| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Gellion |
Posted - 17 Nov 2004 : 23:08:42
Well, I have noticed that a lot of realms fans are really strict with the realms. Meaning that they will not allow any outside influences, or change anything. It is strange because I have found that Dragonlance fans are generally more tolerant of weird stuff in Krynn. Now I am not insulting anybody, but does anybody know why a lot of relams fans do not seem to like to deviate from the core setting rules? |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 05 Mar 2005 : 19:36:56
In all honesty, I think the artwork and the "lets focus mainly on villains and push any powerful heroes out of the limelight" stategy of the 3e was jarring, but on the whole the 2e conversion was much more piecemeal and less organized. Just read some of Ed's comments on how many characters had to act completely out of charater to move the novels forward to see how that worked out.
But as to reversing the ToT, how so? Midnight is actually the 3rd Mystra, and as Ed has pointed out, being Mystra tends to wear out a goddess, and the reason Ao couldn't resurect her is likely because she was so worn out that she was at last at peace, hence she COULDN'T be called back. If you read Ed's Elminster books you will see that the new Mystra doesn't work the way the old Mystra did and there are changes to many relationships, especially among the Chosen.
Before the ToT, Torm was a god that was likely mainly worshipped in simple prayers said by those who followed Tyr but wanted to evoke the special portfolio of duty (much like a Catholic might ask for a saint to intercede on their behalf), and the reason Tantras was so important was that it was one of the few temples dedicated to Torm by himself (which makes me wonder if as a mortal he was from that region). After the ToT he is worshipped in his own right much more, even though he still serves Tyr.
Bhaal stayed dead. Even if you followed the Baldur's Gate series Bhaal didn't come back, only set up his children to take over. Myrkul didn't come back, he is just an evil force in the Crown of Horns.
Bane coming back might not have been handled well, but though I normally am not a fan of the dead coming back because they are popular, Bane was a god, and Cyric wasn't really serving Bane followers well (slipping into CE for a group of Tyranny and Domination obsessed worshippers doen't work well), and Xvim's rise to power was, to me, too much of a "we need a new LE diety, lets promote Bane's son" solution, when before Xvim was always shown as more of a "imortal creature not neccisary worshipped" type demi god.
And as to some of the other points made on this topic, I am a practicing Catholic. When you role play you are participating in group fiction. While you may want to express your faith in all aspects of your life, remember, you aren't actually worshipping the gods that exist only in that fiction. When I play a cleric of Lathander or a paladin of Torm, I can incorporate my beleifs into what I am doing, and both participate in the fiction and try to express my beliefs. If you know of someone that can't make that distinction, perhaps they shoudn't be playing in this hobby. I don't mean that as an insult, but at a certain point everyone has to figure out HOW to express their faith in a way that works in their life. |
| the psychotic seaotter |
Posted - 11 Jan 2005 : 05:12:38
quote:
I liked Iyachtu Xvim better -- I thought he had better style than Bane. I had never perceived Bane as anything beyond the "evil for evil's sake" type. Further, I see no reason to have brought Bane back. No reason was given for it (along with no explanation), it just kinda happened... I don't know if it can even be called a plot device -- it's just a couple of lines, and there was nothing further done with it...
It's less a plot device and more a cop out in my book. It's right along the lines of the premature shutdown of the Manshoon wars just something to show that WOTC can change what they want when they want.
That said I find Banes return annoying. It was as if there was a designer that was mad cause his favorite god got whacked in the ToT.
To be real honest I had a problem with the whittling away of Cyric's portfolio as a whole.
I always felt that Cyric's power created a serious threat to the realms and one that could fuel plots for a long time. Alas like many things the idea was cut short before it could see it's full potential.
|
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 11 Jan 2005 : 05:04:23
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Bane's resurrection was a singular event.
Until 4th edition. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 10 Jan 2005 : 22:59:42
quote:
Originally posted by Alparon
i believe the hand was not found in those series but anyway bane ressurrected himself when iyachtu xvim found enough followers...
then say, like....
if moander finds enough followers will he be back also?
i read that finder wyvernspur only has 2 followers
Again, we don't know that Bane resurrected himself... The theory I favor is the critical mass one -- once Xvim contained enough of Bane, his own essence was overwhelmed. It's kinda like filling a balloon with water -- sooner or later, if you too much in, it's going to burst.
