| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Crai
Acolyte
USA
42 Posts |
 Posted - 16 May 2013 : 17:34:33
|
The whole cryptic storyline & intrigue-oriented portfolio of Leira ... and the relentlessly ongoing Leira conspiracy theories over the years have pretty much made her a primary candidate for "return" to modern Forgotten Realms culture.
She's the ideal F.R. deity to be considered alive and dead, simultaneously, at all times, confusingly, forever. :-P |
 |
|
|
silverwolfer
Senior Scribe
789 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2013 : 18:08:45
|
I want god wars.... I want them now.
I want big wizard wars between thay and the shade enclave want shar to fight the sun god. I want the sundering to be such a big damn thing, that it rips a hole in the timeline and makes such a big mess that AO has to come in and tie the knots, instead of just waving a wand and fixing everything but instead has to jiffy rig things causing various timelines to merge.
I want such a big thing to happen in such an ugly manner that a serious case of atheism runs through the realms due to the gods abusive behavior.
**but I want to keep the dragonborn , they are the rule of cool ** |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36877 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2013 : 18:31:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Venger
I really, really hope Myrkul and Bhaal come back, too. I want the Dead Three back in full force (Although naturally Myrkul wouldn't be God of the Dead).
I'm happier the way they are now: artifact Myrkul, Bane 2.0 (whom I suspect is actually Xvim) and Bhaal being dead. Bhaal and Myrkul were boring as deities, so the current status works a lot better, to me -- I think artifact-Myrkul is an awesome idea.
quote:
Originally posted by Venger
I've commented on this before, but I think that Myrkul and Lathander should both come back and split up the duties of a Sun God. Lathander as God of Dawn, Amaunator as God of the Midday Sun, and Myrkul as God of Dusk.
I still fail to understand the idea behind this -- it's basically "the god of a few hours". I really can't understand the appeal of that, and I also fail to understand why it should only apply to sunlight -- why not a god of just before dawn, a god of midnight, and a god of early evening? Why different deities for the different "faces" of the sun, but only one for all the faces of the moon? |
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!  |
|
|
|
Venger
Learned Scribe
USA
269 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2013 : 18:50:00
|
Because it fits with pre-established lore as well as all the other portfolios which each of those gods had. Lathander and Myrkul, for instance, were already gods of Dawn and Dusk, so that's not exactly a new thing. The only change would be to make Amaunator god of the Midday Sun. Lathander has portfolios like Birth, Renewal, Spring, Vitality, and Youth. He's the god of constant changes and new beginnings. Myrkul's portfolios were Corruption, Decay, Exhaustion, Old Age, and Wasting. He's the god of things which come to an end. Amaunator, however, is rigidity and inflexibility. He's the god of the status quo and of stasis. If all three were co-existing then they could emphasize their unity and how their work is in opposition to the work of the others while at the same time feeding each other. Lathander creates something new but eventually tires of it, Amaunator takes that thing and cares for it, nurtures it, and tries to preserve it as he found it, and Myrkul tries to tear that thing apart and ruin what Amaunator tries to preserve, and from the ashes of what Myrkul's destroyed Lathander creates anew.
So that's why. It'd be a case of taking something which has already existed in the lore for years, expanding on it, and strengthening those relationships. As for Myrkul, you may prefer him as just another random intelligent artifact, but I'd prefer to have him back as a god, and I'm sure there're many people who'd like the same. As mentioned before, the goal should be additive, not subtractive. And so long as Mykrul can exist as a god without eliminating another in the process, I don't see why he can't come back. |
"Beware what you say when you speak of magic, wizard, or you shall see who has the greater power." |
|
|
|
silverwolfer
Senior Scribe
789 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2013 : 18:54:22
|
| Amaunator=god of the sun ...period you can make Myrkul god of night if you want, but then you will have shar all over you. |
|
|
|
Venger
Learned Scribe
USA
269 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2013 : 19:12:17
|
| Things change. Before 4E Amaunator was dead and/or gone and Lathander was God of the Dawn. Before that Lathander was God of Dawn and Myrkul was God of Dusk. If those two come back then that's likely how they'd come back. And if they can coexist with each other without there being only a single sun god then there's no reason the same can't be done with Amaunator. And personally, I think having the three of them engaged in a cosmic tug of war of creation, stagnation, and destruction is much more interesting than the Realms having another generic sun god. |
"Beware what you say when you speak of magic, wizard, or you shall see who has the greater power." |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2013 : 20:42:47
|
I rather like the notion of extrapolating a PoL scheme beyond the puny workings of insignificant mortals stumbling through their muddy little Realms. A compelling vision of the heavens (and hells) mirroring the earth, a Faerūnian pantheon composed almost entirely of powerfully evil (although not necessarily always malign) deities wherein only a comparative handful dare to defy the exalted order of things and work towards the morally square-chinned heroic stuff.
