| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
 Posted - 09 Oct 2012 : 20:14:56
|
LOL - Ao is all about 'tough love'. 
We are lucky he didn't nuke a few cities and turn people's wives to salt. 
Note to self: Never piss-off the all-power Overgod. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
 |
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36963 Posts |
Posted - 09 Oct 2012 : 21:46:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
@Wooly, Sightless, Markus discussion about changed names, etc: I think Sightless is largely in the right on WotC's direction, which is to change things occasionally without explaining it and leave it to individual DMs (and/or future designers/authors) to pick up and run with if they want to do so. Things do gradually change, and as long as there are potential explanations for why something is different, I don't think every change needs to be spelled out.
The name "Helgabal" comes from the new (dictatorial) ruler of Damara, who changed the city's name to consolidate his rule and seem to be in complete control. In the RW, this happens all the time--heck, dictators have changed the names of cities or entire countries to be named after themselves.
It's a matter of lines and degrees. It's a lot easier to accept an unexplained change that you like than one you don't like. Also, if there's an unexplained change you don't like, why not just ignore it and go with what you know?
"Shared World" does not mean "fully developed and everything explained." What it means is that multiple people are always working on fleshing it out and answering questions left unanswered, like "why did this city's name change?" or "where did this otherwise unknown god come from?" As a writer and designer working in a shared world, I personally delight in explaining things that otherwise aren't explained and developing things that were only hinted at in earlier editions/sourcebooks.
Ultimately, that's sort of the Ed Greenwood philosophy: close one door, open a few windows. Heligobabalus vs. Helgabal is one such window.
Cheers
I don't think that changing the name of a city without explanation is "leaving doors open." I think that's poor design.
Leaving a door open is having the ruler of the city disappear. Leaving a door open is having his beloved daughter suddenly start acting strangely. Leaving a door open is when you discuss how, within this city, a building suddenly gets up and walks away, disappearing into the wilds. Those things are giving DMs opportunities to play with.
Changing the name of a city without a mention? That's changing part of the background of the setting. That's not an opportunity for a DM. That's putting a DM on the spot by forcing them to explain something that should have been explained when the change was made.
Whether I like the explanation for a change or not is irrelevant to this discussion -- what's relevant is the lack of the explanation.
You offered a good reason for the name to have changed. Why couldn't the designers have done the same?
And this has nothing to do with a lack of detail, either. I have never complained about that. What this has to do with is changing existing details. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 09 Oct 2012 21:49:26 |
|
|
|
The Hidden Lord
Learned Scribe
148 Posts |
Posted - 09 Oct 2012 : 22:01:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I don't think that changing the name of a city without explanation is "leaving doors open." I think that's poor design.
No, this is an example of good design. It would be poor design if the names of at least a few cities did not change over the course of a century, as would be expected in living societies. |
|
|
|
Euranna
Learned Scribe
USA
219 Posts |
Posted - 10 Oct 2012 : 00:56:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
No vacation, no incompetence, nothing. AO left the coffee grinder running without a filter for a century ON PURPOSE. The gods made their bed--he's just letting them sleep in it for a while. They thought they could do things their own way, free of him and his authority, so he left for a century so they could try it out, and what happened?
Chaos.
A world on the brink.
We see the devastation in the Realms in very human terms and wonder why AO would possibly leave the Realms running the way they did between 1385 and 1485. We can call AO cruel or unfeeling or senseless, but the truth is that he is showing the gods what happens without him. It may have been painful for him to watch, or he may look at it completely without feeling. He's thinking long-term, and a long-term Realms without AO is unsustainable--this was just him proving it.
In all possibility and likelihood, question AO's method as we might, he had to do something to maintain the survival of Abeir and Toril. That is his job, and he will do whatever it takes to do it.
Cheers
I could be wrong (and Erik please correct me) but the Era of Upheaval was actually longer than a century. But this past century was the "icing on the cake" so to speak? I thought the Era started earlier (Time of Troubles maybe?).
I am taking Ao's slow to action 3 ways: 1. Gods move more slowly than mortals do (take elf to human then multiply it). 2. It was like when a parent has to finally let their child fall and see how it feels so they learn better. And lastly 3. When he "fixes it" he is going to be re-stablishing how much more powerful he is than the rest of the gods are yet again (I admit..this one might be 100% in my head..but I like it). |
|
|
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
Posted - 10 Oct 2012 : 01:27:16
|
100 years or more
he still did it on purpose, after all he did say along the lines take care of your followers or know a living hell or something..... |
why is being a wizard like being a drow? both are likely to find a dagger in the back from a rival or one looking to further his own goals, fame and power
My FR fan fiction
Magister's GAmbit
http://steelfiredragon.deviantart.com/gallery/33539234 |
|
|
|
Mapolq
Senior Scribe
Brazil
466 Posts |
Posted - 10 Oct 2012 : 04:17:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Hidden Lord
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I don't think that changing the name of a city without explanation is "leaving doors open." I think that's poor design.
No, this is an example of good design. It would be poor design if the names of at least a few cities did not change over the course of a century, as would be expected in living societies.
Changing the name is good design. Not saying why is bad design. That in very broad brushes. As I said, they didn't have much space in the FRCG. Counting the words, a simple explanation such as the one given by Erik would take about 5% of the whole writeup for Damara. But I agree that the attitude should be one of explaining that sort of thing when possible. So if someone does a web article on Damara, that's something they should go into, in my opinion. Not sure whether someone already did one... a quick search didn't show any results.
By the way, I'd have given up 5% or more of the space to describe the name change, but I'm a sucker for placenames, their history and etymology. |
Never sleep under the jackfruit tree.
Tales of Moonsea - A Neverwinter Nights 2 Persistent World. Check out our website at http://www.talesofmoonsea.com and our video trailer at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am304WqOAAo&feature=youtu.be, as well as our thread here at Candlekeep: http://www.forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=12955
My campaign thread: http://www.forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=16447 |
Edited by - Mapolq on 10 Oct 2012 04:20:34 |
|
|
|
Sightless
Senior Scribe
USA
608 Posts |
Posted - 10 Oct 2012 : 04:22:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I don't need an explanation why he needs to do all this - the pieces to the puzzle are all there in the past. The only answer I need is WHY it took him so long to correct the situation. In every other instance Mystra/the Weave got 'rebooted' almost instantly - why did it take him a century to set things right?
quote:
Originally posted by Sightless
What I meant, is that if Ao seperated them, I've got two different explanations on to the why, and he's the over deity , the biggest baddest boy on the block, the traffic cop that can kick everybody out on a whim... exageration yes, then if he does something, why does Mystra’s death suddenly change that? there's to many lose threads here on that score, and yes, an equally good question is why didn't he do anything about it. I don't think Ao takes vacations.
No vacation, no incompetence, nothing. AO left the coffee grinder running without a filter for a century ON PURPOSE. The gods made their bed--he's just letting them sleep in it for a while. They thought they could do things their own way, free of him and his authority, so he left for a century so they could try it out, and what happened?
Chaos.
A world on the brink.
We see the devastation in the Realms in very human terms and wonder why AO would possibly leave the Realms running the way they did between 1385 and 1485. We can call AO cruel or unfeeling or senseless, but the truth is that he is showing the gods what happens without him. It may have been painful for him to watch, or he may look at it completely without feeling. He's thinking long-term, and a long-term Realms without AO is unsustainable--this was just him proving it.
In all possibility and likelihood, question AO's method as we might, he had to do something to maintain the survival of Abeir and Toril. That is his job, and he will do whatever it takes to do it.
Cheers
There's only one tiny flaw with this logic, well two really, but I'll let the one other go for the moment, he kind of proved that point in the time of troubles. |
We choose to live a lie, when we see with, & not through the eye.