I think it would be difficult for Moander to resurrect himself, since Finder took his power and his portfolio. I suppose it's possible, but he'd have to either take back his portfolio or seize a new one from someone else. And neither scenario would be very easy... He'd be too weak upon returning.
Bane's resurrection was a singular event. If anyone other than Iyachtu Xvim had seized his portfolio and the remaining essence, I doubt it would have happened.
quote:
Originally posted by Bakra
I believe the scene that deals with Bane seeing his fate happened in the Finder's Bane series. I can not be anymore specific it has been a long time since I read the books
I can't say I recall that scene... I read those books a few months ago, and I'm drawing a blank... Do you recall where in the novel it was? |
| Alparon |
Posted - 10 Jan 2005 : 20:14:48
i believe the hand was not found in those series but anyway bane ressurrected himself when iyachtu xvim found enough followers...
then say, like....
if moander finds enough followers will he be back also?
i read that finder wyvernspur only has 2 followers |
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 10 Jan 2005 : 17:03:42
quote:
Originally posted by Bakra
I believe the scene that deals with Bane seeing his fate happened in the Finder's Bane series. I can not be anymore specific it has been a long time since I read the books
Interesting, that's the first time I've heard of this information. Can anyone else help with being more specific? |
| Bakra |
Posted - 10 Jan 2005 : 16:17:53
quote:
Originally posted by Lady Kazandra
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
Well Bane, it is reported, fore told his death so took steps to resurect himself. As such yes he might have been spread, however planed for his esence to be regathered as him. As oposed to mortals that asended to deity status.
In part what makes a deity is gaining control of a power. This appears to be posible in two ways, a deity taking a power from another deity or a mortal asending bu taking a power that is currently unclaimed. The Time of Troubles allowed some mortals to assend because they manged to take the power before another deity did.
Wooly already asked, but I'd also like to know where you learned this? Are you certain you're not mixing Bane's resurrection with that of Bhaal?
I believe the scene that deals with Bane seeing his fate happened in the Finder's Bane series. I can not be anymore specific it has been a long time since I read the books |
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 10 Jan 2005 : 05:41:58
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I liked Iyachtu Xvim better -- I thought he had better style than Bane. I had never perceived Bane as anything beyond the "evil for evil's sake" type. Further, I see no reason to have brought Bane back. No reason was given for it (along with no explanation), it just kinda happened... I don't know if it can even be called a plot device -- it's just a couple of lines, and there was nothing further done with it...
The Return of Bane I've noticed does tend to polarize FR fans. On one side, I've seen this deity have such a strong fan club that it would put Hanson fans in their heyday to shame. On the other hand are those that see it for well many things negative. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 10 Jan 2005 : 05:38:30
quote:
Originally posted by SiriusBlack
And I thought I was pessimistic. I take it you were not a fan of the Return of Bane plot device with the publication of the FRCS?
I liked Iyachtu Xvim better -- I thought he had better style than Bane. I had never perceived Bane as anything beyond the "evil for evil's sake" type. Further, I see no reason to have brought Bane back. No reason was given for it (along with no explanation), it just kinda happened... I don't know if it can even be called a plot device -- it's just a couple of lines, and there was nothing further done with it...
|
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 10 Jan 2005 : 04:53:21
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I'm more inclined to favor this theory. Since WotC will likely never give us any info either way, this is the one I'm running with.
And I thought I was pessimistic. I take it you were not a fan of the Return of Bane plot device with the publication of the FRCS? |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 10 Jan 2005 : 01:26:19
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I have two theories concerning this...
One, Bane planned his resurrection from the start. Once Xvim had collected enough of Bane's old power and essence, it was enough for Bane to come back.
I don't like this theory as much, because Bane seemed supremely self-confident. After all, when still a mortal he challenged a deity... I don't see someone as confident in himself as that making any contingencies against defeat, because to do so would be to admit that defeat was possible.
