| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Bhaal |
Posted - 26 Aug 2013 : 18:08:48
Muahahaha! 
I think it's time for a party.
|
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Therise |
Posted - 01 Sep 2013 : 00:02:22
quote:
Originally posted by The Red Walker
hey mods....can we assume the weird switch to blue letters is an effect of the spellplague and will leave us after the sundering is completed? 
Once infected with the Plaguetext, it's forever!
Muahahaha!
Oh noes! It's mutating!
AIIIEEEEE!!!
|
| The Red Walker |
Posted - 31 Aug 2013 : 22:24:50
quote:
Originally posted by The Red Walker
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I am not wrong. The sword did not wield itself. Cyric made his own decisions. Even when the sword healed him, Cyric was not obligated to get up and stab Bhaal -- he could have run, instead.
Nothing you say here changes the fact that without Cyric, the sword wouldn't have been able to do anything at all.
Good god you're being exceptionally thick. But whatever, you're allowed to be wrong.
You are also allowed to be wrong.
But saying someone else is wrong, simply because you don't agree with them, is not right.
When you can show me that the sword did not need a wielder, then I will concede that Cyric had nothing to do with stabbing Bhaal. Until I see proof that the sword can wield itself, though, I'm sticking with the fact that it was Cyric who stabbed Bhaal.
LOL, whatever Wooly. 
Incidentally, I never said Cyric didn't have a hand in it. He quite obviously did. What I am saying is that Mask is ultimately responsible. Denying Mask's responsibility after the multiple book quotes I've shown you is just ridiculous on your part. If Sneakabout had been considered stronger than Cyric by Godsbane, it would've chosen him to do the deed.
your assuming the sword had the ability to choose who wielded it and what they did with it once they had it. Seems to me it didn't, just ability to influence a hope he did what was wanted
hey mods....can we assume the weird switch to blue letters is an effect of the spellplague and will leave us after the sundering is completed? |
| Therise |
Posted - 31 Aug 2013 : 21:08:20
quote:
Originally posted by The Red Walker
your assuming the sword had the ability to choose who wielded it and what they did with it once they had it. Seems to me it didn't, just ability to influence a hope he did what was wanted
Godsbane kept Kel's soul hidden from Cyric even after he was ascended.
Had Cyric won the contest of wills, if he was fully in charge, this would not have been possible.
|
| The Red Walker |
Posted - 31 Aug 2013 : 19:47:12
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I am not wrong. The sword did not wield itself. Cyric made his own decisions. Even when the sword healed him, Cyric was not obligated to get up and stab Bhaal -- he could have run, instead.
Nothing you say here changes the fact that without Cyric, the sword wouldn't have been able to do anything at all.
Good god you're being exceptionally thick. But whatever, you're allowed to be wrong.
You are also allowed to be wrong.
But saying someone else is wrong, simply because you don't agree with them, is not right.
When you can show me that the sword did not need a wielder, then I will concede that Cyric had nothing to do with stabbing Bhaal. Until I see proof that the sword can wield itself, though, I'm sticking with the fact that it was Cyric who stabbed Bhaal.
LOL, whatever Wooly.
Incidentally, I never said Cyric didn't have a hand in it. He quite obviously did. What I am saying is that Mask is ultimately responsible. Denying Mask's responsibility after the multiple book quotes I've shown you is just ridiculous on your part. If Sneakabout had been considered stronger than Cyric by Godsbane, it would've chosen him to do the deed.
your assuming the sword had the ability to choose who wielded it and what they did with it once they had it. Seems to me it didn't, just ability to influence a hope he did what was wanted |
| Therise |
Posted - 31 Aug 2013 : 19:24:21
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I am not wrong. The sword did not wield itself. Cyric made his own decisions. Even when the sword healed him, Cyric was not obligated to get up and stab Bhaal -- he could have run, instead.
Nothing you say here changes the fact that without Cyric, the sword wouldn't have been able to do anything at all.
Good god you're being exceptionally thick. But whatever, you're allowed to be wrong.
You are also allowed to be wrong.
But saying someone else is wrong, simply because you don't agree with them, is not right.
When you can show me that the sword did not need a wielder, then I will concede that Cyric had nothing to do with stabbing Bhaal. Until I see proof that the sword can wield itself, though, I'm sticking with the fact that it was Cyric who stabbed Bhaal.
LOL, whatever Wooly.
