abilities as class features or Sidhe feats, they would be

sensible to prefer what they saw as the better way.



> People arent actually willing to discuss the issue, its become a

> religion to many and any diviation from the text is heresy.



A relegion presumes a theistic explanation of a metaphysics, no one here as

made recourse to their interpretation on the basis of revelation. It may be

a dogma, but its not a religion. Given the amount of words typed in this

(and related) threads, I`d say you are getting plenty of discussion. This

is especially true as many of us have been through all of this before. So

I`d say people are willing to discuss and its not a religion.



> If people cant even seen the problem at hand but instead blame

> the people saying their is a problem then is overly appearent that

> there is no room for discussion.



This is pattantly not what is occuring.



> For the majority of people I`ve talked to the BR setting`s elves dont

> feel right and its not because they dont feel like core rules elves. They

> dont feel right because they feel disconected magicly from their

> enviorment yet magicly they are said to be very close to it.



And druids are not the one and only possible solution to this problem.



> Stop blaming people for seeing this, they are not transfering their

> desire for core rules elves to teh BR setting they are seeing a real

> problem. Theirs enough people telling you this that perhaps you

> should at least question your dogma.



I have missed the posts casting blame. Perhaps I should review.



The druid is a pat core rules solution to a problem. Especially in the 3e

world of customizable and modular design, its just unneccesary to go with

"the druid" as a solution to the problem. Too many other viable solutions

are present and discussed for all of us to just accept the druid as the one

true answer.



I have written up my Taelinri class, and need to finish off the spell list

before I post. Its following along the lines I have been using. I`m

posting it as a suggested solution to the problem at hand.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[Ming I]

I need to stop reading the rule book. ;)

While looking through the bloodline section (pg.20-21) I noticed this entry:

When the gods of the Andu, the Rjuven, the Brechts, the Basarji, and even the Masetians faced Azrai at the battle of Mount Deismaar, they gave up their own immortal lives in order to stop their evil brother. The mortals who survived absorbed the essence of these individual deities.

Elves are immortal in Birthright. Does this mean that no Elf is supposed to have a Bloodline, or just that they said mortals when they meant creatures (since mounts and other animals absorbed divine essence too)?

Hee-Hee&#33; Now Osprey, I ask you, would a sidhophile ever bring up a question like that?&#33; :P

[Ming I]

The description of the Taelinri seems more in keeping with the monk than anything else.

From the Player&#39;s Secrets to Tuarhievel:

To become a taelinri, an elf must possess understanding, compassion, and vision. As a result, only elves of good alignment with Intelligence scores of 16 or better and Wisdom scores of 17 or better are likely to meet the demands of the extensive training, which focuses as much on direct experience as on study and contemplation. This regimen takes many years to complete; some have studied for decades only to discover that they are still not ready for the tests of character necessary to accept themselves and to be accepted by others as taelinri.
Taelinri are rare. They are among the wisest and most insightful of elves, and they must freely give their wisdom to any elf who requests it. Few have the will to follow this path. As such, the taelinri are held in very high regard. This is true whether they tie themselves to a particular location or wander in search of new experiences. They are not nobles; indeed, aspirants from noble families must renouce claims to their inheritances before being accepted as taelinri. They are treated less as "important people" than as honored guests by both commoner and noble.

Here&#39;s something from a book called Eldest Sons: The Essential Guide to Elves (Paradigm Concepts Inc.):

Monk

Perfectly controlled, perfectly at peace, his body is a weapon - a reflection of that control and peace. He is spiritual without the cloud of religion, with powers that draw on the innate magic of the soul, not the crass spells and charms of petty conjurers. From a certain point of view, elves are already monks, and the skills and powers of the monk class mesh easily with the way the eldest sons are depicted in legends and literature.