Every decision, no matter the evidence, is a leap of faith; if it were not, then it wouldn't be a choice at all. |
|
|
|
Neo2151
Learned Scribe
USA
118 Posts |
Posted - 10 Oct 2012 : 09:37:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
^I understand that deities are a mystery, but what's the point of being so vague? If that's to give the illusion that many deities are back, it won't cut it since people who play d&d can easily use any god they wish in their campaign. If they used the lack of info ''trick'', it would be the same as saying ''X IS DEAD'', because the support would be null anyway and interesting stories would remain brutally interrupted. Also, too much vagueness is annoying.
As it has been said countless times (and as it is obvious), the Realms are yours to use and yada yada...
It's interesting you say that, because YES, the Realms is meant to be altered and changed and what not, but at the same time, you and I both know that people get tied into knots over "BUT IT'S NOT CANON!" even though "THIS CANON DOESN'T WORK FOR ME ANYWAY!"
I would much rather see WotC leave it up to DMs. Rather than *definitively stating* that a deity is dead, just say that deity has vanished from popular worship, and let DMs pick them up if they want, or ignore them if they don't. That way, we can all say "my Realms follows the canon!" and be happy.
quote:
The reason I -personally- absolutely want some deities back (I've already named them before) is that it opens up possibilities of development to their and their followers' stories which I wish to enjoy again (and because WotC chose to remove many of them from canon in a really weak way).
What's stopping you from doing that, if the Realms are yours to shape as you wish?
Is it because some sourcebook says a particular god is gone?
See the canon pressure?
quote:
Also, I'm wondering if people at WotC really read/care about what it is said here...
They do. They absolutely do. Do you not see Eric Boyd, George Krashos, and myself commenting here? We may be freelancers, but we're all written Realms stuff in the past. And maybe in the future. Who knows?
Cheers
I realize I'm coming in late, but I just really wanted to comment on this.
AEG's L5R game is currently in it's 4th Edition, and for this edition, they've adopted the tagline of "L5R Your Way," essentially meaning they want the players and GMs to know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that anything in the books can be taken with a grain of salt and any rules or canon lore can be changed at a whim to fit a personal game better.
This is a great stance to take... to a certain point.
The problem I've noticed with this in L5R currently, is that it's become a scapegoat for the devs when they accidentally let a retcon slip through the cracks, or when they provide mechanics that don't have rules or don't work right. These issues are few and far between, and it's a very strong game, but when a player gets on their forum and asks "how does X rule/story point work, because it doesn't seem to make any sense" and the official answer is "It's up to you/your GM."
=========================
So, keeping the GM in the top spot is very important, but there is a certain point to be watched out for where too much GM love makes WotC's product irrelevant. (Especially true for us long-time fans who have 2/3.5 material that's chock full of lore to be used.) |
"Come looking for me, and I will blast you to dust, and then lay waste to all your descendants, ancestors, and the realm you came from, every last tree and stone of it. Why? Well, it's what I usually do."
-Baerendra Riverhand on The Story of Spellfire |
|
|
|
The Hidden Lord
Learned Scribe
148 Posts |
Posted - 10 Oct 2012 : 12:14:47
|
You may well believe that to be true. However, you would be falling into the "never enough detail" trap into which Wooly fell, broke his legs, and is now forever trapped.
quote:
Originally posted by Mapolq
quote:
Originally posted by The Hidden Lord
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I don't think that changing the name of a city without explanation is "leaving doors open." I think that's poor design.
No, this is an example of good design. It would be poor design if the names of at least a few cities did not change over the course of a century, as would be expected in living societies.
Changing the name is good design. Not saying why is bad design. That in very broad brushes. As I said, they didn't have much space in the FRCG. Counting the words, a simple explanation such as the one given by Erik would take about 5% of the whole writeup for Damara. But I agree that the attitude should be one of explaining that sort of thing when possible. So if someone does a web article on Damara, that's something they should go into, in my opinion. Not sure whether someone already did one... a quick search didn't show any results.
By the way, I'd have given up 5% or more of the space to describe the name change, but I'm a sucker for placenames, their history and etymology.
|
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
12189 Posts |
Posted - 10 Oct 2012 : 14:31:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
@Wooly, Sightless, Markus discussion about changed names, etc: I think Sightless is largely in the right on WotC's direction, which is to change things occasionally without explaining it and leave it to individual DMs (and/or future designers/authors) to pick up and run with if they want to do so. Things do gradually change, and as long as there are potential explanations for why something is different, I don't think every change needs to be spelled out.
The name "Helgabal" comes from the new (dictatorial) ruler of Damara, who changed the city's name to consolidate his rule and seem to be in complete control. In the RW, this happens all the time--heck, dictators have changed the names of cities or entire countries to be named after themselves.
It's a matter of lines and degrees. It's a lot easier to accept an unexplained change that you like than one you don't like. Also, if there's an unexplained change you don't like, why not just ignore it and go with what you know?
"Shared World" does not mean "fully developed and everything explained." What it means is that multiple people are always working on fleshing it out and answering questions left unanswered, like "why did this city's name change?" or "where did this otherwise unknown god come from?" As a writer and designer working in a shared world, I personally delight in explaining things that otherwise aren't explained and developing things that were only hinted at in earlier editions/sourcebooks.
Ultimately, that's sort of the Ed Greenwood philosophy: close one door, open a few windows. Heligobabalus vs. Helgabal is one such window.
Cheers
I don't think that changing the name of a city without explanation is "leaving doors open." I think that's poor design.
Leaving a door open is having the ruler of the city disappear. Leaving a door open is having his beloved daughter suddenly start acting strangely. Leaving a door open is when you discuss how, within this city, a building suddenly gets up and walks away, disappearing into the wilds. Those things are giving DMs opportunities to play with.
Changing the name of a city without a mention? That's changing part of the background of the setting. That's not an opportunity for a DM. That's putting a DM on the spot by forcing them to explain something that should have been explained when the change was made.
Whether I like the explanation for a change or not is irrelevant to this discussion -- what's relevant is the lack of the explanation.
You offered a good reason for the name to have changed. Why couldn't the designers have done the same?
And this has nothing to do with a lack of detail, either. I have never complained about that. What this has to do with is changing existing details.
Wooly just said it exactly the way I'd feel about it. While I didn't notice that they did in fact rename it in 4th edition (because I was so p.o.'d I quit buying game material)...... hmmm, maybe I should just leave it at that sentence. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
12189 Posts |
Posted - 10 Oct 2012 : 14:38:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
When is it okay to change things?
This has come up in another thread (at this point, all the threads eventually turn into the same discussions).
I am in the process of making a new (3e era) map, and I am in the Bloodstone region - an area originally not meant to be in the Forgotten Realms. Now, much of it does fit the Realms nicely, and its history is now part of our favorite setting (sometimes going back further then it it should, since these regions are supposedly only recently unveiled from the ice). So I am looking the maps over (I use a plethora of them for each region, to get them as accurate as possible), and my eye is drawn to Heliogabalus...
The rest in that vicinity are Realmsian; Brotha, Trails End, Withermeet, etc... but Heliogabalus? Its WAY too Latin-sounding.
When this area was created it wasn't part of the Realms, so that was fine. But once it became part of the Realms some changes were in order (there are a couple of Greek gods in there as well). How about we get a name change for the capital of Damara in 5e?
Or are we slaves to canon that wasn't even originally for this setting? Is the current consensus amongst the designers - even the freelancers - that we change nothing, even when its just plain bad? Are people's egos more important then the setting, to the point where the setting has now come into jeopardy?
This isn't a rant - I want an honest discussion. I am a stickler for canon (Grognard and proud of it), but does that mean we are close-minded to the setting's faults?
