A friend of mine posted a thread like this on another site and got so vicious responses. I've found the people on this site to be much more open-minded (and less egotistical), so I figured I'd ask the same question here.
In the most recent DUNGEON (#136) there is an adventure called Gates of Oblivion. I was exceptionally impressed by the adventure until I reached the stats for Tenaris Xin. Under his race he is listed as a human shade. I was originally happy that someone had finally done a crossover between the FR and Greyhawk. Especially using one of my favorite FR elements. Unfortunately I soon discovered that it was simply the template, taken out of context with the history of the race, and portrayed as 'trading his soul'. Don't get me wrong, I still like the story and plan on changing it so the main enemy is one of the Shadowvar. But I was kind of upset.
I have been playing D&D for about six years and have seen things taken from the FR often, usually to the betterment of D&D as a whole. Feats, spells, monsters, prestige classes, and so on. But sometimes I wonder if perhaps somethings should just be left 'setting specific'.
I personally feel that certain things belong in certain settings. I think warforged, shifters, dragon marks, and so forth should mostly stay strictly EBERRON. Outside of the setting it was designed for the elements just don’t seem to have the same effect. Mostly, I think, due to the fact that they are so closely related to the settings history. Of course, as always, if an individual DM wants to include it in his campaign that’s his prerogative.
Perhaps its just me looking to deep into it, but I would feel kind of upset to see phaerimm and sharn battling thru the jungles of EBERRON, and the chosen of Vecna laying wast to the city of Greyhawk.
When Shades first appeared in the D&D universe, they were not FR specific; I'm not sure where they first appeared, but I do know they were in the 1e MMII.
I generally do not have a problem with utilizing material from specific settings within another context (there are of course exceptions). I especially do not have a problem with using monsters that were once "generic" D&D but that have been assigned to a specific setting in a 3e book (other examples would be tasloi, ju-ju zombies, and leucrotta).
When Shades first appeared in the D&D universe, they were not FR specific; I'm not sure where they first appeared, but I do know they were in the 1e MMII.
Like I said, I've only been playing for six or so years, so I'm understandably lacking in knowledge of 1st or 2nd ed monsters. Since the only place I had seen the shades were in the core FR book and RAC I had simply assumed they were FR only (I only have access to 3rd edition books). This instance was really just the first to motivate me to post online about it since I started getting on the Paizo site, and get some other opinions on the subject.
The point I'm really interested in is getting some feedback on if anyone else is under the impression that certain elements should remain solely in one setting. This especially gos for those who have been playing since the earlier editions, when setting crossovers were so prevalent (AKA; Spelljamers).
In a person's homebrewed campaign you could see the Chosen of the Easter Raabbit (kaiju-templated half-celestial lop-eared hare) burrowing through Sharn, while murder mysteries plague the Dalelands. It's all good. In market terms I would say this is one of the reasons Wizards doesn't support Greyhawk as anything beyond a core/generic setting. To the average consumer coming into the game there really isn't that much difference between it and Faerun (on the strictly physical level). They both have drow, liches, merfolk, dragons and giant vermin and dozens of monsters in common as well as similar fantasy feels, hence they represent direct competition with one another. Personally I don't really care because where I start with a setting and take it can be miles away from where some source book update might. Perhaps Elminister is nibbled to death by the afore mentioned bunny, or perhaps the central mass of Greyhawk is struck by a comet, shattering the continent into a million tiny islands, or the planet into asteroids, or my PCs take up important civic posts in Sharn, I'm not going to curtail my PC's fun or the story we're working on just because in the Year of the Stubbed Big Toe Muckley the Heretic caught the sniffles and had to miss work for two days in a row.
Eberron's slightly different and made to attract a new crowd using the tactic that its "not your father's game world." twenty-years from now it will be the old standby (like Greyhawk, Known World, Krynn) that everyone looks back on fondly.
I think the little touches of history like place names, classes, and magic dragon tatoos are nice for the diehard fans of a setting. They are the wink and the nod to those in the know, but beyond that its up to the DM and his/her players to make the setting come alive not some guy/gal writing a source book. Those are just tools and if you want to use the vice grips to undo the lug instead of the the wrench you go for it. And if you want to use warforged, shifters and flumph as your PC races in Greyhawk you can do that as well if it works for you. Heh, Mordenkainen the flumph.
Unabashedly,
The vicious and egotistical Great Green God
PS grrrr...grrrr.
|
I think that if it works, go for it. There's no reason not to.
