The Sword Mage (Poll)

[Elton Robb]

What should the Sword Mage be? May I remind everyone that majority rules.

[ShadowMoon]

In truth it should be used/decided in DMs discretion, but since that is the case with every RPG material, it is not a strong point to vote for.

I voted for a female, cause in my campaign the Sword Mage is a female.

[Michael Romes]

I voted female - but only because the choices are limited.

If free to vote anything I would say the SwordMage is a female Acolyte of the Skin, slowly transforming into a fiend. Female because the other regions have their share of female awnsheglien: Siren in Rjuvik, Hag in Brechtür, Lamia in Khir-aften-el-Arrasi - so Anuire should have it´s female awnsheglien too at some time ;-)

[Thelandrin]

What about the Chimaera? Isn't she female?

[Dcolby]

The flavor of the original B.R. was that the majority of NPC's were not completely defined and left open to D.M. tinkering.

(Hence the basis for so much of our bickering.... )

I voted to leave the Sword Mage the Mystery Man/Woman/Fiend/halfling on stilts/Ignore the man dehind the curtain....etc..

[kgauck]

The purpose of a doing a write up is to save the DM the time and effort of tinkering with every NPC. Not writing one up so that the DM can tinker is like (on a smaller scale) saying let's not write up Osoerde so the DM can work his own magic. The DM can do these things despite the write up by ignoring all or part of the write up.

In general, I think most DM's tinker a lot with key allies and enemies and appreciate a good write-up for NPC's who don't directly interact with the PC's or do so only once.

Leaving the Sword Mage a blank page means that he/she/it is only used by a DM when they want to make them a major NPC.

Most of the NPC's were not completly defined because they were leaving room for later detail (because a whole setting does not spring full grown from the forehead of Haelyn) and because the setting was cut before it was finished. Not a feature, its a bug.

[Dcolby]

The flavor of the original B.R. was that the majority of NPC's were not completely defined and left open to D.M. tinkering.

Nothing against outlining...because as Kguack pointed out D.M.s will tinker regardless. I just feel preserving some of the mystery adds to the flavor of the campaign for the players who...lets face it like to read the bits they are not supposed to.

Maybe they deserve to be rudely surprised by the D.M., but I kind of like that the player will make up in their own mind things about the Sword Mage worse than the D.M. might have, which is likely what the Sword mage itself has in mind all along...

Whether intended or not I think the mysteries are what gives the setting its unique taste.

[kgauck]

That's why DM's do (and should) tinker with the primary NPC's. But I don't define regents I don't have to, and if I am looking for a one-shot problem regent (change of pace villain) I am only going pick on that's been fleshed out a little. I generally confine my creative material for stuff the PC's see more than once.

The best way to keep some mystery and to keep peeking players on their toes is for the DM to re-invent their primary NPC's, and a good second is for there to be five radically different versions of the Sword Mage posted so that the players wonder which one, which combination of traits, or what the DM will borrow for his own campaign. One authoritative Sword Mage is the problem.

[Elton Robb]

Which was precisely what I did with Ohlaak the Dragon. I defined him enough to give him a background, so that people will know what he is doing there. As a sorc ??? this lets the DM to tinker with him.

The Battle Mage sort of thing was my own finishing touch. I figured Olhaak the Dragon would be the type to wipe the White Witch off the face of the Earth.

[Gman]

Female sounds fine to me - nothing to stop them having fiendish blood as well.

I usually like information about NPC's to spark ideas - so that I can tinker with them.

The information in the book of Magecraft implies some things about the character - putting a bit more flesh on them doesn't hurt as long as it suits the original concept

- I guess the annoying thing is when players read the info and then assume their character has the same knowledge but its up to the gm to beat that poor roleplaying tendancy out of them.

Putting a disclaimer on the character explaining that the information has been extrapolated from data in The book of magecraft and other BR writing wont hurt.