Interesting thing to discuss. I wouldn't say that Vaasa and Damara aren't a part of the "original setting", given that the modules were released at the same time as the old grey box. So, they've been there "since the beginning" for most of us. However, that being said, I see your point on the name of the city not matching up to the surroundings. I've got the same thing where I live... one city is Pearl River, one city is Slidell, another city is Mandeville, and a nearby river is the Hobolochitto.
My take on this would be that the name comes from something else... not a greek culture (even though, I do know they tried to place Poseidon and Dionysus here). For the most part, the setting has dodged over those Greek deities, and I'd prefer it stay that way (i.e. in my view their Poseidon is our Valkur). The Dionysus that was here was turned into a saint of Ilmater in Faiths and Avatars ("Ilmater is different from many Faerűnian faiths in that it has many saints, among them St. Dionysius and St. Sollars the Twice-Martyred (whose symbol is a yellow rose)."
So, who might have names that sound similar and might have been around in the past? Well, there were dark elves in the regions nearby in ages past (in what would become the Rawlinswood). I could also see that name being a name in frost giant. I could also see it being an Elvish name.
Also, while the area was "recently" uncovered from the ice, I would imagine the uncovering itself took a long time, such that maybe during the time of Narfell, maybe only the Northern half was solidly covered in ice and the southern portion may have been a little colder but more tolerable. Thus, this could also be a Narfellian name (maybe it was an old Narfellian fortress bordering on the giant and goblinoid filled lands of what would become Damara). Maybe its also named by Netherese refugees... as we know that at least Larloch was in the area with his city Jiksidur... and any survivors may have fled Narfell in this direction. It could also be Jaamdathi in origin.
Still, if one felt the need to rename it, I wouldn't be opposed to it as long as its not just for whim. There should be a very good reason to do so. Something that plays into shaping the realms. Maybe new people have taken over or something. As long as the story were compelling enough and didn't destroy other stories, this kind of thing can be good. After all, Dun-Tharos was previously Narathmault. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Laeknir
Seeker
68 Posts |
Posted - 10 Oct 2012 : 16:35:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
No vacation, no incompetence, nothing. AO left the coffee grinder running without a filter for a century ON PURPOSE. The gods made their bed--he's just letting them sleep in it for a while. They thought they could do things their own way, free of him and his authority, so he left for a century so they could try it out, and what happened?
Chaos.
A world on the brink.
We see the devastation in the Realms in very human terms and wonder why AO would possibly leave the Realms running the way they did between 1385 and 1485. We can call AO cruel or unfeeling or senseless, but the truth is that he is showing the gods what happens without him. It may have been painful for him to watch, or he may look at it completely without feeling. He's thinking long-term, and a long-term Realms without AO is unsustainable--this was just him proving it.
In all possibility and likelihood, question AO's method as we might, he had to do something to maintain the survival of Abeir and Toril. That is his job, and he will do whatever it takes to do it.
Unfortunately, this line of thinking just reinforces the "there is only one true god, a 'God the Father' that must be obeyed in all things" that a LOT of people didn't and don't like.
Most people didn't like the AO concept when it was introduced in the ToT, so it was rightfully minimized for a long time. People disliked the idea that AO returned for a cameo "guess what, I made Abeir, and I'll let you suffer with this Spellplague thing."
AO is disliked - as a game concept - for many reasons. Yet here comes AO once again as the KEY reason for having this new Sundering, mucking up the backstory and history, with new "reveals" and the like.
This version of AO furthermore becomes the ultimate awful "parent" figure, allowing a child's loved pets to suffer horribly and die painfully over a long period of time simply in order to teach the child a lesson. It's the perfect picture of patriarchal authoritarian bad-father imagery that's being allowed to happen here. This, we are supposed to want for the Realms?
Even worse, it puts the gods into the role of abused-bullied children. Can't fight anything AO says or does, since he's the ultimate power, regardless of how dumb and stupid he becomes.
Are designers actually listening to us? Unfortunately, I strongly believe at this point that the Realms are way too screwed up to use for gaming. I still follow a few novels, but that's it really.
This isn't just a bad idea. It's bad design. Once it's canon, you cannot escape it as a DM or player. The only option is to stop buying it and move to some other game setting that doesn't have these glaring problems.
Frankly, it would've been 100% better to have revealed that AO died, and had been slowly dying because of the original theft of the Tablets of Fate. With AO's death, it could explain why Mystra was so weakened, why the Celestial planes were in disorder, and even why the Spellplague happened. Then, Tyr could have been forced to ascend into AO's former position - taking on a fatherly role of trying to clean up the mess. Tyr might also have been unable to prevent this Sundering, as too many variables had occurred before he took on his new position. But no, instead we have AO the jerk father going around being a total jerk.
|
Edited by - Laeknir on 10 Oct 2012 17:01:17 |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 10 Oct 2012 : 17:26:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout
Here is the thing I have wondered since the Spellplague happened though: magic is a big part of Toril. It helped keep Abeir and Toril separate, and is "woven" throughout the world. That said, why did Mystra's death affect so much of the world? The gods had to scrabble to keep ahold of their realms, and some died. IMO, the fact that it was THAT important to have Mystra govern the Weave would put her on par with Ao in terms of power. She is more necessary, it seems, than all other gods because of how much her life/death affects everything. I could be missing something here, but it has puzzled me. Divine power is different from arcane power, isn't it? Clerics get their "magic" from a divine source, right? So if the gods have their divine powers (though some are more powerful than others), why did the chaos of arcane power affect them like it did?
It wasn't "Mystra's death" that caused the Spellplague, it was "the Weave coming loose," which was itself caused by "Mystra's death." (Note that I put that in quotation marks, as I don't think Mystra ever really died. And I think that's pretty logically clear.)
I don't really want to get into how magic works in the setting, as that's a huge topic and more properly the subject of another thread, but basically this: Magic permeates the world, it binds all things together. Pre-1385, the Weave was how raw magic was processed into something usable by mortals, and Mystra (as the Weave's tender) was the "filter" through which mortals could access said magic. When Mystra left the game in 1385, the Weave began to unravel, and mortals lost their filter. When the chaos stablized, they had to relearn how to access magic--this time directly, rather than through an intermediary like Mystra.
Also, it's entirely possible that Mystra HAD come to rival AO in power, and getting rid of her was actually part of his plan. This he would do either selfishly or because she threatened his appointed role as balance keeper of Realmspace. Sounds like a fun plot point for an epic Realms campaign. 
quote:
Originally posted by Joebing
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
I'm curious: I haven't had the chance to check out the adventure you refer to. What's the actual date of the adventure? You say "7 years prior to the start of 4e," but does that mean 1378 (7 years prior to the Spellplague) or 1472 (7 years prior to the Year of the Ageless One where most of the adventures/novels in 4e start happening)?
The date of the playtest adventure is "about a hundred years ago", as the first part of the background reads. It is referring to the Fall of Blingdenstone, which, at the time the 3rd Edition Campaign Setting was set (1372 DR), was abandoned. If we assume that 100 years passed from then, it would place the adventure in 1472 DR. The 4E campaign setting lists 1479 DR as the start of the campaign (p.40 "Your Campaign in 1479 DR"). So the DnDNext playtest adventure Reclaiming Blingdenstone would take place 7 years prior to the most recent events listed in the 4E Campaign Setting
That doesn't actually answer my question. My question was, "when is the adventure set?" You say "about a hundred years ago" (1372) AND 7 years prior to the 4e FRCG (1472ish). Which is when the adventure takes place? Is the "100 years ago" a historical note?
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I don't think that changing the name of a city without explanation is "leaving doors open." I think that's poor design.
