Quote from: JamesV;525039I would like to point out that while there is a lively discussion on the merits of DL, and some time was spent pointing out the flaws of later edition FR and Dark Sun, Birthright has barely come up.

The suckiest through sheer forgettability!
:hatsoff:

I disagree. I remember it quite clearly, and IMO it's probably the best TSR setting. I remember nothing about Spelljammer, but that's because Neither I nor my group were interested in it, but I could then hardly call it "sucky".

As for DL, I agree with most of the criticisms, but still can't condemn it too harshly because I never went to RPG material for moral or emotional depth or maturity. Honestly, what ruined DL for me was tinker gnomes and gully dwarves. I dislike them even more than kender.

Quote from: The Butcher;525094I am loath to call these guys "brilliant". They were definitely gifted creators, though IMHO their actual command of the written word isn't always on par with the vistas they've conjured; they are very evocative at their best, but manage to slip into purple prose very easily.

The truth is, fantasy and SF represent such a very small fraction of all fiction, that we only have very few truly gifted wordsmiths, that I'd call "brilliant" writers. Clark Ashton Smith, Jack Vance and Gene Wolfe are the only ones I'm really familiar with, that I'd use the term.

I'd include Terry Pratchett.

Quote from: Sigmund;525552I'd include Terry Pratchett.

Terry Goodkind on the "horrible" end of the scale.  It's like reading a fantasy novel written by Joseph McCarthy.

Anyone who claims Asimov isn't brilliant hadn't read The Gods Themselves. Thank you and good night.

REH never really made a pretence to be something more then entertaining pulp writer (and a great one at that). HPL gains great depth, if you make an assumption (perhaps incorrect, but that is how I always saw his works) that there's much more there that meets the eye - focusing mostly around the idea spelled out in Call of Cthulhu, that knowledge brings us unhappiness.

Quote from: Acta Est Fabula;525553Terry Goodkind on the "horrible" end of the scale.  It's like reading a fantasy novel written by Joseph McCarthy.

I agree with you. Goodkind and Jordan are two who, for me personally, fall under the category of "What the fuck do folks see in these hacks?". They both have the distinction of being the only authors who's books I have been unable to even finish reading.

Quote from: Rincewind1;525554... that knowledge brings us unhappiness.

Which, of course, comes from Genesis.

Quote from: Sigmund;525558Which, of course, comes from Genesis.

Or that disobeying God brings us unhappiness . The ability to distinguish between Good and Evil is more like "Continue" then a curse - it allows a human a chance for salvation.

Except that salvation wouldn't be necessary if we hadn't been thrown from the garden for violating a rule that, by definition, we couldn't possibly have understood.

Quote from: J Arcane;525568Except that salvation wouldn't be necessary if we hadn't been thrown from the garden for violating a rule that, by definition, we couldn't possibly have understood.

Well, erm...exactly? The fruit is a test of faith - the Lord only demands that you obey his command (and there was only one at the time - do not eat the Fruit). If you obey, you will live happily in paradise. If you disobey, you will need to work for redemption - and work will be possible due to the fact  that you could distinguish between good and evil. Eating the Fruit doomed humanity, but also granted it the chance for redemption.

Quote from: Rincewind1;525554Anyone who claims Asimov isn't brilliant hadn't read The Gods Themselves. Thank you and good night.

I have, and I maintain my claim.

Quote from: Rincewind1;525573Well, erm...exactly? The fruit is a test of faith - the Lord only demands that you obey his command (and there was only one at the time - do not eat the Fruit). If you obey, you will live happily in paradise. If you disobey, you will need to work for redemption - and work will be possible due to the fact  that you could distinguish between good and evil. Eating the Fruit doomed humanity, but also granted it the chance for redemption.

If the Fruit provides the knowledge of good and evil, then that means by definition Adam and Eve didn't have it prior to it's consumption.  Which means that when they ate the apple, they had no idea that they were doing wrong, because they didn't know what wrong was.  The text supports this further with their behavior after consuming it.  

They were punished for breaking a commandment, despite not having been given the ability to understand why breaking a commandment was bad.