Incidentally, I never said Cyric didn't have a hand in it. He quite obviously did. What I am saying is that Mask is ultimately responsible. Denying Mask's responsibility after the multiple book quotes I've shown you is just ridiculous on your part. If Sneakabout had been considered stronger than Cyric by Godsbane, it would've chosen him to do the deed.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 31 Aug 2013 : 19:11:26
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I am not wrong. The sword did not wield itself. Cyric made his own decisions. Even when the sword healed him, Cyric was not obligated to get up and stab Bhaal -- he could have run, instead.
Nothing you say here changes the fact that without Cyric, the sword wouldn't have been able to do anything at all.
Good god you're being exceptionally thick. But whatever, you're allowed to be wrong.
You are also allowed to be wrong.
But saying someone else is wrong, simply because you don't agree with them, is not right.
When you can show me that the sword did not need a wielder, then I will concede that Cyric had nothing to do with stabbing Bhaal. Until I see proof that the sword can wield itself, though, I'm sticking with the fact that it was Cyric who stabbed Bhaal. |
| Therise |
Posted - 31 Aug 2013 : 17:54:00
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I am not wrong. The sword did not wield itself. Cyric made his own decisions. Even when the sword healed him, Cyric was not obligated to get up and stab Bhaal -- he could have run, instead.
Nothing you say here changes the fact that without Cyric, the sword wouldn't have been able to do anything at all.
Good god you're being exceptionally thick. But whatever, you're allowed to be wrong.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 31 Aug 2013 : 17:43:07
I am not wrong. The sword did not wield itself. Cyric made his own decisions. Even when the sword healed him, Cyric was not obligated to get up and stab Bhaal -- he could have run, instead.
Nothing you say here changes the fact that without Cyric, the sword wouldn't have been able to do anything at all. |
| Therise |
Posted - 31 Aug 2013 : 17:18:34
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Demzer
So the "Cyric did it" camp is saying that the fundamental piece of the equation was Cyric and not Godsbane?
So Cyric might have killed Bhaal with any other sword?
Or maybe it's Godsbane that could've done the deed with any other mortal?
Another thing that puzzles me is the absolute certainty that Godsbane wasn't messing with Cyric's head and directing him, i honestly don't know were that comes from.
And if you concede that Cyric couldn't kill Bhaal without Godsbane and that Godsbane was messing with his head then ... who was essential and who was a tool?
My point has been that Mask was not wielding himself. Cyric was the one with the sword in hand, and we have a chronicle of events showing his decisions, which led to him being in place to stick that sword into Bhaal's back. The novel makes it quite clear that Cyric was making his own decisions.
I am basically saying that credit does not go to Mask, since he could not have killed anyone without a wielder. The wielder did not have to be Cyric, but a wielder was necessary.
Well, you're just plain wrong.
When Godsbane took Cyric into her "inner world" she begged him, manipulated him, wanted him to kill Fane in order to feed her hunger for souls. Cyric had a lot of denial and anger, "I won't kill Fane, let me out!" and acted like he was winning and in control. But what was the very first thing he did when he was "out"? He killed Fane. The sword had won.
Later, when Cyric attacks Midnight and the others, Kelemvor even comments that his skill with a sword is markedly improved - wondering out loud if it's the blade, enhancing him.
quote:
"Your swordsmanship has improved," Kelemvor observed, trying to keep Cyric's attention focused on him. "Or is it that blade you now carry?"
"You'll know soon enough," Cyric responded.
Mask, as Godsbane, constantly and continually used Cyric. It wielded him, enhanced his abilities, and healed him. It's probably the best example of an intelligent item manipulating its user. A "clear chronicle of Cyric making his own decisions"? Please. It's obvious reading the book that Godsbane was truly the one in charge and applying manipulation and motivation whenever it wanted something. And at the end, when Cyric was literally beaten to the ground and near death, it was the sword that chose to heal him and prompt him to kill Bhaal.
The thing about manipulation? It's best when those being manipulated think they're the ones in charge.
|
| Demzer |
Posted - 31 Aug 2013 : 17:08:49
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
My point has been that Mask was not wielding himself. Cyric was the one with the sword in hand, and we have a chronicle of events showing his decisions, which led to him being in place to stick that sword into Bhaal's back. The novel makes it quite clear that Cyric was making his own decisions.
I am basically saying that credit does not go to Mask, since he could not have killed anyone without a wielder. The wielder did not have to be Cyric, but a wielder was necessary.
Fair enough.
I guess Cyric was more determined, focused and strong-willed as a mortal than as a deity. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 31 Aug 2013 : 16:17:47
quote:
Originally posted by Demzer
So the "Cyric did it" camp is saying that the fundamental piece of the equation was Cyric and not Godsbane?
So Cyric might have killed Bhaal with any other sword?
