| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| MrHedgehog |
Posted - 31 Dec 2011 : 20:54:03
When deities have multiple "aspects" are these in any sense separate entities? Like is there a Kossuth that is Evil and one that is good? Or is it merely their worshipers interpreting the same (neutral/unaligned Kossuth) differently? I am thinking specifically of The Disciples of the Phoenix versus Kossuthans of Thay ~1370
Or something like Etugen being an aspect of Grumbar, does that make her a separate entity that is part of the larger Grumbar whole...or just something worshipers believe exists. Like, would Etugan (sp?) tell her worshipers different things than if they worshiped Grumbar? |
| 9 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 07 Jan 2012 : 10:10:56
My perceptions:
A deity can choose how much power it invests into creating an aspect, it can also form the aspect entirely from itself or entirely from another individual or in any intermediate blend it chooses (the deity can even impose its will on uncooperative mortal souls but this risks creating inferior, damaged, unstable, and often very dangerous divine constructs). Thus we have Tyr in the Realms originally being something of a perfect copy of Tyr from the Norse pantheon, while we have/had Azuth the ascended mortal transformed by Mystra into a lesser power with portfolio which was originally a subset of her own. Rules for the formation of aspects, along with some guidelines for what aspects really are (originally god-copies who were allocated some of the original's power and portfolios), were given in the 1E Deities & Demigods and (earlier) 2E Legends & Lore books, but largely abandoned (then reintroduced in a confusing format) within 3E ... in any event, the gods don't really follow rules, each particular aspect seems to be handled on a case-by-case basis.
Deities possess multi-layered consciousness, they can simultaneously maintain multiple avatars who are "little copies" of the deity's own mental identity, they can in effect act as any number of individual but linked minds (who could even each take form with either gender, any age, appearance, even species), they could even theoretically argue among themselves (although this is unlikely, since each self-copy would generally be in perfect agreement with each other, except perhaps for gods like Talos and Tempus who like conflict). John C Wright's Golden Age trilogy is somewhat mediocre sci-fi which presents all sorts of provocative explorations about aspects and avatars being shaped as (sometimes temporary and task-oriented) vessels of consciousness, it's a bit of a confusing read at first but still presents many interesting ideas.
Most aspects and avatars are eventually reintegrated within the whole, but some might be invested sufficient power or special purpose to become different individuals whose personal experience and perspective diverges from the greater whole. It would be possible for them to change alignments, although the process might require aeons of time or require some particularly dramatic event to catalyze. In places (like the Realms) where the deities are interdependant upon - and to some degree defined by - the belief of their followers it would be possible for changes in belief to change the deity itself. Thus we have Realms-Tyr being an aspect-entity of Norse-Tyr who is now substantially different and independant, just as we have Eberron-Asmodeus and Baator-Asmodeus being nearly indentical but entirely separate beings (who would each likely want to destroy the other Asmodeus aspects to consolidate power within himself, but are unable to do so because the others possess more power within their own domains).
Creating aspects is a way for deities to ensure continuity and procreate themselves, to discard distracting or contradicting portfolios and believers, to create naturally affiliated allies within their pantheon, to expand themselves to other worlds and planes without diverting their attention away from the ones they already govern.
From the perspective of a character on the Realms, a deity like Lolth is Lolth and Asmodeus is Asmodeus. It hardly matters whether the deity is only one (unique, individual) part of some complex multi-aspected construct because they all basically think and behave almost exactly the same; the differences are academic when facing a being of such high order. |
| Dennis |
Posted - 07 Jan 2012 : 10:03:58
quote:
Originally posted by MrHedgehog
Which cases are you referring to, Dennis, where they change to suite their worshipers? Which deities would not know they are an aspect of a larger whole in the realms?
Going by my multi-personality disorder(-like) theory, the "change" must be brought about by different reasons, all of which are for the betterment/well-being of the "main deity." The manifestation of an aspect may also be indicative of a deity's contingencies. Since he and his aspects are separate, if his main "body" dies or is killed, he still can continue to exist via his proxies, or aspects. And the aspects' lack of knowledge about each other, as well as the deity from which they came from, may also be part of the contingency plans. In that way, the god's enemies who wish to destroy him won't necessarily target his aspects.
quote:
Originally posted by MrHedgehog
That brings in another question of whether losing a portfolio CHANGES a deity. Is Cyric a different entity after losing death and the dead? Is the Selune of now different than the Selune who was also a goddess of beauty and creativity (Empire of Magic Box set?)
