| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Arravis |
Posted - 01 May 2009 : 19:12:32
Does anyone know the exact day that most of the assassins in the realms died during the Times of Trouble? Or the date of Bhaal's death?
I've looked in quite a few places, but none give actual dates. Also, does anyone have a detailed timeline of what happened during the Times of Trouble, not just the vague generic ones listed in most timelines? Thanks guys!!
-Arravis |
| 29 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Markustay |
Posted - 09 May 2009 : 18:09:42
quote:
Originally posted by Neil
True, but as I said below, I feel that those who do those killings are washed clean by the sovereign authority.
As Erik has stated, this is neither proof or by any means a clear-cut line to go by.
Suppose a Gov't is corrupt, or perceived as corrupt? Let's say Zhents are sent into a Zhentil Keep merchant's house to murder him for not paying his taxes (which he did pay, but they decided they wanted more). He has no money to pay, and this is the third in a year that they decided they wanted 'yearly taxes' from him.
He obviously deserved to be murdered in his bed, correct? All because he did not pay the 'proper authorites' the money they felt he owed. That is an extreme case, but it can be applied anywhere, even Cormyr -- plenty of Cormyrian Nobles felt the royals were tyrants and their taxes unfair.
It can even be applied internationally. Yamun Khahan felt he 'owned the Steppes', and technically, he did have a legitimate claim to them (once he became the supreme leader of the Horselords). He wanted every nation to pay him tribute because they used "his Steppes" to trade through. Once again, a legitimate claim. However, all the soveriegn nations of the Faerū-turran continent denied his claim... merely because it was in THEIR BEST INTEREST to do so.
He then sent assassins to kill the Shou Emperor, whom he felt was deserving of such an execution, because he wasn't paid the taxes he felt he was legally owed. The execution failed, but the point is that he thought it was lawful, by Tuigan law, even though the Shou obviously felt differently.
Had he been paid his tribute (which really amounts to the same thing as a tariff in this situation), war would have been avoided by both the east and the west. But the Emperor of Shou Lung and the nations of the west chose for death and destruction over peace, and were responsible for what happened to all the innocent victims of that war. Yamun Khahan didn't want to kill all those people - he just wanted money.
Now, I'm not siding with the Tuigan here - I'm just making a case for how arbitrary and subjective the term 'righful authority' is. Yamun Kahan wanted the King of Cormyr and the Emperor of Shou killed because he felt they had not paid him what he was rightfully entitled to.
If you take money for killing, or profit in anyway from someone's death at your hands, technically you are assassin.
The last time I checked, soldiers got paid.  |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 08 May 2009 : 23:50:07
Good points, Neil.
I think we should avoid getting into a semantical debate (or worse, a philosophical debate!). The best place to leave this would be agreement that you and I go by different operative definitions of the word "assassin," yours being narrow and in this case very specific, mine being broad and potentially very general. Short of actual linguistic analysis, we'd probably just better say that both of them are equally valid. 
And, in all things, thank the good Lord-Schend for clarifying things in the source material!
Cheers |
| Neil |
Posted - 08 May 2009 : 21:54:06
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
A couple points--not to critique you, but because you inspired more thoughts on the subject:
No fear. I'm just spitballing here. Stating your thoughts won't shatter my worldview.
quote:
Most of the time, sure. Though plenty of soldiers are also instructed to undertake individual missions, sabotage, or execute deserters. Those are all individual killings for coin.
True, but as I said below, I feel that those who do those killings are washed clean by the sovereign authority.
quote:
Heck, even knights in tourneys sometimes kill each other over a gold prize--why didn't the ritual to "kill all assassins in the world" wipe out the flower of chivalry?
Because killing for sport within the rules of a tournament isn't an assassination. Assassinations could happen in a tournament setting to be sure, but an accidental death wouldn't count. Even if a knight feels that he's been wronged by another and strikes another down in anger, that's more of a murder. A good analogy to the way that we consider football players to be professional athletes, rather than hired goons.
quote:
There's plenty of wiggle room in what defines a "lawful lord"--I'm sure a number of the nobles of Cormyr would not agree that the Obarskyrs are "lawful lords."