Or maybe it's Godsbane that could've done the deed with any other mortal?
Another thing that puzzles me is the absolute certainty that Godsbane wasn't messing with Cyric's head and directing him, i honestly don't know were that comes from.
And if you concede that Cyric couldn't kill Bhaal without Godsbane and that Godsbane was messing with his head then ... who was essential and who was a tool?
My point has been that Mask was not wielding himself. Cyric was the one with the sword in hand, and we have a chronicle of events showing his decisions, which led to him being in place to stick that sword into Bhaal's back. The novel makes it quite clear that Cyric was making his own decisions.
I am basically saying that credit does not go to Mask, since he could not have killed anyone without a wielder. The wielder did not have to be Cyric, but a wielder was necessary. |
| Lord Bane |
Posted - 31 Aug 2013 : 11:43:03
If the sword effected Cyrics head, then he was not master of his own moves. In the end the result stands, Bhaal was slain. Now that he is back i await his revenge against Cyric and i can clearly see him plotting things up with Bane as longstanding allies and having Cyric as a common enemy. |
| Demzer |
Posted - 31 Aug 2013 : 11:07:08
So the "Cyric did it" camp is saying that the fundamental piece of the equation was Cyric and not Godsbane?
So Cyric might have killed Bhaal with any other sword?
Or maybe it's Godsbane that could've done the deed with any other mortal?
Another thing that puzzles me is the absolute certainty that Godsbane wasn't messing with Cyric's head and directing him, i honestly don't know were that comes from.
And if you concede that Cyric couldn't kill Bhaal without Godsbane and that Godsbane was messing with his head then ... who was essential and who was a tool? |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 31 Aug 2013 : 03:46:15
Agreed with Wooly. Putting a gun (sword) in a spot where it can be picked up doesn't guarantee that it WILL be. Someone (Cyric) has to actually PICK IT UP!!! Again, as Wooly said, a MORTAL killed a god, no matter how it was done or who set it up. Cyric could have just as easily tossed the sword somewhere, or given it to someone else, or.... It was HIS choice to use it, in the end, and all the manipulation in the world won't change that. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 31 Aug 2013 : 02:50:40
quote:
Originally posted by Tamsar
Now that he is coming back, I;d expect him to claim that small spark of divinity, which would stop the pollution and whilst not cleanse the river immediately at least allow it to slowly cleanse itself over time.
That's a possibility, I suppose.
I just like the idea that a deity's death permanently marks both the land and the Weave itself in a way that no other deity, save Ao [and, perhaps, Chauntea together with Mystra], can properly heal.
Even if Bhaal were to retrieve the spark of divinity which remained in the river, I doubt the corruption would just then automatically dissipate. At the very least, I'd expect that, barring a deity's intervention [like the Chauntea example], Bhaal's corruptive influence on the waters would still take years, and perhaps even decades, to lessen and eventually disappear should his death-spark be removed. |
| Bhaal |
Posted - 29 Aug 2013 : 20:59:55
quote:
Originally posted by Mirtek
quote:
Originally posted by Bhaal
Clearly it's time for one of My Lessons in Truth.
Do you know the most ironic thing about hate? It only serves to reveal envy in the speaker. At the core of any expression of scorn is simple jealousy.
So Cyric is the most envied deity on these very boards?
Oh, hardly. Taunting those who are demonstrably inferior isn't scorn. It's just an amusing diversion.
True scorn isn't laced with humorous undertones, it's just sad.
|
| Mirtek |
Posted - 29 Aug 2013 : 20:53:49
quote:
Originally posted by Bhaal
Clearly it's time for one of My Lessons in Truth.
Do you know the most ironic thing about hate? It only serves to reveal envy in the speaker. At the core of any expression of scorn is simple jealousy.
So Cyric is the most envied deity on these very boards?
|
| Bhaal |
Posted - 29 Aug 2013 : 20:28:19
quote:
Originally posted by Mirtek
Spoken by someone who can't even take ony a mere demigodess without ending defeated and humiliated before the eyes of all of the lower planes.
Clearly it's time for one of My Lessons in Truth.
Do you know the most ironic thing about hate? It only serves to reveal envy in the speaker. At the core of any expression of scorn is simple jealousy. Hatred feeds the flame.
And in any case, the Earthmother was a Primal Spirit not a demigoddess or an aspect of Chauntea as many had believed.
Losing a fight is not a failure. Giving up is failure. I learned much from that attempt and I still stand, able to try again in the future. There's no humiliation involved whatsoever.