Leaving a door open is having the ruler of the city disappear. Leaving a door open is having his beloved daughter suddenly start acting strangely. Leaving a door open is when you discuss how, within this city, a building suddenly gets up and walks away, disappearing into the wilds. Those things are giving DMs opportunities to play with.
Changing the name of a city without a mention? That's changing part of the background of the setting. That's not an opportunity for a DM. That's putting a DM on the spot by forcing them to explain something that should have been explained when the change was made.
Whether I like the explanation for a change or not is irrelevant to this discussion -- what's relevant is the lack of the explanation.
You offered a good reason for the name to have changed. Why couldn't the designers have done the same?
Far be it from me to defend the 4e FRCG (I've made it clear I have no interest in doing so), but I will say that the book leaves VERY little space to explain a minute detail like this. We barely get a sentence explaining who is in charge of the country after 100 years, let alone that the name of the city is changed--there's certainly not enough space for why. Had I been writing the FRCG, I wouldn't have done it that way, and we would have got an explanation.
Also, in all likelihood, the FRCG was setting it up for a Damara-specific article or even a sourcebook, which would easily have the space and focus to explain this. So in that sense, yes, it's leaving a window open for more design.
And let's make no mistake, here: this IS leaving a window open for design. Is it one that should have been left open? Probably not, I wouldn't have done so, but indeed, that's the result. You can leave unresolved threads in a good way or in a bad way.
It's also entirely possible that this is a simple editing mishap, where an editor decided that the sentence "Noted for his paranoia and obsessive need to control the world, King Frostmantle renamed numerous branches of government, holdfasts, and even the capital city" wasn't quite worth the word count--that it was so clearly implied by the king being a despot that DMs who cared could make the connection. And hey, if a designer wants to pick it up and run with it and write a Damara article, awesome.
At the same time, this is SUCH a minor issue, and one that can be explained away with a single sentence (see above). This is the most likely explanation I think is implied by the text, and it's the one we should go forward with. There are many more important things to worry about in the Realms going forward.
quote:
Originally posted by The Hidden Lord
No, this is an example of good design. It would be poor design if the names of at least a few cities did not change over the course of a century, as would be expected in living societies.
This has been explained above, but I'll throw in my 2 coppers.
I agree that it would stretch credulity not to change the names of cities over time, but that isn't what Wooly is contending. He seems to be fine with the name change itself, but contends that "not explaining the name change" is the mistake; even if it were just a sentence that said "the folk got tired of their ridiculously Latinate name, it would still be better than leaving it up in the air.
And while I for one don't disagree, I can certainly see why they might have done it that way.
quote:
Originally posted by Euranna
I could be wrong (and Erik please correct me) but the Era of Upheaval was actually longer than a century. But this past century was the "icing on the cake" so to speak? I thought the Era started earlier (Time of Troubles maybe?).
The Era of Upheaval lasts from 1358 to 1485, so 127 years. (When I say "a century," I don't mean "exactly 100 years" but rather "about" 100 years, which 127 years is.) One might consider the first 20ish years a "ramping up" process, and the height of the changes took place between 1380 and 1400 or so, then trailed off a little though continued to "upheave" until the 1480s. Now that the grand experiment is over, AO is ready to rewrite divine reality and end the Era of Upheaval.
quote:
I am taking Ao's slow to action 3 ways: 1. Gods move more slowly than mortals do (take elf to human then multiply it). 2. It was like when a parent has to finally let their child fall and see how it feels so they learn better. And lastly 3. When he "fixes it" he is going to be re-stablishing how much more powerful he is than the rest of the gods are yet again (I admit..this one might be 100% in my head..but I like it).
I would definitely be on board with #2, I think #3 is *probably* the case (we'll see in the actual Sundering novels, and #1 is *maybe* valid, though I think we've seen gods act extremely quickly and ephemerally (some, like Mystra and Cyric, like the mortals they used to be). That the Era of Upheaval lasts a long time is not because AO *can't* fix it or *can't* move fast enough to do something for a century or so, but because he *chooses* not to. Maybe the Sundering series will explain why.
quote:
Originally posted by Laeknir
Unfortunately, this line of thinking just reinforces the "there is only one true god, a 'God the Father' that must be obeyed in all things" that a LOT of people didn't and don't like.
Most people didn't like the AO concept when it was introduced in the ToT, so it was rightfully minimized for a long time. People disliked the idea that AO returned for a cameo "guess what, I made Abeir, and I'll let you suffer with this Spellplague thing."
AO is disliked - as a game concept - for many reasons. Yet here comes AO once again as the KEY reason for having this new Sundering, mucking up the backstory and history, with new "reveals" and the like.
Wow, you really don't like AO. I get that.
That's a really simplistic way of looking at it, and I don't think those implications are correct at all. Ao *isn't* a "God the Father" figure--he cares nothing about mortals or what happens to the worlds. He isn't even a ruler of the other gods--he's just the balancing force of Realmspace. He is the check to keep the gods from breaking things, and this is what he's demonstrating by allowing the Era of Upheaval: that without the check, the gods WILL break everything. Fundamentally, the world is not sustainable without some measure of balance to fight off entropy--to keep things from sliding into chaos and (eventually) nothingness.
AO doesn't match at all any major world religion's view of "God the Father." AO didn't create the world, doesn't directly interfere with the lives of mortals, and doesn't have any interest or involvement in the ultimate fate of mortals. All he's there to do is keep the gods from destroying the Realms.
So I'm just not seeing it. Neither am I seeing (in my long history of reading, gaming, and working in the Realms) anything like a concerted *dislike* of AO as a concept. He showed up during the ToT and then went away again--he's going to show up during the Sundering and then go away again. He plays a very small but important role in the setting and can largely be ignored.
I seem to recall a HUGE discussion about "why didn't AO step in to stop the spellplague?" four years ago (and the discussion has never really ended since then)--everyone rushing to AO as a potential savior/hero doesn't sound like widespread disdain for AO as a part of the setting.
quote:
Even worse, it puts the gods into the role of abused-bullied children. Can't fight anything AO says or does, since he's the ultimate power, regardless of how dumb and stupid he becomes.
That's really not the case. AO doesn't hold himself as morally superior or bully the gods--he just maintains order. He's the personification of the fantasy-natural law. Might as well call Gravity a bully because people can't just fly whenever they want to.
quote:
Are designers actually listening to us?
Yes, we are.
quote:
Unfortunately, I strongly believe at this point that the Realms are way too screwed up to use for gaming.
Well, it might not work for you, but I for one am having a great time using the Realms for gaming, just as I have for 20 years now.
quote:
Once it's canon, you cannot escape it as a DM or player.
Absolutely not true. I've dissected the idea of canon time and time again. If you choose to shackle yourself to canon you don't like, that's your decision, and making it does not mean you didn't also have the choice to change canon and make it your own.
quote:
The only option is to stop buying it and move to some other game setting that doesn't have these glaring problems.
I'm not sure what fantasy setting you're talking about that doesn't have these "glaring problems," but good luck finding one. Fantasy by its very nature plays around with magic, the divine, and concepts of how the universe works in a wondrous, mysterious, intriguing way.
Are you going to like every vision? Not remotely. But the fact that YOU don't like it doesn't mean it's a "glaring problem."
quote:
Frankly, it would've been 100% better to have revealed that AO died, and had been slowly dying because of the original theft of the Tablets of Fate. With AO's death, it could explain why Mystra was so weakened, why the Celestial planes were in disorder, and even why the Spellplague happened. Then, Tyr could have been forced to ascend into AO's former position - taking on a fatherly role of trying to clean up the mess. Tyr might also have been unable to prevent this Sundering, as too many variables had occurred before he took on his new position.
