| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| jordanz |
Posted - 06 Oct 2008 : 17:52:21
I was reading up on WIki regarding Torms ressurection. Apparently AO deemed him worthy of it (and an upgade to Greater God) because of his great Sarifice during the timeo of trouble when he killed Banes Avatar. Well it seems to me that Eilistraee's sacrifice was on the same level, so why not her as well? |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 16 Oct 2011 : 15:34:44
quote:
Originally posted by Uchiha_Arthas
Now that being said, what's to really prevent any of the good drow from worshipping the Corellon? or any of the other Elven deities? or coming to the surface? What is really preventing Corellon from if not actively pursuing Drow redemption then at least keeping the light on for them to come home? (Similarly I am really hoping for one day for a fic of an Elf who chooses to follow Lolth and by her decree becomes a Drow. That would throw the matrons for a spin.)
A couple of things... For one thing, not all of the elven deities would accept a drow follower. For another, most drow would prefer a drow deity -- an elf deity isn't going to have the same empathy for a drow worshipper that a drow deity would, and this is going to be even more noticable with the elven followers of that deity. Lastly, even for good-aligned drow, they've been raised being told how evil the elves are, and how the drow are condemned to live underground because of that evil and the evil of the Seldarine. If a particular drow has never met an elf and thus doesn't know whether this is true or false, then what's going to make him reach out to a deity responsible for "punishing" his race and who has such evil followers? |
| Uchiha_Arthas |
Posted - 16 Oct 2011 : 13:04:48
Hello all,
First time poster here and likely to get blasted for this post but I would like to comment on one aspect that I find confusing among Elistraee supporters.
I can understand missing her (I have a few favourites myself: Helm, Tyr etc.) as a character but I do not think her role was necessary at least as part of the Drow Pantheon. To put it more precisely I do not feel that her absence upset any balance in the Drow Pantheon or even left a gap.
See I feel that by and large most of the good aligned drow either hide it very well or are outcasts ala Drizzt and Lirel. One or two small communities (and I mean small) might be fine but larger then that would be very unlikely. To me and I think probably to WotC it works better this way (My Opinion only, do not take it as fact.)
Now that being said, what's to really prevent any of the good drow from worshipping the Corellon? or any of the other Elven deities? or coming to the surface? What is really preventing Corellon from if not actively pursuing Drow redemption then at least keeping the light on for them to come home? (Similarly I am really hoping for one day for a fic of an Elf who chooses to follow Lolth and by her decree becomes a Drow. That would throw the matrons for a spin.)
|
| Old Man Harpell |
Posted - 23 Sep 2011 : 06:22:46
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
quote:
Originally posted by Azuth
Where to begin? The Lord of All Spells is speechless! If a single mortal changed Lathander to Amauntor, then we just need one of those Eilistraee worshippers running around (remember, almost all of them used to worship Lolth) and they can turn Lolth into Eilistraee! What's more, Lolth would be powerless to stop it! This would be fun if it weren't laughable. Can you imagine the sermon? "Here me now, mighty Lolth! If you don't slay House Baenre for me I shall turn you into Eilistraee!" This is so skewed I'm glad I returned all of my 4E stuff mostly unread....
Well, concentrating more on the deity-stuff than the edition-stuff, I think there's prior evidence enough to suggest that "influence" and not "control" would be a better word. Also, I don't think individuals have much "influence" in the sense you're suggesting. Large groups, perhaps. There was, for 3E Lathander, a couple of heresies -and- a schism in his church. When a faith is split like that, perhaps it -is- the case that the deity becomes a little confused. Perhaps another deity set certain things in motion to cause the heresies and the schism in Lathander's faith.
Additionally, who is to say that Lathander didn't want something like this to happen (at least in his personal case)? I know, I don't much like that line of reasoning either, but it's better than the alternative: thinking that Lathander had no influence in this matter.
'Influence' and not 'control' is the key concept here. Lathander was an aspect of Amauntor (or vice-versa, YMMV). Both are aspects of the same deific entity, so even though I think the method for enacting Lathander's transformation was a...stretch...one must consider that ultimately, both aspects are one and the same.
Thus, you could not convert Lolth into Eilistraee, who are two fundamentally distinct and separate god-beings . Only Ao (or his unnamed superior) could do that.
When we look at what was done with the drow deities, not only does it not make sense, it leaves a huge yawning void that Wizbro was likely in a committee meeting for when the decision was made to ice them.
You can still be a drow ('Bregan D'Aerthe Spy' theme in the NCS), but if you are not playing an 'evil'-themed campaign, it is unlikely your drow worships the Spider Queen. So what then? If it doesn't interfere with his business, Jarlaxle most likely wouldn't give a rip who his people worship - and since it was Lolth's laws that exiled most of his drow employees in the first place, he can be reasonably sure that Lolth won't be the object of much, if any, veneration.
Call me crazy, but I get the feeling that Wizbro didn't consider any of this...and it certainly shows. This has nothing to do with what edition one plays - it was simply sloppy work. You can't point fingers at the novel and supplement authors, either - they're doing what they were contracted to do, nothing more. The fault lies entirely with the in-house Wizards of Smart who made the call. They won't entirely dispose of the drow cash cow, but they have left very little to justify even leaving them in, IMHO.
And thus we come to the next point in the question - what, aside from pride and/or an unreasonable dislike of drow/drow gods, is keeping Wizbro from reintroducing them? All the tools are there (intentional or not), more people than not/don't care would like them returned, it would generate copious amounts of goodwill, and happy Realms aficionados would, if not sing Wizbro's praises, at least be willing to say a kind word or three when speaking of them. |
| Therise |
Posted - 23 Sep 2011 : 05:18:52
quote:
Originally posted by Azuth
Where to begin? The Lord of All Spells is speechless! If a single mortal changed Lathander to Amauntor, then we just need one of those Eilistraee worshippers running around (remember, almost all of them used to worship Lolth) and they can turn Lolth into Eilistraee! What's more, Lolth would be powerless to stop it! This would be fun if it weren't laughable. Can you imagine the sermon? "Here me now, mighty Lolth! If you don't slay House Baenre for me I shall turn you into Eilistraee!" This is so skewed I'm glad I returned all of my 4E stuff mostly unread....