But the skills and techniques that take a human a lifetime to master can be a passing fancy to the elves. And while most young monks from the short-lived races will possess the rigidity of new conversion and passion of youth, a &#39;young&#39; elven monk is likely to share the detachment and passivity that characterize the &#39;old men of the mountain&#39; and other stereotypes of the aged master.

With this in mind, the self-sufficiency of the monk appeals to the philosophies most ascribed to elves, and the monk ability "Timeless Body" only serves to strengthen the image of the fair folk as ageless and untouched by years.

I&#39;m not trying to start a elven monk debate, just throwing out some ideas that were sparked by words from this thread. Though this thread probably isn&#39;t the best to bring them up in.

[Osprey]

While looking through the bloodline section (pg.20-21) I noticed this entry:

When the gods of the Andu, the Rjuven, the Brechts, the Basarji, and even the Masetians faced Azrai at the battle of Mount Deismaar, they gave up their own immortal lives in order to stop their evil brother. The mortals who survived absorbed the essence of these individual deities.

Elves are immortal in Birthright. Does this mean that no Elf is supposed to have a Bloodline, or just that they said mortals when they meant creatures (since mounts and other animals absorbed divine essence too)?


I think you found yet another of the several hundred little careless inconsistencies in the published materials. I wouldn&#39;t give it much credit as meaning anything...go with your guess; I think mortals here just means "those who were not gods." Which would include the elves IMO.


Hee-Hee&#33; Now Osprey, I ask you, would a sidhophile ever bring up a question like that?&#33;

Heh heh, that depends: do you equate the sidhe with the gods? ;)

[Ming I]

Originally posted by Osprey+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Osprey)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I think you found yet another of the several hundred little careless inconsistencies in the published materials. I wouldn&#39;t give it much credit as meaning anything...go with your guess; I think mortals here just means "those who were not gods." Which would include the elves IMO.

<!--QuoteBegin-Ming I
Hee-Hee&#33; Now Osprey, I ask you, would a sidhophile ever bring up a question like that?&#33;

Heh heh, that depends: do you equate the sidhe with the gods? ;)[/b][/quote]

:lol:

Osprey you are so awesome&#33; And just so you know, no, there aren&#39;t any sidhe are gods, believers at this keyboard. ;)

[RaspK_FOG]

Regarding Airgedok&#39;s post, particularly the point regarding how the people he has talked about Sidhelien:


I&#39;d like to mention my case as a counter to your point of view; mainly so that you realise that this is not our stagnant little stack-up on the BR rules, but a thesis based on our intellectual capability and our understanding of the situation, which makes our ideas vastly difference from your own, meaning we think in other ways and like other things.

But I digress... TO make a long story short, I recently (within the last 3 months, being the insolent moron I am :( ) started introducing Birthright to the less knowledgeable - on the subject - friends of mine. Believe it or not, what most of them liked was the following: The deities of Birthright, and the clerics they patronise, especially the alignment requirements&#33;
The Bloodline and Blood Abilities concept.
Regency and being a ruler and strategist/economist/merchant/[whatever].
The non-standard, Cerilia-specific races; my elf- and halfling-o-phile friends were purely ecsatic, and so were my dwarf-o-phile friends, but not my gome-o-phile friends... lol

[geeman]

It`s taken me a while to respond to the post below because I wanted to go

through the thread again to make sure I`d had some sort of brain embolism

or something and missed a flame war....



At 05:04 AM 3/16/2004 +0100, Airgedok wrote:



>The idea that humans have magic that makes them better intune with their

>natural suroundings than the elves of BR is simply a single example of the

>contradiction in the settings statements and the rules it uses. Almost

>everyone i know that is familiar with BR sees this contridiction this

>error. Its not a fall back to core D&D elves. Bloody hell its a

>statement on how BR elves are farther removed from nature because of teh

>very rules of the setting. Any person can see this if they are not blind

>to dogma. Why is there even a discussion of adding a school of nature to

>the arcane spell casters? Why do people think the elves should have a

>druid-esk like class? Almost everyone see the inherint problem But there

>are too many people far to bound to a setting that cant see its failings.