I really like that. Sounds like a great campaign!
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
Edited by - Erik Scott de Bie on 10 Oct 2012 17:31:27 |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 10 Oct 2012 : 18:02:50
|
Crafting that long post inspired another crazy idea, but maybe it's crazy like a fox. What do you guys think?
What if Mystra became the new AO?
Here's the thinking: The Realms IS magic. Magic permeates the ground, the air, the folk. Magic is in every word, deed, and story. By its very nature, magic is the most powerful aspect of the Realms, and she who controls magic controls the Realms.
By the time of her greatly exaggerated "demise," Mystra had grown very, very powerful--perhaps powerful enough to transcend the other gods and rival AO. In time, she could become capable of doing all the things that he, as an overpower, could do. When she appeared to perish (and perhaps death was part of this process), really it was the first step to transcendance--to taking her rightful place as the new overpower, at which point AO could step aside to his *next* task.
I can see all kinds of awesome in this scenario.
First, Mystra returns, but not in the same form that she left. She takes on a state that is higher, more powerful, and more mature. It pleases both the Mystra lovers (because she's back) and those who don't like Mystra as much (because she's less pervasive).
Second, this balances Mystra's power with the need to maintain ultimate balance in Realmspace. She doesn't give the perception of abusing her power or "get in the way" of design (the stated reason for axing her in 4e). Now she really does become that great power everyone feared, but her power is focused on doing something more primally important: maintaining Realmspace.
Thirdly, this is the fulfillment of Mystra's destiny.
And last but not least, you have a *female* voice be the highest in the Realms, which is all kinds of awesome.
Thoughts?
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3821 Posts |
Posted - 10 Oct 2012 : 18:06:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Crafting that long post inspired another crazy idea, but maybe it's crazy like a fox. What do you guys think?
What if Mystra became the new AO?
Here's the thinking: The Realms IS magic. Magic permeates the ground, the air, the folk. Magic is in every word, deed, and story. By its very nature, magic is the most powerful aspect of the Realms, and she who controls magic controls the Realms.
By the time of her greatly exaggerated "demise," Mystra had grown very, very powerful--perhaps powerful enough to transcend the other gods and rival AO. In time, she could become capable of doing all the things that he, as an overpower, could do. When she appeared to perish (and perhaps death was part of this process), really it was the first step to transcendance--to taking her rightful place as the new overpower, at which point AO could step aside to his *next* task.
I can see all kinds of awesome in this scenario.
First, Mystra returns, but not in the same form that she left. She takes on a state that is higher, more powerful, and more mature. It pleases both the Mystra lovers (because she's back) and those who don't like Mystra as much (because she's less pervasive).
Second, this balances Mystra's power with the need to maintain ultimate balance in Realmspace. She doesn't give the perception of abusing her power or "get in the way" of design (the stated reason for axing her in 4e). Now she really does become that great power everyone feared, but her power is focused on doing something more primally important: maintaining Realmspace.
Thirdly, this is the fulfillment of Mystra's destiny.
And last but not least, you have a *female* voice be the highest in the Realms, which is all kinds of awesome.
Thoughts?
Cheers
I like this idea. After all, as you said, Magic is the moving force of the Realms and it makes sense for its embodiment to become the force which maintains Realmspace.
About the highest voice in the Realms being female, I'd like it more if it was genderless (and it'd make more sense, since we're speaking of an entity who is embodied magic...). |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 10 Oct 2012 : 18:53:46
|
I've always thought of Mystra as Ao's opposite - the 'divine feminine' to his divine masculine.
Which, if you follow that set of beliefs, are just two faces of the same thing. Like how Infinity is the other face of Eternity in Marvel Comics.
The difference is, he keeps his power to himself, while she spreads it around to her 'children', which is in-keeping with the whole divine masculine/feminine thing. She also requires a connection to mortals to function (a soul, perhaps?) because she is an artificial creation. She had two mothers and no father... LOL! Mystra has two mommies! How very liberal of Ed.  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 10 Oct 2012 18:54:19 |
|
|
|
Mapolq
Senior Scribe
Brazil
466 Posts |
Posted - 10 Oct 2012 : 20:43:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Hidden Lord
You may well believe that to be true. However, you would be falling into the "never enough detail" trap into which Wooly fell, broke his legs, and is now forever trapped.
I don't understand what you mean. It's not a trap, or at least it's not one anyone can avoid falling into. We'll never know everything there is to know about the Realms, that's just a fact of life. Even if you read all the material that has ever been written and every thought in the minds of every designer and fan, that wouldn't touch the surface of the complexity of an entire planet.
And that's a great thing. For WotC, that means they can keep making sourcebooks and novels and selling them to us, for ever. For us, that means we can buy those sourcebooks and we can also spend all the time we wish filling in the gaps (or even changing what we don't like) in our minds - we'll never run out of space.
I'm not demanding more detail from WotC - I have no right to do that. I'm just saying that if they come up with (good) detail, I'm likely to buy their books, and I'll be more excited as a Realms fan, because that only benefits me, and doesn't constrain me in any way (except by having to pay for the book). And I'm supposing many fans feel like this... obviously I can't prove that, and certainly some fans just don't.
If you don't like detail at all, I'd think the best thing to do would be not to buy any new sourcebooks. Because detail is what sourcebooks are about. But I don't think it's a smart move for WotC to make books as poorly detailed as possible to please people who don't want books in the first place. |
Never sleep under the jackfruit tree.
Tales of Moonsea - A Neverwinter Nights 2 Persistent World. Check out our website at http://www.talesofmoonsea.com and our video trailer at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am304WqOAAo&feature=youtu.be, as well as our thread here at Candlekeep: http://www.forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=12955
My campaign thread: http://www.forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=16447 |
|
|
|
Sightless
Senior Scribe
USA
608 Posts |
Posted - 10 Oct 2012 : 20:57:55
|
I always thought of Ao as genderless myself, a being lacking such forms.
there is one issue that I think you all might want to consider, the current Mystra tends the weave, she is not the weave. the weave is something entirely seperate from her. this is an extremly important matter to consider, as the weave, that thing that is tended to, and the person doing it, are radically different: in form, function, purpose, and power. The one doing the tending is weaker than that being tended to; the form of the one tending is less pervasive than the one being tended to, and the power of the one tending is far less than the one being tended to. Your argument Erric in the form that is provided, hinges on the aspect of similarity, difference, and this difference does exist according to the lore. Now, I don't know if you intended this, lack of distinction, in your post, or if it's an accident. I can only analyze the nature of the argument that your have provided in the language in which it was provided, and the form of the language can alter an argument considerable before it is translated into pure symbolic form. I have not shown this here, not because I don't think anybody is stupid, or couldn't understand it, it's just that people have had a tendency to ignore it in previous entries.
Given all this, therefore, I cannot find a logical reason for giving Mystra the level of power that you are preposing Errick, simply do to the reasons discussed above. Do you follow? |
We choose to live a lie, when we see with, & not through the eye.
Every decision, no matter the evidence, is a leap of faith; if it were not, then it wouldn't be a choice at all. |
|
|
|
Joebing
Learned Scribe
USA
202 Posts |
Posted - 10 Oct 2012 : 22:01:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
That doesn't actually answer my question. My question was, "when is the adventure set?" You say "about a hundred years ago" (1372) AND 7 years prior to the 4e FRCG (1472ish). Which is when the adventure takes place? Is the "100 years ago" a historical note?
Because of the rules of the playtest, I cannot discuss much more, but it is just a historical note, like the DM's Adventure Background at the beginning of the adventure.