Not sure why the grand sky-god patriarch in charge of the entire pantheon always needs to be a Good (or Neutral with Good tendencies) sort of fellow. A dark and tyranical world ruled by Bane makes the paladins of little Torm all the more noble, in my mind. Why can't the Good side of the pantheon be forced to used guerilla war tactics in their fight for souls? Why must they all be glorious blazing symbols of faultless purity instead of opportunistic and sometimes-almost-treacherous pragmatists using cheap and dirty tricks under the radar to win their war against greater evils? |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2013 : 22:20:37
|
Has anyone considered whether the deities as presented in Elminster's Guide to the Forgotten Realms are an indication of the deities that will make it into 5E?
Regardless, I hope Bhaal returns. There are too many good uses for clerics and followers of the Lord of Murder for him not to return.
quote:
Originally posted by Venger
It'd be a case of taking something which has already existed in the lore for years, expanding on it, and strengthening those relationships.
I like this.
I'd like to see Myrkul return as well. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36877 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2013 : 22:55:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Venger
Because it fits with pre-established lore as well as all the other portfolios which each of those gods had. Lathander and Myrkul, for instance, were already gods of Dawn and Dusk, so that's not exactly a new thing. The only change would be to make Amaunator god of the Midday Sun. Lathander has portfolios like Birth, Renewal, Spring, Vitality, and Youth. He's the god of constant changes and new beginnings. Myrkul's portfolios were Corruption, Decay, Exhaustion, Old Age, and Wasting. He's the god of things which come to an end. Amaunator, however, is rigidity and inflexibility. He's the god of the status quo and of stasis. If all three were co-existing then they could emphasize their unity and how their work is in opposition to the work of the others while at the same time feeding each other. Lathander creates something new but eventually tires of it, Amaunator takes that thing and cares for it, nurtures it, and tries to preserve it as he found it, and Myrkul tries to tear that thing apart and ruin what Amaunator tries to preserve, and from the ashes of what Myrkul's destroyed Lathander creates anew.
So that's why. It'd be a case of taking something which has already existed in the lore for years, expanding on it, and strengthening those relationships. As for Myrkul, you may prefer him as just another random intelligent artifact, but I'd prefer to have him back as a god, and I'm sure there're many people who'd like the same. As mentioned before, the goal should be additive, not subtractive. And so long as Mykrul can exist as a god without eliminating another in the process, I don't see why he can't come back.
That still doesn't give a reason for not having a god of 3am to 6am, or why one deity covers all phases of the moon.
Multiple sun deities is pure redundancy, and having opposing deities share the same thing is problematic, at best.
Oh, and we have lore indicating that Bane 2.0 is not Bane 1.0. That's been in the lore for years, and expanding on that would mean officially stating that Bane 2.0 is either an amalgam of Xvim and Bane 1.0, or that he is actually Xvim. So if we're going to keep prior lore and expand it, no Bane, or at least not as he was before.
And it's also long-established in prior lore that Myrkul is in an artifact and prefers that existence to his former godhood.
My point is that if you're going to pull for something based purely on prior lore, then it should be applied across the board.
I favor maintaining the pre-Sellplague continuity, but I also favor continual development of lore. Myrkul was an excellent example of this -- putting him in the Crown of Horns put him back into play, without having to undo anything that came before, and without having to go back to the "ooh, death is scary!" cliche. It also made him far more usable than he would have been as a deity. |
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! |
|
|
|
silverwolfer
Senior Scribe
789 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2013 : 23:25:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Venger
Things change. Before 4E Amaunator was dead and/or gone and Lathander was God of the Dawn. Before that Lathander
I would like to point out, that Lath and Ama, are the same gods. |
|
|
|
Venger
Learned Scribe
USA
269 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2013 : 01:04:57
|
quote:
That still doesn't give a reason for not having a god of 3am to 6am, or why one deity covers all phases of the moon.
Multiple sun deities is pure redundancy, and having opposing deities share the same thing is problematic, at best.
