| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 14 Feb 2012 : 21:59:47
This question grows out of my "One Canon, One Story, One Realms" thread, particularly page 15.
Basically, I advanced the concept of listing "popular adventurer deities" in the 5e FR Player's Guide--i.e. a list of 13 or so deities your cleric or paladin PC would be most likely to worship. The advantage of this is that it's easy for new players to get into without having to search through a long, exhaustive list.
It's also going to be noted that you are encouraged to consult the full deity list (presented in the DM Guide) or use any other FR source to find a deity who matches your tastes. We probably don't need to list evil deities in the basic "common gods" listing.
So here's the question:
If you had to pick a small number of deities to include in the 5e Forgotten Realms Players Guide, what would they be? And why?
Here's my list:
Tyr, God of Justice (LG)
Torm, God of Paladins (LG)
Lathander, God of the Morning (NG)
Mielikki, Goddess of the Woodlands (NG)
Tymora, Goddess of Luck (CG)
Sune, Goddess of Love (CG)
Kelemvor, God of Death (LN)
Helm, God of Guardians (LN)
Mystra, Goddess of Magic (N)*
Silvanus, God of Nature (N)
Oghma, God of Wisdom (N)
Tempus, God of War (CN)
Sharess, Goddess of Passion (CN)
Also, racial deities are listed:
Corellon, God of Elves (CG)
Moradin, God of Dwarves (LG)
Yondalla, God of Halflings (NG)
*Note that I list Mystra as "neutral," because she changes alignment periodically but is always at least partly a neutral arbiter. I rather think that if Mystra returns, I hope she ends up being True Neutral or at least Lawful Neutral again. Maybe that's just me.
There. Just sixteen deities (two for each PC-ish alignment, plus Mystra, plus three racial deities) for your standard adventurer to pick from. If you want to boil it down further, take off the ones that are marked with blue text, and you suddenly have just 10 deities in the Player's Guide. Ilmater was a runner-up, but again, he's less common than these core adventuring deities (I also didn't want LG to be too heavily represented). Mielikki and Sharess are on the list because of Drizzt and gamers love Sharess, respectively. I didn't even list evil deities (though I probably would have listed Bane and Loviatar for LE, Mask and Shar for NE, and Cyric and Malar for CE). Players can always choose an "uncommon" deity to worship.
This section of the guide would also note that occasionally gods rise and fall with the passing of years, and players should ask their DM whether a particular god they want to choose is appropriate for that particular campaign.
Remember that the kind of baseline assumption is: "These are the deities an adventurer is most likely to worship. Experienced players who know more about the Realms or are willing to delve into the lore can choose any FR deity from the expanded list to worship."
(For the purposes of this discussion, let us assume that ALL Realms deities will get coverage in the 5e DM FR book or a 5e F&P sort of book, and that this list will be substantive enough to provide portfolios, domains, favored weapons, etc., whatever you need to build your divine PC.)
So what's your list?
Cheers |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Ateth Istarlin |
Posted - 21 Feb 2012 : 15:33:01
I think that my list of "Adventurer" Deities would be:-
Azuth
Corellon Larethian
Eilistraee
Garl Glittergold
Helm
Ilmater
Lathander
Mask (Who should be TN)
Mielikki
Milil
Moradin
Mystra (Who should be TN as well)
Oghma
Selune
Shaundakul
Silvanus
Talos (Who, along with Auril & Umberlee, should be CN nature deities IMHO)
Tempus
Tymora
Tyr
These 21 Deities would give PC's a good choice, without including Evil Deities (Who should be listed in the "Running the Realms" volume. |
| BARDOBARBAROS |
Posted - 20 Feb 2012 : 22:23:06
I want Myrkul back !!! |
| Azuth |
Posted - 20 Feb 2012 : 22:19:01
Having read through the posts here, I'm still stuck with a fundamental problem that has plagued me since the beginning of my D&D adventures in the first edition of the Realms. If the deities are transcendental of mortals, why do deities need alignments? I understand that it makes good storytelling as to how Midnight became the second deity called Mystra, and those novels show her (to me) moving toward a definitive neutral stance. My point in this is that I don't think deities should have alignments or prefer alignments. Deities promote domains, or spheres, or subject areas, or whatever you call it. Yes, they can cross, so that Eldath and Chauntea can have similar qualities, but they are not the same. Similarly, Malar could tie in with those deities as well.