Let me try to simplify my statement: In 1372, the start of the 3E setting, Blingdenstone was considered abandoned. 107 years later is when the 4E campaign setting starts, according to the 4E FR Campaign Guide, p. 40 ("Your Campaign in 1479 DR).
Now, the Second DnDNext Playtest packet never gives an exact date, but does say that the Svirneblin fled Blingdenstone about 100 years prior. There is no exact date given. According to cross-referencing the 3E FRCS and Underdark books, as well as Grand History of the Realms, Blingdenstone fell in 1370 DR. 100 years would be 1470 DR, with the word "about" used, I'll give it a two year leeway, so 1472 at the latest is when the playtest module took place. Granted, it is just a playtest module, and will probably never see the light of day, however, it was a great module, and will probably be used several times by each person involved in the playtest in their own campaigns.
I wish I could explain it better. Sorry, but it just through me off when I tried to figure it into the timeline. If you get a chance, read the adventure. It's worth bringing into the Realms history, granted, it won't fit timeline-wise into 5E. |
Now plugging away on mass conversion to 5e, as well as my imprint J. Halk Games.
http://www.facebook.com/JHalkGames
First adventure on DM Guild: Lair of Elaacrimalicros |
|
|
|
Joebing
Learned Scribe
USA
202 Posts |
Posted - 10 Oct 2012 : 22:12:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Crafting that long post inspired another crazy idea, but maybe it's crazy like a fox. What do you guys think?
What if Mystra became the new AO?
Here's the thinking: The Realms IS magic. Magic permeates the ground, the air, the folk. Magic is in every word, deed, and story. By its very nature, magic is the most powerful aspect of the Realms, and she who controls magic controls the Realms.
By the time of her greatly exaggerated "demise," Mystra had grown very, very powerful--perhaps powerful enough to transcend the other gods and rival AO. In time, she could become capable of doing all the things that he, as an overpower, could do. When she appeared to perish (and perhaps death was part of this process), really it was the first step to transcendance--to taking her rightful place as the new overpower, at which point AO could step aside to his *next* task.
I can see all kinds of awesome in this scenario.
First, Mystra returns, but not in the same form that she left. She takes on a state that is higher, more powerful, and more mature. It pleases both the Mystra lovers (because she's back) and those who don't like Mystra as much (because she's less pervasive).
Second, this balances Mystra's power with the need to maintain ultimate balance in Realmspace. She doesn't give the perception of abusing her power or "get in the way" of design (the stated reason for axing her in 4e). Now she really does become that great power everyone feared, but her power is focused on doing something more primally important: maintaining Realmspace.
Thirdly, this is the fulfillment of Mystra's destiny.
And last but not least, you have a *female* voice be the highest in the Realms, which is all kinds of awesome.
Thoughts?
Cheers
I approve this message (LOL!).
I actually believe bringing her back in that position would be good for the Realms.
Now if you could bring back Kiaransalee...(best Drow Goddess EVER)
|
Now plugging away on mass conversion to 5e, as well as my imprint J. Halk Games.
http://www.facebook.com/JHalkGames
First adventure on DM Guild: Lair of Elaacrimalicros |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
12189 Posts |
Posted - 10 Oct 2012 : 22:54:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Crafting that long post inspired another crazy idea, but maybe it's crazy like a fox. What do you guys think?
What if Mystra became the new AO?
Here's the thinking: The Realms IS magic. Magic permeates the ground, the air, the folk. Magic is in every word, deed, and story. By its very nature, magic is the most powerful aspect of the Realms, and she who controls magic controls the Realms.
By the time of her greatly exaggerated "demise," Mystra had grown very, very powerful--perhaps powerful enough to transcend the other gods and rival AO. In time, she could become capable of doing all the things that he, as an overpower, could do. When she appeared to perish (and perhaps death was part of this process), really it was the first step to transcendance--to taking her rightful place as the new overpower, at which point AO could step aside to his *next* task.
I can see all kinds of awesome in this scenario.
First, Mystra returns, but not in the same form that she left. She takes on a state that is higher, more powerful, and more mature. It pleases both the Mystra lovers (because she's back) and those who don't like Mystra as much (because she's less pervasive).
Second, this balances Mystra's power with the need to maintain ultimate balance in Realmspace. She doesn't give the perception of abusing her power or "get in the way" of design (the stated reason for axing her in 4e). Now she really does become that great power everyone feared, but her power is focused on doing something more primally important: maintaining Realmspace.
Thirdly, this is the fulfillment of Mystra's destiny.
And last but not least, you have a *female* voice be the highest in the Realms, which is all kinds of awesome.
Thoughts?
Cheers
Playing Devil's Advocate here, just to give the opposing (as I see it) viewpoint. So Ao leaves, sticks some barely upjumped mortal turned divine who barely understood her office into an even more powerful role, over say some other deity who might be able to handle the office more readily? Plus, if Mystra is now Ao, she can't be worshipped any longer as a deity. If Mystra becomes Ao, and the people one step away from her are her Chosen... are her chosen now on the level of deities? Great, so now the chosen are truly outpowering the PC's all over the place.
I don't necessarily agree with the above statements, but that's the "kind" of responses I see coming about with this kind of addition. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
12189 Posts |
Posted - 10 Oct 2012 : 23:02:22
|
| On the subject of the city renaming with no explanation, I gave some reasons why I felt it was poor design. Let me give the chief reason why this kind of thing would piss me off it became more prevalent. We are all here because we love the realms. However, there is so much already going on in the realms that its hard to keep track of. So, if there's not a really god damn good reason for renaming something other than "I just don't like it"..... leave it the hell alone, so that any research I do doesn't have to involve searching on 2 city names instead of one. Do I understand that certain things change over time? yes. Do I really need this kind of inanity simulated in my game? no. However, if you have a really GOOD reason for renaming it (i.e. some new king took it over and named the city after himself, etc...), then I'll probably remember it, and whenever I'm doing research that will stick out in my head. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Laeknir
Seeker
68 Posts |
Posted - 10 Oct 2012 : 23:07:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Wow, you really don't like AO. I get that.
It's not just me. After the ToT novels, there was a lot of anti-AO stuff on the boards. I don't recall anyone that actually liked him, other than the design staff at the time.
quote:
That's a really simplistic way of looking at it, and I don't think those implications are correct at all. Ao *isn't* a "God the Father" figure--he cares nothing about mortals or what happens to the worlds. He isn't even a ruler of the other gods--he's just the balancing force of Realmspace. He is the check to keep the gods from breaking things, and this is what he's demonstrating by allowing the Era of Upheaval: that without the check, the gods WILL break everything. Fundamentally, the world is not sustainable without some measure of balance to fight off entropy--to keep things from sliding into chaos and (eventually) nothingness.
No offense, but I'm calling BS and shenanigans on this one. What is AO's purpose if not stability of the worlds? Sure, he doesn't get involved with individual mortals or care about them, but the Tablets of Fate ARE the rules for the gods - since he set the rules up, he's their ruler in a sense.
More importantly, what about those of us who are tired of this ongoing meta-plot about the gods as NPCs? By featuring AO and the gods, again and again, it's really clear that designers have NOT been listening to those of us who have said "STOP WITH THE GODS DRAMA." It's not stopping at all. It's magnified and highlighted, and we have yet another MASSIVE RSE upcoming, in the form of the Sundering.
quote:
So I'm just not seeing it. Neither am I seeing (in my long history of reading, gaming, and working in the Realms) anything like a concerted *dislike* of AO as a concept.
No offense meant here, but if you're not seeing it then you're just choosing to ignore it.
quote:
quote:
Are designers actually listening to us?
Yes, we are.
When I feel that this is true, I'll let you know. Sorry, but I see exactly the same bad things happening over and over again. Bigger RSEs, more gods as NPCs, and damage piled on top of damage.
quote:
quote:
Unfortunately, I strongly believe at this point that the Realms are way too screwed up to use for gaming.