Not at all. Redundancy implies they're all doing the same thing. They're not. As I already mentioned, they have wildly divergent portfolios. Do you really think that the God of Dusk, Decay, and Corruption is a redundancy when paired alongside the God of Dawn, Birth, and Renewal? They'd be three sun gods, but they'd represent different facets and aspects of life. It's not just about the sun, because there's more to their portfolios than that. And the idea of three sun gods at odds with each other is a far more interesting notion than just giving the Forgotten Realms a single generic sun god. The Realms had an interesting set up before, with Lathander and Myrkul as Gods of Dawn and Dusk rather than your generic sun god, and bringing them back along with Amaunator would be a furtherance of the uniqueness which the Realms had prior, whereas the 4E route of Amaunator as a typical sun god was less original.
quote:
Oh, and we have lore indicating that Bane 2.0 is not Bane 1.0. That's been in the lore for years, and expanding on that would mean officially stating that Bane 2.0 is either an amalgam of Xvim and Bane 1.0, or that he is actually Xvim. So if we're going to keep prior lore and expand it, no Bane, or at least not as he was before.
What lore is that? I remember that was what some people theorized at the time that 3E came out, but people theorizing that isn't the same as being true. As far as I know, Bane = Bane. He's not Iyachtu Xvim pretending to be Bane, nor anything of the sort.
quote:
And it's also long-established in prior lore that Myrkul is in an artifact and prefers that existence to his former godhood.
That's a contrivance to explain why he isn't actively pursuing godhood if he's still in existence. Moreover, it's one which can be easily trumped by the simple fact that many people are known to change their minds after a while. If they were to bring Myrkul back all they would need is a single sentence stating that, after over a century of being locked in that crown, Myrkul got sick of it and decided to regain his godhood. Done. It's hardly the insurmountable barrier you make it out to be.
quote:
My point is that if you're going to pull for something based purely on prior lore, then it should be applied across the board.
And how isn't it being applied across the board? How many years did Myrkul spend as as mortal attempting godhood? How many years afterwards did he spend trying to gain greater power, so much so that he helped Bane steal the Tablets of Fate? If anything, Myrkul being content being an artifact is out of character, not in character. Moreover, if he loves the trouble which he's able to stir up as a crown, why wouldn't he enjoy being able to create trouble on a grander scale as a god, particularly if he's freed from some of the less entertaining godly duties which required him to be more responsible, like God of Death?
quote:
I favor maintaining the pre-Sellplague continuity, but I also favor continual development of lore. Myrkul was an excellent example of this -- putting him in the Crown of Horns put him back into play, without having to undo anything that came before, and without having to go back to the "ooh, death is scary!" cliche. It also made him far more usable than he would have been as a deity.
I'm not suggesting making Myrkul God of the Dead, again. As for his being useable, how useable is a single artifact versus an entire faith with its worshippers built around causing corruption, decay, and ruin? The latter is far more rife with possibilities than a single crown which is good for an adventure or two and then you're done with it. Moreover, his and Bhaal's return as gods opens the door with more development of the relationship between the Dead Three. Brian James wrote a great article a while back about an incident during their mortal lives and I thought it was incredibly interesting, and it really whetted my appetite for more about the Dead Three and their adventures. Those kinds of tidbits are far more interesting when they're written about characters which are alive and continue to have an influence on the Realms to this day.
quote:
I would like to point out, that Lath and Ama, are the same gods.
According to the 4E Realms Gruumsh/Talos, Selune/Sehanine, and others are all the same gods, too. Hopefully those're some of the 4E changes which 5E will do away with, particularly in this case, since Amaunator and Lathander make much more sense as different characters than the same one. |
"Beware what you say when you speak of magic, wizard, or you shall see who has the greater power." |
Edited by - Venger on 17 May 2013 01:08:34 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2013 : 01:23:24
|
There is but one god, and all the rest are just schizophrenic delusions of a mad god.
There is no god but Ao, and Elminster is his prophet.
If we are dealing with beings who can be in hundreds of different places at once, and appear differently each time, how do we truly know what is 'real'? Couldn't an entire pantheon just be one being pulling everyone's leg? Wasn't there a scene in Crucible in which Mask takes the form of many different avatars?
Made we got it backwards - maybe deities are just 'suits' that different beings wear, at different times. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Eilserus
Master of Realmslore
USA
1446 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2013 : 01:28:29
|
| I'd suggest picking up Salvatore's new novel The Companions when it comes out in August. It has some good info in there of things to come. Excellent novel. I know I'll be following the entire Sundering line. :) |
|
|
|
CorellonsDevout
Great Reader
USA
2708 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2013 : 01:38:58
|
About Lath/Ama. I preferred Lathander to Amaunataur myself, but there was a...prophecy, I guess, about the Deliverance, in which Lathander would become Amaunataur. His clergy was divided because some believed in the Deliverance and others did not. I remember this from Kemp's Twilight Wars.
