| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Sarelle |
Posted - 19 Jun 2004 : 20:08:00
I was just pondering Bane's ressurrection, in relation the events in the Avatar books and I thought - it doesn't make sense to let Bane back but not Myrkul and Bhaal. They were very much the unholy trinity (especially in relation to the Triad - i.e. Bane vs. Torm, Myrkul vs. Ilmater and Tyr vs. Bhaal).
And when it comes down to it, the sudden rise in the power of evil powers in Faerūn is still outweighed by a much larger amount of Good deities than Evil ones. This in some ways makes sense - people tend to worship good deities more - but it also creates a divine imbalance.
I have always wanted Leira to return - she had so much personality and so many uses (foe of Oghhma, tricks and illusions, CN rogue goddess) but I think that if WotC plans any new RSEs that don't focus on killing off elves/Cormyr or bringing back evil races that are supposed to be extinct, they should very definately consider the return of the trinity. Myrkul as a Crown and Bhaal as a bridge just doesn't do them justice.
It could tie in with the novel on the trio's pre-deific existence that many people want, and I think it would sell sufficiently to the public.
And think about how it could fit into the cosmology - we finally get an undead power worth reckoning with (I'm actually am quite fond of Velshy, but I guess he'd be subsumed very quickly) and I could imagine Ao deeming that Kel and Myrk would have to share the Underworld, creating some very interesting tensions and resulting scheming and undermining; we also get a credible 'vicious, unhinged killing machine deity' back (Gara-who?). And it would give Cyric a whole new ball-game to play - he might even end up having to form alliances in order to survive.
Opinions? |
| 16 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Sarelle |
Posted - 21 Jun 2004 : 00:17:58
You make a good point Arteris. But I still think it would be worth it - afterall I like the Avatar events as little as the next person, but I put up with them.
"Bhaal as a bridge" a reference to his essence being tied up with Boareskyr Bridge (or rather the river in that area). I could also have said "Bhaal as lots of violent kids" (i.e. Bhaalspawn, where the rest of his essence is/was tied up).  |
| Arteris |
Posted - 20 Jun 2004 : 23:32:56
Several things on my mind here. I do remember someone several (3-4 months ago) saying that he in fact keep Myrkul and Bhaal alive and well instead of having them die durring the T.o.T. but in question to what was said earlier on the original first post
"Bhaal as a bridge" whats all that about?
Also, although it would be cool to see Myrkul having to share a realm and being full of tension, and having Cyric compete with Bhaal.. It would also pretty much negate everything that happend durring the T.o.T. bringing up the question.. What was the point of it anyways? All it would mean is that worshipers had to swing back and forth between dieties as they dropped like flies and then were resurected. And although its pretty much "back to normal" as far as that term goes, Ao's sentencing them all to mortal form was pointless as well since a diety can just be brought back whenever. |
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 20 Jun 2004 : 21:02:33
quote:
Originally posted by kuje31
my FR is so different then TSR/WOTC's so it's hard to include all these changes.
I know that feeling. Thus, I'm still not sure about the inclusion in my world of the events in WOTSQ. I wonder if that series' conclusion might leave us with some dead deities as well. |
| Sarelle |
Posted - 20 Jun 2004 : 20:35:09
Well its official that Bane burst from Iyachtu Xvim, so I think the cocoon idea was intended. However, just because Fzoul increased his power etc. that doesn't lead to Bane returning through his son, even if you rationalise them now it is done. But I don't mind that Bane returned so that is beside the point.
I know Myrkul is happy in the Crown, but I'm not  . It's a cool idea to keep him around, but as I said, doesn't do him justice. And as I said I don't intend him to supplant Kelemvor - I agree that LN is far more appropriate for a deity of death. I thought it would be very interesting if in some way they were made to share the dominion over death (Kel would keep the actual portfolio, so maybe Myrkul would have 'death' whilst Kel had 'the dead' or something), with Myrkul also (more importantly) having the 'folio of undeath. I think the frictions would make for great divine politics. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 20 Jun 2004 : 17:16:06
quote:
Originally posted by Sarelle
And WotC only made up the 'cocoon' thing to make Bane's return more than just 'mysteriously he returned'. It hadn't been mentioned before the advent of 3E. Not that I have problem with it - Iyachtu Xvim had a cool name (), and maybe he was more sinister than his dad, but Bane was more of a force to be reckoned with. Just not the force it could be if Myrky and Bhaal came back.
Maybe Bane would work toward this end - he'd love to have Myrkul actually in his debt, and thus under his big green thumb, for once...
Actually, the cocoon thing was my theory -- but the groundwork was laid in 2nd edition. 'Twas a second edition source (two of them, I think, Ruins of Zhentil Keep and Faiths & Avatars) that spoke of Iyachtu Xvim finding himself mysteriously imprisoned under Zhentil Keep during the ToT. Another 2nd edition source (Cloak & Dagger) spoke of all the things Fzoul did to increase Xvim's power...