Nice try, though. It amounts to little more than small-minded stone-throwing, but a nice try.
|
| Mirtek |
Posted - 29 Aug 2013 : 19:48:25
quote:
Originally posted by Bhaal
Cyric hits like a girl.
Spoken by someone who can't even take ony a mere demigodess without ending defeated and humiliated before the eyes of all of the lower planes.
Darkwell, THe Moonshae Trilogy, Book III
The soul of Bhaal tumbled away from the well, down from the Moonshae Islands, out of the Forgotten Realms. The cord connecting the god to his home plane of Gehenna contracted violently, pulling his tortured and writhing form through the ether. Thus Bhaal was ripped through the Outer Planes, past the bottomless pit of the Abyss, above the fiery levels of Hell, to be cast in defeat and impotence on the flaming mountainside that was his own world. Here he lay in broken despair, scorned by other gods of evil who now far superseded him in might and influence, reviled by the gods of good who took grea t joy in his banishment. Motionless, Bhaal knew only suffering.
quote:
Originally posted by Lilianviaten
This is why I don't believe Leira's dead
Know you now that Cyric and Mask did murder Leira, Ao boomed. Yet they have done nothing that is outside their natures. Cyric is Lord of Murder, so he should strive to blot out even the lives of gods.
quote:
Originally posted by Lilianviaten
Then, like Cyric, she endlessly congratulates herself for having done nothing.
Compared to the deeds of Bhaal and Mask in the novels, doing nothing would already been a huge improvement over these two clowns.
Really given the track record of these two all one really has to do is indeed doing nothing and just waiting until they once again trip over their own feet and fall down the stairs breaking their necks doing so
|
| Tamsar |
Posted - 29 Aug 2013 : 19:38:38
quote:
Chauntea, mostly definitely. Silvanus would probably need to either petition Chauntea for assistance, or at least work with her where required.
Of course, this is assuming one greater deity can completely purge the corruption of a dead deity's impact upon the land in the first place.
I'm inclined to think that even a deity's death marks the land and the Weave in ways that no other diety -- aside from, perhaps, Ao -- can completely and ultimately erase from the Material Plane.
I'd of thought Silvanus is up to the job solo, he is a greater deity of nature after all. I've always thought that a small sliver of Bahal's essence remained where he died and it was this which was causing the perpetual pollution. Now that he is coming back, I;d expect him to claim that small spark of divinity, which would stop the pollution and whilst not cleanse the river immediately at least allow it to slowly cleanse itself over time. |
| Bhaal |
Posted - 29 Aug 2013 : 18:35:00
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Nope, not trolling. I just fail to see how all the importance can be placed on an object, and not on the person who used it.
HA! The Godsbane blade as "just an object" and Cyric as the prime instigator. You fail to realize what that sword really was. Just as other intelligent blades have done throughout Realms history, the blade (aka Mask) chose exactly who held the blade and how much assistance it gave to its wielder. Sneakabout murdered the previous owner, and Cyric murdered Sneakabout. You think this was unplanned? Just mere happenstance? If so, you're a fool.
Cyric was easier to manipulate and in a better position to accomplish Mask's unfolding plan. That's all. When the sword wanted to move to another and easier to control stooge, it allowed exactly that to happen. When it saw Me distracted, it pumped vitality back into the beaten Cyric and prompted him forward.
There's no way that they could have possibly killed me without Mask's direct aid and constant help.
None of that really matters now though. I prepared for my return, my children were responsible for massive chaos and bloodshed while I was on vacation, and now I'm back. Time to party, as they say!
|
| The Sage |
Posted - 28 Aug 2013 : 05:22:18
quote:
Originally posted by The Arcanamach
quote:
I think this would depend on whether the designers of the 5e Realms want to remove that particularly curious adventuring tidbit from the overall campaign.
Personally, I wouldn't think it could be cleansed. We've seen deity-affected lands in the Realms before which have been perpetuated even after the death of the deity responsible for them.
Bhaal did, after all, still die at Boareskyr Bridge. Even if he's returned, his original death did ultimately lead to the corruption of the Winging Water. His rebirth/return is almost an entirely new phase of his evolution as a deity.
Seems to me that Chauntea (likely through a druid or cleric of her faith) should be able to cleanse it though. Silvanus could manage it as well. Methinks this is a novel that I would read (and an adventure I would play through).
Chauntea, mostly definitely. Silvanus would probably need to either petition Chauntea for assistance, or at least work with her where required.
Of course, this is assuming one greater deity can completely purge the corruption of a dead deity's impact upon the land in the first place.