This is more of Ed's "people worship multiple deities" piece he's spoken of repeatedly. So, this being the case, why wouldn't we just have Tyr be the God of Justice, Mask be the God of Thieves, Mystra be the Goddess of Magic, Gond be the God of Craftsmen, et cetera. The purpose of the deity in question is to further his or her domain, so whether someone is stealing for the benefit of the poor (e.g. Robin Hood) or selfishly, it still benefits Mask. Mask shouldn't care of the motives of theivery, only that it is fostered. Similarly, Mystra should focus on the advancement of magic, be it for war or peace, raising the dead or slaying the undead. A chaotic wild mage who invents new spells should be just as precious to her as a neutral good priest who teaches others how to cast divine magic. In this respect, all deities worshippers who greatly spread his or her sphere of influence would be "chosen." Based on this, my list would be:
-
Fighters: Tempus-
Mages: Mystra-
Thieves: Mask - Clerics: Any
- Rangers: Sylvanus
- Commoners: Chauntea, Talos, Ilmater, Lathander, Tymora, Kelemvor
- Sailors: Umberless, Talos
- Bards: Milil
- Lore: Oghma
Again, an adventuring group who needs to travel by sea would be wise to offer a prayer to Umberlee and Talos, and maybe Istishia. But similarly, even a thief worshipping Mask should offer a prayer to Sylvanus, Mielikki, or Malar for a good hunt if hunting food for dinner. I would explain the commoner deities in that Chauntea is for food, Talos is for good weather, Lathander is for health and longevity, Tymora is for luck (when needed badly), Ilmater is to help those who are sick, and Kelemvor is to revere the dead. Sure, Barbarians will want to worship Uthgar, and Paladins may want Torm, but this isn't a requirement if we don't require LG deities. I'd rather have a game in which "Robin Hood" was a Paladin of Mask, because he was virtuous but his actions weren't always in compliance with the law. Mask doesn't care, because he gets credit for theivery. Torm doesn't care, because he like the virtue. Helm would like the obligation to duty. Tyr would be upset at law-breaking, and he should be upset at the breaking of any law, regardless of how "moral" society at large views it. If you live in Zhentil Keep, the laws are not as nice as in Suzail. It is not Tyr's place to determine if laws are just, only that they are followed and that they are applied fairly. I would expect punishment from the Church of Tyr on a judge accepting bribes whether that judge was in Waterdeep or in Marsember.
This kind of brings me to my final point: the deities that always seemed excessive to me. Rather than having a goddess of ill-luck (Beshaba) it would make more sense to me to be out of favor with Tymora. Similarly, Talona isn't necessary if it means being out of favor with Ilmater. Cyric is just crazy, and I liked Bhaal better, but let Tymora and Cyric fight it out over an assasin whose blade will land or miss. The sub-classes (rangers, paladins, assasins, barbarians, monks, et cetera) should be covered in the F&P expansion with respect to deity. A Monk can worship Tempus or not, depending on her training. Finally, as the deities are all supernatural, do we really need different names for them in the FRCG for characters of non-human races? If the demihuman deities are all just "aspects" of major deities, let them worship the main deities. If alignment is removed, then this is not a factor. Torm can manifest as a burly man or woman human to humans, and an adept warrior of the forest to a male or female elf. That they seek battle is all that matters, and on that they should be rewarded. Breaking down the pantheon into species-specific profiles furthers the separation of characters when not needed.
I'm less concerns with specific deities, as long as the major powers are represented in the FRCG and cover the areas in which most players will specialize, or need to understand why said deities are worshipped so greatly in the land. "Why is there a temple to Tymora on every corner?"
Cheers,
Selûne and Shar are unique, but while Shar seems to embody evil, Selûne has never struck me as oppositionally good.
Azuth |
| coach |
Posted - 20 Feb 2012 : 21:35:25
oops, just re-read the question (thought it was along the lines of deities you definitely wanted in 5th ed FR)
but IMO we do need to include the Tiamat and Bahamut rivalry, even if it is just in the "monstrous" deities style
i'm a huge fan of "the more the merrier" so sign me up with the list from 3e |
| coach |
Posted - 20 Feb 2012 : 21:29:35
Tiamat and Bahamut in some form |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 20 Feb 2012 : 04:40:27
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis
quote:
...However, having learned from his mistake, he wouldn't do it again. He can target another deity, but chooses instead to focus his strength in reconstructing Halruaa 2.0.
-Why would I do that? Especially if reunited with Karsus the Mad and our third Beholder Mage aspect?
Because he's learned his lessons and realized there's more to magic, to being a genius, and to being incredibly powerful than aimless "playing with fire."
[/quote]
-Nope. If left to my own devices, I seek to one-up anybody and everybody. Applies to everything I do, really: Magic, school, fantasy baseball, video games... |
| Dennis |
Posted - 18 Feb 2012 : 10:19:59
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis
...However, having learned from his mistake, he wouldn't do it again. He can target another deity, but chooses instead to focus his strength in reconstructing Halruaa 2.0.