It's what the soldiers themselves believe that counts. So long as they're serving someone who they feel holds legitimate sovereign authority over them, they're soldiers. Even mercenaries would fit into this area, since they're submitting to the sovereign authority of another in exchange for money. And if they don't submit to that authority, they become brigands.
quote:
And there are a great number of people we wouldn't necessarily label "assassins" such as bodyguards, sellswords, heck, most adventurers have killed for money, in small groups, and/or outside the law(how many times have you been on adventure when you were hired to repel an orc horde--a task which would involve killing--or raided an ogre steading hoping for gold?). And yet they're still breathing.
Killing orcs and ogres and the like isn't really assassination. More like extermination, as hostile goblins generally don't enjoy the protection of the law. Depending on the circumstances of the kill, PCs might fit the bill as assassins. If a village headman pays you to kill bandits, the leader of a thieves guild or an evil wizard who is marauding the land, you're more of a bounty hunter, or some sort of lawman. If someone pays you to go kill a cleric who has done nothing to violate the law, you might be an assassin.
quote:
And I don't think anything "washes you clean" of killing.
Perhaps. I feel that certain types of killing aren't immoral. As to the psychological effects, I can't speak say.
quote:
Except when he's being hired by the lawful lord of the land to kill a political enemy.
Depends on the situation. If he's being asked to kill outside the law and with treacherous violence, he'd still be an assassin. On the other hand, if he's killing a political opponent who has been outlawed, or beheading a man on the scaffold, he's not.
quote:
My main point remains: the ritual needed a definition to make sense. Mechanically speaking, this was meant to be "members of the assassin class," and was further refined (very rightly, IMO, by Steven) to be "worshippers of Bhaal," which makes much more sense in a narrative way. (And I suspect members of the assassin class who survived just became thieves with the assassin kit in 2e.)
Yeah. From an in-universe perspective, 'worshippers of Bhaal' is probably the best solution. Although that means that poor Cyndre is never going to make it out of the ground.
quote:
Bane might have been able to do that because he's so connected to Bhaal. (Wasn't Bhaal a servant deity to Bane? Or maybe I'm misremembering that.)
Cheers
I believe that he was. Actually, wasn't there some lore about one of the evil deities (Talos?) burning through servitor deities at a rather high rate? The non-greater powers of evil must be on their toes, all the time. We know that the bond between master and servant can be broken (Ilmater, Siamorphe, the drow gods), but the Avatar crisis might have impeded Bhaal's ability to do so. |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 08 May 2009 : 20:00:42
So basically, all the bhaalites were themselves subservient to Bane, and they were sort of *his* worshippers (even if they didn't belong to him directly). So yeah, I could see him pulling off a ritual like that.
Cheers |
| Kuje |
Posted - 08 May 2009 : 18:22:03
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Bane might have been able to do that because he's so connected to Bhaal. (Wasn't Bhaal a servant deity to Bane? Or maybe I'm misremembering that.)
Cheers
Aye, Bane was his superior. So, no you weren't misremembering. |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 08 May 2009 : 18:16:15
That was actually a rhetorical question I posed, but I think my point is still taken.
What I was saying was that it was a gray area, definitionally, and that the ritual killed characters of the *Assassin Class*--which of course is a concept that doesn't exist in the novels, no more than we would write "he slashed the ogre across the face and inflicted 10 points of damage."
A couple points--not to critique you, but because you inspired more thoughts on the subject:
quote:
Originally posted by Neil
Well, a soldier kills for king and country, he kills in large numbers and he kills as part of a large group.
Most of the time, sure. Though plenty of soldiers are also instructed to undertake individual missions, sabotage, or execute deserters. Those are all individual killings for coin. Heck, even knights in tourneys sometimes kill each other over a gold prize--why didn't the ritual to "kill all assassins in the world" wipe out the flower of chivalry?
quote:
Whether he's fighting a battle against an invading army or putting a village that wouldn't pay their taxes (or bribes) to the sword, he's washed clean by the fact that he is doing as he was ordered by his lawful lord.
There's plenty of wiggle room in what defines a "lawful lord"--I'm sure a number of the nobles of Cormyr would not agree that the Obarskyrs are "lawful lords." And there are a great number of people we wouldn't necessarily label "assassins" such as bodyguards, sellswords, heck, most adventurers have killed for money, in small groups, and/or outside the law (how many times have you been on adventure when you were hired to repel an orc horde--a task which would involve killing--or raided an ogre steading hoping for gold?). And yet they're still breathing.