Well, I`d argue that druids aren`t really better in tuned with nature than

BR elves are if you get the full implications of the BR setting and the

role of elves in it. If you take a look at their special abilities and the

functions of their spells, as often as not the druidic powers make them

more like "masters of nature" rather than in touch with it the way Cerilian

elves are. It`s difficult for people to comprehend why BR elves aren`t

similarly masterful, but in BR this is part of the fundamental dichotomy

between human (and others) magic and that of the Sidhe and it permeates the

setting materials. It`s also one of the subtle themes of the setting that

seems to be very difficult for people to accept, so let me see if I can

explain it this way:



Druids really are more like "masters of nature" than Cerilian elves. To

the Sidhe this concept is alien. The Sidhe cannot "master nature." They

are part of nature. They are not "in touch" with nature. They ARE

nature. It`s intrinsic to their basic character. The druid PC class is

the closest thing we have in 3e/3.5 to expressing a character who is

oriented towards nature, so it`s understandable that people would see that

as the solution to portraying the nature of the Sidhe, but if you consider

the full implications of the class in relation to the Sidhe it starts to be

less obvious as a way of portraying the elven attitude towards nature and

magic. Druids are in the context of the BR setting a very human way of

dealing with magic and nature.



It`s also very important to bear in mind another BR theme in relation to

Cerilian elves and their access to magic. In BR, arcane magic *is* natural

magic, particularly the arcane magic of elves. Arcane magic comes from a

connection to nature itself (mebhaighl) or a bloodline, and it is that

magic that is the higher, more powerful form of magic. Druidic magic is

second class. (We could debate the powers of the class, but that`s a whole

other beast.) Many of the spells that are on the druidic spell list are

also arcane spells. At least, most of the ones that are more nature

oriented and compatible with the elven view of nature. I`ve argued for a

nature school of magic in the past because one could find those spells that

Cerilian elves should have access to and include them in such a school to

just drop them into the existing arcane classes and the problem is

solved. Giving elves access to the druid character class also gives them

access to spells that have very little to do with Cerilian elves. It`s a

mainstay of D&D to picture a druidic character with twigs in his hair,

draped in fur pelts and swinging a flaming scimitar with one hand and

holding a wooden shield in the other. That`s the basic druidic

class. It`s very strange for people familiar with the subtle Cerilian

elves (creatures of faerie dust and starlight) in such crass terms. It`s

great to reflect the human (mostly Rjurik) aspect of nature magic, but for

Cerilia`s elves... not so much.



This is, again, a more subtle theme of BR, but it has repercussion

throughout the setting. It relates to the special abilities of elves at

the domain level (things like the fact that their population doesn`t

adversely affect source potential--a major affect that it should be noted

is not something even druids can replicate in the standard rules) to

bloodline and investiture (the Land`s Choice is the preferred option for

elves) to the adventure level in the options of character class available

to elves. It also relates to the human use of divine magic, the racial

differences between humans, etc.



> These people attack others claiming they are hack and slashers. They

> ignore actual points presented or wont even admit that there is a problem

> with the setting. Its insane.

>

>There was not a single logical reason given to why my point cant be

>discussed on its merits. i even presented teh druid with no more healing

>ability than the bard and yet people couldnt get past the name. People

>arent actually willing to discuss the issue, its become a religion to many

>and any diviation from the text is heresy.

>

>If people cant even seen the problem at hand but instead blame the people

>saying their is a problem then is overly appearent that there is no room

>for discussion.

>

>For the majority of people I`ve talked to the BR setting`s elves dont feel

>right and its not because they dont feel like core rules elves. They dont

>feel right because they feel disconected magicly from their enviorment yet

>magicly they are said to be very close to it. That is what is at the heart

>of the issue. Stop blaming people for seeing this, they are not

>transfering their desire for core rules elves to teh BR setting they are

>seeing a real problem. Theirs enough people telling you this that perhaps

>you should at least question your dogma.