Well, concentrating more on the deity-stuff than the edition-stuff, I think there's prior evidence enough to suggest that "influence" and not "control" would be a better word. Also, I don't think individuals have much "influence" in the sense you're suggesting. Large groups, perhaps. There was, for 3E Lathander, a couple of heresies -and- a schism in his church. When a faith is split like that, perhaps it -is- the case that the deity becomes a little confused. Perhaps another deity set certain things in motion to cause the heresies and the schism in Lathander's faith.
Additionally, who is to say that Lathander didn't want something like this to happen (at least in his personal case)? I know, I don't much like that line of reasoning either, but it's better than the alternative: thinking that Lathander had no influence in this matter.
Ultimately, it is what it is. There are also a few things in Faerun's more distant past that I really don't like either. We have a choice here: we can try to pick up the pieces now and work within the current edition's strictures, or we can stay within the period of an older edition, or we can perhaps wait for future changes that will improve things (according to our own particular views). Many choices.
For myself, I finally decided that I'm going to wait and see what happens, and let this current spellplaguey stuff move itself along into the past. In the meantime, I can work with thousands of years of available lore, and still look forward to better. I wouldn't particularly like playing in a batrachi-ruled Realms, and I wouldn't fully enjoy playing in a Realms during the height of Netheril. The good news is that I don't have to, though. I can let the designers know that this was a "pass" for me, and make suggestions for what I would like, and I can vote with my wallet when they deliver new material. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 23 Sep 2011 : 03:34:05
Perhaps we could focus on the actual topic, and not our feelings for 4e? |
| Azuth |
Posted - 23 Sep 2011 : 03:25:07
quote:
Originally posted by Therise, Old Man Harpell, and Alystra Illianniis
<BIG snip> I don't want to support something I consider to be a slap-together-paste kind of job. We deserved more than that, supporting the Realms for over 20-plus years.
Where to begin? The Lord of All Spells is speechless! If a single mortal changed Lathander to Amauntor, then we just need one of those Eilistraee worshippers running around (remember, almost all of them used to worship Lolth) and they can turn Lolth into Eilistraee! What's more, Lolth would be powerless to stop it! This would be fun if it weren't laughable. Can you imagine the sermon? "Here me now, mighty Lolth! If you don't slay House Baenre for me I shall turn you into Eilistraee!" This is so skewed I'm glad I returned all of my 4E stuff mostly unread. I don't like to get on a 4E-hate tangent, and I can say that ignorance is bliss, but the thought of mortals controlling deities is ludicrous. There are so many plot holes I'm surpised the Core Books don't look like Swiss cheese.
I truly feel bad for Ed: can you imagine creating something over thirty-five years and have this done to it? I would never presume to speak on his behalf, but I suspect he's contractually prohibited from speaking against Wizbro's products. I do not believe in assigning blame on individual authors, but someone was sure...on an enlightening substance...when creating the framework for the 4E stuff. Now, if someone wouldn't find me a mortal...who needs a Bane? Threaten to turn him into an Azuth, please. I've always wanted to be a Greater Power.
Azuth |
| Therise |
Posted - 23 Sep 2011 : 03:10:28
Believe me, I'm totally with both of you on this. I don't like the divine magic "investiture" change at all, and most of the other 4e changes as well. Very few of them seem logical from an organic, living perspective of the Realms. And usually, we will get "not everything will make sense because of what you don't know" -or- we get "Spellplague did it." Both of those reasons, I think, are rather forced and silly.
And it's why I've bought little to nothing in 4E Realms. What I know, I gleaned from borrowed sources because I don't want to support something I consider to be a slap-together-paste kind of job. We deserved more than that, supporting the Realms for over 20-plus years.
|
| Old Man Harpell |
Posted - 23 Sep 2011 : 02:59:10
quote:
Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
Which is another reason I won't touch that edition- it makes no sense from a logic standpoint- from either the church's view or the deity's. Why should a deity continue to allow access to powerful tools (spells) and other benefits to a priest/cleric who has turned away from his/her dogma or moral/ethical stance? The simple answer is that they would not. The deity is not going to let a renegade priest of the faith keep power that he/she no longer "deserves", mainly because it no longer serves the deity's purpose for them to have that power. Better to strip the priest of it and give that power to one who better serve the faith.
This is also something the edition-changers didn't take into consideration. Also, it leaves some of the 'Masked Lady' clerics still running around imbued with divine essence. Not all the 'good drow' (such as it is) would have been hand-waved back into dark elves (or whatever they're called now) - you don't get a say in your own bloodline. Ask any nonobservant Irishman on St. Paddy's Day - trust me on this one.
Well...that being the case, and if the essence they have is truly divine, what does that portend? Daelegoth Orndeir, as Bladewind says, transformed a god by himself...so why, the question before the house goes, can't the Eilistraeen and Vhaeraunite clerics still remaining use that essence and the power of their belief to bring the Masked Lady back, especially if it's a group effort? Or possibly...both Eilistraee and Vhaeraun separately?