Just take advantage of the change wrought by the introduction or inclusion for adventure hooks. If there is a changing element, make sure you explain (at least to yourself) WHY that element is there, and how the rest of the world reacts to it.
Say frinstints, I have a crypt of a Suel lich in Greyhawk, with 6 brigades of warforged standing in formation for 3 millenia like the Chinese terra cotta warriors. How is the rest of the milieu going to react to them? What are they going to do? Are there more somewhere? Now that they are awakened from suspended animation, do they have some standing orders? Will they obey them?
Would Iuz like to learn how to make more....
I don't really do Eberron stuff per se, but I got the rule book, it cost some jink, and if I like something out of it dang if I ain't gonna use it.
I think there is definitely a difference between what can be done in a homebrew versus what can be done in an official publication like Dungeon. I think it comes down to a judgement call. For one thing, it is easier to justify cross-setting elements in a generic adventure, then it would be in FR, Greyhawk, or Eberron. Second, I think using setting specific monsters that were once generic D&D monsters would generally be OK, as would monsters from defunct settings that are not instrincally tied to their setting of origin. Lastly, using generic material that has only appeared in a setting specific book would be OK (I'm thinking of the dinosaurs that appeared in the Eberron Campaign Setting book, like the velociraptor).
However, using material that is specific to that setting and has no history outside of that setting, well I think that's a different issue. I don't think you can justify introducing warforged, for example, into an official FR or Greyhawk adventure; at least, not without whipping setting fanatics into a frothing rage. Now, using the living construct type in a novel way for a new FR or Greyhawk monster, well again, that's a different issue....
Personally, I don't care where a template/prestige class/feat/monster crossbred kaiju came from, in terms of which campaign setting, just as long as it makes consistent sense in the game that I'm playing. The shadovar/shade for instance - yeah, they're more ingrained in the Forgotten Realms, but there is no reason the DM couldn't come up with a reason for having them in the adventure/campaign. Besides, sourcebooks and supplements are there for us DMs to use as we see fit - if a concept is cool, we shouldn't toss it away because "it's for Eberron/Greyhawk/Dragonlance/Mystara/Dark Sun, not my campaign."
Slightly mixed feelings here.
On the one hand, I think DMs should steal anything they like to make their campaign more fun -- of course this depends on what is fun and/or acceptable to the players.
On the other hand, settings often benefit from their unique combinations of elements. IMO (and I've seen this happen) there is a risk of losing the flavor of the campaign if the DM dilutes the setting-specific material too much. This doesn't matter to many players, but to some (like me) it's a big deal.
The short answer is we should be able to steal anything we want. That's qualified with the warning that you might be doing more harm than good after a certain point.
Regards,
Jack
The short answer is we should be able to steal anything we want. That's qualified with the warning that you might be doing more harm than good after a certain point.
Agreed!
However, using material that is specific to that setting and has no history outside of that setting, well I think that's a different issue. I don't think you can justify introducing warforged, for example, into an official FR or Greyhawk adventure; at least, not without whipping setting fanatics into a frothing rage. Now, using the living construct type in a novel way for a new FR or Greyhawk monster, well again, that's a different issue....
I have to generally agree with this. I find that there are (for me at least) very setting specific elements for each campaign world that make that world different in feel from the next. The different Gods are the best example I can come up with right off the top of my head.
There are dinosaurs in all 3 of the worlds listed, in Chult in the FR, somewhere in Eberron, and on the Isle of Dread (at least) in GH. However if the PC's in my rather 'Canon' FR campaign fell through a portal and found themselves in a jungle watching little pigmies try to tame a dinosaur to ride it, they would know they were not in Kansas anymore.
However, certain elements can be introduced into any campaign on a truely limited scale that would allow some crossover and could still be within the scope of the setting. Gond could have shown his greatest cleric on Lantan the method and madness behind creating warforged, especially if that priest was a world-walking, plane-spanning inventor that discovered the technique on Eberron and learned how to make it work in Faerun.
*cough* Chosen *cough*
I have used this technique many, many times in the past 15 years to bring elements that struck me as emminently realm-esque that were not already and plop them with reasonable history and plausibility into an already existing campaign.
YMMV, but your imagination is certainly the limit. I, personally, would not use this too often as it can fragment a campaign world and sometimes I have had to 'reset' the world back to the way it was after the end of a campaign - not as often now as when I first started, but I'd like to think that I have a lot more XP now and many ranks in Profession (storyteller) and Craft (adventure).