@Eilserus: have you managed to get your hands on an early release of the Companions? If you did, then you're so lucky! |
Sweet water and light laughter |
|
|
|
Eilserus
Master of Realmslore
USA
1446 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2013 : 01:46:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout
About Lath/Ama. I preferred Lathander to Amaunataur myself, but there was a...prophecy, I guess, about the Deliverance, in which Lathander would become Amaunataur. His clergy was divided because some believed in the Deliverance and others did not. I remember this from Kemp's Twilight Wars.
@Eilserus: have you managed to get your hands on an early release of the Companions? If you did, then you're so lucky!
No early release. A review copy. But yeah, the novel was pretty much the awesome. My only regret being we have to wait for the next one! |
|
|
|
CorellonsDevout
Great Reader
USA
2708 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2013 : 01:48:16
|
| How do you get those? I'd like to get review copies! |
Sweet water and light laughter |
|
|
|
silverwolfer
Senior Scribe
789 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2013 : 03:45:05
|
| I would reshuffle as it was the myth in 3e source books that deal with it , while the griffion legion books of late, dealt heavily on the issue, due to the spell changed captain getting jiggy with it during the story arc of brimstone xorvitall dragon games. One of the few things I would feel comfortable arguing about when it comes to lore. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36877 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2013 : 06:30:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Venger
Not at all. Redundancy implies they're all doing the same thing. They're not. As I already mentioned, they have wildly divergent portfolios.
The god of some portion of the sunlit day, the god of some portion of the sunlit day, and the god of some portion of the sunlit day -- yeah, no redundancy there.
quote:
Originally posted by Venger
What lore is that? I remember that was what some people theorized at the time that 3E came out, but people theorizing that isn't the same as being true. As far as I know, Bane = Bane. He's not Iyachtu Xvim pretending to be Bane, nor anything of the sort.
What lore is that? Well, Bane 2.0 does not use the same symbol, the same colors, or the same servitor critters as 1.0. He does use the same colors and servitor critters as his son. That's plenty of evidence right there that 1.0 is not the same as 2.0.
I also think it's very interesting that it wasn't followers of Bane who saw Xvim blow up -- it was only followers of Xvim, the exact audience that would need to be convinced in order for the ruse to work as planned.
And one of the designers who wrote some of that material specifically didn't say I was wrong when I pointed out that the lore supported the idea of Xvim masquerading as his dad. Deities pretending to be other deities is also common in Realmslore.
quote:
Originally posted by Venger
That's a contrivance to explain why he isn't actively pursuing godhood if he's still in existence. Moreover, it's one which can be easily trumped by the simple fact that many people are known to change their minds after a while. If they were to bring Myrkul back all they would need is a single sentence stating that, after over a century of being locked in that crown, Myrkul got sick of it and decided to regain his godhood. Done. It's hardly the insurmountable barrier you make it out to be.
How is it a contrivance? Before that lore about the Crown of Horns, Myrkul was thought to be dead. There was no need for them to explain anything. The Crown of Horns brought him back into play; it wasn't contriving to explain anything.
And you're right, people change their minds after a while -- like deciding after several centuries that having Ao breathing down your neck sucked, and that it was better to be free to act without that and without any responsibilities.
I'm not calling it an insurmountable barrier -- I'm saying that if you go with something simply because it was past lore, then you can't ignore past lore that doesn't support what you want. You're trying to use past lore as a justification while ignoring past lore you don't personally like.
quote:
Originally posted by Venger
And how isn't it being applied across the board? How many years did Myrkul spend as as mortal attempting godhood? How many years afterwards did he spend trying to gain greater power, so much so that he helped Bane steal the Tablets of Fate? If anything, Myrkul being content being an artifact is out of character, not in character. Moreover, if he loves the trouble which he's able to stir up as a crown, why wouldn't he enjoy being able to create trouble on a grander scale as a god, particularly if he's freed from some of the less entertaining godly duties which required him to be more responsible, like God of Death?