Ms. Smedman left some magnificent opportunities for Wizbro to make the drow pantheon interesting again, and the 4th Edition mechanics (likely unintentionally) reinforce it. |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 23 Sep 2011 : 01:11:16
Which is another reason I won't touch that edition- it makes no sense from a logic standpoint- from either the church's view or the deity's. Why should a deity continue to allow access to powerful tools (spells) and other benefits to a priest/cleric who has turned away from his/her dogma or moral/ethical stance? The simple answer is that they would not. The deity is not going to let a renegade priest of the faith keep power that he/she no longer "deserves", mainly because it no longer serves the deity's purpose for them to have that power. Better to strip the priest of it and give that power to one who better serve the faith. |
| Therise |
Posted - 22 Sep 2011 : 04:43:07
quote:
Originally posted by Azuth
Thanks for the quote, Sage. The question, though, is whether or not the alignment of the deity and the baker have or need have anything in common? Chauntea, Tymora, and Talos are certainly not a theme from an alignment perspective.Azuth
I think the general idea is something along the lines of "worship is worship, even if it's occasional lip-service or a teeny tiny prayer for something typical during the day." For commoners, everyday folk, and general laypeople, as polytheists they worship the whole pantheon (and sometimes ALSO additional local gods and spirits, or even deities from other pantheons). They may have a personal affinity toward one deity or another, depending on their closeness in ideaology or need. But commoners can only really expect to get a nice place in the afterlife, being drawn to the deity they might feel slightly more attuned to. Or they might have a choice among several. That's it, they don't really get the benefit of spells and such.
For PCs, though, you typically have to have a patron deity. If you're a priest or divine caster pre-4E, your patron deity grants you spells and you tend to be fairly closely attuned to your deity alignment-wise. If you act in ways against your church/deity, then the deity can choose to stop granting you spells. Interestingly, though, many heretics didn't get the silent treatment from their deity, and you have a number of heretical beliefs in several churches (as seen in 3E).
With 4E, though, divine magic is "instilled" at the first commitment you make to the deity, and it's called "investiture" by a church or grove. Once you are invested, you have access to it forever, whether your alignment drifts or not and even if your deity is totally PO'ed at you. I'm not particularly fond of the change either, but it was done for game/rule reasons more than for story reasons.
|
| Azuth |
Posted - 22 Sep 2011 : 01:40:29
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
This is something Ed built into the Realms from the very beginning. As he said back in '04:-
"So that’s the way I did it. DRAGON issue 54 contains my work-in-progress unfolding of a pantheon of gods, and a glance at that article will show you three things at work: like all D&D gamers at the time, I was trying to stay official, matching deities with what Gary Gygax had revealed of his (the Greyhawk setting); I wanted lots of gods (one aspect of the Realms that’s thus far been neglected is the extent to which Jonthun the baker next door worships Chauntea for a good harvest, Tymora for good luck in the baking, Talos for good weather so the grain crops won’t be ruined, and so on, all in the same day);"
Thanks for the quote, Sage. The question, though, is whether or not the alignment of the deity and the baker have or need have anything in common? Chauntea, Tymora, and Talos are certainly not a theme from an alignment perspective.Azuth |
| The Sage |
Posted - 21 Sep 2011 : 01:33:01
quote:
Originally posted by Azuth
I'm uncertain about the despise part. Ed did answer a question on how mortals of Faerûn worship many deities. His specific example I recall was sailors offering prayers to Umberlee for calm seas before a voyage.
This is something Ed built into the Realms from the very beginning. As he said back in '04:-
"So that’s the way I did it. DRAGON issue 54 contains my work-in-progress
unfolding of a pantheon of gods, and a glance at that article will show you three things
at work: like all D&D gamers at the time, I was trying to stay official, matching deities
with what Gary Gygax had revealed of his (the Greyhawk setting); I wanted lots of gods
(one aspect of the Realms that’s thus far been neglected is the extent to which Jonthun
the baker next door worships Chauntea for a good harvest, Tymora for good luck in the
baking, Talos for good weather so the grain crops won’t be ruined, and so on, all in the
same day);" |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 20 Sep 2011 : 22:22:47
Hrm.... Coming form a polytheistic viewpoint myself, I can certainly understand the concept of paying homage to deities other than one's own for certain things (I have done it often enough) but I think it comes down to whether or not doing somethingthat furthers the deity's goals and/or dogma is done INTENTIONALLY or simply as a matter of course. I think the difference between Eilistraee's case of absorbing Vaerhaun's followers (and thus, his portfolios and essence) into her faith is different than a human "cloaking secrets" being an indirect worship of Shar. For one thing, Vaerahaun's followers KNEW they were changing to the worship of a different diety- even though there was debate as to whether it was really her, or her brother in disguise- as opposed to someone hiding secrets for the greater good, being an indirect (VERY indirect, IMHO) way of giving power to Shar. Speaking from a personal experience, I've often used the very idea that Azuth mentions of offering prayers to deities I otherwise would have nothing to do with (like thanking Thanatos for passing me by after almost being run over a few days ago) but that doesn't mean it is an active form of "worship". That's more along the lines of thanking the person who hands you your latte at Starbucks, and not thinking another thing of it. |
| Azuth |
Posted - 20 Sep 2011 : 21:24:25
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis
One need not be a worshipper to "serve" a deity. Deities are also empowered by indirect actions of unknowing individuals. In the example above, the said people don't worship Shar (in fact, being goodly, it stands to reason they despise her), but their act of hiding the truth serves the dark goddess nonetheless. Ed also mentioned something along those lines. [I'll see if I could find that post. It was his reply to one of my questions.]
I'm uncertain about the despise part. Ed did answer a question on how mortals of Faerûn worship many deities. His specific example I recall was sailors offering prayers to Umberlee for calm seas before a voyage. I suspect a deity would know if she was "despised" and the prayers untrue. It's kind of like paying off the local Mafia boss...it's a fact of life in Faerûn that you pay homage to deities that don't suit your particular morals, because you're going to change before the deity is going to change. I could see a priest of Talos hating Umberlee because she believes that Talos should rule all weather, including over the seas. It's difficult, I think, for us to insert ourselves into the minds of people who not only live in a polytheistic society, but in which the existence of the gods is not a subject of real debate. Religion in Toril is an entirely different matter than here, which (going back to Eilistraee) is why I think that if there is a powerful/large enough group of people worshipping a force, said force will manifest in the form of a deity.
