| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Charles Phipps |
Posted - 18 Dec 2011 : 03:40:03
Hey, it was a big thing to have a lot of the gods of the Realm revealed to be "aspects" of other deities - especially in the Nonhuman Pantheons. So, I was curious - did you think this was a good idea or a bad idea?
I liked some of them and was sort of 'meh' on others. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Gray Richardson |
Posted - 24 Dec 2011 : 05:19:16
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Hey Gray! Maybe its not the being that takes on the 'Divine Template' as you have surmised, but rather, the power itself taking on a 'Human Template'.
There's a precedent for this, though not in D&D. In Alan Moore's Swamp Thing, Swamp Thing rises from the burnt corpse of scientist Alec Holland. Fleeing from an explosion in his laboratory, doused in chemicals, he collapses in the muck of the swamp and rises as the plant-man-monster the Swamp Thing.
Later, it is revealed that he is not merely a merging of plant and animal through the combination of fire and chemicals, but rather a supernatural creature, a plant elemental.
Swamp Thing eventually meets the spirit of the real Alec Holland. Swamp thing discovers that he was never Alec Holland, but was always a plant elemental who took on the memories and personality of Alec Holland as a template for his incarnation. Alec Holland goes on to his eternal reward and Swamp Thing realizes he has a greater destiny as a god-like guardian of the ecosphere.
So the idea that a portfolio or raw divine power takes on a human personality as a template or an "interface" for communicating with its mortal worshipers is an intriguing notion.
I should stress that I don't think that's actually what happens with Forgotten Realms deities. But I also can't rule it out. As Ed says, we can never truly know the real truth of the gods. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 23 Dec 2011 : 01:00:08
Meh. Finder is no replacement for Moander, regardless what canon might claim. Moander was far too interesting to discard, Finder is just a Harper mannequin who forgot his own name. Besides, Finder's claim to portfolio is just a shallow duplicate of elements already governed by Tymora, Mielikki, and Milil.
I submit that Moander's pervasive rotting decay is inextricably entwined within his divine energy. It is only a matter of time before the corruption within his inner divinity begins to transform poor Finder into little more than another avatar/vessel of the unkillable Moander entity. Ao knows this and thus tolerates Finder's redundant presence, for now. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 22 Dec 2011 : 17:14:09
What do you think 'Ascension' is? A job promotion?
The mortal being 'merges' with some small part of the cosmos and becomes the deity 'in-charge' of that portion (portfolio). The majority of deities who ascend normally only have one portfolio to start with. Very rarely does a mortal being ascend beyond demi-power (super-heroic status) or lesser god status - that usually happens over time, as they acquire more portfolios.
That means the 'cosmic concept' was there, in 'the ether', waiting to be appropriated. If the power (portfolio) already belongs to someone else, then the mortal must challenge the owner, and that usually doesn't go well (unless the mortal has help, or is VERY well-prepared). Occasionally, a benign deity (and sometimes not-so-benign, like Myrkul) abdicates the power, for whatever reason. Also, small pieces of a portfolio can be 'broken off', as it were, which is what happened in the case of The Red Knight.
The concepts were always there - they just needed a sentience to merge with to become a god. Its more of a symbiotic relationship.
In fact, Ed has even hinted that the goddess of Magic in the Realms must have a mortal sentience to function properly. This probably applies across the board, otherwise all you have is these uncaring cosmic concepts existing with no mortal inter-action (which could be what a Primordial is!) 
Hey Gray! Maybe its not the being that takes on the 'Divine Template' as you have surmised, but rather, the power itself taking on a 'Human Template'.  |
| _Jarlaxle_ |
Posted - 22 Dec 2011 : 16:46:55
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by _Jarlaxle_
So than what happens if a god dies and some other gods takes his portfolio or some mortal ascends to the new god of it?
Usually, the new deity will assume some or all of the former god's portfolios. Otherwise, they're split up among existing powers.