How is it being out of character for a known troublemaker to want to keep pursuing trouble, without fear of repercussions?
quote:
Originally posted by Venger
I'm not suggesting making Myrkul God of the Dead, again. As for his being useable, how useable is a single artifact versus an entire faith with its worshippers built around causing corruption, decay, and ruin? The latter is far more rife with possibilities than a single crown which is good for an adventure or two and then you're done with it. Moreover, his and Bhaal's return as gods opens the door with more development of the relationship between the Dead Three. Brian James wrote a great article a while back about an incident during their mortal lives and I thought it was incredibly interesting, and it really whetted my appetite for more about the Dead Three and their adventures. Those kinds of tidbits are far more interesting when they're written about characters which are alive and continue to have an influence on the Realms to this day.
Myrkul still has influence on the Realms as an artifact.
Realmslore shows that a deity need not be alive at all to have followers. He can still have as many or as few as a DM wants. However, having him in an artifact means he's something PCs can work against and have a chance of actually defeating, as opposed to PCs versus a deity. Sure, PCs can oppose deific goals, but the deity is always going to have a huge advantage over PCs, and the best PCs can hope for is to stop current plot #37.
It's like putting a guy in a rowboat with a BB gun and expecting him to have a chance at defeating a battleship. Even if he can somehow prevail in one encounter, the battleship has every single advantage, not the least of which is being able to brush past the guy without even noticing he's there.
|
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! |
|
|
|
Lord Bane
Senior Scribe
Germany
479 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2013 : 09:56:38
|
*prods Hamster before letting him be taken away by banite Inquisitors*
We had the discussion if Bane is Bane or Iyachtu Xvim pretending to be Bane before. We tended to disagree in the end but let me for the sake of clarity comment again on the things you wrote:
The followers of Iyachtu Xvim getting the vision can be easily explained as a sign of Bane saying "Your god is dead,I killed him,I am stronger than him,worship me as rightfull tyrant or suffer". Banites who still believed in Bane didn“t need the reminder of how dreadfull the Black Hand is. I mean, showing faithfull of a deity how it dies at the hand of another is instilling fear in their hearts, fear, what Bane is responsible for.
The desinger may have said that you were not wrong to think in such directions, yet he did not say it was right either, think on that
I wouldn“t mind to see Myrkul return as god of undeath, it fits and would put him in a nice struggle against Kelemvor like Velsharoon did before. Bhaal definatly needs to return and take away the murder protfolio from Cyric.
Imagine the Dead Three reunited under the leadership of Bane, Shar can pack her bags and clear the stage for some true evil to happen.
|
The driving force in the multiverse is evil, for it forces good to act. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36877 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2013 : 12:56:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Bane
*prods Hamster before letting him be taken away by banite Inquisitors*
We had the discussion if Bane is Bane or Iyachtu Xvim pretending to be Bane before. We tended to disagree in the end but let me for the sake of clarity comment again on the things you wrote:
The followers of Iyachtu Xvim getting the vision can be easily explained as a sign of Bane saying "Your god is dead,I killed him,I am stronger than him,worship me as rightfull tyrant or suffer". Banites who still believed in Bane didn“t need the reminder of how dreadfull the Black Hand is. I mean, showing faithfull of a deity how it dies at the hand of another is instilling fear in their hearts, fear, what Bane is responsible for.
The faithful of Bane may not have needed such a vision, but there would have been no harm in reminding them of their god's power. And showing the vision to Cyricists that were former Banites could have served as a warning and pulled them back to the fold. Instead, the only people that saw it were the ones that Xvim would need to convert to Bane if he was assuming his father's identity.
And there is still the fact that Bane 2.0 does not use the same colors or symbol of Bane 1.0, and in fact uses the same colors as Xvim. Servitor critters that Bane 1.0 didn't use, but that Xvim did use, are now used by Bane 2.0.
While I'll most readily admit that my preferred conclusion is not definite, it best fits all the facts... And the fact that Bane 2.0 has changed many things about how he presents himself is undeniable, with the most likely conclusion being that he is not the same deity he once was. Either he's some mix of Bane and Xvim, or he's Xvim. |
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! |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2013 : 13:39:22
|
On Bhaal - as much as I liked him, I feel he is the one god that shouldn't come back. After all, as a former god of murder, I think he would be against murdered beings coming back from the dead. Its anathema to him, IMO.
On Mystra - As I said above, I'd prefer something more like the original; an aloof goddess who is just the 'caretaker of the Weave' (and a lot more like GH's Wee Jas). Then we can have individual, 'lesser' deities for certain aspects of magic. Give Lurue a more prominent role (there is a difference between 'The Weave', and magic itself).
On Myrkul - I MUCH prefer him over Kelemvor, but I use both, and in this case, my vote is 'the more the merrier'.