As I noted at the beginning of this post I just went through the whole

thing to find where this claim of being attacked or blaming people came

from and I just can`t find it. There are a few comments that could be

construed as attacks if one were to assume a really nasty tone of voice by

the person who posted them, but nothing that would constitute an actual

attack, and one really has to read those comments with a very jaded eye to

derive anything overt about them. Believe you me, when people turn nasty

around here it`s pretty obvious....



In any case, to address some of the specifics above:



1. I don`t think anybody`s attacked anybody here.



2. We have been discussing the proposal of elven druids on it`s

merits. People just aren`t finding those merits very compelling. BTW,

other folks have in the past have suggested elven druids in the past (even

before 3e came out) so it`s not as if the idea doesn`t have legs. In the

long run, however, I haven`t heard of making elven druids an option being

something that lasted very long in an actual BR campaign.... Has anyone

employed elven druids in their BR campaign and found it works or not?



3. In fact, people seem pretty willing to discuss things and there appears

to be plenty of room for discussion on the topic.



Most importantly, nobody`s saying you can`t use druids as a solution to

what you see as a problem in your BR campaign. Eat Chinese food with a

fork, wear white before, after or on Labor day, play Cerilian elf druids

and throw in some half-dragon monks if you want. Knock yourself

out. Describing it as an error of the setting, however, is not a very

easily supported statement, and if you`re going to make it you should

probably expect some posts that disagree. Rather than assume those posts

are attacks, however, maybe you should consider them part of the discussion

itself....



Gary

[Ming I]

Of the 3 Birthright campaigns I&#39;ve been in, 2 of them had elven druids.

The first one was a 2nd edition game which had elven druids. At first they were only NPCs but eventually one of the group got to play one. The player did a wonderful job with the role and everyone loved it.

The second one was during the early days of 3rd edition. I remember there was a PC priest of Erik "druid" and an NPC elven druid. The elven druid was like this chinese old master (it&#39;s the best way I can describe him) who had more of a geomantic approach to things. He would say wise sounding phrases like "The one who understands does not speak; the one who speaks does not understand" which would infuriate the priest of Erik because he would say it everytime the priest was about to argue with him. The elf treated mebhaighl like chi which allowed him to heal, make plants grow faster, and do other things normally associated with druids.

The current Birthright campaign is a 3.0 campaign that borrows what we like from 3.5 and ignores the rest. We loved the way the NPC 3.0 elven druid was played so much that we decided to make a geomancer class which is kind of a mixture of the monk class and the druid class. Only elves (and half-elves depending on where they were raised) can become geomancers in this campaign, which allows the other races to freely play the druid PHB class, if they want. When druids are seen now, they are assumed to be priests of Erik, which is usually just as good, but not as restrictive as the way the BRCS and the 2nd edition rulebook portrayed them. It has already created some wonderful role-playing opportunities for a halfling druid, who calmly tries to explain to people she meets that she is not a follower of Erik but of nature itself. Which prompts most people to say things like, "The young one thinks that there is a difference, how quaint." She was wise enough not to point out the differences between the two in the Rjurik Highlands. :lol:

I really like the geomancer class for the elven-blooded, but our group would never have gotten there if we hadn&#39;t decided that elves could play druids in the first place. That option enriched our playing experience so much that I want everyone to be able to try it (which hopefully explains my "campaigning" for the "first step", the elven druid).

[irdeggman]

First off the following contains a lot of excerpts from &#39;rule books&#39;, so apologies in advance Lord R, but not everyone has read them.

From Blood Spawn, seelie faerie (pg 27)

"These creatures {the Sie} were beings of great magic, innate wielders of both sorcery that worked with nature (priestly spells) and sorcery that broke the rules of nature (wizard spells). They cast their spells not by the prayer of priests or the rote memorization of human wizards, but rather the gathering of magical energies (the process yet employed by today’s elves).