And I don't think anything "washes you clean" of killing.
quote:
An assassin kills for money, he kills individuals or small groups, he operates alone or as part of a small group. He operates outside of the law.
Except when he's being hired by the lawful lord of the land to kill a political enemy.
My main point remains: the ritual needed a definition to make sense. Mechanically speaking, this was meant to be "members of the assassin class," and was further refined (very rightly, IMO, by Steven) to be "worshippers of Bhaal," which makes much more sense in a narrative way. (And I suspect members of the assassin class who survived just became thieves with the assassin kit in 2e.)
Bane might have been able to do that because he's so connected to Bhaal. (Wasn't Bhaal a servant deity to Bane? Or maybe I'm misremembering that.)
Cheers |
| Neil |
Posted - 08 May 2009 : 13:37:23
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
I mean, because if you're draining "the souls of every assassin in the world," then it depends how you define what an "assassin" is. If you define it as someone who takes money in exchange for killing people (at least that's a significant part of the job), then why aren't the armies of Cormyr decimated by the ritual?
Well, a soldier kills for king and country, he kills in large numbers and he kills as part of a large group. Whether he's fighting a battle against an invading army or putting a village that wouldn't pay their taxes (or bribes) to the sword, he's washed clean by the fact that he is doing as he was ordered by his lawful lord. An assassin kills for money, he kills individuals or small groups, he operates alone or as part of a small group. He operates outside of the law.
Of course, the Bhaal explanation is better, even if it was somewhat unappealing. The idea that a god could power himself by magically absorbing all of another god's worshippers seems a little hinky to me. One wonders why Bane would slaughter the worshippers of a god that was at least somewhat allied to him, rather than, say, Tyr or even Torm himself. |
| Kuje |
Posted - 03 May 2009 : 17:52:36
quote:
Originally posted by Steven Schend
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
The FRCS changed that remember, it wasn't ALL assassins, it was only those that worshiped Bhaal. It's in the ToT section on page 264.
But yes, it was the day that Bane and Torm fought.
We were still wrangling with "why didn't everyone who killed for money die during the Time of Troubles along with 1E assassins?" when I was writing Lands of Intrigue. That's where I first slipped the loophole in re: Bhaal-worshiping assassins only--I needed a reason as to why the Shadow Thieves weren't utterly decimated in 1357.
Ah, that makes sense. I haven't read LoT in many years so I didn't realize it was in there. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 03 May 2009 : 16:54:56
The ritual obviously was a lot less far-reaching then the novels let on.
Not only did they have to be Bhaal worshippers, but also members of the assassin class (there are many assassins who don't bother with the class itself), and also dwelling within the boundaries of the Heartlands (since the wastes are part of Faerūn, and those assassins/Bhaal worshippers also all survived).
As I said earlier, I assume Bhaal isn't nearly as stupid as he let on (he was a divine being, after all), and he wasn't about to let his co-conspirators wipe-out his entire Faith (which would have left him dead, according to the cosmic rules for such things). I also don't think that in their reduced state he and Myrkul really had the power to perform a Toril-wide ritual - it probably had a radius of fifteen hundred miles or so (I just checked, and that should go from reaching the Swordcoast, all the way to the Lake of Mists, and stops just past the Lake of Steam).
In order to do the math, I had to figure-out where they were at the time the ritual was performed (I no longer have the novels), so I referenced the FRAtlas (hardcopy), which only mentions Bane at the time of the ritual, and also states that Bane's assassin's were sacrificed (no mention of Bhaal or Myrkul in that part of the timeline at all).
I suppose I could reference the modules for more accuracy, but since this is all based on an assumption (that the ritual was a AoE spell with a diameter), I won't bother. As long as I have an explanation that works I don't need to prod at it too much. |
| Steven Schend |
Posted - 03 May 2009 : 16:36:10
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
The FRCS changed that remember, it wasn't ALL assassins, it was only those that worshiped Bhaal. It's in the ToT section on page 264.
But yes, it was the day that Bane and Torm fought.
We were still wrangling with "why didn't everyone who killed for money die during the Time of Troubles along with 1E assassins?" when I was writing Lands of Intrigue. That's where I first slipped the loophole in re: Bhaal-worshiping assassins only--I needed a reason as to why the Shadow Thieves weren't utterly decimated in 1357. |
| Arion Elenim |
Posted - 02 May 2009 : 16:49:24
A snippet from the new song, 'Potato Soup Pie', inspired by this thread title. (AHEM...to the tune of 'American Pie' if you haven't figured that out yet...)
