| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Galuf the Dwarf |
Posted - 08 Aug 2010 : 02:32:33
I haven't found any exact ruling on this, so here I go...
Is there any notice in any edition on how Kelemvor and their feelings about good-aligned creatures of the Undead or Deathless types, like Archliches or Tomb Guardians?
I know Kelemvor is just about completely anti-undead, but at least in 3.X Edition, the Judge of the Damned seemed rather benevolent, so any clue how at least his Lawful Good-aligned clergy back then would react? What about his Lawful Neutral, Lawful Evil, or 4th Edition Unaligned worshippers? |
| 6 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| The Sage |
Posted - 08 Aug 2010 : 07:12:53
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
She's also one of Ed's players and one of the Knights of Myth Drannor. We don't know which one, though, because she is a mysterious Lady. 
(actually, she is professionally required to not give out too much info about herself.)
Indeed. As the Lady Hooded One herself has noted many a time during previous discussions in Ed's scrolls over the years, she is not able to easily reveal such personal information, nor any further details beyond what the various Knights characters would sometimes do in Ed's campaigns.
As such, the Lady Hooded One has asked us to respect her privacy, and seek to ask questions that she can answer.  |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 08 Aug 2010 : 05:58:14
She's also one of Ed's players and one of the Knights of Myth Drannor. We don't know which one, though, because she is a mysterious Lady.
(actually, she is professionally required to not give out too much info about herself.) |
| Galuf the Dwarf |
Posted - 08 Aug 2010 : 03:46:21
Fascinating! Seems like I'm learning something new every day.  |
| The Sage |
Posted - 08 Aug 2010 : 03:32:23
quote:
Originally posted by Galuf the Dwarf
A question, though: What does 'THO' stand for? 
The Hooded One -- Ed's Agent of Reply and our Lady Herald of Realmslore, here at Candlekeep. See the Questions for Ed Greenwood 2010 scroll on the Chamber of Sages shelf for more info. |
| Galuf the Dwarf |
Posted - 08 Aug 2010 : 03:26:30
Thanks, bud. Much appreciated and enlightening.
A question, though: What does 'THO' stand for? |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 08 Aug 2010 : 02:50:59
From THO:
quote:
bradhunter, this is something I can give you a swift answer on, by quoting my notes from Ed's comments from the time of the Avatar design discussions (not the internal TSR ones, but the gaming community ones that followed publication of the Time of Troubles/Avatar affair).
So, here's Ed, from almost two decades ago:
Kelemvor is one of the most unwilling and conflicted of the "New Gods." Although he has a fierce revulsion for undead, his hatred is reserved for "undead by choice" (such as liches). He has sympathy for haunts, apparitions, and revenants that exist because someone died without being able to finish a task, mission, or achievement that dominated their lives at the time of death, or so violently and "unfairly" that revenge or at least public identification of their slayer (as a warning to others) leaves them unable to "rest." So Kelemvor will turn a blind eye to "unfinished business" undead, but stand against those who seek to cheat death and achieve undeath thereby.
Now, that's Ed's opinion, at the time (and please note that "haunts, apparitions, and revenants" in his words refer to the 2e "monsters" of the game), but it's an opinion reached and informed by many discussions with TSR designers of the time, and their bosses, too (managers). In other words, the equivalent of Wizards designers and brass of today; those in charge of the game rules and of the unfolding metastory of the published Realms.
So I'd say Kelemvor would both allow such a "return," and not stand in the way of another deity empowering such undead, so long as that other deity wasn't using it to assemble an army of undead and try to dominate undeath (i.e. wrest portfolios or influence away from Kelemvor [[BTW, adding divine portfolios, per se, to the game was another Ed innovation, though in fuzzier form they were around in the game and real-world mythology and fantasy fiction long before Ed]].
So start playing your revenant right now . . .
I'll contact Ed with your post right away, of course, to see if he reacts with a "Whoa!" . . . but I don't expect one, and if you don't see one, Ed's long-ago words still stand.
love,
THO
From Ed:
quote:
No, no, gomez! "PokéBall" is what * I * do to YOU.
Ahem.
Realms relevance? Oh, yes ...
bradhunter, Knight of the Gate, and other interested scribes: Ed has confirmed that his view still stands: Kelemvor (and by his instruction, his clergy) ignore baelnorn. That is, they do not treat them as undead to be destroyed, and deal with them only as necessary; polite avoidance and minimal contact is best (and being as Ed is the creator of baelnorn, he's by definition the go-to expert on them).
According to Ed, archliches are regarded as undead to be aided in achieving their task/mission and then cajoled to "pass on" into true death rather than hanging around; archliches who disagree, or who have established "unfulfillable" or really long-term tasks or missions for themselves, are to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis (i.e. Kelemvor, working through his servants as proxies, wants to truly understand the motivation and natures of each individual archlich before deciding on a policy towards each particular archlich).
I grinned at that and sent Ed a "weasel, weasel, weasel" tease, and he replied:
Weasel, of course. :} Yet on the other hand: why not? Herein lies the sort of roleplaying that should be at the heart and core of every long-running D&D campaign. So long as the DM arranges it so that players, through their characters, have a chance to govern/substantially influence outcomes, rather than being reduced to spectators of the DM's acting out events.
So saith Ed. Here endeth the latest word from the Greenwood.
love to all,
THO
|
|
|
