veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Eh... still not really sure where you're coming from, I'm sorry. I don't mean to be obtuse, I'm just not understanding the issue that you're feeling.
When I say "one" I mean any one, any individual randomly average person, if they have any reason to expect something at all, will expect a particular thing - so no, the average peasant farmer who has never been further than the township half a mile away would not 'expect' the angry githyanki to be screaming Vlaakith's name... they don't have a reason or grounds to expect anything... but a person, such as a planar scholar from waterdeep, who would reasonably be in a position to have an expectation - that expectation would be that if this githyanki worships anyone, that one will be Vlaakith. That is a reasonable expectation, and it will be an accurate expectation the extreme vast majority of the time. If their expectation is incorrect, that's a surprise.
If the expectation is wrong and the githyanki is extremely unusual, that will require some explaining, and probably a decent amount of initial mistrust from those who have enough knowledge to expect otherwise. It's not a story device to say that there can - and will - be exceptions: it's a universal truth; nothing is absolute and exceptions can always occur in a fantasy setting full of strangeness. So... I'm not seeing why you're identifying anything here as objectionable. Really, I'm a little hurt and perhaps mildly offended that you'd liken anything I'm saying here to being in alignment with that kind of 'good one' racism. I feel like you're jousting at a far distant hill by making that leap of connection. The difference here is that it is factually true that githyanki culture is intrinsically evil as defined by the world space, and that githyanki, in their majority are culturally evil when they exist as part of their native society - which does, factually, cover the extreme vast majority of all githyanki. Are githyanki themselves intrinsically evil? No, of course not... and the entire point of this section of discussion is making a point of that very fact.
Sorcerer, Wizard, Druid, Paladin, Warlock, Bard, Cleric and Ranger are all in-universe, living terms (less so Barbarian in direct reference to the class); no-one in universe will look at you funny if you say you are a Paladin of Lliira (unless they think that the joydancers don't have paladins... they do), not in the same way they will look at you funny for saying you're level 12. So the Githyanki that introduces themselves cautiously at the Laughing Beholder, on the Rock of Bral, as being a Paladin of Lliira, who considers their home to be Faerun, on Toril, and not the creche where they were first raised... would likely raise eyebrows for its unusualness, but not for saying that they were a paladin at all. What's the concern or problem that you have with this? I simply do not understand why you feel like that's something to object to.
For the rest...
I'm really not sure I understand why you're objecting to that either... backstory is backstory; it's the stuff that happened to you before the adventure that is now beginning. It's the stuff that was formative towards putting you in the position you are now in, as the person you now are. If you are a representative of something particularly unusual or strange, then there's probably a wonderful story to go along with how that came about - that's called backstory! The adventure is not the story of how those events came to be - they're backstory. They are the choices that the character made that set them on the path to end up here, instead of somewhere else - the adventure is not concerned with them, save as the repercussions of them may happen to come up if the actual adventure you're embarking upon touches them. That's why it's called Backstory, and not just Story. Whatever it comes from, wherever it comes from, however it comes about, the choices that your character made that ended up setting them on this path and putting them here are all backstory - they cannot 'come from' anywhere else, because they are backstory by definition.
The choices you make now, moving forward, as this person, and the way those choices further impact and change you - they are the focus of the adventure you're now embarking up; they are what matter most, and are what the grand adventure is build out of... how you, as a character approach those choices and make them is, in good character roleplay, at least somewhat influenced by the person you are as brought to this point - by your backstory.
Are you seriously suggesting that if a player came to your table with a character combination that you thought sounded weird, you would insist that that was 'too dramatic' a thing for them to have in their backstory, and you'd insist that it would have to be played out in an adventure first, before you could accept it? Are you saying that a githyanki who participated in a raid on a sword coast city, was injured, left behind, rescued, healed, and came to understand genuine kindness for the first time, and decided to dedicate themselves to a new cause, and a new home... is 'too dramatic' a backstory for you to permit at your table without it being played out in an adventure first? Because that sounds ridiculous, and I do not, for a moment, believe that that is what you are actually saying of yourself... so, because I can't really fathom that that is your actual angle, and I do not know what your actual angle is... No, you have not made yourself more clear, I'm sorry - I'm exactly as confused and oblivious to your complaint as I started.
Again, I know I sound exasperated here, and I am a little, but I don't wish to make this come off as a conflict or as being fighty... I'm just really not understanding your position, at all... I'm trying, I promise! I'll work backwards because the last point is probably the more important. Are you seriously suggesting that if a player came to your table with a character combination that you thought sounded weird, you would insist that that was 'too dramatic' a thing for them to have in their backstory, and you'd insist that it would have to be played out in an adventure first, before you could accept it?... I think I'll address this by asking you a question. Every table has a line, where do you draw it? To bring it back to perspectives, I consider the line to be drawn by the universe, while you consider it to be drawn by the people at the table. The 'one' and the 'one' from before. Both are perfectly valid, depending on the table, but I consider one more conducive to meaningful play. For a level 1 Forgotten Realms game, having a Githyanki PC doesn't immediately cross the line, but it does bring us to it, and because I, or someone like me, is there to accommodate and arbitrate, it becomes a matter of negotiation. Every interaction at the table can be considered a negotiation, between the world, the characters, the rules, and the players; with the DM trying to make it a coherent entity. Now, because this is actually a conversation about a video game, that negotiation can't happen. For the story to be coherent the game has to have already accommodated the choices made. So, when you allow players to make choices that that aren't in the matrix, you're making the story less coherent. Sorcerer, Wizard, Druid, Paladin, Warlock, Bard, Cleric and Ranger are all in-universe, living terms (less so Barbarian in direct reference to the class); no-one in universe will look at you funny if you say you are a Paladin of Lliira (unless they think that the joydancers don't have paladins... they do), not in the same way they will look at you funny for saying you're level 12. Sorcerer, Wizard, Druid, Paladin, Warlock, Bard, Cleric and Ranger exist in Toril the same way they exist in our world. They are words used to describe things, they might carry extra weight other than that for metatextual reasons. A character with class levels in Wizard, might never have heard the term wizard used to describe him, or possibly can only call himself that after getting a diploma from a certified and sanctioned School of Magic (which itself might not be recognized or understood very far afield). Considering the myriad ways different religions and even sects within a religion, have terms for their priesthoods, the very idea that Cleric is used to describe all users of divine magic would strike me as narrowminded. The distinction between a Cleric and a Paladin in-universe, might be as little as where they were assigned or it could be political, like Charlemagne's own, or on if your Paladins represent the militant orders or the knightly ones more. A Fighter, might have no connection to any higher power beyond his service, and still be considered a priest or paladin. It's not a story device to say that there can - and will - be exceptions: it's a universal truth; nothing is absolute and exceptions can always occur in a fantasy setting full of strangeness. So... I'm not seeing why you're identifying anything here as objectionable. Really, I'm a little hurt and perhaps mildly offended that you'd liken anything I'm saying here to being in alignment with that kind of 'good one' racism. "good one" as my link was meant to convey had nothing to do with race, something I hadn't even considered, +1 internet discourse. More to do with the way people when given an opportunity will minimize the possibility that they would be as evil as the society they live in conditions them to be. Exceptions to the rule, are a trope of fantasy, especially when people are writing themselves into the narrative. Trope has become a dirty word for some reason, but I love a tropey tale, but just like with the aforementioned ' fridging' there are fine lines between a trope being used effectively and it being a crutch, pretentious or cliché.
Last edited by Sozz; 23/03/23 12:58 AM. Reason: fridging was a different thread, link
|