(Shadow War SPOILERS!!!!)
I took the last caravan for the Sword Coast.
The day...the assassins...died.
And I was singing...
Bye bye to that back-stabbin guy
Took the trail to look for Cale
But he's in Hell under ice
And that damned Spellplague turned magic naughty from nice
Singing what the hell happened to 3.5?
What the hell happened to 3.5....?
There we go - my silliness is sated. |
| Kilvan |
Posted - 02 May 2009 : 13:57:54
quote:
Originally posted by Bladewind
How did Bane force the followers of Bhaal into the sacrifice? Scary to think dieties are capable of mass slaughter through forced sacrifice and are willing to use it like that..
With the help of Myrkul, God of Death. IIRC, it was an amazing task, even for 2 gods, which required alot of preparation (on Myrkul's part). I don't remember Bane doing anything beside receiving the power from those souls. It was all Myrkul's idea and doing. It's unfair, dead gods are always forgotten (that's why they died, I know ) |
| Bladewind |
Posted - 02 May 2009 : 12:22:39
How did Bane force the followers of Bhaal into the sacrifice? Scary to think dieties are capable of mass slaughter through forced sacrifice and are willing to use it like that.. |
| Zanan |
Posted - 02 May 2009 : 09:19:29
I always assumed that Bhaal drained the souls of his clergy and his most devoted worshippers (i.e. assassins) during the ToT, but not all of his faith or people being assassins by "profession". People, IMHO, sometimes are too hasty in assuming that the assassin class (AD&D, Thieves' Handbook) or PrC (DMG 3,xE) are directly linked to Bhaal (or any other god of murder), which is not the case.
With regards to him being worshipped still, Lost Empires of Faerūn had this great feat Servant of the Fallen, which enabled/-s followers of "dead" gods to access the divine essence of those deities and thus have a chance to receive spells and possibly re-establishing the respective faiths. Which, BTW, create tremendous adventure and campaign hooks. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 02 May 2009 : 04:39:38
quote:
Originally posted by skychrome
Does anyone by chance know what effect this event had on the assasins at Sentinelspire? Is there any Lore on if worship of Bhaal was common there? The novel does not really provide much regarding this.
According to the Sentinelspire entry in The Horde, they were ALL Bhaal worshippers up until the time of the ToT, and then suddenly lost the use of their abilities. The place was actually a major temple to Bhaal, and served to further his interests throughout Toril (not just Faerūn).
What is bizarre is that the text says that all the Assassins became just thieves (VERY heavy-handed meta-gaming there) after the ToT, and that the Old Man of the Mountain filled-out the ranks with warriors, Wizards, and Priests of Bhaal. 
After the ToT... 
I suppose someone was granting them spells still. Also, it appears that his sacrifice of his assassins was confined to just Faerūn (which he may have done on-purpose, hiding the fact from his co-conspiritors so he'd have something left when it was all over).
Anyhow, Bhaal was worshipped under at least two other names in the east, so he was one of those rare multi-pantheonic deities. |
| sfdragon |
Posted - 02 May 2009 : 04:26:33
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
I think WotC handled the whole thing perfectly, and I don't think it has anything to do with favoritism toward Entreri (though it's still a hilarious joke).
Well, the *real* answer is that the mechanics are just supposed to emulate novel characters, i.e., make them playable to appear like they do in the books, based on the edition (and in 1e and 3e they had the assassin class, but not in 2e), but I'd rather say . . .
quote:
Originally posted by sfdragon
yeah and its funny in 3e they gave him one level of the assassin prc, a lvl he never should of had....
I'm sure he picked that up in 3.0 when it was safe.
("Ooh, prestige classes? And I don't have to be this weird dual-class thing anymore? GIMME!")
Cheers
but one lvl, lvl 1 assassin just gives you death attack, been better off with shadow dancer at the time.....
or no prc at all |
| skychrome |
Posted - 02 May 2009 : 01:49:47
Does anyone by chance know what effect this event had on the assasins at Sentinelspire? Is there any Lore on if worship of Bhaal was common there? The novel does not really provide much regarding this. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 02 May 2009 : 01:18:02
Additionally, it is important to note that only those characters in the Realms who had the assassin class would've actually died [which means any unstatted characters before this time could have easily survived the event].
|
| Markustay |
Posted - 02 May 2009 : 01:15:13
AFAIK, Entreri didn't worship Bhaal. Shouldn't it have only affected the assassins that actually worhipped the assassin god?