Azuth |
| Dennis |
Posted - 20 Sep 2011 : 11:19:46
quote:
Originally posted by Azuth
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis
quote:
Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
If one gets right down to it, a person of any alignment could in theory follow any deity, simply because of what that deity represents to him or her.
Indeed. Take Shar for example. Some goodly people might see it necessary to "cloak" some truths because such truths when exposed might cause more damage than help. Such act serves the evil goddess well.
The question at hand is whether or not the individual is worshipping the deity as a Patron Deity, as a Cleric/Priest, or a lay persn just offering homage. I do believe alignment symmetry is required to receive and channel divine magic, but not in other cases.
One need not be a worshipper to "serve" a deity. Deities are also empowered by indirect actions of unknowing individuals. In the example above, the said people don't worship Shar (in fact, being goodly, it stands to reason they despise her), but their act of hiding the truth serves the dark goddess nonetheless. Ed also mentioned something along those lines. [I'll see if I could find that post. It was his reply to one of my questions.] |
| Bladewind |
Posted - 14 Sep 2011 : 16:36:58
System-wise, I think the one-step alignment divine casting rule was sound. But story-wise, I think the new edition investment of divine abilities is much more interesting. Again, I like to use a middle ground: most high level priests have such a high degree of trust from and to their deities that they won't lightly divest their divine spells from them even if they are starting a heresy and begin using their god-given power for aims opposite of the alignment of their patron god.
A high priest has so much clout in the real world religious discourse that a deity can be fearful of the impact of showing disfavor to him. A good example of this was given in Power of Fearun, where the fire-genasi high priest Daelegoth Orndeir claimed Lathander was actually poised to transform back into Amaunator. He single-handedly changed a god by his faith in his own belief.
For Eilistraee this was also true, but more to other way around. When she absorbed her brother Vhearaun, her high priestesses were forced to accept the more evil (morally grey) priests of her brothers faith into her own clergy. She had to change her dogma as a result, making it more lenient towards certain immoral drow sensibilities. Her own image was changed into the Masked Lady persona as a result. |
| Azuth |
Posted - 14 Sep 2011 : 06:38:27
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
quote:
Originally posted by Azuth
The question at hand is whether or not the individual is worshipping the deity as a Patron Deity, as a Cleric/Priest, or a lay persn just offering homage. I do believe alignment symmetry is required to receive and channel divine magic, but not in other cases.
To some degree, in older editions that used to be true. Though it wasn't necessary to exactly match your deity, you needed to be in an "acceptable range" of alignments.
I'm not sure exactly when that requirement ended, though. Many changes to clerics happened in 4E, such that once your -church- ran you through an induction ceremony, you were "invested" forever. Meaning that you could actually stop listening to your deity, you could modify your beliefs in ways that would be heretical, and yet you'd still obtain daily spells no matter how peeved your deity was with you. No longer do you have deities denying spells to PCs, which was definitely possible in 1E-2E. Not sure about 3E, though.
A quick reply then off to bed...I am admittedly and willingly uneducated with respect to 4E. If this was an added change, then it further fuels my ire against it. Worshipping a deity doesn't require alignment alignment (that's weird, I know) but to receive spells from a deity and disregard his/her dogma? That just flies in the face of logic. If a deity is powerless against a mortal, the world really has turned upside down. 3E used the "one-off" rule with respect to deities... not sure about 3.5.
None of this, however, has anything to do with Eilistraee's resurrection, so we really should focus on that, or create a new scroll. |
| Therise |
Posted - 14 Sep 2011 : 05:57:43
quote:
Originally posted by Azuth
The question at hand is whether or not the individual is worshipping the deity as a Patron Deity, as a Cleric/Priest, or a lay persn just offering homage. I do believe alignment symmetry is required to receive and channel divine magic, but not in other cases.
To some degree, in older editions that used to be true. Though it wasn't necessary to exactly match your deity, you needed to be in an "acceptable range" of alignments.
I'm not sure exactly when that requirement ended, though. Many changes to clerics happened in 4E, such that once your -church- ran you through an induction ceremony, you were "invested" forever. Meaning that you could actually stop listening to your deity, you could modify your beliefs in ways that would be heretical, and yet you'd still obtain daily spells no matter how peeved your deity was with you. No longer do you have deities denying spells to PCs, which was definitely possible in 1E-2E. Not sure about 3E, though. |
| Azuth |
Posted - 14 Sep 2011 : 03:09:40
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis
quote:
Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
If one gets right down to it, a person of any alignment could in theory follow any deity, simply because of what that deity represents to him or her.
Indeed. Take Shar for example. Some goodly people might see it necessary to "cloak" some truths because such truths when exposed might cause more damage than help. Such act serves the evil goddess well.
The question at hand is whether or not the individual is worshipping the deity as a Patron Deity, as a Cleric/Priest, or a lay persn just offering homage. I do believe alignment symmetry is required to receive and channel divine magic, but not in other cases. |
| Dennis |
Posted - 14 Sep 2011 : 02:28:41
quote:
Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
If one gets right down to it, a person of any alignment could in theory follow any deity, simply because of what that deity represents to him or her.