Faiths and Avatars provides some coverage of this.
Yes I know, my point I was trying to make was that if gods are just personifications of basic cosmic powers this taking over wouldn't make much sense.
And it wouldn't explain how a mortal can become a god. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 22 Dec 2011 : 16:27:49
The way I see it working (more homebrew) is that there is a layer above the gods that controls very basic concepts of the universe, like life, death, time, space, etc... for lack of a better term right now, lets refer to these as Overgods (for the time being).
Beneath these are the greater powers, which hold sway over a major aspect of the Overgods. For instance, there should be an Overpower of Entropy, but beneath it should be Death, War, Disease, Pestilence, Decay, Disaster, etc...
Then beneath Death should be Murder, Age, The Dead, Final Judgement (Punishment or reward), Infirmary (a stretch), etc
War could have beneath it battle prowess, strategy & tactics, bloodlust, and even (military) engineering.
Etc, etc, etc... and as you can see by this very broad (and truncated) list, some powers could be 'under' others in one (Divine) sphere*, and 'over' the same power in another.
Malar would be an underling of Tempos in the war sphere (Bloodlust), but could possibly rank over him in the nature sphere (Tempos could have the very minor portfolio of 'Territorial Rights').
This is all part of the 'Great Unknowing of the Cosmos' that mortals have to contend with (including us RW fans). The rules that apply in one particular situation do not necessarily apply in another. For instance, we now know that Bane is a multispheric power (which could have just been a recent change, but thats not important for now). As far as we know, Ao has no power outside of Realmspace (we don't know this for sure, but nothing indicates otherwise). That means that in another sphere (or the Outer Planes), Bane might be able to 'lay the smack down' on Ao.
And here's the greatest paradox of all - a deity is only 'all powerful' within their own Godly Domain, AND YET, it is the only place where they can be killed for good. I suppose the basic premise there is that the Domain itself is the actual 'body of the god', and the anthropomorhic thing other beings deal with within it is just a physical manifestation of the domain itself. ergo, you are literally 'striking at the heart of the god' when you are within its Domain.
By this logic, Realmspace itself IS Ao, and he has no existence outside of it, and by the same token, it is the only place he is vulnerable.
Hmmm... odd thought... I wonder if Abeir is Ao's phylactory. 
Anyhow, I digress (WHO? me?  )... my point was that although portfolios can't be shared, that rule really only applies to the 'umbrella portfolio' - the major ones. Those greater portfolios can be sliced apart and individual aspects of them can be controlled by other deities, and not just demi-powers. Demipowers (Exarchs in 4e) are only the most obvious example, because their slices of the pie are the most specific.
And to continue with the pie slice analogy (because I am baking several kinds for the holidays - who doesn't like pie?), you could theoretically have a lesser god of pies (beneath the intermediate power baking, who is beneath the greater power of cooking, who in turn is ruled by the overpower of sustenance), and beneath him/her you could have a demi-power for every conceivable type of pie.
That situation probably actually exists on the halfling Homeworld. 
*For the sake of brevity, perhaps from now on we can use 'sphere' to denote Divine Sphere, and Sphere to denote Crystal Sphere? |
| Gray Richardson |
Posted - 22 Dec 2011 : 09:30:25
No two gods can have the same portfolio within the same geographical/cultural sphere of influence. Well, except for Demigods were allowed to share portfolios of other gods, but had to have some, at least minor, distinguishing alteration to that portfolio in order to make it their own, and usually with the permission or sponsorship of the god with whom they share that portfolio.
However, a god could have certain portfolios in one sphere of influence, but have a different set of portfolios if he were worshiped in another sphere of influence. For instance, there were only 10 Netherese gods, and each of those had a lot of portfolios. Some of those gods were multi-spheric (not in the sense of different crystal spheres, but rather different spheres of influence around Toril) and those gods may not have had the same portfolios from sphere to sphere.