The force that split the world into two halves was so strong that it also split the land’s inhabitants, ripping the Sie in twain. Each creature became two separate entities – a faerie (seelie) in the Shadow World and an elf (Sidhe) in Cerilia. The seelie retained control of natural magic and gained power over a new force in the Shadow World: the Seeming. The Sidhe retained control of wizardly magic and became bound to the land itself."

So using the explanations provided here – the Sie were druids and wizards (actually sorcerers per 3.5 definitions). They had no gods and drew their priestly magic (druidic) from nature itself. When the worlds split (pre-Deismaar) the Sie split into two: the faerie (seelie) which dwell in the Shadow World and still wield their druidic powers and the elves which dwell in Cerilia and wield arcane magic.

Player’s Secrets of Tuarhievel pgs 19-20

"The elves of Cerilia do not worship gods. They are aware that the gods of Deismaar existed and that new gods descended from the deities destroyed in that epic battle, but they do not pay homage to them. After their deception and betrayal by Azrai, the Sidhelien have been adamant in their refusal to worship the modern human gods. In this stance, Fhileraene and his predecessors have not differed from the other Sidhelien of Cerilia. . . .

To the elves, spiritual development is the responsibility of the individual. The path an elf takes is a decision that only he or she can make. So strong is this belief that if an elf chooses to worship one of the human gods, so be it. The only restriction placed is that of silence while within elven lands.

The philosophy taught by the taelinri consists of three basic beliefs. First, the elves believe they were formed as the result of the union of the four elements: earth, water, air, and fire. . . .The second aspect of elven philosophy is one that most annoys other races, especially humans. The elves believe that, as a result of their unique creation, they have a greater capacity to perceive the world around them and feel its inherent beauty. The intensity and range of their emotions are the results of both their origins and their immortality. . . .Other races see this as cultural arrogance, but the elves accept it as a natural extension of their origin.

Third, the taelinri help their people achieve a sense of themselves as individuals."

From Blood Spawn pg 5.

"The gods, it is believed, were formed out of the land {when the Shadow World and Aebrynis were one}, and their natures bound them to it."

Looking at all of this in total the pieces can be start to be put together as to why elven druids don&#39;t exist in Cerilia (note I said Cerilia - not the Shadow World)

When the Sie split only the faeries retained their ability to work the nature magic of the land (priestly magic). Hence druids (drawing power from nature itself and not a deity) exist in the Shadow World. And since the Sie were the force that tied to the priestly aspect of nature when this force was funneled into the faeries and subsequently trapped in the Shadow World, the only way it could be tapped in Cerillia was through divine intervention (i.e., via a nature god). Now ranger divine magic is still left - with not explanation I would say it is the remnants of the divine priestly aspect that the Sie possessed and was left to those who could &#39;find and embrace it&#39;, but is minor compared to that of druidic magic.

Elves and the old gods are rumored to have been formed in similar ways. There is more verbage in Blood Spawn. The implication is that the gods created humans and of course we know that Moradin created the dwarves. Whereas the elves sprung from the elements (and the split from the Sie).

When looked at as a whole the 2nd ed BR text makes sense and starts to paint a picture of how and why things are the way they are.

[Ming I]

I was also very happy when A_dark pointed out this excerpt in the "What are the consequences of this decision?" thread, but when our group started discussing this, we discovered some inconsistencies.

Although the elves are supposed to have a number of creation myths, all of those myths have one thing in common; the Elves were created from a union of the Four Elements. This explanation of the birth of the Sidhe doesn&#39;t mention this at all. This bugged two of the members of our group so much that we all decided that we would mostly ignore the Blood Spawn book.

In our campaign, elves are of the Fey type. Their spirituality has its basis in eastern religion (Chinese mostly), and you could replace all references to mebhaighl, with chi, without anyone at our table even blinking. It gives a more enlightened spiritual awareness to Elves who, in our campaign, are "easterners" thrown into a "western" world.