Celric
In a person's homebrewed campaign you could see the Chosen of the Easter Raabbit (kaiju-templated half-celestial lop-eared hare)
Do you have the stats for this magnificent creature?
Anyways, I think you will run into a hard time finding support for "this is only in this setting." At least in regards to templates and monsters. Across the multiverse there are elves in most worlds, and dragons in most worlds, yet they may act differently and have different cultures. A Silvanesti from Krynn has very little in common with an Athasian elf, for example. So with things like this template, yeah, there is very little sacred and you should expect the setting specific to be very limited.
However, I think it is in locations, NPCs, and events that there is little bleeding through into other worlds. Sharn shoudl only be in Eberron, and Waterdeep only in FR. Mordenkainen should be only in GH and Elminster in FR. The Avatar Crisis is FR specific, and the Last War belongs on Khorvaire.
Now, this doesn't mean there won't be similarities. The Greyhawk Wars is not unlike the Last War in some ways.
I guess the basic point of this ramble is that you should expect and welcome things appearing in multiple realms while keeping what is really important unique.
I think we're all in agreement that an individual DM has the right to pretty much do anything they want with their campaign, but I think the OP was more or less addressing official sources, like Dungeon. I think the question becomes murkier in that context.
...
Say frinstints, I have a crypt of a Suel lich in Greyhawk, with 6 brigades of warforged standing in formation for 3 millenia like the Chinese terra cotta warriors. ...
Just to go off topic for a moment... I really like this idea, its kinda be sticking in my head all morning with various ideas for adventures based around it going off... a very cool idea :-)
And on topic:
Steal what you want, as long as you can justify it AND it adds to the adventure. As for the Shade in Gates of Oblivion that set off this debate in the first place...
Short Version:
<shrugs> Whatever, he wasn't from Greyhawk/Oerth anyways, was he?
Long Version:
I just gave it a quick read-through, but wasn't he (and most of his lieutenants) from other worlds that had been conquered? IMHO, argueing over the appropriateness of a non-Greyhawk (and again, that in and of itself is debatable, since I too remember Shades pre-3.0) template/whatever in a Greyhawk adventure, when said oddity is specifically said to have NOT been of Greyhawkian origin... And in this case, I think it fit the adventure, what with the destroying of worlds and all...
Disclaimer: When I say steal what you want if you can justify and it adds to the story... I'll say that with a grain of salt, since I'm thinking about DMs, not super cheesy PCs with a dozen PRCs from a dozen different books. I'm a power gamer, but even I have limits, lol
I'll just put this out to think about in the context of cross-pollinization of ideas/campaign settins...
As established as FR is, its not like Greenwood didn't lift things directly out Greyhawk and put them into FR. Think about the Cult of the Dragon (Hmm... Dragotha?) or everybody's favorite dual-wielding Drow Ranger... Or the CE evil spider goddess of the Drow for that matter.
Gygax et al didn't create Greyhawk out of whole cloth either. Think about all the elements lifted directly from semi-historical/mythical sources (Frost Barbarians, etc) And the same goes for FR too (to say nothing of the "Earth-equivalent regions that got tacked onto Faerun, such as Maztica/Kara-tur/the Tuigan)
And I bet everybody and their friends lifted out of literary sources such as LOTR when they first starting making their homebrews and nascent campaign worlds.
---
So in short, I think we all agree that Greyhawk and FR are fun worlds that are successful in terms of fan support, right?
But both worlds "stole" elements from other settings and sources, and I don't think it made a negative impact on their appeal or their storylines.
On the flipside, wholesale "stealing" of ideas is probably a bad thing, because it isn't adding to the story, as much as it limits the story. I present my own teenage attempt at a homebrew that pretty much was a LOTR-clone as evidence of this (and I'm sure I'm not the only one who did that either)
Creative Director
|
One of the unfortunate things about "Monsters of Faerun" (and of the FRCS, for that matter) is that the books have "poached" classic D&D monsters. In 1st and 2nd edition, creatures like aarakocras, abishais, bullywugs, yochlols, shadow dragons, fog giants, giant striders, leucrottas, perytons, and of course shades were world-neutral monsters like beholders, mind flayers, dragons, and orcs. They weren't tied to a particular campaign world (although some certainly went on to have stronger presences in particular campaings). When WotC compiled the "Monsters of Faerun" product, 3rd Edition was still relatively young and they weren't sure how popular Monster Books would be. In this regard, "Monsters of Faerun" was an experiment, and there were a lot of monsters that the designers wanted to see back in the game but weren't sure there'd be a chance beyond "Monsters of Faerun" to update them.