A god could even be "alive" in one sphere of influence, but dead in another geographical sphere of influence. Lathander is a good example of this. Amaunator remained "alive" for about a thousand years after the fall of Netheril, but he was considered "dead" in all those geographic areas that Lathander had risen. Clearly it took about a thousand years for Lathander to rise throughout all geographical spheres of influence in Faerūn, starting with the Talfiric areas and spreading outward. In that sense, his rise must have been metaphorically very like the way in which the sun rises through different time zones: in some areas it appears to be dawn, in others, it is noon. |
| TBeholder |
Posted - 22 Dec 2011 : 06:33:24
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Phipps
Basically that some Realms gods are actually other Realms gods.
That's an old established feature. For example, like this. I'm not sure it's limited to FR either - there was something about it in Planescape. In itself, it's almost inevitable side that adds more games behind the scene and generally is a boon for settings.
Angharradh, Earthmother/Chauntea, Yuirwood pantheon and opportunistic usurpation of Moander's unused pieces by Lloth were interesting twists that added something and opened great possibilities.
quote:
Talos is actually Gruumsh.
Sehanine Moonbow is actually Selune (which means Selune is married to Corellon)
Hanali Celanil is actually Sune.
Yondalla is actually Chauntea
...while overdoing it, IMO, is plain clumsy. Much as seriously assuming everyone with initials "J.B." is the same guy (see the next thread) would be. 
Especially in Realms which always were about endless fine differences rather than one-size-fits-all things. I'm not a fan of the whole Bear Lore thing in general, so consider me biased (though not prejudiced).
Realmslore-wise, it doesn't make much sense either, since divine politics used to matter a lot. If those gods were aspects of the same, they would coordinate their actions. E.g. there was a note about how upon formation of Dwarven Pantheon wars between their worshippers were limited - now that makes sense.
Say, there was that double priestess of Hanali/Sune and no matter what aspect we see as dominant, comparison to Angharradh's clergy who doesn't have technical difficulties of this sort remains.
And if they merged later (like Earthmother with Chauntea), there should have been a biiiiig story behind those goings-on, especially as most of them don't seem to be the type not caring about trifles like their identities.
quote:
Originally posted by Eldacar
Personally, I'm fond of the concept of "belief makes reality" and that the "gods" in FR are simply anthropomorphic representations of natural forces given their shape by mortal belief (e.g. Kelemvor isn't just a god of death, he is death).
To a degree, gods were said to "be" their portfolios. E.g. when hiding knowledge was an intrinsic problem for Oghma and he was able to pull it only because Cyrinishad was a lie in the first place.
And portfolios were rather arbitrary. But as facets of divinity they were shown to be persistent (e.g. why Tempus was reluctant to slay Garagos), but possible to tweak or distort (e.g. as Finder cherry-picked still cooling Moander). |
| The Sage |
Posted - 22 Dec 2011 : 00:55:28
quote:
Originally posted by _Jarlaxle_
So than what happens if a god dies and some other gods takes his portfolio or some mortal ascends to the new god of it?
Usually, the new deity will assume some or all of the former god's portfolios. Otherwise, they're split up among existing powers.
Faiths and Avatars provides some coverage of this. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 21 Dec 2011 : 18:04:08
quote:
Originally posted by _Jarlaxle_
So than what happens if a god dies and some other gods takes his portfolio or some mortal ascends to the new god of it?
Then the new deity handles the portfolios, whether it's being passed on to an existing deity (like Cyric and illusion) or a mortal assuming divinity and taking the portfolios of his/her predecessor (Mystra 1.0, Mystra 2.0, Cyric taking the portfolios of the Dead Three, Kelemor taking Death, Finder replacing Moander, etc). |
| Wolfhound75 |
Posted - 21 Dec 2011 : 17:59:28
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Some deities may even pre-date Realmspace itself. For instance, the Earth is supposed to be millions (billions?) of years old, and we have the Egyptian pantheon - does that mean those deities existed before Realmspace, or did they only become deities (either created or through ascension) when the Egyptian culture arose?