To be honest, no "ruling" whether it be general consensus or not will put Elven druids into a campaign where the GM doesn&#39;t want them there. And no "ruling" will keep Elven druids out of a campaign when the GM does want them there. Open the druid class up in the spirit of 3.x, and have some druids get their powers from Erik and others from nature itself. It really doesn&#39;t hurt anything since the ultimate power is still in the GMs hands.

[RaspK_FOG]

MIng I, I am afraid you contradict yourself in the last paragraph of yours:

To be honest, no "ruling" whether it be general consensus or not will put Elven druids into a campaign where the GM doesn&#39;t want them there. And no "ruling" will keep Elven druids out of a campaign when the GM does want them there. Open the druid class up in the spirit of 3.x, and have some druids get their powers from Erik and others from nature itself. It really doesn&#39;t hurt anything since the ultimate power is still in the GMs hands.

If the final say is in the hands of the DM (/GM/[whatever]), why should the setting be changed as radically as to include something it specifically didn&#39;t have but as an exception (the Seelie faerie)? Surely, if a [you know who] wants to run a campaign with elven druids and can do so besides what the book says, he doesn&#39;t need to have a book which readilly allows him to do so? Opening any back-doors and creating a few loop-holes? I hope not...

In any case, the Sidhelien, as described in Blood Spawn, were not created by the elements (well, not exactly); if there ever was a being formed by the fusion of all four elements, that would be the Sie, while the Sidhelien are actually incomplete, in the sense they are only half of that&#33; Snobby elves&#33; :P

[Ming I]

I should have replaced "...where the GM..." with "...if an experienced, and/or adventurous GM...".

A lot of inexperienced, and/or less adventurous GMs, tend to be very traditionalistic when it comes to rules. They tend to go along with situations or game mechanics that don&#39;t make sense, rather than questioning and/or modifying them until they do. Rather than restricting those GMs with rules based on 2nd edition dogma, why not embrace one of the most prevalent 3.x edition themes; options over restrictions.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Ming I@Mar 24 2004, 07:04 PM
I should have replaced "...where the GM..." with "...if an experienced, and/or adventurous GM...".

A lot of inexperienced, and/or less adventurous GMs, tend to be very traditionalistic when it comes to rules.* They tend to go along with situations or game mechanics that don&#39;t make sense, rather than questioning and/or modifying them until they do.* Rather than restricting those GMs with rules based on 2nd edition dogma, why not embrace one of the most prevalent 3.x edition themes; options over restrictions.
Again, I don&#39;t see your point on inexperienced DMs working with systems that &#39;don&#39;t make sense&#39;. If the DM thinks a mechanic doesn&#39;t make sense or doesn&#39;t understand it, then how can he use it in the first place withut developing work arounds?

If instead you mean that only experienced and adventurous DMs attempt to create a setting that makes sense on multiple levels, e.g., religious dogma, relationships between races, explanations of how magic works, etc, that is a different issue and really has nothing to do with developing a ruleset.

And again you seem to be using the 3/3.5 mantra of options over restrictions to replace setting definition. They are completely separate issues. See the pinned topic of setting definition versus color for discussions on this issue.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "irdeggman" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 4:53 AM





> Again, I don`t see your point on inexperienced DMs working with systems

that `don`t make sense`. If the DM doesn`t think a mechanic doesn`t make

sense or doesn`t understand it, then how can he use it in the first place

withut developing work arounds?



1) because he doesn`t have a wealth of experience to pull a better mechanic

out of his bag of tricks.



2) because he doesn`t realize how it doesn`t make sense, he just knows it

doesn`t feel right, experience provides a sensitivity to what is wrong.



3) he just keeps sticking square pegs in round holes because he can`t find

the square holes



I do think ming I has a point, its unsatisfying for an important question to

just be left with a shrug for the DM to patch.