Also, as we all very well know, it actually happened because they (TSR) did away with assassins between 1e and 2e (and then brought them back again in 3e, hence the blurb in the FRCS).
Edit: Upon actually reading the last couple of replies, I see that Erik already said pretty-much the same thing. |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 01 May 2009 : 21:54:21
I think WotC handled the whole thing perfectly, and I don't think it has anything to do with favoritism toward Entreri (though it's still a hilarious joke).
Well, the *real* answer is that the mechanics are just supposed to emulate novel characters, i.e., make them playable to appear like they do in the books, based on the edition (and in 1e and 3e they had the assassin class, but not in 2e), but I'd rather say . . .
quote:
Originally posted by sfdragon
yeah and its funny in 3e they gave him one level of the assassin prc, a lvl he never should of had....
I'm sure he picked that up in 3.0 when it was safe.
("Ooh, prestige classes? And I don't have to be this weird dual-class thing anymore? GIMME!")
Cheers |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 01 May 2009 : 21:50:16
Well, IMO, the only possible narrative explanation (other than "we don't want any 1e assassin-classed people in 2e") is that they are draining the souls of Bhaal-worshippers, so that's what I assumed in the first place, and the explanation in the book makes sense.
I mean, because if you're draining "the souls of every assassin in the world," then it depends how you define what an "assassin" is. If you define it as someone who takes money in exchange for killing people (at least that's a significant part of the job), then why aren't the armies of Cormyr decimated by the ritual?
This is one of those areas where a mechanical explanation (i.e., character has an assassin class) and a narrative explanation don't really line up. So I see a lot of sense in the "Bhaal-assassin" explanation.
Cheers
|
| sfdragon |
Posted - 01 May 2009 : 21:47:40
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
RE: Kuje and Erik's replies.
Also known as the "Entreri Loophole". 
yeah and its funny in 3e they gave him one level of the assassin prc, a lvl he never should of had.... |
| Kilvan |
Posted - 01 May 2009 : 21:25:31
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
RE: Kuje and Erik's replies.
Also known as the "Entreri Loophole".
Haha, my thought exactly  |
| Hoondatha |
Posted - 01 May 2009 : 21:09:26
I always interpreted that as being only those killer-thieves who actively worshipped Bhaal, since the two other gods explicitly discuss him during that scene. And since Entreri is so aggressively self-reliant, he would have been protected. The same way for wizard assassins, since they still primarily worshipped Mystra or Azuth, though they also offered prayers to Bhaal. Thus, only those for whom Bhaal was "first among equals" in the polytheistic peoples' hearts got whacked.
On the other hand, I've always detested the way those books were written. Not the events themselves, necessarily, but definitely how it was written and executed. So it's no wonder I've reinterpreted it a bit to limit what those two gods did. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 01 May 2009 : 20:50:19
RE: Kuje and Erik's replies.
Also known as the "Entreri Loophole". |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 01 May 2009 : 20:31:19
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
The FRCS changed that remember, it wasn't ALL assassins, it was only those that worshiped Bhaal.
And neither did it include fighter/rogues who happen to kill people for money.
Ask Bob for the story sometime.
Cheers |
| Kuje |
Posted - 01 May 2009 : 20:25:40
The FRCS changed that remember, it wasn't ALL assassins, it was only those that worshiped Bhaal. It's in the ToT section on page 264.
But yes, it was the day that Bane and Torm fought. |
| Brian R. James |
Posted - 01 May 2009 : 20:01:09
Knight of the Gate has it correct. It was Bane that siphoned the life from the Realms' assassins, not Bhaal. According to the Forgotten Realms Atlas (the book, not the software), Bane sacrificed the assassins on the 12th day of Eleasias in the Year of Shadows (1358 DR).
Bhaal was slain by Cyric on Boareskyr Bridge a month later, on the 26th of Eleint. |
| Knight of the Gate |
Posted - 01 May 2009 : 19:35:03
I don't know, but I'm pretty sure that it was the day that Torm and Bane fought in Tantras. |
|
|