Good question. They are changed, but not drastically that they wouldn't act their "normal" selves. I suppose they have a Prime Portfolio that governs/ties all their other portfolios, and that alone caries their identities. |
| MrHedgehog |
Posted - 07 Jan 2012 : 09:29:08
The Gods should be unknowable but I like to search for concrete answers regardless.
Mask implies in The Prince of Lies (or one of that trilogy) that his aspect as the female giantess goddess of thieves is a deception... But it is implied elsewhere the other giant Gods ARE separate entities and not aspects of the mainstream deities. Was she [the name eludes me] ever real? Do the other giant Gods know its Mask? Does she behave differently than Mask? I also think of Selune being Nanna-Sin, but Nanna-Sin existed outside of Selune. Is Selune pretending to be Nanna-Sin, or did a Nanna-Sin aspect form? (And Sehanine, if you believe she was always an aspect)
I don't know what i'm trying to get at [real world] considering people spend their lives studying religion like a PhD in Hinduism where Vishnu has 13 avatars or whatever [/real world].
It seems like the two of you DO believe Kossuth/Grumbar etc. have "good" and "evil" aspects while being primarily neutral. Is that right? Or do you believe people are who are good perceive them as good or evil of their own accord?
Which cases are you referring to, Dennis, where they change to suite their worshipers? Did Hoar become Lawful Evil in 4th edition because of his worshipers or was it the influence of Shar/Bane (or just because they removed the "Lawful" alignment?) Which deities would not know they are an aspect of a larger whole in the realms?
That brings in another question of whether losing a portfolio CHANGES a deity. Is Cyric a different entity after losing death and the dead? Is the Selune of now different than the Selune who was also a goddess of beauty and creativity (Empire of Magic Box set?) |
| Dennis |
Posted - 02 Jan 2012 : 14:49:12
It's been known in a number of cases that the alignment of some deities changes, depending on their needs at the moment. Same happens to their portfolio. Some changes are temporary, some are permanent.
A deity is like someone with multi-personality disorder. The deity is the dominant personalty that is aware of the existence of the other personalities, and often works hand in hand with them with or without their knowledge. The aspects are these other personalities, which may or may not be conscious of their relationship with the dominant personality (in this example, the deity from which they've branched out) and so may deem existence totally independent. Furthermore, I'd like to think the deity himself has erected some sort of a firewall for his own protection, so that whatever ill befalls on his aspects would not be visited upon him. |
| Gray Richardson |
Posted - 02 Jan 2012 : 14:14:20
I have always thought of aspects in 2 ways:
1) Like a role in a play, the god dons a guise, plays a "character" that appeals to and meets the expectations of specific worshipers from a given culture/geographical sphere of influence. This implies the aspect is somehow voluntary, but it may not be so.
2) The second way might be more like a split personality. An involuntary guise or character that is imposed on the god by the expectations and beliefs of the target worshipers.
To what degree the deity has awareness and control over an aspect is unknown. And it may change from situation to situation. A deity may start out by establishing an aspect voluntarily, and the "character" may turn into something more involuntary over time.
Aspects often arise naturally when populations of worshipers separate and become isolated from one another. Two peoples may have held the same conception of a god originally, but once isolated from each other that conception may drift and diverge in different ways. New myths and legends might arise about the god. His clothing and features might change to meet current fashions.
You might also see aspects arise where missionaries, travelers or conquerors bring a god to a new are or geographical sphere. As the worship of that deity takes hold, his worship, appearance and conception may be adapted to the new culture. If his worship supplants the veneration of some former local god, his aspect may take on different portfolios and characteristics from the previous local god.
In certain cases an aspect splits off entirely and becomes a new and separate god. That is usually called a "fragment."
When a god adopts the name and character of another god, that is called an "alias." This happens most often when a god dies and another god takes over his worshipers (out of charity or out of aggression.) For instance, Shar took Ibrandul's name as an alias after she killed him. Usually the worshipers don't know the original god is dead.
An "Avatar" is a physical manifestation of a god that is invested with one or more of the god's divine ranks. A deity can create or destroy Avatars as needed and can have up to as many Avatars as divine ranks the god possesses (see the sourcebooks for the specifics of Avatar creation). Avatars are linked to the god but can act autonomously. They are somewhat like clones that share a telepathic link. Although an avatar can be shaped to appear in any form, so it doesn't necessarily have to look like the god.