-Why would I do that? Especially if reunited with Karsus the Mad and our third Beholder Mage aspect?
Because he's learned his lessons and realized there's more to magic, to being a genius, and to being incredibly powerful than aimless "playing with fire." |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 22:44:49
I'm in favor of a list, in the sense that the 3e campaign setting gave us a list, but I agree with Mumadar's other points. Especially re far-ranging Faerunian deities dominating areas that have/had underlying local pantheons, and the value in preserving those local beliefs. I also like the idea of subsets of the deities being discussed in each regional sourcebook.
Not trying to put words in anyone's mouth, but an overview of what I personally would love to see:
- Player's book: a short-list of deities who are great choices of patron powers for adventurers... not necessarily greater powers, not necessarily widely venerated among non-adventurers. I still like Erik's most recent list, plus Shaundakul and gnomes, with Mask being CN.
- DM's book: a 1-line-per-deity summary of all Faerun-wide deities, including alignment and portfolio, which essentially serves as a table of contents for the descriptions which follow: a couple paragraphs about what each deity strives for in the course of his/her/its involvement in the Realms. The header of each description includes the deity's domains and favored weapon, rather than putting those things on the "table of contents" list. If the list can be kept down to name/alignment/portfolio then we should be able to fit it in 8 horizontal inches instead of each line of the list going across two pages. Also, gods which are only worshiped in a small area don't really belong here; they'll be described in regional sourcebooks.
- Deities & Demigods: I like this title better than F&P, F&A, or the others, but that's just my preference. This book would be different than the earlier Deities & Demigods book too, so a completely new title is probably an even better idea. This book contains all of the deities which were summarized in the DM's book... in greater detail. It should be aimed squarely at players-of-priests and DMs who want to take full advantage of the specialty priest ideas. This book spells out things like sayings and proverbs of the faiths, spells or granted powers which are only given to specialty priests, and maybe a "Top Ten Temples" section to showcase where each faith is strongest, the most influential high priests, etc.
- Regional sourcebooks: a quick list of which deities are especially active and/or favored in that region, and some expansion of the DM's book material aimed at how those deities are venerated in this specific region. Differences in attire, rituals, mannerisms, interactions with the other local faiths and nonbelievers, etc. This is also where we find the local deities (which are not venerated all over the Realms and therefore don't belong in the DM's book). No repetition, just some regional flavor.
This gives us options, as players and DMs. It's modular.
It also doesn't take up the entire DM's book with deities. The DM's book descriptions of the deities need only include the basic information that is always true for that faith... variations can be put in the regional sourcebooks. |
| Wolfhound75 |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 22:32:35
What about the common 'across the board' group of deities that most adventurers favor, a racial deity for each as appropriate, and if a region's primary deity isn't covered by one of those two categories, adding the deity that primarily covers that region?
Good Hunting! |
| Mumadar Ibn Huzal |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 21:38:37
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
The only problem is, where do we draw the line of the 'long list'?
I don't think there is a need to draw the line if the list in itslef is not published... I think your comment below provides IMO a solution that I would go for...
quote:
I'd much prefer a regional approach to gods - its something that hasn't been done before.
IMO some of the human pantheon has come unfortunately to dominate almost all of Faerun by now - and by consolidation this could only get worse and rob the Realms of its cultural diversity. In the real world (e.g. roman era) it was common for 'interloper' gods to become embedded in a local pantheon but that was very much linked to the military occupation of Rome and their practice of assigning legions all over the place and often far from their homeland. FR has much less of this 'permanent presence' and most of the faiths are not of the missionary type (something more typical more a monotheistic faith). The regional pantheons that once upon a time were more common to the Realms gave it a unique flavor and I would love to see this regionality come back in some form or other. e.g. its fine if Mask is the god of thieves in the North, but in Calimshan, or Mulhorand I would prefer that deity to be another entity (and not only a different name for the same deity, but since this has canon presedence its better than nothing).
To get back to the OP's question. I do like the idea of having a 'short list' in the Campaign guide, certainly if that guide focuses on a few regions only (like the OGB) with the corresponding regional deity package. Subsequent products - on-line or in print - could then contain and detail region pantheons along with other elements on the regions. i.e. I could imagine a LOI-style products that include the pantheon of deities worshipped in the regions along with all other relevant detail per region. |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 20:57:31
quote:
Originally posted by Rils
Then you'll be happy to hear they beat you to it... :)
Nice bit of time-travel someone did there. Jolly good.
I also really liked the specialty priest idea, and I've been planning to bring them into my games. It's nice to see that I might not have to do the writeups/conversions/whatever myself!