Indeed. Take Shar for example. Some goodly people might see it necessary to "cloak" some truths because such truths when exposed might cause more damage than help. Such act serves the evil goddess well. |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 14 Sep 2011 : 01:55:12
Ayrik, I think you were confusing a follower's alignment with his/her focus on a divine portfolio. One need not be good, or evil to worship Lolth as a goddess of spiders. (Or, if one still goes by her old name of Araushnee, as a goddess of dark elven fate.) but that is precisely the point. If one gets right down to it, a person of any alignment could in theory follow any deity, simply because of what that deity represents to him or her. Like good followers of Bane worshipping him for the "order" they feel he represents, even though it is despotic order. In Eilistraee's case, an evil follower might still love music and dance, and follow her for that reason, even though they have nothing to do with her dogma! So it's very subjective, I think, to say that a deity's followers are of the same alignment just because of the deity's dogma. I believe in most of the "ideals" behind Christian faith (as an example), but do NOT follow that faith, because it does not represent the things I value highest. Or to put it another way, worshipping Lolth because of a spider-fetish doesn't mean one has to follow her dogma! |
| Old Man Harpell |
Posted - 13 Sep 2011 : 07:41:39
quote:
Originally posted by Azuth
Ao was, and is, a plot device. The Time of Troubles handled (rather neatly) the transition from 1E to 2E. I recall being a very unhappy Priest of Bane at the time, but it was what it was. I could accept Bane's death (and Ao's decision to leave him "dispersed") because Bane was beyond his duties as Lord of Strife in stealing the Tablets of Faith, as was Myrkul. Bhaal had to die because the assassin class was going away, so he had no worshippers remaining thanks to that nifty ritural Myrkul performed to give Bane power.
This is why Eilistraee's death bothers me so much. It didn't really explain a transition between editions, and there wasn't "just cause" either. The deities are not supposed to fight one another directly: they are to do so via mortals and mortal worship. You may be correct, Ayrik, in that Ao's focus is on the primary pantheon, but Ao's purpose is to maintain the Balance.
While I concede you may indeed have a point that they would be left to their own devices as long as they obeyed the "cosmic dictate," it would seem that Eilistraee (and Vhaerun) being absent causes an imbalance. Would it not, logically, then fall to Ao to resolve that balance either through "resurrection" (or reassemblage of essence) or via creation or elevation of a new deity? This goes back to my point about discarding canon and established practice for expediency's sake.
Perhaps Corellon is an aspect of Ao? If it works for his gods, why wouldn't it work for him?
Good conversation, definitely.
Cheers,
Azuth
[/purple][/font=Trebuchet MS]
And this, I think, is the central issue. Yes, there were people who didn't like what happened in the Time of Troubles, but at the end of the day (or the end of the trilogy, as it were), the Realms were still the Realms, not just in fact, but in an identifiable sense.
Some deific portfolios changed hands, some new faces to replace old ones, and a class removed...pretty mild stuff for an edition change. Contrast that to what we have here. Deities slaughtered without rhyme or reason (or in some cases, rather infantile reasons  ), and a game world apocalypse matched only by SOE's Norrath in their lore transition from Everquest to Everquest 2 (which wasn't really all that well-received, either, from a lore standpoint).
The absence of these deities, as Azuth stated, creates an imbalance, but more importantly, it creates an imbalance that people not only really, really dislike, but simply cannot see any point to, and which even the author that was instructed to do the dirty deed saw no point to. What game mechanics (such as Bhaal's death heralding the demise of the assassin class) were showcased by this, when people can still play non-evil drow characters?
Wizbro might have had some justification getting rid of Kiaransalee - some of the things in her portfolio sort of fall under similar concepts of other deities (Velsharoon for example - except that he got tossed into the cosmic deep fryer, too). And if they had left it at that, a lot fewer people would be unhappy - heck, it might have even been accepted without too much comment. But even her removal makes no sense. And I think that's what has peoples feathers ruffled - the explanations (when there even are any) are ridiculous, and serve no purpose in edition transition.
-OMH |
| Azuth |
Posted - 13 Sep 2011 : 04:55:00
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Agreed then, on (almost) all counts Azuth and Alystra.
It does still seem ironic to me that this scroll is concerned with Ao resurrecting a dead goddess when he himself is something of a rather dead god in immediate need of resurrection.
[Edit]
Incidentally, Ao clearly governs "the balance" of the Faerûnian powers ... but does his sphere of governance apply to powers outside that pantheon? The Seldarine (of which Eilistraee is part) have different origins, mythology, focus, and purpose than the predominantly "human" gods of the Realms. Perhaps the Seldarine reside beyond the limits of Ao's charter, expected (and left) to govern their own elven-fey pantheon internal matters, untouchable by Ao provided they abide by whatever cosmic dictates (or "balance", or alliance, or warfare, or pragmatic necessities) are imposed upon all sides.
Elven magic can be practiced without drawing from Mystra's Weave, elven spirits can reach Arvanaith without transit through Jergal/Myrkul/Cyric/Kelemvor's Fugue Plane, elven beauty stands apart from Sune, elven warfare pays no homage to Tempus nor the Red Knight, the list segregating divine matters between elves and men goes on and on. Appeals to resurrect Eilistraee might be better made to Corellon than to Ao, I suspect.
Well, Bob Salvatore had Lolth lose her status as a divine being during the Time of Troubles. This is when psionics made a sudden rise in power in Menzoberranzan (and an equally sudden downfall) so presumably this did, indeed, affect all of the deities. In Spelljammer, it was absolutely crystal clear that Ao granted and denied access to Realmspace by any deity at his whim.
With respect to Ao's absence in literature, I assume that it is more due to his ability to ruin any plot than that he needs resurrection. Ao "willed himself from Chaos" before Toril existed, so presumably, he either created all of the gods, as is stated in Waterdeep's final chapter, or he allowed "foreign gods" to manifest in the Realms. The effect is the same, it would seem. Drizzt worships a human god, and it would seem (based on recent books) that Mielikki took some aspect of herself to create a refuge for a certain dwarf who always swore by Clangeddin's twin axes. A certain Barbarian that swore first to "Tempos" and then "Tempus" is also found there. While that's only one example, it would seem that the gods aren't specific to a given species.
Since no magic of divine nature really functioned during the Time of Troubles, and the effects therein were not limited only to human deities, I do believe that all deities were affected.