Most likely, all those powers were even more ancient powers, that only took those names on Earth (and later Toril) when the Egyptians referred to them that way.
I posit that those deities, when they lost worshippers here on Earth, migrated to Toril and took up the aspects/appearance of the deities from Zakhara leading to the Al-Qadim setting's pantheon.
Furthermore, if they could do that once, they may have come to Earth in the same fashion when their power waned in some other sphere.
It's an interesting paradigm to consider at any rate.
Good Hunting! |
| _Jarlaxle_ |
Posted - 21 Dec 2011 : 14:40:26
So than what happens if a god dies and some other gods takes his portfolio or some mortal ascends to the new god of it? |
| Eldacar |
Posted - 21 Dec 2011 : 13:03:32
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Some deities may even pre-date Realmspace itself. For instance, the Earth is supposed to be millions (billions?) of years old, and we have the Egyptian pantheon - does that mean those deities existed before Realmspace, or did they only become deities (either created or through ascension) when the Egyptian culture arose?
Personally, I'm fond of the concept of "belief makes reality" and that the "gods" in FR are simply anthropomorphic representations of natural forces given their shape by mortal belief (e.g. Kelemvor isn't just a god of death, he is death). So the forces exist prior to their personifications, but the personifications are also the forces, and so they exist prior to their own creation in that sense. They exist because mortals believe that they exist (belief makes reality), but at the same time they simply represent a larger concept that has always existed (the natural force itself).
It's also why gods are so hard to permanently slay in my Realms - the very concept of "killing death" (to again use that as an example) is laughable, because you're not just killing a "powerful immortal being" like it might seem. You're literally trying to kill a chunk of reality as a whole.
That's how I run it, of course. Others no doubt do things differently. |
| Dennis |
Posted - 21 Dec 2011 : 10:21:31
I think aspects do not only apply to gods of more or less the same portfolios. It's possible that some gods are aspects of unknown entities that split into multiple parts. For instance, Shar and Selune might be the aspects of one goddess (Selunar? Sharrun?). Bane, Bhaal, and Myrkul could be the aspects of one deity more powerful than Mystra (Banu? Myrbanal?). |
| _Jarlaxle_ |
Posted - 20 Dec 2011 : 16:52:49
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Some deities may even pre-date Realmspace itself. For instance, the Earth is supposed to be millions (billions?) of years old, and we have the Egyptian pantheon - does that mean those deities existed before Realmspace, or did they only become deities (either created or through ascension) when the Egyptian culture arose?
No they became deities after Ra found a way to escape death in taking a human host and his fellows did the same  |
| Markustay |
Posted - 20 Dec 2011 : 16:36:13
Yup.
Some deities may even pre-date Realmspace itself. For instance, the Earth is supposed to be millions (billions?) of years old, and we have the Egyptian pantheon - does that mean those deities existed before Realmspace, or did they only become deities (either created or through ascension) when the Egyptian culture arose?
Most likely, all those powers were even more ancient powers, that only took those names on Earth (and later Toril) when the Egyptians referred to them that way.
Another thing to consider is that 'spiritual beings' (anything existing beyond the Prime material) are amorphous; they not only have no definitive shape (except when they take one), but also no constant as far as power and/or 'content'. I picture the entire universe like one vast 'lava-lamp', and all those blobs floating about are ultra-mortal (gods and everything else non-mortal). These beings are constantly absorbing others, combining with others (triune deities), breaking apart (every time they create an Avatar or Greater Manifestation), etc, etc... they are always adding more 'material' to themselves, and releasing it back into the universe. Even things as simple as delivering spells to followers is an exchange of energy, which means a small part of the god enters the faithful, and a little bit of the faithful enters the god (in the form of worship).