Not so sure about making the priest and cleric separate classes... seems like a cleric could just get some sort of template to become a specialty priest, but whatever works with the rules they're putting together is fine with me. I agree that if the cleric is supposed to be a healbot with heavy armor and a mace, then a specialty priest of Lliira might be a very different sort of creature.
This reminds me of something mentioned long ago (probably on the FR mailing list) which I immediately jumped on for my Mulhorandi god-kings, but I can't remember the details of the post now. It was something about making a unique combination of visual/oral/whatever elements of spellcasting for the priests of each deity, which I either interpreted or expanded to apply to healing thusly:
- a healing spell from a priest of Milil is obviously sung, and the recipient feels the same sort of "lift" that listeners get at a performance when the singer hits the crescendo, whereas
- a healing spell from a priest of Lathander might be intoned like a Gregorian chant and the recipient feels the warmth of the midmorning sun spreading from the wounds, while
- the recipient of Grumbar's healing might smell freshly turned earth, and the entire body might briefly turn dark and stony, and
- the "healing" of Loviatar feels like the million pinpricks when your foot "falls asleep" and
- that of Talona burns like acid even though it heals rather than harms.
And obviously it should cover more than just healing, but healing is one function which unites all clerics. Anyway, if this hasn't been done already here on Candlekeep, it deserves its own thread. I think it's the sort of thing that could add a great deal to role-playing flavor. Priests of some deities who are attempting to disguise their devotion, like priests of Bane pretending to be devoted to Mystra (an age-old ploy no doubt), would be reluctant to cast healing spells on anyone other than himself -- not just because why would Bane want to heal non-Banites, but also because their true god's dark essence would potentially be revealed in both the casting and the effect. |
| Eladrinstar |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 19:54:09
I hope FR isn't core. Then everything will get shoehorned into Faerun. It's bad. I don't wish that fate on Eberron, either. |
| Rils |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 18:09:31
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
then we can get speciality priests based on portfolios, NOT the gods themselves. Tell us what a priest of war god gets, or the priest of a thief god, or Sun god. We can apply those templates to FR's gods, or any others.
Ooo. Somebody! Take some notes. Drug the management's coffee, and put this in. 
I like the idea of clerics oriented to a portfolio, with fluffish variations for overlapping deities. This is consistent, but also has flavor.
Then you'll be happy to hear they beat you to it... :) Here is a quote from a 5e design seminar at DDXP last month, from Rob Schwalb (one of the three lead 5e designers) discussing that are looking at splitting the cleric and priest as separate core classes:
quote:
...so you might break the cleric into two things:
The cleric is the cleric, who is in the very first edition; you can worship whatever god you want to worship, but it doesn’t really flavor your character so much. The cleric is a guy who wears armor, carries a shield, heals your allies, and beats the crap out of people with a mace.
But the [specialty] priest, he is associated very closely with your god. So you might get a domain, and that domain may give you abilities as you gain levels, so you might become more and more like your domain.
So this lets us keep the cleric very defined, just a classical role, and let the priests be super versatile and be whatever it needs to be, based on what kind of gods are present in your campaign.
I'm super stoked about that, because specialty priests have always been one of my favorite niches. It also relates to an earlier comment in the thread - is there really a reason to mechanically differentiate between a human thief god, a dwarf thief god, an elven thief god, a halfling thief god, etc etc? I think there is certainly room to have all those racial variations on a theme, but mechanically, assigning Mask/Vergadain/Erevan/Garl/Brandobaris/etc overlapping domains makes a lot of sense.
I think the earlier lists covers the OP pretty thoroughly, I don't have much to add there. I thought the 4e FRPG handled the deities ok, from the perspective of "here's the details on some important deities, and a table with the important points for a bunch of others". Granted, the write-ups were on the Greater Gods, and were more for world-setting (fluff) than practical adventuring (like Erik is getting at). But the format was ok. I thought the distinction between good/neutral gods in the player book and evil gods in the DM book (campaign guide) was ok. The core assumption is that PCs are good, and I'm fine with highlighting that. If you want to expand outwards to include evil PCs, well, that's where the modularity of 5e will come into play.
In addition to Erik's idea of roughing-in some of the important adventuring deities, you could then add a 2-page spread ala 3e that tables out the other deities, which would be covered more thoroughly in a F&A/DD splat. This would provide some basic information for the newbie, along with showcasing the breadth of the FR pantheon for them, while giving the oldguard just enough mechanics to immediately jump in with their priest characters (domains, favored weapons, etc). The gaps can be filled in with either new 5e splats or just digitally re-releasing the previous edition books.