On Bane - he is redundant with Asmodeus. I would prefer that it turns out Bane is just an alias for Asmodeus... but thats never going to happen. I just don't see a need for both. However, I would prefer 'Bane' remain his FR-specific name - I hate when RW mythic beings are used in FR lore (and perhaps leave that one of those undisclosed 'deeper secrets').
On Lathander/Aumanator - I personally use (for my hombrewed version) FOUR 'sun' deities - I also include Re ("the setting sun"), and divide the cycle each has prominence in to 250 year intervals (so a thousand years is one full cycle). You have dawn, midday, evening, and night. The first three are one being with three different aspects/personalities, but 'the dusk Lord' is an entirely different entity. The first Dusk Lord (pre-Sundering) was Erebus, but many others have taken up the portfolio since then. Personally. I think Shar should have it in 5e, but I am sure people would get their nerd-rage on if that happened.
So I basically gave my FR a milenia-long cylce of rebirth and renewal, which applies to Faerūn itself (if not the world). The sun god is fated to 'live' through his three cycles, and then the Dusk Lord holds the portfolio until a new Dawnlord has risen. I realize this is a stretch from canon, which is why I wouldn't wish it upon the canon Realms.
As for the rest - I think deities like Mask, Leira, Vhaeruan, etc... should remain 'mysterious'. Whether they are 'alive' or not doesn't really matter; its their human cultists that interest me. Why do we need to know where the power is really coming from? Leaving it open-ended gives DMs so much more room to play with.
As for the non-human deities - I am all for merging pantheons, but we need to keep a handful of them race-specific. For instance, I decided years ago that Deep Sashales IS Poseidon/Neptune, and the Finnish deity Ahto. There is absolutely no reason why he can't be. The Elves know him as Deep Sashelas - an ancient Fey power - and so most folks on Toril know him by that name as well. Except for some problems with past lore (not really - easy enough to fudge), I also think its just fine for Sune to be Hanali Celanil (and Aphrodite/Venus, etc). She's another one that could easily be an ancient Fey power (Freya, maybe?) I think a little cross-cultural religious pollination is not only good for the setting, but it makes perfect sense, given how long the various major races have been interacting. We just need to keep the names setting-specific (or at least D&D-specific), because some of them are just too jarring (like if we actually did use 'Aphrodite').
So all of that should be going on... but they shouldn't tell us all of it. I realize that fans "want to know", but the more they tell us, the more snags they inadvertently create, and the more holes could get torn in the fabric of the setting. It also ties our hands for future stories (because things get 'set in stone'). And I don't just mean by the authors/designers... WE tell far more stories in the Realms then any of them do, each and every day (in our games).
And for god sakes... go back to the 'uncertain third person' presentation style. IT WORKS - it allows us to change whatever the heck we want, and covers all the bases I mentioned above (in other words, just because some group is worshiping a god, doesn't mean its real). Deities 'active in the Realms' does not = deities that actually exist. Once we realize that, anything is possible.
|
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 17 May 2013 13:40:39 |
|
|
|
silverwolfer
Senior Scribe
789 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2013 : 17:38:36
|
Response on Myrkel - Why, isn't the god of the dead is evil, sort of an getting old as a plot driver? The god of the dead not giving a damn, and just wanting the dead to stay dead, seems refreshing after all of this plot points.
As for the uncertain bit, I don't like that, as far as a reader. I want to know what happened, who did what and why, not left int he dark so I can roleplay it out later. That is what homebrew is for, as far as a reader goes I want a consistent storyline over things that matter.
As far as divinity goes, in seems in faerun, if enough folks believe it is so, then it seems to become true. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2013 : 18:17:21
|
So, what if your group destroys a suspected 'seed of Bhaal' (some sort of relic), and stops him from coming back.
Then the canon Realms has a story about how this item did cause Bhaal to come back - now how do you explain the relic your guys destroyed being used in the canon Realms?
Believe me, I am on your side about 'more information' - I am a 'lore whore' when it comes to the Realms. However, as a DM, I can see how useful it is to leave things a bit open-ended. Sure, some plothooks should eventually be tied-off (after they get to sit and ferment for a few years), but then they should create at least three more to replace it (to paraphrase Ed himself).
|
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Venger
Learned Scribe
USA
269 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2013 : 18:27:13
|
quote:
The god of some portion of the sunlit day, the god of some portion of the sunlit day, and the god of some portion of the sunlit day -- yeah, no redundancy there.