In any event, when you see a monster like a shade or a bullywug in a non Forgotten Realms adventure, you can bet that monster predates the published Forgotten Realms. There are certainly monsters that were designed FOR the Realms (such as the phaerimm, the deepspawn, and the kir-lanan gargoyle), and these guys won't be appearing in non-Forgotten Realms adventures. Eberron is doing a much better job with their monsters; nearly all of the new monsters in Eberron products are brand new, with a few exceptions (the clawfoot/velociraptor, for example, has a place in any campaign setting that has dinosaurs), so this won't be as much a problem there.
How could Bullywugs become a Monster of Faerun? They are as attached to Wastri in Greyhawk as I think it's possible to be. But to concur with other points in this discussion, prudent theft is good for campaigns. I've made a few of my own worlds and stole greatly from Greyhawk, FR, and mostly the real world. I think it's more of an homage, at least that what I tell myself.
Frankly I'd be really happy just to know what is campaign specific and what isn't--or what the roles are of different monsters specifically in different settings.
For example, if Shades were just generic templates to you gleaned from one of the Monster Manuals, and you tried to use one in Faerun. Wierdness would insue. Ditto I found out that Deathknights are a VERY specific thing in Greyhawk (and interestingly another very specific--but completely different thing--in Dragonlance).
I wonder sometimes about these sorts of things in other areas. For example, what about inevitables in Faerun--are they exclusive to Mechanus? I had always figured Slaadi were Greyhawk specific (being from Limbo and all) but then came Demon Stone and apparently the porting of the whole plane into Faerun. Thi-kreen and half-giants are now officially open source D&D character types (at least as per the Psionics Handbook) but it's still hard for me to imagine kreen in Forgotten Realms since they are so very distinctly Dark Sun.
In short I would very much like to keep the settings separate--but I'm not sure what goes where anymore.
According to the book on abberations, Neogi Mindspiders (spelljamming ships) are apparently currently buzzing around Greyhawk! What's up with that??
Say frinstints, I have a crypt of a Suel lich in Greyhawk, with 6 brigades of warforged standing in formation for 3 millenia like the Chinese terra cotta warriors.
You know - I was thinking about how to use a Chinese tomb just a couple of weeks ago, trying to figure out what the "effigy warriors" could be...
I wonder sometimes about these sorts of things in other areas. For example, what about inevitables in Faerun--are they exclusive to Mechanus? I had always figured Slaadi were Greyhawk specific (being from Limbo and all) but then came Demon Stone and apparently the porting of the whole plane into Faerun.
Isn't The Great Wheel/Planar Cosmology of D&D a common thread between all the settings? If you had the means, couldn't you get to Limbo (or Mechanus, Elysium, etc.) from ANY of the settings?
I have been playing in a homebrew for the last 10 years, so my knowledge of the published settings is remedial at best.
I also know that there are probably a lot of people out there who have created their own way of dealing with the Planes - I am currently developing my own system - but speaking strictly from what is published about the different settings, isn't the Great Wheel a common denominator?
The Great Wheel used to be default cosmology for all settings in 2e, but in 3e the Forgotten Realms was retconned with a new planar cosmology. Eberron was designed with its own planar cosmology. The Great Wheel is the core, default cosmology, and by extension, Greyhawk's.
In 3e, settings are actually connected by the Plane of Shadow.
Isn't The Great Wheel/Planar Cosmology of D&D a common thread between all the settings? If you had the means, couldn't you get to Limbo (or Mechanus, Elysium, etc.) from ANY of the settings?
Third Edition officially split its settings up into their own cosmologies, for a couple of reasons really. First of all (and most important, really) was that the flavor of the settings were being compromised by all the crossovering. You'd hardly sit down to do a game without at least one character coming in from another setting a la planeshift. At first they capitalized on it with settings like Planescape and Greyhawk but it was really getting damaging to the feel of the settings. Secondly as the settings grew, the planes started getting overpopulated with gods they weren't originally designed to accomodate and who really didn't fit in the planes they found themselves in (all LN gods in Mechanus for example). Finally (and people always rankle at this) but the authors of the novels have seldom given two figs about keeping the novels they write consistant with the overarching cosmology of the D&D setting. If they need a plane, they just make it up. These new planes made up by authors don't fit anywhere and its up to the game designers to try and shoehorn them in somewhere as damage control. Sorting out the cosmologies has given them more space to do this smoothly and neatly (though certain authors I loathe...erhem...are still at it, porting in Mershaalk and Limbo into Faerun, ARG!)