Another idea regarding the racial deities is to just list them in the race write-up. Under dwarves, for example, you have sections on culture, appearance, names, etc, just add a paragraph for religion. "Dwarves typically don't worship human deities, but rather have very close ties to their own pantheon, which consists of Moradin, Berronar, Clangeddin, Dugmaren, etc." The player would then reference the deity table, which lists each of these with their associated domains, symbols, weapons. So you could say (as a self-serving example,) "ok, my character is a travelling dwarf scholar, lets see which deity best fits that... Ah! Dugmaren has the Knowledge domain, here we go..." and bam shazam I have the mechanics I need to make my Dugmarite priest. Again, fluff could be found elsewhere as needed.
My thoughts, at least. |
| sfdragon |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 05:13:19
over misty mountains cold... dungeons deep and caverns old.....
ummm I hope they dont have a core world as I'm sure their will be arguments for Eberrron saying that its in the core books so it must be in Eberron.
no core campaign please or it will be how do we put the RAven Queem in the fr all over again |
| The Sage |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 05:13:05
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
As I said, though, I'd not make him the most powerful wizard around... I think it'd be more interesting to have him dramatically lessened in power, but to still have those "flashes" of his old strength and skill. I'd still have him be quite powerful, but not so powerful that he could ignore any threats or swat down Shade.
I'd also expect that a reconstituted Karsus would have all kinds of divine eyes on him. A kind of divine surveillance, so to speak, much like the monitoring of convicted criminals who have served their sentence and have then been freed from prison in the real world -- working to prevent Karsus from... ... "re-offending."
Which kind of works into what Wooly suggested next:-
quote:
And I think I'd have him operating under an assumed identity. If he openly came back as himself, it'd be like the position of Magister was, or how Shandril was treated in Spellfire: apt to be attacked at any instant by a score or two of opportunistic mages.
An assumed or second identity would also help to ensure the protection of surrounding communities as well. And I would suspect that only those "who-need-to-know" of his real identity would know the truth of his assumed profile. |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 04:55:46
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Also, Karsus should be on the expanded deity list, if only as a quasi-power. That thing might well grant spells!
And well met, Lord Karsus--it's been a while since you graced these halls.
-You know what they say: I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis
...However, having learned from his mistake, he wouldn't do it again. He can target another deity, but chooses instead to focus his strength in reconstructing Halruaa 2.0.
-Why would I do that? Especially if reunited with Karsus the Mad and our third Beholder Mage aspect? |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 04:52:06
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
First off, If FR is going to be core - which it seems it will be - then saying the racial gods belong in 'core books' doesn't make much sense. Those will be FR books.
That would be a very Unfortunate choice, imo, but I guess we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
It would make Everything a Realms thing. All gods are FR gods unless otherwise stated. All magic items are FR items. So in the event that some poor shmuck comes up with another awesome setting -- or they have a moment of zen and start bringing back old settings -- everything has to say "oh, we borrowed these 12 deities from FR, and we made up these 5 new ones." "you'll find these 270 magical items over in the FR DM's Guide, which you can purchase for $$$$$ (thank you Volo) and here's another 100 we wrote up specifically for this world."
Which points (in my mind) toward FR being the only setting in 5e. I don't have the numbers, but I'm thinking that wouldn't be a smart decision from the profit angle.
It would definitely stink for us, too, because it's nice having the options of cross-setting campaigns, importing magic items or NPCs, or just playing in a different world sometimes. Or at least being able to draw inspiration from how things are done in the other campaign settings.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
then we can get speciality priests based on portfolios, NOT the gods themselves. Tell us what a priest of war god gets, or the priest of a thief god, or Sun god. We can apply those templates to FR's gods, or any others.
Ooo. Somebody! Take some notes. Drug the management's coffee, and put this in.
I like the idea of clerics oriented to a portfolio, with fluffish variations for overlapping deities. This is consistent, but also has flavor.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I think working toward completely different sets of powers and priesthoods for Lathander, Aumanator, pelior, etc... is something 5e should avoid like the plague.
+1, as the kids are saying these days. And I'm going on record (for no particular reason) as saying that Amaunator is lame.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Hey! I made a funny! {seriously - that was accidental... I amuse myself} 
Nerd.  |
| sfdragon |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 04:50:09
would it disrupt things if whats her name the dancer in the glade came back in the realms 5e?? |
| Markustay |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 04:35:00
Plus, thats not how the game was designed to be played, by Gary and his friends.
The game was designed to represent a group of heroes who 'save the day'. The PCs are supposed to be heroes - thats the most basic premise of D&D.
Yes, you can play it any way you want, just as I can play monopoly by using my tanks and planes to invade my neighbors properties (you should see some of the weird hybrids me and my friends created), but I wouldn't want Hasbro to build my bizarre style of play into the rules. Most people also play with money in the middle of the board, but thats not in the official rules either. Just because some people like to play the game in a different manner then how it was intended, doesn't mean the rules should cater to those folks.