This means that while Amaunator could very well be Krocaa (as stated by Gray above), he is not the same being as he was when he was primarily Krokaa. In much the same way that the cells of our own bodies are completely different every seven years (IIRC), so to does the universe constantly change and grow. We are the same person (usually) mentally and spiritually, but our physical form has been completely replaced... even if it looks almost exactly the same.
So, when we (or WotC) say "this god is the same as that one", what we are really saying is that there is some sort of relationship there, but one we can't fully comprehend. Is Bane the same Bane as before the Tot? I doubt it... even if we can't tell the difference. |
| Gray Richardson |
Posted - 19 Dec 2011 : 06:40:58
I have long equated the Aearee god Krocaa with the human god of the sun, Amaunator. In fact, he was probably Krocaa long before humans began to call him Amaunator. Syranita I equate with the dawn and thus Lathander. And I consider Quorlinn the god of twilight and figure he held the dusk portfolio back in his day; although, I don't equate him with any particular modern god. Though I wouldn't put it past him if Quorlinn were an aspect of Mask--or more likely Mask an aspect or fragment of Quorlinn.
In modern times, regardless of whether they were ever aspects or fragments of each other, I imagine that Mask either absorbed Quorlinn or took his name as an alias, and that when kenku pray to Quorlinn, they are really praying to Mask (at least, that is, up until Mask died). |
| Charles Phipps |
Posted - 19 Dec 2011 : 02:55:02
Interestingly enough, I've combined a few of the deities that haven't been combined in the canon realms.
Corellon is Lathander and the consort of Selune/Sehanine Moonbow.
Shevaresh is actually the god Hoar.
Rillifane Rallathil is Silvanus.
|
| Ayrik |
Posted - 19 Dec 2011 : 02:27:39
Actually, there's a lot of evidence that Tyr was supreme over Odin - at least for many peoples in some time periods. Tyr, Thor, Thrax, and many other names are thought by some scholars to all be variations of the same god as he was known to different cultures. The one we call Odin is thought to have likely been asserted as chief of the pantheon by the religious bias of the scholars who first recorded the oral traditions of Norse Mythology onto paper ... followed by the names and roles of these gods being "retconned" by history, at least history as it is emphasized, rewritten, or translated along an endless chain of historians.
Tyr/Thor and Odin are all obvious expressions of the ancient sky-god archetype. A patriarch, undefeatable warrior, King or leader; possessor of secret wisdom and powerful lore; ruler of the sun, sky, winds, storms; creator of the other gods and of men ... where there is more than one sky-god, different aspects emphasize different divisions of these powers. Some societies emphasized things like metalworking, medicine, astronomy, written law, or war against enemy gods/peoples and so their gods - and most especially the greatest one heading their pantheon - would also be attributed and embodied with supreme mastery over such stuff. |
| Faraer |
Posted - 19 Dec 2011 : 01:40:02
In the Realms, I think the general idea works well as mortal theories about the gods, very badly as canonical declaration used to rationalize not providing details about the subsumed deities, all motivated by an attempt to create a religiously simpler world than Ed made -- one with less detail, less texture and less difference between races (the process I've called 'foreshortening'). As I've pointed out, the initial Realms-2008 divine roster was about the same size as that in the 1987 set (which however noted the existence of more), and the designers could have written up the same reduced core group without gratuitously culling or reducing to footnotes all the others. |
| Eladrinstar |
Posted - 19 Dec 2011 : 00:09:01
quote:
Originally posted by Gray Richardson
As creatures of belief, gods are more like memes or words than distinct individuals. As such, it makes perfect sense that they would be conceived of by different societies in different ways, and that when populations separate and become isolated from each other, their conceptions of their common gods would diverge and drift in the same manner that languages and words do.
Take, for instance the very name "Zeus." In proto-Indo-European, the name was Di#275;us, sometimes Dieus Phat#275;r (Zeus the Father). In Greek, this became Zeus. In Sanskrit, this became the god Dyaus or Dyaus Pita. In Latin the name became Dius Pater and then later Jupiter. In Old Germanic the name became Tiwaz and then Tyr in norse. After Christianity took over the Roman Empire, Dius Pater was relegated to demon status under the name of Dis Pater.