Quote from: Melan;525577I have, and I maintain my claim.

Where else can we go then - matters of taste. The Gods Themselves blew my mind.

Quote from: J Arcane;525579If the Fruit provides the knowledge of good and evil, then that means by definition Adam and Eve didn't have it prior to it's consumption.  Which means that when they ate the apple, they had no idea that they were doing wrong, because they didn't know what wrong was.  The text supports this further with their behavior after consuming it.  

They were punished for breaking a commandment, despite not having been given the ability to understand why breaking a commandment was bad.

Exactly. What they however had, was the freedom - freedom to disobey Lord's command as well. Which brought them pain.

If you listen to words of the Lord however, and obey His commands, everything will work out good.

Of course, this just adds to the problematic of LN Old Testament God "versus" LG New Testament God.

Quote from: Rincewind1;525583Where else can we go then - matters of taste. The Gods Themselves blew my mind.



Exactly. What they however had, was the freedom - freedom to disobey Lord's command as well. Which brought them pain.

If you listen to words of the Lord however, and obey His commands, everything will work out good.

Except they didn't know what "good" was. They, by definition, could not have known that having faith and following God's rule was "good" or that breaking God's rule was "evil" until after they already broke the rule. Sure God gave them freedom... just enough freedom to hang themselves. Gee, thanks God.... jerk-off. Glad i don't believe in it... I've never liked the "guy".

Quote from: Sigmund;525585Except they didn't know what "good" was. They, by definition, could not have known that having faith and following God's rule was "good" or that breaking God's rule was "evil" until after they already broke the rule. Sure God gave them freedom... just enough freedom to hang themselves. Gee, thanks God.... jerk-off. Glad i don't believe in it... I've never liked the "guy".

You are correct, but the problem is a bit greater (and since I had ran a tangent long enough, I'd allow you to continue riding TSR settings up and down ).

By definition, the orders of True God are good - because he is omnipotent and benevolent, and always orders the best for His children (even if we, because of our fallible minds, do not understand that).

In other words - if you disobey God, you commit evil. The test of loyalty is also a test of capability of humans to do evil, even without understanding of it.

Knowledge itself is meaningless here - either you trust the God, and deserve Paradise, or you commit evil.

However - we are not doomed, because the Fruit allows us to see between Good and Evil. Which allows us to distinguish between good knowledge (which brings us closer to God) and bad knowledge (which distances us from him).

Quote from: Rincewind1;525589You are correct, but the problem is a bit greater (and since I had ran a tangent long enough, I'd allow you to continue riding TSR settings up and down ).

By definition, the orders of True God are good - because he is omnipotent and benevolent, and always orders the best for His children (even if we, because of our fallible minds, do not understand that).

In other words - if you disobey God, you commit evil. The test of loyalty is also a test of capability of humans to do evil, even without understanding of it.

Knowledge itself is meaningless here - either you trust the God, and deserve Paradise, or you commit evil.

Well, I would question whether he's always benevolent... Hell and the Flood are two examples of what any rational person might consider at least a touch less than benevolent. The trouble with the whole theory is the assumption that folks with no knowledge of good and evil (in other words right and wrong) would be capable of realizing that loyalty is good. Especially when they have some snake talking up the virtues of the fruit. I understand what you're saying about disobeying God being evil, but they would not have... they didn't know what "evil" was. The entire lesson, IMO , is ruined by this flaw in the reasoning of the story. I feel I have no need for "redemption" because 1) I wasn't the one that ate the fruit (way to over-react God), and 2) even Adam and Eve would have been completed incapable of choosing the "correct" option because, according to the story, they had no capacity for distinguishing between good and evil until after they ate the fruit. They did nothing "wrong" because they were not given the tools to defend themselves from making the "wrong" choice.

Lets take this to another thread or PMs if we want to continue the discussion Rince... don't wanna derail the thread further.

Sorry ya'all for the derail up to this point.... unless we want to take the thread this way of course, but this really has nothing to do with the topic, so it might be better to start a new thread.