Thats what 'advanced rules' are for (which is what me and my buds called our frankensteined versions of standard boardgames). Let the initial release be all about unicorns and rainbows - we can 'get ugly' later. 
And that just reminded me of what me and a friend did to Belter, a charming little game about mining asteroids by GDW. By the time we were done, we had a 300 page manual and were creating intergalactic empires.
Good times. I love being a gamer. |
| Dennis |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 04:19:58
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And I think I'd have him operating under an assumed identity. If he openly came back as himself, it'd be like the position of Magister was, or how Shandril was treated in Spellfire: apt to be attacked at any instant by a score or two of opportunistic mages.
As the new king of Halruaa 2.0, he'd better expect attacks both from within and without everyday.
quote:
Actually... The more I think about it, the more possibilities I see here. He could also be used in the 3E timeframe, and instead of rebuilding Halruaa, he's somewhere in the North fighting his own war by proxy against Shade...
I'd add that he would gather other surviving archwizards to his cause. He'd also forge a temporary alliance with the Skulls for a mutual gain. |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 04:07:49
quote:
Originally posted by idilippy
I disagree with pretty much all of that, especially labeling DMs who allow evil PCs as "drama queens". You can limit your PCs to following only good gods in the same way you could limit your PCs to only playing Humans, or forbid the Paladin class. The Player's Guide however needs to accommodate other groups, including those who would want to use evil PCs or non-evil PCs who follow or at least give respect to evil gods.
I'm not going to retract the statements I made, because I actually think and believe what I said, and nobody should back down from a position of honesty, but to the extent that I come off as disrespectful or dismissive of anyone else's opinions I apologize for that. The drama queens label was probably out of line. My bad. It was aimed at those who actively revel in having evil PCs in the game, for the intrigue it creates, and I think the title is apt for those cases, but I wasn't careful where I was aiming.
I sometimes believe that my opinion is closer to some subjective standard of correctness, but it's never my intention to discourage someone else from stating a conflicting point of view. Everyone should have a well-considered opinion, state it with all due gusto, then consider the dissenting points of view and make any necessary adjustments, and then put forth the revised point of view. It's not about being right; it's about the best possible solution being reached, in the furtherance of something we all want: 5e being successful and WotC remaining in business. I mean no offense by disagreeing with you, even if the disagreement is huge and boldly stated.
In this case, we're in agreement about the unfairness of trying to prohibit players from playing evil characters. Games are all about having fun, and enjoying a level of freedom that real life doesn't allow us. I agree with your logic. Making arbitrary rules about how people can play the game would kill the enjoyment. I'm not saying we shouldn't allow anyone to play an evil character... I'm just saying we shouldn't specifically encourage it. We were talking about deities to recommend as especially appropriate for adventurers, and I think including evil gods in that section will be interpreted by new players (and potentially a whole lot of parents who don't understand the game) that evil patrons would be a good choice.
So we just have differing views of the scope of the presentation in the Player's Guide. Which, in the big scheme of things, is a pretty small disagreement. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 04:04:42
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis
I also like your idea, Wooly. But I guess I'm done with seeing him do stupid stuff. People can change for the better, and I like him to be one of those.
To somehow make up for his catastrophic mistake, he focuses all his might and time in rebuilding Halruaa, which, being a tiny part of the lost Netheril, would make him feel as though he's slowly rebuilding their fallen empire. However, instead of world domination, he'd see to it that Halruaa's main goals would be continuous progress and preservation of their culture.
His relationship to Mystra 2.0 improves a great deal. They can't be considered friends, but neither are they enemies.
He is the most powerful wizard in all of Toril, surpassing even The Srinshee, The Teraseer, and Larloch. But he cares not, for his attention lies elsewhere, not in proving to the world how powerful he is. But when he sees it necessary, or when they affect Halruaa in any way, he'd crush Telamont's plans.
I'm not a fan of Karsus myself, but I do like the idea you proposed. My version doesn't have him doing stupid stuff, though, or being crazy, or anything like that... I think that his experiences leading up to the Fall, what he's seen since then, and seeing his own actions through the perspective of (or merging with) the Halruaan that "rebuilds" him, would ground him out and make him considerably more thoughtful and apt to think of consequences.
As I said, though, I'd not make him the most powerful wizard around... I think it'd be more interesting to have him dramatically lessened in power, but to still have those "flashes" of his old strength and skill. I'd still have him be quite powerful, but not so powerful that he could ignore any threats or swat down Shade.
And I think I'd have him operating under an assumed identity. If he openly came back as himself, it'd be like the position of Magister was, or how Shandril was treated in Spellfire: apt to be attacked at any instant by a score or two of opportunistic mages.