And can still be seen in the Latin Deus referring to the Abrahamic God. Though that deity is not Indo-European. |
| Gray Richardson |
Posted - 18 Dec 2011 : 23:14:43
As creatures of belief, gods are more like memes or words than distinct individuals. As such, it makes perfect sense that they would be conceived of by different societies in different ways, and that when populations separate and become isolated from each other, their conceptions of their common gods would diverge and drift in the same manner that languages and words do.
Take, for instance the very name "Zeus." In proto-Indo-European, the name was Di#275;us, sometimes Dieus Phat#275;r (Zeus the Father). In Greek, this became Zeus. In Sanskrit, this became the god Dyaus or Dyaus Pita. In Latin the name became Dius Pater and then later Jupiter. In Old Germanic the name became Tiwaz and then Tyr in norse. After Christianity took over the Roman Empire, Dius Pater was relegated to demon status under the name of Dis Pater.
All these names changed and morphed as the conception of the god changed with each generation. Each one could be called an aspect or a fragment of the same original god.
Gods are a lot like amoeba, they divide and split and sometimes get reabsorbed.
I think the distinction between aspects and fragments is that aspects are like split-personalities or guises or costumes that the gods wear for different cultures and circumstances. Aspects are still a part of the god.
Fragments happen when an aspect splits off and becomes a distinct, separate entity and is no longer connected to the original god.
I very much like the lore about aspects, and it's completely in line with established lore. Not to mention Ed Greenwood has been making statements about such things in his replies in his thread for years.
|
| Markustay |
Posted - 18 Dec 2011 : 20:24:25
From a DM's perspective, I liked it, and had done much the same on my own in my Realms (in fact, I had made many of the same exact decisions).
As a fan of the Realms, I disliked it very much, because there was a lot of broken continuity due to the changes (but in the great scheme of things, it was very little compared to everything else that happened).
So, I guess I am bi-polar enough to be on both sides of the fence.
In my own setting, I have established around 100 gods (ranging from 'all-powerful' to local hero-deities), but they each have many aspects, and are known under many different names in various regions. I figured this out from the beginning, to avoid the anomalies the Realms are running into now. Many of these powers are also multi-spheric in nature as well, which means they are 'absentee deities', and often lesser powers (and fiends, etc) take up the mantel and 'impersonate' the deity. This adds another layer of confusion, which - to me - is perfect for an RPG setting where players shouldn't know everything about the cosmology.
And many are also know as other deities in the Realms, and Earth, and other known D&D/RPG worlds. On some worlds they would be actual aspects of the god, and on others, the 'absentee' situation would be in-play; for instance, Bane takes the place of Asmodeus on worlds where Asmodeus doesn't have a presence, or doesn't care enough about, or has simply lost interest in for the time being. Bane isn't Asmodeus - he is a being of lesser divine status , who may have been a Chosen of Asmodeus at one time. I also do not use any of these names - I have my own (some of which sound reminiscent of Realms/RW ones) - and who I equate my gods with is known only to me (which leads to some interesting surprises). This is not entirely an original idea - DL did this with Tiamet by renaming her Takhisis (which was great, which is why I approve of this methodology). Thus, Takhisis is a local (Krynn) aspect of Tiamet (in my own cosmology - I don't give an Osquip's arse what it is in canon). |
| Eladrinstar |
Posted - 18 Dec 2011 : 18:15:38
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
I believe gods to be manifestations of mortal beliefs. Mortals cannot understand the ways of their gods only because they cannot understand themselves.