Well, it might not work for you, but I for one am having a great time using the Realms for gaming, just as I have for 20 years now.
It matches with your personal vision, so of course it's working for you.
quote:
quote:
Once it's canon, you cannot escape it as a DM or player.
Absolutely not true. I've dissected the idea of canon time and time again. If you choose to shackle yourself to canon you don't like, that's your decision, and making it does not mean you didn't also have the choice to change canon and make it your own.
The best part of all this is when people tell designers there's a problem, and designers launch back with "it's not us, it's you."
Honestly, I hope sales work out for this "new" planned vision of the Realms. I won't be buying it, because it does indeed have significant problems that are not only being ignored by designers but actually are being magnified and becoming worse over time.
quote:
Are you going to like every vision? Not remotely. But the fact that YOU don't like it doesn't mean it's a "glaring problem."
It's not just me. I wish designers would break out of their own personal vision just for a second and see that. But oh well. I have other settings to play with, fortunately.
I just really hope that this "Sundering" doesn't screw up the Realms so bad that it makes me stop reading the few novels I do get from time to time. But honestly, I'm not all that hopeful.
|
|
|
|
Euranna
Learned Scribe
USA
219 Posts |
Posted - 10 Oct 2012 : 23:16:02
|
I like the idea of Mystra being the feminine version of Ao. ;) One tends to the "world", one observes and only reacts as needed. One is known by the masses, one most beings have no idea even exists.
I could be wrong, but I have a foggy memory of Ao having to "report" to beings higher than himself in one of the ToT (maybe the novel when Ao shows up in El's private demiplane, drinks his wine, and puts his feet on his table?)
@Erik: I was thinking the "amping up" to the Era of Upheaval" was part of it, but I really get the "amping up", which makes me giggle a little. |
|
|
|
Laeknir
Seeker
68 Posts |
Posted - 10 Oct 2012 : 23:21:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Crafting that long post inspired another crazy idea, but maybe it's crazy like a fox. What do you guys think?
What if Mystra became the new AO?
Here's the thinking: The Realms IS magic. Magic permeates the ground, the air, the folk. Magic is in every word, deed, and story. By its very nature, magic is the most powerful aspect of the Realms, and she who controls magic controls the Realms.
By the time of her greatly exaggerated "demise," Mystra had grown very, very powerful--perhaps powerful enough to transcend the other gods and rival AO. In time, she could become capable of doing all the things that he, as an overpower, could do. When she appeared to perish (and perhaps death was part of this process), really it was the first step to transcendance--to taking her rightful place as the new overpower, at which point AO could step aside to his *next* task.
I can see all kinds of awesome in this scenario.
First, Mystra returns, but not in the same form that she left. She takes on a state that is higher, more powerful, and more mature. It pleases both the Mystra lovers (because she's back) and those who don't like Mystra as much (because she's less pervasive).
Second, this balances Mystra's power with the need to maintain ultimate balance in Realmspace. She doesn't give the perception of abusing her power or "get in the way" of design (the stated reason for axing her in 4e). Now she really does become that great power everyone feared, but her power is focused on doing something more primally important: maintaining Realmspace.
Thirdly, this is the fulfillment of Mystra's destiny.
And last but not least, you have a *female* voice be the highest in the Realms, which is all kinds of awesome.
Thoughts?
Good grief, NO. A thousand million times NO.
Mystra was WAY too powerful after the ToT, and she abused her power. I absolutely do not want another Mystra that is so immensely powerful that she's even MORE unbalancing to the setting.
Further, can we have stories that DON'T put the gods into the role of NPCs or novel characters? Doing this once was interesting. Doing it again and again and again is something that ruins their "feel" as gods. Seriously, for the past 20+ years people have been wanting LESS of the gods wandering around and acting openly.
Also, the VERY last thing I want to see is more AO. I don't want it implied that he has additional things to do, because it begs the question, "what are these things?" and once again focuses on the gods and beyond-the-gods types of stories and not on what made the Realms good in the first place: brief stories about everyday mortals just living their lives in a rough world of magic and swords.
Mystra as the new AO is about the furthest thing from awesome that I could see happening. Please, seriously, just NO.
|
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 10 Oct 2012 : 23:27:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sightless
I always thought of Ao as genderless myself, a being lacking such forms.
Well, yes, this is definitely true.
Anything primordial and above should have no gender - these are attributes that we mortals have applied to them. Chauntea is both canonically male and female (the Earthmother thing), as is the elemental lords Grumsh and Akadi (worshiped as females in the Hordlands). Also, Mask has been presented as somewhat ambiguous (he was in love with Cyric), and if he truly is Vhaerunn then I'd chalk that up to being 'a Drow thing' (Elves do not have human preconceptions about sexuality). And then we have Corellon who is supposed to be androgynous.
So while primordials and Overgods don't necessarily have any gender accept what religious dogma presents them as, deities - having once been mortal - do have inclinations toward one sex or another. That is something I think becomes less important as the god matures. Regardless, beings of that power level can appear any way they want, so they are sexless, for all intents and purposes. Since Chosen = Exarch = demigod, that means technically chosen choose which sex they wish to appear as as well (and we know that Elminster has - and probably still does - spent quite a lot of time as a female). Hell, any being with a shape change spell or item can be whatever it wants. In a world where dragons mate with humans and Dragonborn have boobs, I think the sex of a god is a very minor point, if at all.
What I meant by my comment was more of an esoteric thing - the way Wiccans/Pagans view the world. God has two halves (faces); one feminine, one masculine. They are both separate, and one and the same. When a DvR 20 deity can have 20 different, independent avatars running around, all thinking for themselves and doing their own thing, it should be fairly simple to see how something can be both one and many. And Overgods are DvR20+, so who knows how many 'selves' they are capable of being at the same time.
The Weave, Mystra, and Ao:
I think the Weave was something originally created by Ao - some sort of forcefield that kept the worlds (and other planes) apart, and it was also an 'instruction manual' for the physics of the Sphere, including magic. When Mystryl was 'born', it needed a 'body', and Ao stored that energy within his weave, making it a part of himself. Then he combined that power with a mortal soul to give it consciousness, and that became the goddess we know. Like Eve, she was made from a portion of the male aspect, but is her own separate thing as well. the current Ao is really only half of what he once was (and yet, still is).
So when the goddess of magic 'dies' (Mystryl/Mystra/Midnight), all we are really talking about is the mortal soul being ripped away from all that power 9which I assume normally destroys the mortal as well). the power is still there, in its Raw form, and ungoverned, which is why its so dangerous. Imagine if all the physics of our universe suddenly no longer followed any of the equations. that what the spellplague was all about - a universe without rules.
In order to 'reboot' the system back to its structured (and safe) state, you have to take the raw energy (DOS) and 'upload' a consciousness to it (Windows), which creates an easy-to-use, and fairly stable operating system. In this analogy, Shar's just a hacker.
Or is Shar Apple and Cyric is the hacker? Hmmmm........ |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 10 Oct 2012 23:31:40 |
|
|
|
Joebing
Learned Scribe
USA
202 Posts |
Posted - 11 Oct 2012 : 00:23:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Imagine if all the physics of our universe suddenly no longer followed any of the equations. that what the spellplague was all about - a universe without rules.
In order to 'reboot' the system back to its structured (and safe) state, you have to take the raw energy (DOS) and 'upload' a consciousness to it (Windows), which creates an easy-to-use, and fairly stable operating system. In this analogy, Shar's just a hacker.
Or is Shar Apple and Cyric is the hacker? Hmmmm........