There's an enormous difference between the Dawn, the Midday, and the Dusk. Again, it's not just about the sun, because those differences are representative of the other things which those gods represent. Lathander is the god of birth, renewal, and new beginnings. That's why he was God of the Dawn and not a plain old sun god, because the dawning sun is representative of all those things which Lathander stands for. The start of a new day and the promise of new beginnings.
Likewise, Dusk is representative of all the things which Myrkul stands for. The end of things and the coming of a fearful time when the world goes dark and cold. He was God of the Fall for the same reason, because Fall precedes Winter. So no, they're not redundant at all.
quote:
What lore is that? Well, Bane 2.0 does not use the same symbol, the same colors, or the same servitor critters as 1.0. He does use the same colors and servitor critters as his son. That's plenty of evidence right there that 1.0 is not the same as 2.0.
He was resurrected and so decided to change things up. Simple. As for servitors, which would that be? Servitors like Fzoul, who was his servant during his first life? That's your theory, but your theory isn't fact.
quote:
I also think it's very interesting that it wasn't followers of Bane who saw Xvim blow up -- it was only followers of Xvim, the exact audience that would need to be convinced in order for the ruse to work as planned.
As the other poster pointed out, it was probably to elicit a fear response from them and let them know flat out who was in charge now so there would've be the sort of chaos there was when Cyric took over from Bane. No "Xvimdeaths" or any such nonsense. Xvim was your old boss and now I'm your new boss, and you're going to have to go along to get along.
quote:
And one of the designers who wrote some of that material specifically didn't say I was wrong when I pointed out that the lore supported the idea of Xvim masquerading as his dad. Deities pretending to be other deities is also common in Realmslore.
Let me know when someone says you're right, because while gods have been known to pretend to be others, gods have also been known to create backdoors for them to exploit so they can be resurrected should they be killed.
quote:
How is it a contrivance? Before that lore about the Crown of Horns, Myrkul was thought to be dead. There was no need for them to explain anything. The Crown of Horns brought him back into play; it wasn't contriving to explain anything.
It was probably written at the time to leave the door open for bringing him back as a god at some point, but not having to move on it at that particular point in time.
quote:
And you're right, people change their minds after a while -- like deciding after several centuries that having Ao breathing down your neck sucked, and that it was better to be free to act without that and without any responsibilities.
And people are known to change their minds again, particularly when rules are changed and when their responsibilities change with them, like not having God of the Dead to deal with and being able to devote ones energies entirely on bringing ruin to people and civilizations.
quote:
I'm not calling it an insurmountable barrier -- I'm saying that if you go with something simply because it was past lore, then you can't ignore past lore that doesn't support what you want. You're trying to use past lore as a justification while ignoring past lore you don't personally like.
Umm... in that case then you're doing the exact same thing but in reverse. So what're you calling me out on, again?
quote:
How is it being out of character for a known troublemaker to want to keep pursuing trouble, without fear of repercussions?
Because he's Myrkul, not Dennis the Menace. He's also about power, too, and he gains more power from being a god than from flitting about Faerun as a random artifact.
quote:
Myrkul still has influence on the Realms as an artifact.
... However, having him in an artifact means he's something PCs can work against and have a chance of actually defeating, as opposed to PCs versus a deity...
Ok, so I suppose you're arguing that all of the evil gods should be placed into artifacts to wreak havoc on Faerun? If that makes them more interesting, then let's put Bane, Shar, Gruumsh, Loviatar, Lolth, Asmodeus, Cyric, Talos, etc in artifacts, since apparently undoing the plots of their churches doesn't count since the god is still there afterwards.
Sure, Myrkul's "worshippers" as a crown can be as expansive as a DM wants, but according to the lore he doesn't have as much. And if you broaden his supporter base immensely, then... isn't he pretty much already no different to the churches of Bane, Cyric, etc, in which case why not have him as a god, anyway? If he had that much support wouldn't he be elevated to godhood?
There are plenty of intelligent artifacts which DM's can employ to pester the PC's whenever necessary. We're talking about the character of Myrkul, though. And the character of Myrkul is far more interesting as a god than he is as a crown, at least in my opinion, and I'd like to see him come back. His relationship to Bane and the potential relationship he could fill alongside Amaunator and a returned Lathander represents a storytelling possibility which I consider worth mining, and a resurgent Church of Myrkul represents a far more interesting and enduring enemy group than whatever small number of cultists invariably end up worshipping the Crown of Horns. |
"Beware what you say when you speak of magic, wizard, or you shall see who has the greater power." |
|
|
|
silverwolfer
Senior Scribe
789 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2013 : 18:53:01
|
| Ao , lets make all gods artifacts, and then we will call these items pokeballs! |
|
|
|
Aldrick
Senior Scribe
909 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2013 : 21:38:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
The faithful of Bane may not have needed such a vision, but there would have been no harm in reminding them of their god's power. And showing the vision to Cyricists that were former Banites could have served as a warning and pulled them back to the fold. Instead, the only people that saw it were the ones that Xvim would need to convert to Bane if he was assuming his father's identity.