So that's one 3rd edition change that isn't so mysterious -- it actually drew from stuff established in 2nd edition. Thus, I can buy it. I don't like it, but I can buy it.
And it was also a 2nd edition source that said that Myrkul was happier not being a god -- in this case, the City of Splendors boxed set. So again, I don't see him coming back, even if Bane decides to try to re-ascend his former buddy. Besides, that portfolio is now held by Kelemvor, and it'd not be easy to supplant him. |
| Kuje |
Posted - 20 Jun 2004 : 17:03:24
quote:
Originally posted by SiriusBlack
With the plethora of material within the old grey box, I can see how a campaign can function doing that.
I'm sure than that you're loving the Year of Rogue Dragons. 
Well I like the Rogue Dragon's novels so far..... :) But yeah haven't decided if I am going to include those novels. As usual I'll probably use parts of them and ignore the rest. And yea I prefer a version of FR that is not so destroyed and changed by RSE's, because my FR is so different then TSR/WOTC's so it's hard to include all these changes. |
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 20 Jun 2004 : 15:59:21
quote:
Originally posted by kuje31
I do. I didn't like the ToT's so it never happened in my games. There are a few of us actually who still partly or most use the info from the old grey box and throw out half of the material from 1/2/3e that we don't care for.
With the plethora of material within the old grey box, I can see how a campaign can function doing that.
quote:
(I happen to really dislike RSE's so, they don't happen that much in my FR. :))
I'm sure than that you're loving the Year of Rogue Dragons. |
| Kuje |
Posted - 20 Jun 2004 : 15:50:16
quote:
Originally posted by SiriusBlack
Is there anyone who has been a part of a campaign that ignored Bane, Myrkul and Bhaal's deaths in the ToT and kept the three deities in place? I vaguely recall reading on another messageboard someone who had taken such steps for his/her campaign.
I do. I didn't like the ToT's so it never happened in my games. There are a few of us actually who still partly or mostly use the info from the old grey box and throw out half of the material from 1/2/3e that we don't care for. (I happen to really dislike RSE's so, they don't happen that much in my FR. :)) |
| Sarelle |
Posted - 20 Jun 2004 : 11:18:27
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Actually, it did make sense for Bane to come back. Iyachtu Xvim was just a shell, an unwittingly carrier of Bane's essence until enough other remnants of Bane (the Baneliches) had been collected, and worship was strong enough... Basically, Xvim was Bane in a cocoon.
Yes, Xvim predated the Avatar Crisis. But when did he wake up in his prison under the Keep? During the ToT. Bane apparently (as I see it) grabbed his boy, stuck a shard of power in him, and stuck him under the Keep as kind of a back-up policy.
Everything Fzoul did (perhaps something like post-hypnotic suggestions from when he was Bane's avatar?) was towards fueling Xvim -- and thru him, that shard of Bane that Xvim contained. Once the shard had amassed enough power, papa subsumed son and re-emerged as Bane.
I'm not entirely happy with it. I thought Iyachtu Xvim had more style than his dark daddy... But other than that, I don't have a problem with Bane's return. Unlike much of the other things WotC inflicted on us with 3E, this is a change that had its groundwork previously laid out.
Hmm... everyone's assumed I have a problem with Bane's return. I don't! I think he makes for an interestingly powerful evil force. However, I do wonder why only he returned - when alone he just isn't the same as when he was with the other two.
It seems to me to be something like WotC saying "Oh, I know what would be a really scary RSE - the return of the Untheric pantheon."
"Yeah - great! But we'll leave behind Gilgeam and Enlil. They arn't as important as the others put together."
You arn't brining back the Untheric pantheon if you arn't bringing back two of the central players. (I'll admit this is an odd example, but I'm tired and couldn't think of anything!)
And WotC only made up the 'cocoon' thing to make Bane's return more than just 'mysteriously he returned'. It hadn't been mentioned before the advent of 3E. Not that I have problem with it - Iyachtu Xvim had a cool name (), and maybe he was more sinister than his dad, but Bane was more of a force to be reckoned with. Just not the force it could be if Myrky and Bhaal came back.
Maybe Bane would work toward this end - he'd love to have Myrkul actually in his debt, and thus under his big green thumb, for once... |
| Lauzoril |
Posted - 20 Jun 2004 : 10:28:59
I didn't have any trouble on Bane's return, in fact, I wished it. He just felt to be a too good evil deity to be wasted so soon (considering the novel releases were pretty much in the beginning steps when ToT trilogy was released and Bane hadn't been dealt much back then). I felt little disappointed when Bane died so soon because there wouldn't be any more chances to learn more about him.
Fortunately, it may now be possible.