Perfect analogy. This makes sense. |
Now plugging away on mass conversion to 5e, as well as my imprint J. Halk Games.
http://www.facebook.com/JHalkGames
First adventure on DM Guild: Lair of Elaacrimalicros |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36963 Posts |
Posted - 11 Oct 2012 : 00:45:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Playing Devil's Advocate here, just to give the opposing (as I see it) viewpoint. So Ao leaves, sticks some barely upjumped mortal turned divine who barely understood her office into an even more powerful role, over say some other deity who might be able to handle the office more readily? Plus, if Mystra is now Ao, she can't be worshipped any longer as a deity. If Mystra becomes Ao, and the people one step away from her are her Chosen... are her chosen now on the level of deities? Great, so now the chosen are truly outpowering the PC's all over the place.
I don't necessarily agree with the above statements, but that's the "kind" of responses I see coming about with this kind of addition.
I have to agree. We've already seen far too many misconceptions of Mystra -- some in this thread! -- and kicking her upstairs would give the complainers even more material. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Mapolq
Senior Scribe
Brazil
466 Posts |
Posted - 11 Oct 2012 : 00:45:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
On the subject of the city renaming with no explanation, I gave some reasons why I felt it was poor design. Let me give the chief reason why this kind of thing would piss me off it became more prevalent. We are all here because we love the realms. However, there is so much already going on in the realms that its hard to keep track of. So, if there's not a really god damn good reason for renaming something other than "I just don't like it"..... leave it the hell alone, so that any research I do doesn't have to involve searching on 2 city names instead of one. Do I understand that certain things change over time? yes. Do I really need this kind of inanity simulated in my game? no. However, if you have a really GOOD reason for renaming it (i.e. some new king took it over and named the city after himself, etc...), then I'll probably remember it, and whenever I'm doing research that will stick out in my head.
I agree with a lot of that, but try to see it this way:
- If they changed the name and provided an explanation, that would take up 5-10% of the writeup on Damara. As I said, I'd be up for that, but it's not hard to see why someone could decide otherwise.
- If they didn't change the name (and that would be obvious, since they'd have to say the name of the capital of Damara in the Damara writeup), they'd lose 100 years of in-game time to explain the change if it were done later. When someone came later with an article with a really cool reason to change the name, they'd have to make it so it was changed post-1485, since the FRCG still uses the old name.
- They could change the name, but not provide an explanation, leaving it for a future product. I can live with that (but I really think that in four years they could've come up with this product already).
- They can leave it unexplained and explicitely never have any intention of fiddling with it again. That I think is bad design.
So until I know what's their intention regarding the subject I can't say if I think it's bad design. And given that "intentions" change from person to person and year to year, I probably won't be until someone publishes an explanation for the name change. |
Never sleep under the jackfruit tree.
Tales of Moonsea - A Neverwinter Nights 2 Persistent World. Check out our website at http://www.talesofmoonsea.com and our video trailer at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am304WqOAAo&feature=youtu.be, as well as our thread here at Candlekeep: http://www.forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=12955
My campaign thread: http://www.forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=16447 |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 11 Oct 2012 : 01:23:59
|
Let me make it clear that this "Mystra as AO" thing is all a hypothetical case study and a random idea that I had--one that just happens to fit very well with both people's love for Mystra and WotC's seeming issues with incorporating her in a way that functions in the setting. I'm not actually proposing that WotC should do this, though I do think it would be neat.
quote:
Originally posted by Sightless
Given all this, therefore, I cannot find a logical reason for giving Mystra the level of power that you are preposing Errick, simply do to the reasons discussed above. Do you follow?
No, I don't follow, sorry. I have a degree in philosophy, but your argument is a little too hypothetical for me to dissect in the 30 seconds I have to check into the thread. Possibly some more detail?
Also, as Ed has established, Mystra IS the Weave, at the same time she is the tender of the Weave. Taking over for AO is basically an evolution of what she is: she personifies and cares for all magic, and as the world is built of magic, she personifies and cares for all things in the world.
Any god could in theory take over for AO, provided the setting were so fundamentally oriented toward that god's power base. In this way, Shar could become the overpower, if the world were lost to darkness and despair. Maybe that's her plan, and she would finally have the power to end the Realms for good.
quote:
Originally posted by Joebing
I wish I could explain it better. Sorry, but it just through me off when I tried to figure it into the timeline. If you get a chance, read the adventure. It's worth bringing into the Realms history, granted, it won't fit timeline-wise into 5E.
Oh I understand.
I think what they mean by "about 100 years" is "roughly a century ago." If I were referring to events in, say, 1890, I'd probably say "about a hundred years ago," even though that's technically 122 years. They leave it a little vague because it's not technically relevant to the adventure at hand, and if people really want to look it up, they'll find that the Fall of Blingdenstone has an exact date. Also, this provides a convenient gray area for you to set the playtest adventure any-when you want that is about a century after the fall (anywhere between 1460-1480, really).
Also, 5e has the potential to be era-neutral and embrace all different periods of Realms history. You should be able to (and I have) pick up a classic Realms adventure/sourcebook and use it without trouble. I've done DnD-Next playtesting with the old Ruins of Adventure module, and that's really getting back there in time.
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
What if Mystra became the new AO?
Playing Devil's Advocate here, just to give the opposing (as I see it) viewpoint.
Completely understood.
quote:
So Ao leaves, sticks some barely upjumped mortal turned divine who barely understood her office into an even more powerful role, over say some other deity who might be able to handle the office more readily?
You assume I'm talking about the Midnight incarnation of Mystra. No no no, I'm talking about ALL incarnations of Mystra, from the original Mystryl through to the version discussed in the latest Elminster novels. Mystra is all of these and more--she is one of the oldest deities in Realmspace but she also benefits from extensive new experiences and updated viewpoints, because she has been reincarnated more than once in the form of mortals. So she both has the seniority AND the evolved perspective. Under that logic, I think she is the *most* qualified of all the current deities to become a new overpower.
quote:
Plus, if Mystra is now Ao, she can't be worshipped any longer as a deity.
Well, that hasn't stopped people worshiping AO as a deity, though there's no divine power granted to worshipers. If anything, worshiping Mystra-the-overpower is basically worshiping MAGIC ITSELF--the driving force of the universe. Sounds like a totally reasonable faith to me.
quote:
If Mystra becomes Ao, and the people one step away from her are her Chosen... are her chosen now on the level of deities?
Not necessarily. When Lolth became a greater power, her favored servants didn't suddenly become demigods. It's possible one of her Chosen might step up to fill Azuth's shoes, but it's also entirely possible Azuth will come back and fill his own.
quote:
Great, so now the chosen are truly outpowering the PC's all over the place.
Other than that the Chosen wouldn't necessarily become more powerful, that was a false issue with the Realms in the first place. Some DMs (supposedly) used Chosen the wrong way, some authors write about "Chosen" because that's what TSR tells them to write about, and all of a sudden everyone thinks Chosen break the game. I for one have been DMing in the Realms for 20 years across 4 (or 4.5, rather) editions and I have never had that problem.
Also, in a fantasy world, it's kind of silly to think there isn't always a bigger fish. There's got to be some reason the huge number of extremely powerful evil guys out there haven't yet taken over/destroyed the world.
And on that point of balance, there are plenty of extremely strong bad guys that fill a similar rank as Mystra's Chosen, such that some of them have even been called "Chosen" from time to time. In this context, "Chosen" means exactly that: selected/chosen as a special servant by a particular deity. Gods empower mortal servants all the time through spells and other divine abilities--becoming a "Chosen" of a deity is just the next step.
Good questions, by the way. Thanks for playing devil's advocate.
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
One Canon, One Story, One Realms (5e) THE SEQUEL