On the other hand, DM`s need to be willing to come to some agreement about

what the standard is, even if they don`t intend to use it. The question

should be is the material presented sufficiently high quality, not "did I

get my way."



This problem may not be resolvable, but that almost certainly will leave

future inexperienced DM`s (to the extent they they select this as their

setting) to muddle through until they figure out how they want to settle

these questions themselves. That`s a good definition of an unfinished

product.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[irdeggman]

> Again, I don`t see your point on inexperienced DMs working with systems
that `don`t make sense`. If the DM doesn`t think a mechanic doesn`t make
sense or doesn`t understand it, then how can he use it in the first place
withut developing work arounds?

1) because he doesn`t have a wealth of experience to pull a better mechanic
out of his bag of tricks.

Alright, but how does this affect his game? It only means that he hasn&#39;t found a &#39;better&#39; system. The point was that the DM is at a disadvantage when in fact if he is happy or satisfied with the system he is using he is not.


2) because he doesn`t realize how it doesn`t make sense, he just knows it
doesn`t feel right, experience provides a sensitivity to what is wrong.

A legitimate point. But again, just because it doesn&#39;t &#39;feel&#39; right doesn&#39;t really affect how the game is played. Since this was a &#39;rules&#39; subject and not a &#39;color&#39; or &#39;flavor&#39; one.


3) he just keeps sticking square pegs in round holes because he can`t find
the square holes

True enough, but if it is &#39;working&#39;, which Ming I was implying that it doesn&#39;t work, then there is no real problem. It is just an outsider&#39;s view of what someone else (the DM in question) is doing &#39;wrong&#39;.


I do think ming I has a point, its unsatisfying for an important question to
just be left with a shrug for the DM to patch.

On the other hand, DM`s need to be willing to come to some agreement about
what the standard is, even if they don`t intend to use it. The question
should be is the material presented sufficiently high quality, not "did I
get my way."

I think we are on the same page here, roughly. That is that some sort of base-line should be developed that serves as the basis for individual DMs to tweak as they see necessary and not a document that includes every possible variation.



This problem may not be resolvable, but that almost certainly will leave
future inexperienced DM`s (to the extent they they select this as their
setting) to muddle through until they figure out how they want to settle
these questions themselves. That`s a good definition of an unfinished
product.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com


And there is the rub. Everyone has their own definition of how much detail is sufficient and what details are more more important than others.

[kgauck]

All three kinds of problems I identified have the game effect of reducing

the amount of fun players might have. Part of what you expect of good

setting materials is that these kinds of contradictions are resolved. They

weren`t resolved in the published setting and its been vexing resolving them

as we try to move into 3e. When a game session is finished and the results

don`t feel right the whole purpose has been undermined. When human druids

seem more at home in the wilderness than the elves because of the powers

granted to them and denied to the elves, players might scratch their heads.

Both the conventional understanding of elves and the BR materials emphasize

the connection of the elves to nature. Players aren`t going to miss this.

The human summons nature`s ally and the elf summons a monster. The druid

speaks with plants and animals to spy on the elves. The elves send out

magical eyes to watch the players (whether casting prying eyes or arcane

eye). Some sidhe strategies may fit their style, such as using charms,

others, using a wall of fire to cover their escape, doesn`t.



This list has suggested a revised spell list, often centering on a nature

school; giving the elves druids; or creating a new class just for the elves

which is obviously arcane, but demonstrates a connection with nature. To my

knowledge no one says, its just great the way it was with human druids and

elf wizards. Playing out a prolonged encounter leaves you with the sense

that elves are magical, but not particularly natural. If this undermines

player enjoyment, and I tend to think it will, its a problem.



Experienced player can anticipate the problem as they read the setting

material and during play can improvise mechanics to provide the desired

feel. With inexperiened DM`s sometimes no one notices until after the game

session. Good materials anticipate these problems by resolving their

contradictions. Thus giving DM`s a gaming experience without pitfalls.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com