I'm inclined to think that even a deity's death marks the land and the Weave in ways that no other diety -- aside from, perhaps, Ao -- can completely and ultimately erase from the Material Plane. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 28 Aug 2013 : 05:04:15
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I'm not at all acting like it was a regular blade. I'm saying that it was Cyric's hand that drove the blade into Bhaal. Without Cyric, the blade wouldn't have been able to do anything at all. Cyric wielded the sword, so he's the one that killed Bhaal.
LOL. Obstinate hamster remains obstinate.
http://i.stack.imgur.com/jiFfM.jpg
How is it being obstinate? No Cyric means no sword in Bhaal's back. Sneakabout had the sword for a while -- if it was all the sword, why didn't he off Bhaal?
You know, I think you're trolling me at this point. So I'm done.
Nope, not trolling. I just fail to see how all the importance can be placed on an object, and not on the person who used it. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 28 Aug 2013 : 05:02:36
quote:
Originally posted by The Arcanamach
quote:
How is it being obstinate? No Cyric means no sword in Bhaal's back. Sneakabout had the sword for a while -- if it was all the sword, why didn't he off Bhaal?
I don't even remember Sneakabout, did he ever even have the opportunity to fight Bhaal?
He had the sword before Cyric. |
| Therise |
Posted - 28 Aug 2013 : 04:54:41
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I'm not at all acting like it was a regular blade. I'm saying that it was Cyric's hand that drove the blade into Bhaal. Without Cyric, the blade wouldn't have been able to do anything at all. Cyric wielded the sword, so he's the one that killed Bhaal.
LOL. Obstinate hamster remains obstinate.
http://i.stack.imgur.com/jiFfM.jpg
How is it being obstinate? No Cyric means no sword in Bhaal's back. Sneakabout had the sword for a while -- if it was all the sword, why didn't he off Bhaal?
You know, I think you're trolling me at this point. So I'm done.
|
| The Arcanamach |
Posted - 28 Aug 2013 : 04:23:56
quote:
How is it being obstinate? No Cyric means no sword in Bhaal's back. Sneakabout had the sword for a while -- if it was all the sword, why didn't he off Bhaal?
I don't even remember Sneakabout, did he ever even have the opportunity to fight Bhaal? |
| The Arcanamach |
Posted - 28 Aug 2013 : 04:21:14
quote:
I think this would depend on whether the designers of the 5e Realms want to remove that particularly curious adventuring tidbit from the overall campaign.
Personally, I wouldn't think it could be cleansed. We've seen deity-affected lands in the Realms before which have been perpetuated even after the death of the deity responsible for them.
Bhaal did, after all, still die at Boareskyr Bridge. Even if he's returned, his original death did ultimately lead to the corruption of the Winging Water. His rebirth/return is almost an entirely new phase of his evolution as a deity.
Seems to me that Chauntea (likely through a druid or cleric of her faith) should be able to cleanse it though. Silvanus could manage it as well. Methinks this is a novel that I would read (and an adventure I would play through). |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 28 Aug 2013 : 04:07:52
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I'm not at all acting like it was a regular blade. I'm saying that it was Cyric's hand that drove the blade into Bhaal. Without Cyric, the blade wouldn't have been able to do anything at all. Cyric wielded the sword, so he's the one that killed Bhaal.
LOL. Obstinate hamster remains obstinate.
http://i.stack.imgur.com/jiFfM.jpg
How is it being obstinate? No Cyric means no sword in Bhaal's back. Sneakabout had the sword for a while -- if it was all the sword, why didn't he off Bhaal? |
| The Sage |
Posted - 28 Aug 2013 : 03:43:37
quote:
Originally posted by Tamsar
If Bhaal is coming back does that mean the Winding Water polluted west of the Boareskyr Bridge will be cleansed?
I think this would depend on whether the designers of the 5e Realms want to remove that particularly curious adventuring tidbit from the overall campaign.
Personally, I wouldn't think it could be cleansed. We've seen deity-affected lands in the Realms before which have been perpetuated even after the death of the deity responsible for them.
Bhaal did, after all, still die at Boareskyr Bridge. Even if he's returned, his original death did ultimately lead to the corruption of the Winging Water. His rebirth/return is almost an entirely new phase of his evolution as a deity. |
| Therise |
Posted - 27 Aug 2013 : 23:45:16
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I'm not at all acting like it was a regular blade. I'm saying that it was Cyric's hand that drove the blade into Bhaal. Without Cyric, the blade wouldn't have been able to do anything at all. Cyric wielded the sword, so he's the one that killed Bhaal.
LOL. Obstinate hamster remains obstinate.
http://i.stack.imgur.com/jiFfM.jpg
|
|
|
