Results 1 to 10 of 16
Thread: The Imperial City
04-26-2007, 12:03 PM #1
The Imperial City
Discussion thread for The Imperial City. If you would like to add a comment, click the Post Reply button.
04-26-2007, 01:04 PM #2
Last edited by prince_dios; 04-26-2007 at 01:23 PM.Look for me by moonlight
Watch for me by moonlight
I'll come to thee by moonlight
Though Hell should bar the way
04-26-2007, 06:25 PM #3
Ahem... Looks like I've started this thread...
I've been away for a while (a big fat sorry to those of you that I should've replied to, RL hit me with the reality stick), and by admiering the marvels of the new and shiny forum/wiki I must have stumbled over a button.
*goes away to bang head against wall in shame & embarrasment*-Harald
Today, we were kidnapped by hill folk never to be seen again. It was the best day ever.
04-26-2007, 10:05 PM #4
policy is to mark homebrew material as such only when it conflicts with canon or standard D&D rules. Otherwise everything would end up homebrew, or be restricted to a very small body of information.
If there is a need for it, we can mark canon as canon, but the desire is to expand the setting by filling in the gaps and making the whole thing consistant, so there should be very little reason to mark canon differently.
04-27-2007, 02:30 AM #5
The problem with using that logic is that it could be considered non-canon when someone writing something conflicts with it (the 1st non-canon interpretation that doesn't conflict with canon material), since the person will think it is canon but there is no indicator to tell them otherwise.
Non-canon material is indeed infinite, for any setting, and canon material is finite, in any setting. As such they should identified as what they actually are Again, this could lead to "Well, this is non-canon only because it conflicts with established material...er...what book was this in..well...uhm...geez..."
Heck, I am having difficulty even arguing it since it seems we have three buckets:
2) Non-Canon but not flagged that since it doesn't conflict with canon (but could lead to multiple articles conflicting with each other but all not flagged non-canon)
3) Non-Canon because it conflicts with canon and possibly interpreted to be flagged this if the person thinks an item from #2 is canon (since it is not flagged non-canon)
04-27-2007, 02:32 AM #6
Its not a bug, its a feature.
04-27-2007, 02:40 AM #7
What is a bug? I guess I don't understand your comment.
I was more commenting about the integrity of original data which can be potentially watered down and diluted by allowing the mixing of actual canon and pseudo-canon material. This could lead to individuals unsure of what was original content, since not everyone has played the game since inception (I can still remember the original box and quizzical looks when I explained to people about the game.)
If there indeed such a prevalence of non-canon data that it would be cumbersome from an administrative stand point, flag all original content.
I guess I will go back to trolling and just reading the forums.
04-27-2007, 07:01 AM #8
The original data is hardly being watered down. Much of the stuff people have put up in the last few days (and I exclude my own production) is really, really good. The original data was sparce, barely sketches of realms. A few realms had Players' Secrets written, and those were a very mixed bag.
The strength of a wiki is that a well organized realm description will provide an excellent basis to harmonize a great variety of data and provide varients for a DM to make his own choices.
No matter who the DM is, or who wrote the material, DM's are always selecting some and discarding some. A good wiki organization can provide a DM with high quality material to select from which is coherent even while there is a variety of interpreations, even mutually exclusive ones.
04-02-2009, 09:59 AM #9
If Enchantment is so looked down upon by Anuireans (and hated even beyond Necromancy), why are there two enchanters in the College of Sorcery? A Khinasi is fair enough, but why also an Anuirean? Why are both female - is this some sort of sexist comment about what women are only good for?
Also, why are two of the true mages unblooded?? That must surely be an error.
Ius Hibernicum, in nomine juris. Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
04-02-2009, 07:17 PM #10
- Join Date
- Oct 2006
- Chelmsford, Essex, England
The 2 unblooded ones are an illusionist and a diviner - I expect that these are actually magicians not wizards.
And a gender split of male = fighter/guilder, female = wizard/priest is common - likely due to typical views on gender roles. Assuming an even split of ability, warfare issues (brute strength, casual approach to violence, pack mentality, expendability) encourage males to go into fighting roles, leaving these socially male oriented. The remaining females of skill then outnumber males of skill causing other roles to be female dominated. Plus, of course, standard fantasy illustrations tend to go 'lots of armour = men, wispy clothing = female' again encouraging women to dominate wizardly roles.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
By Raesene Andu in forum The Royal LibraryReplies: 4Last Post: 06-02-2009, 12:57 AM
By Robbie in forum The Royal LibraryReplies: 2Last Post: 09-12-2006, 09:13 PM
By Solmyr in forum The Royal LibraryReplies: 1Last Post: 01-02-2003, 07:26 AM
By marcum uth mather in forum The Royal LibraryReplies: 5Last Post: 09-22-2002, 11:32 PM
By Birthright-L in forum The Royal LibraryReplies: 15Last Post: 09-10-2002, 04:44 PM