It is possible that Ao simply denied those deities access to their mortal worshippers on Toril, I suppose, but I seem to recall reading that Gond washed up on Lantan, much to the dismay of Tilverton. Lantan is well populated by gnomes, if memory serves. Either way, a certain halfing (Sneakabout?) was sent to Cyric's City of the Dead as the Halfling Goddess of something-or-another was told to be heading across the Fugue Plain seeking his spirit at the end of Waterdeep, also. Ao was, and is, a plot device. The Time of Troubles handled (rather neatly) the transition from 1E to 2E. I recall being a very unhappy Priest of Bane at the time, but it was what it was. I could accept Bane's death (and Ao's decision to leave him "dispersed") because Bane was beyond his duties as Lord of Strife in stealing the Tablets of Faith, as was Myrkul. Bhaal had to die because the assassin class was going away, so he had no worshippers remaining thanks to that nifty ritural Myrkul performed to give Bane power.
This is why Eilistraee's death bothers me so much. It didn't really explain a transition between editions, and there wasn't "just cause" either. The deities are not supposed to fight one another directly: they are to do so via mortals and mortal worship. You may be correct, Ayrik, in that Ao's focus is on the primary pantheon, but Ao's purpose is to maintain the Balance.
While I concede you may indeed have a point that they would be left to their own devices as long as they obeyed the "cosmic dictate," it would seem that Eilistraee (and Vhaerun) being absent causes an imbalance. Would it not, logically, then fall to Ao to resolve that balance either through "resurrection" (or reassemblage of essence) or via creation or elevation of a new deity? This goes back to my point about discarding canon and established practice for expediency's sake.
Perhaps Corellon is an aspect of Ao? If it works for his gods, why wouldn't it work for him?
Good conversation, definitely.
Cheers,
Azuth
|
| Ayrik |
Posted - 13 Sep 2011 : 03:33:51
Agreed then, on (almost) all counts Azuth and Alystra.
It does still seem ironic to me that this scroll is concerned with Ao resurrecting a dead goddess when he himself is something of a rather dead god in immediate need of resurrection.
[Edit]
Incidentally, Ao clearly governs "the balance" of the Faerûnian powers ... but does his sphere of governance apply to powers outside that pantheon? The Seldarine (of which Eilistraee is part) have different origins, mythology, focus, and purpose than the predominantly "human" gods of the Realms. Perhaps the Seldarine reside beyond the limits of Ao's charter, expected (and left) to govern their own elven-fey pantheon internal matters, untouchable by Ao provided they abide by whatever cosmic dictates (or "balance", or alliance, or warfare, or pragmatic necessities) are imposed upon all sides.
Elven magic can be practiced without drawing from Mystra's Weave, elven spirits can reach Arvanaith without transit through Jergal/Myrkul/Cyric/Kelemvor's Fugue Plane, elven beauty stands apart from Sune, elven warfare pays no homage to Tempus nor the Red Knight, the list segregating divine matters between elves and men goes on and on. Appeals to resurrect Eilistraee might be better made to Corellon than to Ao, I suspect. |
| Azuth |
Posted - 13 Sep 2011 : 02:30:00
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Although I understand your argument Alystra, I do disagree. It's certainly true that some of Lathander's followers might worship morning sunrise without particular regard to his moral teachings ... but I think it would be difficult for them to avoid aligning themselves into his favour, most especially if they interact with his established churches and clergy. Certainly none of them could actually maintain an evil alignment and still be tolerated by the bulk of Lathander's following, let alone his most zealous champions. Lolth's worship among the drow must be somewhat similar in this regard, except clearly dominated by evil followers. Even non-religious organizations, say the Red Wizards of Thay, are primarily composed from members with one particular alignment (evil, in this instance) who, one way or another, will actively discourage those who oppose their outlook.
I think it's pretty safe to say that Lolth's followers are predominantly evil, perhaps even neutral, while those who are good would be extraordinarily rare (effectively unique). Not only that, but they would also be constantly constrained towards most careful and ambiguous expressions of their morality lest it lead to excommunication (or execution) by their peers. Moreover, Lolth is also often described as a hateful, jealous, and territorial goddess; would she allow her power to sustain a good-aligned splinter faith, would she even permit such a thing to survive?
I think we need to define something here (aside from how this relates to the resurrection of Eilistraee). Ed has said many times that the people of Faerûn pay homage to many deities. Even the "goodliest of Paladins" would say a prayer to Umberlee, for example, that she be appeased and not bring bad weather. This isn't an act against the Paladin's alignment, and it isn't direct support of Umberlee. Even one who considers a deity as her patron saint needn't be in absolute alignment with that deities scriptures. Farmers of all ilk can worship Chauntea.
All that you say of Lolth's character traits are true to the best of my knowledge. However, Lolth loves to foment chaos and hatred. So, let's assume (for the tiniest of moments) that Drizzt worshipped Lolth out of some perverse love of spiders. Because Drizzt is chaotic good with lawful tendencies, he is anathema to Lolth. However, consider the hatred and chaos he foments amongst Lolth's followers (and generic surface dwellers, to boot) and it's easy to make an argument as to why Lolth would not only not destroy such a thing, but actively protect him through subtle actions.
My own theory is that Eilistraee was born out of a vacuum in the Pantheon. "Goodly" drow needed a place to worship, and a person to worship. Her powers and status would never be equal to Lolth because she doesn't have that many worshippers. In that same vein, in the original post on this scroll jordanz posits that Ao "upgraded" Torm to a greater power status. In Prince of Lies, Cyric taunts Torm for only being a Demipower. Torm's faith most likely increased because many paladins felt he epitomized their cause (I would, too, if an overgod restored a deity) which, in turn, would grant Torm a greater power status.