There is a type of avatar that is kind of a super-avatar called a "manifestation" created by the Mulhorandi gods when they entered Toril. These manifestations were created to enter Realmspace but would be cut off from the divine source of their original godheads by the Imaskari god-barrier. They were intended to be able to act independently for millennia and so were invested with an unusually high degree of divine power, but the exact details of the mechanics involved in making manifestations was not ever explained (that I know of.)
Manifestations can make a lesser type of avatar called an "incarnation." Incarnations are specified as a "mortal form," and I can only surmise it would something like a human or humanoid (possibly outsider) with DVR zero.
The Miniatures Handbook introduced "aspects" which somewhat confused the matter. These were low-level, fightable monsters that were intended to be something like an avatar. The choice of name was unfortunate. These "aspects" didn't seem to have all the personality or intelligence of the source god, either. They might represent the rage of a deity or the compassion of a deity, but they weren't the whole package in miniature, just a small representative bit of the god. It was also stated that gods could create dozens of "aspects" at a whim with little effort, so they don't seem to be invested with actual divine ranks. Gods also have no control over these aspects, so there must not be the same kind of link.
It should be made clear that these monster-aspects are a different concept from the original aspects discussed above. It would have been better if the designers had picked a different name.
Faiths & Avatars lists all sorts of ways a god can appear to a worshiper. Each entry has a section titled "Other Manifestations" and lists things like a wind, a flower, a floating skull, a pair of claws, etc. A god can make himself known in a variety of ways including visions and more tangible manifestations. |
| MrHedgehog |
Posted - 02 Jan 2012 : 05:43:34
The concepts of aspects is very confusing for me. All I can think of is like Krishna being part of Vishnu, but completely different at the same time (in real world mythology - not to offend anyone who is hindu hopeuflly) |
| The Sage |
Posted - 01 Jan 2012 : 00:49:12
Both Markustay and Kentinal are essentially correct.
Deities [and, now Primordials as well, I imagine] may choose, if they wish to divest a portion of their divine essence into ‘aspects.’ These aspects may claim dominions and portfolios beyond those governed by their parent divinity. Aerdrie Faeyna was an aspect of Akadi which infiltrated and lived among the elven pantheon for millennia. When Aerdrie was slain by Auril, Akadi simply lost the divine essence invested into this particular aspect [ie. Akadi was weakened but not destroyed].
It's also worth noting that most deities recalled all their aspects during the Spellplague to consolidate their power and today exist as singular beings. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 31 Dec 2011 : 22:47:28
I don't think there are any 'hard & fast' rules concerning this.
The way I play it, the aspect (Avatar, whatever) is created by need, and are temporary (usually). That means that what is needed is what s created, so you can have good' and 'bad' Kossuths running around the Realms, depending upon who's faith they were generated from.
This means that alignments in the 'god books' are the closest to that deity's true alignment, as interpreted by the majority of mortals who believe (because 'good' and 'bad' are themselves subjective, depending upon the observer's own personal morality). Note that this means the followers of an 'evil' deity may not perceive it thusly (Bane, for example), but the majority of folks who believe in that deity - in the Bane example, nearly everyone in Faerűn - would be of the opinion he is evil (or good, or whatever the case may be, depending upon which power we are talking about, and what followers).
So the aspects aren't really aligned at all - they are merely behaving according to their program. And aspects (Avatars, Manifestations, etc) are re-absorbed all the time - there is no permanency when it comes to Faith.
Its like going to see a charlatan fortune-teller - you are going to hear precisely what you want or expect to hear (or experience, in the case of deific manifestations).
Mind you, this is just how I interpret D&D cosmological stuff, and nothing really RAW. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 31 Dec 2011 : 22:07:13
In part it depends on the "aspects", many deities have aspects that compliment each other. The Greater deity, though have following from many alignments that at times followers can even oppose each other though of the same patron deity.
Law is law, Good is merciful. These two concepts do not always work well together. A murder by abused spouse clearly broke the law and must be punished, as good or more just answer might be to understand and pardon the killer a better answer.
Some deities clearly have aspects or even servant deities that might concentrate on certain aspects.
There is no quick and simple answer. |
|
|