Excellent point. I wonder if that fact is widely known in Faerun, that a deity needs worship. It could go quite badly for them one day. Unless of course Faerun needs deities to function. Then worship would be known as literally keeping reality in place. |
| Dennis |
Posted - 18 Dec 2011 : 07:27:11
I like the aspects. Restraining a god to one "body," one aspect, makes it appear weak.. The more the aspects, the better. (Of course, there can be exceptions to that rule.) But having many aspects (sort of) guarantees a deity of endless supply of worshipers. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 18 Dec 2011 : 07:15:49
I concede those are good points, Eladrin. I'll replace "ridiculous" with "simplistic".quote:
Eladrinstar
And after all, Ed has said many times that the God's of Faerun work in ways that mortals can never truly understand.
I believe gods to be manifestations of mortal beliefs. Mortals cannot understand the ways of their gods only because they cannot understand themselves. |
| Eladrinstar |
Posted - 18 Dec 2011 : 06:34:08
quote:
The Realms are a pagan place filled with countless gods, many (or most) of whom are categorically never documented in published Realmslore. I think it's ridiculous to pretend that they're all the same stubborn handful of gods wearing different hats.
Ah, but many polytheistic religions in real history thought eachother's Gods to be but reflections of their own. Maybe it's not the truth in the Realms, but it's hardly ridiculous. And after all, Ed has said many times that the God's of Faerun work in ways that mortals can never truly understand. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 18 Dec 2011 : 06:02:21
I suppose a compromise position could assert that while all gods are ultimately only aspects of each other and their cosmos, those aspects which are similar might range from "nearly identical" to "only have few things in common". Tempus and all his competitor war gods (including Garagos) are "nearly identical". Gruumsh and Talos have little in common beyond being evil, violent, and destructive - although for Talos it is an objective in itself while for Gruumsh it is just an effective methodology.
I would suggest that the weaker or more localized deities, those who have limited or very specialized influence (Earthmother, for example) might deliberately associate themselves with more powerful aspects, aligning their goals along similar paths, gaining more than they sacrifice in a lopsided arrangement of mutual benefit. |
| Charles Phipps |
Posted - 18 Dec 2011 : 05:33:25
I like the IDEA behind it but sometimes it seems to just diminish the characters overall. Talos, for example, has always had a very different personality in my mind from Gruumsh.
I do make use of it in my games, however.
For example, Eilistraee is an aspect of Mielikki in my games.
Vhaeraun is, in my games, actually the god Mask.
Both are still alive in my 4E games as a result. |
| sfdragon |
Posted - 18 Dec 2011 : 05:16:29
by every watching god.
this is the statement passed on by Ed in some of his tales.
meaning that there might be less gods than what the populace believes.
the otherside is also likely could be true that there are more..... hahhaha
to me its a bad idea espescially the reasons given.
each their own though.
|
| Ayrik |
Posted - 18 Dec 2011 : 05:05:08
There is probably some truth to that statement. But the identity of each deity is no less valid than any other. I think it's wonderfully arrogant for human pantheons to dominate the Realms to such an extent that all non-human deities are treated as little more than "disguised" variations of the "true" human templates. In my mind the gods are older than humans or any other race, they have probably changed self-identity numerous times, and diverged into separate entities, and they compete and sometimes they even destroy or subsume or usurp each other. For that matter, many other races are older than humans ... if any "first race" invented the "true" gods in the Realms then it most certainly wouldn't be humans.
I maintain (for example) that Gruumsh is no mere aspect of Talos, they are each as aware and vital (and worshipped) as the other, and since their followers come from entirely different cultures and species there is not even any real overlap between them. Likewise, I maintain that elves (for example) should not be troubled by the repeated death of the human goddess of magic, aside from when they or their magics directly interact with humans and their magics. Although recent D&D editions are notorious for carrying (and retconning) these "aspect" tendencies to unbelievably generalized and oversimplified extremes, these are still issues which annoyed me since the earliest Realmslore began to describe such happenings back in 1E.
The Realms are a pagan place filled with countless gods, many (or most) of whom are categorically never documented in published Realmslore. I think it's ridiculous to pretend that they're all the same stubborn handful of gods wearing different hats. |
|
|