Actually... The more I think about it, the more possibilities I see here. He could also be used in the 3E timeframe, and instead of rebuilding Halruaa, he's somewhere in the North fighting his own war by proxy against Shade... |
| Markustay |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 04:03:56
Good one.
First off, If FR is going to be core - which it seems it will be - then saying the racial gods belong in 'core books' doesn't make much sense. Those will be FR books.
Second, we already have mutiple names/aspects of FR gods. I am not saying create more of those - I'd rather leave that up to the DMs. The gods themselves should be an enigma - I just want details of their faiths and priesthoods.
I also believe portfolios should be contested - it makes perfect sense that way (in no RW pantheonic mythos that I know of is the deities' power considered universal the world-over - its almost always regional).
However, I am talking about fluff. mechanically, why should we differentiate between a human god of thieves, a halfling god of thieves, a dwarven god of thieves, etc, etc. Thats just redundant mechanics.
Give us a standard, 1st-edition style Cleric - generic, with one set of abilities based on worshipping 'good'. That would cover neutral as well (in terms of turning, healing, etc). Evil priesthoods can be added in later. When they decide to do a more advanced guide to priests, then we can get speciality priests based on portfolios, NOT the gods themselves. Tell us what a priest of a war-god gets, or the priest of a thief-god, or Sun-god. We can apply those templates to FR's gods, or any others.
Leave the small details - god-specific abilities and unique powers - for DD articles. Use the DDi to flesh-out the splats. Leave them as generic as possible, so that new players don't get overwhelmed.
If players get overwhelmed, we wind-up getting handed 4e - we don't want that again. The layers can be added-in as we go along, here and there. We need a very basic approach at first, and we can build off of that. I think working toward completely different sets of powers and priesthoods for Lathander, Aumanator, Pelior, etc... is something 5e should avoid like the plague.
Hey! I made a funny! {seriously - that was accidental... I amuse myself} |
| ZeshinX |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 03:33:20
I feel sorry for whomever ends up having to detail The Eight Million Gods of Kozakura. |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 03:25:53
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
The only problem is, where do we draw the line of the 'long list'?
The line, imo, is between Realms-specific deities and deities which are not Realms-specific. The racial deities (at least most of them, if not all) remain racial deities, and should be described in core (non-Realms) sourcebooks, like they were in previous editions.
And yes, Kara-Tur, Maztica, and Zakhara are definitely all in the Realms now. I think their deities should be listed in the Realms DM guide... a list, like the one in the 3e campaign setting which just gives name, alignment, portfolio (the main focus of the listing this time, please) and cleric domains. Detailed descriptions of the Celestial Bureaucracy belong in (A) a book specifically describing all the deities of the Realms, or (B) the sourcebooks devoted specifically to Kara-Tur, just like the Faerunian pantheon belongs in the sourcebooks focusing on Faerun. Same with Maztica and Zakhara.
Playing favorites is lame, imo. Encourage the conception (and subsequent sales) of additional settings by not declaring a default campaign setting.
And once again in favor of not condensing/combining gods... is it out of place to quote Ed? I think not.
quote:
I also found it expedient to have overlapping portfolios among the gods. This allows strife among various priesthoods as the prominence of gods within a community or society changes, and allows both nonhuman deities (such as the elvish and centaur gods in the DDG) and human deities (such as the druids’ god or gods) to coexist, both granting spells to worshippers.
(from Down-to-earth divinity, in Dragon 54)
This is a clear and ringing endorsement of deities which are wholly or partially duplicates of each other. Obviously not all of the gods should overlap with someone else, but it's good for role-playing for some of them to do so.
As always, just my take on it. |
| sfdragon |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 02:12:21
I do not want a ddi account to constantly have access to such things though... rather have it as a book.....
you do ahve a valid point though... which is why I stated I did not want a 5e core setting.. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 01:56:25
The only problem is, where do we draw the line of the 'long list'?
All the racial deities? Most of them used to be core, but FR is going to be core, then we will have ours, PLUS the ones from all the racial guides. Also all the ones from Dragon magazine. Then we have to include all the monster gods (that adds another god book from core). Then we have to add all of the K-T gods (thats still FR, right?), Maztica, Zakhara... lets not forget the little-known leucrotte pantheon detailed in Elminster's Ecologies. There are also the Hordeland aspects of other gods, dead gods, all the deities mentioned in Desert of Desolation (a number of 'Earth Pantheons).
Heck, if Planescape gets rolled into the 5e FR core model (and it well might), we have to include ALL the gods. eh? And not just the ones from DD/LL - we'd have to include the gods of Krynn, Oerth, etc... the Newhon gods, Lovecraftian ones, Michael Moorcock's (Ed did mention several of them in his old Dragon magaizine dieites article).