Finally, I don't think the concept of excommunication always applies in the religions on Toril. Earning or losing the favor of a deity is far more important (or threatening) than a mortal excommunicating you from the deity's church. Elminster could no more ban Manshoon than he could destroy Azuth. Mystra could deny Manshoon access to the Weave (and afterlife, if he ever actually died) but in Faerûn, it seems, intermediary agents are only used with respect to doling out divine favor to non-believers or lay folk. This is (as is my style) a long way of saying that while followers may be of any alignment, the deities manifest as examples of "pure" alignment factions. Torm isn't "almost" always Lawful Good, he embodies Lawful Good. His actions must always be lawful good, and he has no concept of a world where lawful and good aren't the driving forces.
Lolth would allow anything that creates chaos and/or is good to spiders because such things strengthen her faith and thus her power.
ChAsm, I don't pick on people who are sick (I like to be on friendly terms wit Ilmater) so I'll let you rest. Again, while I love these conversations, we're drifting more into Realmsian theology than Eilistraee's resurrection by Ao.
Cheers,
Azuth |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 13 Sep 2011 : 02:00:13
Although I understand your argument Alystra, I do disagree. It's certainly true that some of Lathander's followers might worship morning sunrise without particular regard to his moral teachings ... but I think it would be difficult for them to avoid aligning themselves into his favour, most especially if they interact with his established churches and clergy. Certainly none of them could actually maintain an evil alignment and still be tolerated by the bulk of Lathander's following, let alone his most zealous champions. Lolth's worship among the drow must be somewhat similar in this regard, except clearly dominated by evil followers. Even non-religious organizations, say the Red Wizards of Thay, are primarily composed from members with one particular alignment (evil, in this instance) who, one way or another, will actively discourage those who oppose their outlook.
I think it's pretty safe to say that Lolth's followers are predominantly evil, perhaps even neutral, while those who are good would be extraordinarily rare (effectively unique). Not only that, but they would also be constantly constrained towards most careful and ambiguous expressions of their morality lest it lead to excommunication (or execution) by their peers. Moreover, Lolth is also often described as a hateful, jealous, and territorial goddess; would she allow her power to sustain a good-aligned splinter faith, would she even permit such a thing to survive? |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 13 Sep 2011 : 01:33:28
CoA, that would be true if the deities in question were not already clearly defined as good or evil. RW mythology did not have those distinctins as clearly as the FR deities do. Besides, Lolth being evil has no bearing on the alignment of her followers, in that if a follower worships her strictly as a goddess of spiders, without any concern over good or evil, then there is no real conflict. And the devil quoting scripture is really just an example of how an "evil" power can make that evil seem attractive, not whether or not they are evil themselves. Evil is not always obvious- sometimes it hides right under one's nose- look at what Lolth did with/to Kymil to get him to raise an ELVEN army to attack EVERMEET! |
| Chosen of Asmodeus |
Posted - 12 Sep 2011 : 22:45:25
quote:
Originally posted by Azuth
quote:
Originally posted by Chosen of Asmodeus
<snip>
Personally what I think needs to happen is that good deities need to be shown to have darker sides and evil deities need to be shown to have some noble aspects to them. This doesn't need to be all or nothing, just something to show more depth than "they're good!" or "they're evil!"; they're doing a bit of this already with Points of Light Bane(who's about as evil as Realms Bane) having a lot of good worshipers for the order and stability his church imposes in a hostile, violent world. A non D&D example would be Mehrunes Dagon of the Elder Scrolls series; one of the main antagonists of the series, one of the few daedra that could almost objectively be called "evil", his portfolios include things like change, energy, ambition, and revolution; all of which can have very positive results on the world. Give Lolth and Gruumsh some minor things like that; aspects of their portfolio that can be good or evil or neither. Then you don't need Elistraee anymore.
I'm afraid I must disagree, ChAsm... as deities are not mortals. They exist to serve aspects of mortals and the desires of mortals and their environs. Aspects do not have “dark sides” or “light sides” or they don't embody the aspect purely. Torm is always lawful and good, as those are the aspects he manifests. Deeds done in his name that do not fit in his portfolio do not earn his favor because those actions are not what he represents. Aside from the true neutral deities (most) of the elements, deities cannot work outside the frame of their portfolio. I'm unclear if, say, Istishia cares if her worshippers are good or evil, or if she only accepts neutral worshippers. Just as (in theory, I suppose) a very small percentage of humans are chaotic evil, a very small percentage of drow are not. Some type of power needs to exist to handle the prayers of that group, and receive their souls when they die. Polytheism relies upon different aspects of life being handled by different deities. Obould certainy could have raised an army of orcs, and did, but the thought that the orcs would continue to function in a cohesive manner denies what “orcs” have been on Faerûn for thousands of years.
The drow were originally just “dark elves” and represented a portion of the elven species with a lot of pigmentation in their skin. Any intellectual species with a chance at high wisdom can produce the occasional savant, and it could be that Drizzt and Obould are examples of that happening.
Along that line, the disincorporation of Eilistraee leaves a vacuum in the spectrum of deific worship in the Drow pantheon, much as the dissolution of both Mystra and Azuth left no god in control of magic. What, then, should people who worship and study magic as a thing (a religion) do with respect to choosing a patron deity? It's terribly important in Faerûn to have such a deity given the impact on the afterlife. It invites mortals to “bet” on a deity for worship with the hope that a more powerful deity is less likely to be eliminated or subjugated and hence their “eternal afterlives” aren't going to be shaken up. With the death of Bane, Bhaal, and Myrkul, all of their worshippers fell under Cyric’s control. Mystra’s fell under...the new Mystra's. Now, suddenly, mortals must fear that their patron deity might be killed after the mortal has died, with no control over their souls' fates.
It is this seemingly-callous disregard for canon and continuity that I dislike the fourth edition so much. I was equally upset when 3E went from "infravision" (which made sense) to "dark vision" (which did and still does not.) It wasn’t even covered up with a good, decent, or bad story. Just "now you see as if it there were light when there isn’t" one day.