There's just something about Bane that fascinates, I can't easily put it in words. He felt like a evil power in his own right pre-ToT, who's name made almost every mortal tremble. It still does, in a way. Bane's influence is still remembered in the Faerun, despite Cyric's attempts to remove it.
|
| chosenofvelsharoon |
Posted - 20 Jun 2004 : 09:53:05
wooly rupert wrote:
"Do keep in mind, Chyron, that there are some dead deities that will likely never return. Moander, for one. Murdane, for another (if she could come back, Helm wouldn't be so tweaked at Lathander). Ibrandul is another that will likely never return... And Myrkul is still around, but is happier not being a deity."
and many of those deities have been replaced. cyric is a very young god, velsharoon pays lip service to both talos and azuth (who in turn pays lip service to mystra), that's pretty far down on the pecking order. i don't think the good or evil is too off balance.
in one campaign i played in about a year and a half ago, my dm killed off cyric replacing him with a chaotic lich.
"and naught shall be left save shattered thrones, with none to rule them but the dead." |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 20 Jun 2004 : 06:25:36
Do keep in mind, Chyron, that there are some dead deities that will likely never return. Moander, for one. Murdane, for another (if she could come back, Helm wouldn't be so tweaked at Lathander). Ibrandul is another that will likely never return... And Myrkul is still around, but is happier not being a deity.
And also keep in mind that Waukeen never died. She was just missing, because she was a prisoner of Graz'zt. |
| Chyron |
Posted - 20 Jun 2004 : 05:16:17
I recall reading an interview with Mr. Greenwood who stated his campaign was pre-Avatar, and he was unsure if he would follow those events in his campaign or not.....it was some time ago, so I wonder how it progressed.
Well, for me what is done is done. But I really hate resurrections of any kind. They did it to Wulfgar, Waukeen and now with Bane and Elminster. It just makes things a bit lame for me. When Superman died in the comics, I was really excited, not because I did not like the character, but because it represented a change (which I mistakenly assumed would be final). When I read the Avatar series, it was presented in a way that seemed to take the deities by surprise. Then (after the fact) we read about how they planned and prepared beforehand for it by placing powers in Chosen and in child-spawns....it all comes down to one thing that is always been a problem for me in the realms.
Contingency. Be it spell, Divine, whatnot....contingency is too often the rule of law in the realms preventing much real change. It this aura of literary protection that extends from Gods to chosen to people and places. Often it is like the old Star Trek "red shirt" syndrome. 
One of my favorite stories was Death of the Dragon, simply because we saw a drastic change for Cormyr with 2 major character deaths. But look at what it took to bring that about. A Demi-Dragon from another dimension and magic eating demons to that could not die. Such things have to be created to counter the magic heavy contingencies that have permeated the realms.
So personally I hope the dead gods stay dead and my hope is that The Year of Rogue Dragons shakes things up (as it promises too), but my expectation is that by the end, we will be back to the status quo.
|
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 20 Jun 2004 : 00:06:16
Is there anyone who has been a part of a campaign that ignored Bane, Myrkul and Bhaal's deaths in the ToT and kept the three deities in place? I vaguely recall reading on another messageboard someone who had taken such steps for his/her campaign. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 19 Jun 2004 : 21:21:03
Actually, it did make sense for Bane to come back. Iyachtu Xvim was just a shell, an unwittingly carrier of Bane's essence until enough other remnants of Bane (the Baneliches) had been collected, and worship was strong enough... Basically, Xvim was Bane in a cocoon.
Yes, Xvim predated the Avatar Crisis. But when did he wake up in his prison under the Keep? During the ToT. Bane apparently (as I see it) grabbed his boy, stuck a shard of power in him, and stuck him under the Keep as kind of a back-up policy.
Everything Fzoul did (perhaps something like post-hypnotic suggestions from when he was Bane's avatar?) was towards fueling Xvim -- and thru him, that shard of Bane that Xvim contained. Once the shard had amassed enough power, papa subsumed son and re-emerged as Bane.
I'm not entirely happy with it. I thought Iyachtu Xvim had more style than his dark daddy... But other than that, I don't have a problem with Bane's return. Unlike much of the other things WotC inflicted on us with 3E, this is a change that had its groundwork previously laid out. |
| Sarta |
Posted - 19 Jun 2004 : 20:19:21
Someone on the wizards posted something rather interesting in terms of his campaign. Velsharoon gains the Crown of Horns, wears it, and becomes Myrkul. Personally, I don't want to see it just because I like Kelemvor's church. I love the idea of gritty undead-hunting paladins. I guess it just harkens back to the religion of Humakt from Glorantha for me (a god of truth and death).
I'm torn about Leira. I liked her religion also. I do love the idea of her last joke still floating out there, slowly being assembled by the church of Deneir.
Sarta |
|
|