And there is still the fact that Bane 2.0 does not use the same colors or symbol of Bane 1.0, and in fact uses the same colors as Xvim. Servitor critters that Bane 1.0 didn't use, but that Xvim did use, are now used by Bane 2.0.
While I'll most readily admit that my preferred conclusion is not definite, it best fits all the facts... And the fact that Bane 2.0 has changed many things about how he presents himself is undeniable, with the most likely conclusion being that he is not the same deity he once was. Either he's some mix of Bane and Xvim, or he's Xvim.
While I agree with and support your conclusions Wooly, I don't think the change in the holy symbol is the strongest argument. Bane isn't the only deity to change his holy symbol after the Time of Troubles. Ilmater is another example of a deity who changed their symbol. According to Faith's and Pantheons:
"Ilmater#146;'s symbol in the early days was the blood-stained rack, but since the Godswar the use of a pair of white hands bound with a blood-red cord has come into almost exclusive use. This newer symbol has increased Ilmater#146;'s popularity in the world at large."
Granted, this doesn't disprove anything, but merely shows that other deities made changes as well post-ToT. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36877 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2013 : 23:41:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Aldrick
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
The faithful of Bane may not have needed such a vision, but there would have been no harm in reminding them of their god's power. And showing the vision to Cyricists that were former Banites could have served as a warning and pulled them back to the fold. Instead, the only people that saw it were the ones that Xvim would need to convert to Bane if he was assuming his father's identity.
And there is still the fact that Bane 2.0 does not use the same colors or symbol of Bane 1.0, and in fact uses the same colors as Xvim. Servitor critters that Bane 1.0 didn't use, but that Xvim did use, are now used by Bane 2.0.
While I'll most readily admit that my preferred conclusion is not definite, it best fits all the facts... And the fact that Bane 2.0 has changed many things about how he presents himself is undeniable, with the most likely conclusion being that he is not the same deity he once was. Either he's some mix of Bane and Xvim, or he's Xvim.
While I agree with and support your conclusions Wooly, I don't think the change in the holy symbol is the strongest argument. Bane isn't the only deity to change his holy symbol after the Time of Troubles. Ilmater is another example of a deity who changed their symbol. According to Faith's and Pantheons:
"Ilmater#146;'s symbol in the early days was the blood-stained rack, but since the Godswar the use of a pair of white hands bound with a blood-red cord has come into almost exclusive use. This newer symbol has increased Ilmater#146;'s popularity in the world at large."
Granted, this doesn't disprove anything, but merely shows that other deities made changes as well post-ToT.
It's not just the symbol. It's also him adopting his son's chosen colors and his servitor critters. It's the fact that Xvim's death was only witnessed by those who most needed to be converted for Bane's return. It's the fact that we have many examples of gods masquerading as other gods to directly or indirectly get more power and worshipers -- and Xvim has already done that, too.
It costs Xvim nothing and gains him much to impersonate Daddy, and while it's not the only possible interpretation of all those facts, it's one of the most likely.
I find it far more likely that either Xvim is Bane, or that Bane 2.0 is some mix of Bane and Xvim, as opposed to Bane 1.0 returning, changing his appearance, and not announcing his return more widely. |
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! |
|
|
|
silverwolfer
Senior Scribe
789 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2013 : 23:42:41
|
| what is bane is actually vasharoon.... |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36877 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2013 : 23:48:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by silverwolfer
what is bane is actually vasharoon....
Unlikely. Velsharoon was a servitor of Talos, who was edging towards serving Mystra, at least as a way to keep what was left of his skin. Tyrants don't serve others, and Bane is King Tyrant. |
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! |
|
|
|
silverwolfer
Senior Scribe
789 Posts |
Posted - 18 May 2013 : 00:53:32
|
| Hmm.....Tyrants only serve others as long as others are stronger , if you are a "dead" god starting to come back to power, not being the head hancho would be a given for a bit, especcily in the 4e aspect of gods being under others. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
taking bets on 5e gods