I must agree with Therise in that one (or more) people at Wizbro didn't like the Realms for some reason. I cannot prove it, but to cause such wanton chaos to the game world does not seem (to me) to be in the best interests of attracting and retaining customers. Thus I maintain that Eilistraee is needed for a multitude of reasons, and her absence must be resolved for everyday normalcy in the gaming world to continue.
I look forward to the replies :-)
END OF SPEECH
I had a fairly long reply thought out but being as sick as I am at the moment, most of it is lost behind the medication; here's the cliff notes.
Most polytheist societies tended to look at their gods as "humans(or orcs/elves/dwarves), but BIGGER"; their gods had fairly complex personalities and histories, and were opened to fairly wide interpretation that varied from location to location (Thor was technically a fertility god, Athenians used Ares as the butt of their jokes while Spartans hailed him as their patrion). Greater gods like Lolth and Gruumsh need to have a wide swath of aspects to them as, by definition as greater gods, they need to have varied appeal to the point of millions choosing them as their object of worship. People will look through the dogma of their gods and take as many varied and even seemingly contradictory interpretations of it as appeals to them (even the devil can cite scripture to his purpose, after all). Ijust think this needs to be better reflected, is all. |
| Azuth |
Posted - 12 Sep 2011 : 06:26:02
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
I'm sure the question has been asked and answered many times in the past. The simplest answer is that Zakhara was - along with about half a dozen other settings - discontinued because WotC decided they're rather emphasize only the most popular (lucrative) settings rather than divide and confuse established fans (and bewilder new fans) with too many items on the menu. Although not all of WotC's subsequent creative efforts on the D&D game and on the Realms have been overwhelmingly popular I think we should remember that they also produced (and still produce) some fine material which might not be around at all if they chose to split their staff across ten different D&D worlds.
[Edit]
Agreed, Wizbro seems to have relocated Ao into a cosmic witness protection program. It's not impossible that Ao will be reinstalled, but it does seem highly improbable. We all know that Wizbro has declared they will only focus on 4E and current settings, they will no longer publish any fiction based on earlier editions or pre-Spellplague Realms.
Mystra seems to be something of a flaming blue phoenix, frequently getting blown up then sprouting out of some random previously-inconsequential peasant girl. Moander has an annoying habit of refusing to stay dead and forgotten. Old Jergal was pulled out of retirement. Even Cyric has proved surprisingly resilient, seemingly unable to successfully commit suicide no matter how hard he tries. None of these examples really involved Ao, or really needed to involve Ao ... he could've easily been written out of the first books in which appeared (Avatar Trilogy) instead of being discarded much later, after three editions of doing nothing particularly productive anyways.
I can also understand, from a marketing perspective, how some people might question exactly why the most powerful being in the cosmos, the patriarchal overgod, is almost entirely disinterested in actually doing anything which can affect the mortal world, at least not until the undergods all break the world and he has to come in to fix it. Sort of the divine version of überpowerful-NPC-shows-up-to-clean-the-mess which people often complain about in the Realms, so I'm half surprised that people would seriously expect Ao be returned to the setting.
Wizbro is a company, so I take anything they say with several grains of salt. If they think for a minute that Ao can make them money, he'll be back in novels in no time. He remains the overlord of all of the Faerûnian Pantheon until written otherwise. He is tasked with maintaining The Balance and nothing more. Now I will grant that if ever there was a time he was needed, it would be now. But a being of his power could undo all or some of the changes in a heartbeat (or less) and we're pretty much back to 3E again.
And I just must disagree about Wizbro not publishing a Faiths and Avatars update: they make money on said books, so it is in their interest to publish all the supplements. They (and TSR before them) suckered me into buying all of the Prestige Class supplements for 2E.
I would suggest that Wooly or The Sage lock this scroll, however, and create a new one entitled, "Musings on Ao and lost deities futures in the Realms" as a yes/no entitled scroll is really off topic beyond answering the initial question.
Your humble Lord of All Spells... |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 12 Sep 2011 : 04:20:21
I'm sure the question has been asked and answered many times in the past. The simplest answer is that Zakhara was - along with about half a dozen other settings - discontinued because WotC decided they're rather emphasize only the most popular (lucrative) settings rather than divide and confuse established fans (and bewilder new fans) with too many items on the menu. Although not all of WotC's subsequent creative efforts on the D&D game and on the Realms have been overwhelmingly popular I think we should remember that they also produced (and still produce) some fine material which might not be around at all if they chose to split their staff across ten different D&D worlds.
[Edit]
Agreed, Wizbro seems to have relocated Ao into a cosmic witness protection program. It's not impossible that Ao will be reinstalled, but it does seem highly improbable. We all know that Wizbro has declared they will only focus on 4E and current settings, they will no longer publish any fiction based on earlier editions or pre-Spellplague Realms.
Mystra seems to be something of a flaming blue phoenix, frequently getting blown up then sprouting out of some random previously-inconsequential peasant girl. Moander has an annoying habit of refusing to stay dead and forgotten. Old Jergal was pulled out of retirement. Even Cyric has proved surprisingly resilient, seemingly unable to successfully commit suicide no matter how hard he tries. None of these examples really involved Ao, or really needed to involve Ao ... he could've easily been written out of the first books in which appeared (Avatar Trilogy) instead of being discarded much later, after three editions of doing nothing particularly productive anyways.
I can also understand, from a marketing perspective, how some people might question exactly why the most powerful being in the cosmos, the patriarchal overgod, is almost entirely disinterested in actually doing anything which can affect the mortal world, at least not until the undergods all break the world and he has to come in to fix it. Sort of the divine version of überpowerful-NPC-shows-up-to-clean-the-mess which people often complain about in the Realms, so I'm half surprised that people would seriously expect Ao be returned to the setting. |
|
|