Wow, sometimes stuff like this makes me feel old.
I would first like to point out that I am a downright dyed-in-the-wool FR junkie.
1) Shades were originally in the MM II (1st edition) with the notable mention being the Mage of the Valley, using the ability to become a shade as an alternative to becoming a lich. This predates the FR as a campaign setting.
Likewise, the Plane of Shadows is the main "common ground" left between different cosmologies, so anything native to the plane of shadows should be fair game for all settings (though I don't expect to see too many krinth running around Oerth, for example).
2) As James ably said above, monsters concieved as setting specific should not appear in other settings, or in a generic setting, at least from "official" sources. For example, Phaerimm spring to mind in FR, as well as draconians in DragonLance.
3) The jury is still out on the cosmology change. While the "hard line" from some WOTC staffers is that FR cosmology is different, and always has been, long term freelancers that have been the backbone of the setting have pointed out that how mortals perceive the planes and how they are amount to two different things, and planes like Limbo have been mentioned in game products, intentionally, not by mistake, to point this out.
The Manual of the Planes for 3.0 seems to intentionally leave the cosmology gray. If the Great Wheel works for you, it suggests you do it. But it also leaves open the oppurtunity to do things special for each one.
The only settings I can think of with overt strange cosmologies would be Eberron and Dark Sun.
I used to feel as Valcrist did. Dragonlance races/creatures/etc. belonged in a DL campaign, Greyhawk races/classes/etc. belonged in Greyhawk, etc.
I began to feel that way about 2 years into gaming when a setting became of interest to my gaming group. Before then, we grabbed stuff from anything we had that was "official AD&D" from TSR or Judges Guild.
Then, years later, I wanted to throw some surprises at the group, so I started using monsters from other settings in my adventures (and monsters I made up, of course).
Nobody cried "foul" and everyone liked the surprises, so now it tends not to matter all that much to me.
That said, as another poster said, I think things that are unique to Eberron should "stay" in Eberron, things that are unique to Dark Sun should "stay" in Dark Sun games, etc.
I don't really know what, besides history, NPCs, place names, and deities are unique to the Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk. To me, those two settings, great as they are, are pretty much interchangable. Both are high fantasy.
(Prepares to duck, knowing he has cheesed off some FR or GH fans here.)
The "Chosen" that were referred to, I beleive, are the specific servants of the various gods in Forgotten Realms that are invested with a bit of the divine power of their god and act as agents of their god in Toril.
Monsters are stat blocks. If it works well for 3.5 combat then it doesn't matter what the flavor text says. There's no reason why you can't see a shifter in Greyhawk or a draconian in FR or a phanaton in Eberron. You just need to change the background and flavor text.
To reply directly to the OP, the monster that was presented fit in to the story. It doesn't matter where the monster originated.
If you wanted to be a stickler for origins, consider how different the flavor of many monsters are from their "true" origins. The stories of Medusa and the Minotaur and goblins and dragons and iconic D&D monsters vary tremendously from one culture to the next.
It seems draconic to deny the use of good monsters simply because of their original flavor. Creating new flavor text to adapt a creature to another setting can help with the suspension of disbelief for even the strictest canon followers.
Creating new flavor text to adapt a creature to another setting can help with the suspension of disbelief for even the strictest canon followers.
I agree. With Takasi.
I'm not sure if I'm agreeing or opposing the general view here, but I'll say that while within a homebrew, anything is and should be possible, when reading/playing official adventures from Dungeon or similar official products then 99% of the time setting-specific elements should remain exactly that. Though the OP's example of the shade has been proven inaccurate, I believe the whole point of using one setting over another is a sense of flavor. I disagree that setting specifics are mostly game mechanics and not "trappings" such as monsters, gods, races,npcs, locations, spells, etc. Since we're mostly talking monsters here, there are obviously a huge variety of generic monsters that are open & available to all settings. There are few that have the distinct flavor of a certain setting (and not just a generic one that has been modified to a specific setting) and should be left in their specific setting. I thought the Deathknight mentioned earlier is a good example of such a creature. Can it be transported outside its setting? Yes but even with careful explanation, flavor is lost. Warforged should stay in Eberron. They don't "feel" right in other official settings, especially considering they are accompanied by a unique philosophy/game mechanic.
Bottom line - my opinion is that specific elements with strong ties to a specific official setting should remain exclusive to that setting when being presented in "official" products. DMs with homebrew campaigns are free to shop indiscriminately.