Ad infinitum.
The very nature of FR - its inter-connectivity to all other worlds and planes - makes it very difficult to limit the sheer number of deities available. That's why I like Erik's approach, and then others can get sprinkled-in as we go along. When we have a boatload spread around, THEN we can get a god-book; a compendium of all deities presented to date (or just keep a running tally in the DDi - wouldn't that be easiest? A fully organized FR/D&D index to EVERYTHING? I'd pay for that, right now).
The reason why 'god books' were necessary in past editions is because we didn't have an internet, or it wasn't utilized to its full potential. There is no need for such a resource, if they keep all the info online, as they feed it to us in splats.
One of the biggest hurdles of past editions was organization - how much of each thing to put in the splats (Feats, classes, deities, NPCs, races, skills & powers, etc, etc), and then how to look anything up when you need it (Have you ever remembered reading an interesting Feat, and then tried to find which book you read it in? That used to drive me NUTS).
The internet (DDi) now has the potential to allow the splats to do what they do best - give us an enjoyable sampling of a little bit of everything (including the deities), and still keep things organized in such a way that you can easily find what you need when you need it.
'Little Bites' - don't overwhelm. You tell someone they have 100+ gods to choose from, that's scary. Even a toddler can eat a terrasque if you feed it to them in little bites. All I'm saying is that a deities-only book may no longer be necessary. Get a kindle and a DDi account, and your good to go.
I'd much prefer a regional approach to gods - its something that hasn't been done before. The internet opens up new possibilities in presentation - if D&D is going to stay viable into the 21st century, it needs a facelift. Why do we have errata for digital books? Just upload updates! Between Skype, number-crunching processors, and amazing 3D virtual machines, D&D can actually be the next big thing again; MORPG players are getting bored - imagine a world where the NPCs are controlled by real people. Thats the future of D&D - face-to-face, across the world.
Just bring your own snacks.
|
| Jakk |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 01:56:14
I also like this idea a lot... I was re-reading the OGB (borrowed from a friend; all my pre-3E stuff is still a good 250 miles away from me), specifically the bits about the High Forest... and there are some rather interesting bits regarding Karsus in there:
quote:
Karse
The center of the mystical Dire Wood is the ancient ruins of Karse. In olden days, religious refugees who had been driven from the ancient land of Netheril built this city at the base of the base of a tall butte of red stone which their legends held to be the remnants of Karsus's physical form. Though they originally built without permission from the elves of Eaerlann, an alliance was struck and they mined the rich metal deposits of the Star Mounts. Both normal forest and the black dire oaks have thickly overgrown the ruins.
Here can be found the black glade, a circle of 13 towering dire oaks; the intact, ageless home of the evil archmage Wulgreth; and an eerie black pyramid which oozes evil.
GAME INFORMATION: Karse fell into ruin around the same time as Hellgate Keep was occupied by demons, when the death of the evil wizard Wulgreth caused the creation of the Dire Wood. The wizard yet lives on as an intensely evil, lich-like being within the black pyramid. He seeks pure blood from the heart of Karsus to return to true life. An avatar (minor physical manifestation) of the dying god Karsus dwells in a temple atop the butte, his everflowing blood contributing to the magical nature of the Dire Wood, while deep within the butte, Karsus's gigantic, living heart beats ponderously.
Was anything ever done in canon with that avatar of Karsus? I know all kinds of things went down with both Wulgreths around the Return of the Archmages, and I didn't really care for any of it, so I don't recall the details, but I don't know if that avatar of Karsus was involved in the storyline at all. Regardless, I'd like to see Karsus ascendant in whatever is done in the way of a post-4E timeline. The Spellplague seems like just the thing to re-energize such an entity... |
| Dennis |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 00:34:42
I also like your idea, Wooly. But I guess I'm done with seeing him do stupid stuff. People can change for the better, and I like him to be one of those.
To somehow make up for his catastrophic mistake, he focuses all his might and time in rebuilding Halruaa, which, being a tiny part of the lost Netheril, would make him feel as though he's slowly rebuilding their fallen empire. However, instead of world domination, he'd see to it that Halruaa's main goals would be continuous progress and preservation of their culture.
His relationship to Mystra 2.0 improves a great deal. They can't be considered friends, but neither are they enemies.
He is the most powerful wizard in all of Toril, surpassing even The Srinshee, The Teraseer, and Larloch. But he cares not, for his attention lies elsewhere, not in proving to the world how powerful he is. But when he sees it necessary, or when they affect Halruaa in any way, he'd crush Telamont's plans. |
| sfdragon |
Posted - 16 Feb 2012 : 23:14:57
so let me get this straight
we want a FR campaign book
a fr player guid
and a fr deities book....
|
|
|