Two, like Tchazzar and Tiamat, once Xvim had collected enough of Bane's power and essence, it kinda reached a critical mass and Bane's essence overwhelmed Xvim's and took over.
I'm more inclined to favor this theory. Since WotC will likely never give us any info either way, this is the one I'm running with.
Well over confidence can be based on planing well, always having a trick to win when the odds to not look good. I do not know all of Bane's history however if he every used contingency spell as a mortal there is no reason he would not use contingency as a deity. So I leave this option open as posible.
The pure essence offers problems for Mystra , Mystra 1 cerated many Chosen including Midnight (as I recall) by placing part of her essence in mortal bodies. What happens if the Seven Sisters die? Whom essense is it Mystra 1 or Mystra 2 as both now maitain an essense in them.
The essence theory certainly holds merit that a deity is much harder to keep dead then AO claimed. He rattled the cage and put the fear of deity into the deities ;-)
WotC most likely will not provide a detail explaination of returns of deities that were claimed were finally dead. Even Ed of Greenwood indicates that somethings of the realm are hidden from the greatest sages of the Realm for one can never fully understand deities (or words to that effect). |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 10 Jan 2005 : 00:59:46
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
The only quote I can find about Bane right now that appears to apply is this.
"However, on Midwinter night, 1372 Dalereckoning, DR, all former priests of Bane received a vision of Iyachtu Xvim being consumed by a hellish fire, and of the Black Lord rising from the charred husk of his son."
Which does lend to Bane's essense maintained within his bloodline.
I have two theories concerning this...
One, Bane planned his resurrection from the start. Once Xvim had collected enough of Bane's old power and essence, it was enough for Bane to come back.
I don't like this theory as much, because Bane seemed supremely self-confident. After all, when still a mortal he challenged a deity... I don't see someone as confident in himself as that making any contingencies against defeat, because to do so would be to admit that defeat was possible.
Two, like Tchazzar and Tiamat, once Xvim had collected enough of Bane's power and essence, it kinda reached a critical mass and Bane's essence overwhelmed Xvim's and took over.
I'm more inclined to favor this theory. Since WotC will likely never give us any info either way, this is the one I'm running with. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 09 Jan 2005 : 16:56:11
quote:
Originally posted by Lady Kazandra
Wooly already asked, but I'd also like to know where you learned this? Are you certain you're not mixing Bane's resurrection with that of Bhaal?
[/quote]
My bad, I mixed up my B deities.
Though it still might be posible Bane did have some kind of contigency plan.
Bhaal, intermediate god
Bane, greater god
The only quote I can find about Bane right now that appears to apply is this.
"However, on Midwinter night, 1372 Dalereckoning, DR, all former priests of Bane received a vision of Iyachtu Xvim being consumed by a hellish fire, and of the Black Lord rising from the charred husk of his son."
Which does lend to Bane's essense maintained within his bloodline. |
| Lady Kazandra |
Posted - 09 Jan 2005 : 10:51:17
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
Well Bane, it is reported, fore told his death so took steps to resurect himself. As such yes he might have been spread, however planed for his esence to be regathered as him. As oposed to mortals that asended to deity status.
In part what makes a deity is gaining control of a power. This appears to be posible in two ways, a deity taking a power from another deity or a mortal asending bu taking a power that is currently unclaimed. The Time of Troubles allowed some mortals to assend because they manged to take the power before another deity did.
Wooly already asked, but I'd also like to know where you learned this? Are you certain you're not mixing Bane's resurrection with that of Bhaal?
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 09 Jan 2005 : 05:35:26
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
Well Bane, it is reported, fore told his death so took steps to resurect himself. As such yes he might have been spread, however planed for his esence to be regathered as him. As oposed to mortals that asended to deity status.
Where do you get this info? I'm not familiar with any references implying that... |
| the psychotic seaotter |
Posted - 08 Jan 2005 : 22:33:14
I'd say this is a plot device more than anything. Basic rule of fiction is that rules only apply when they need to. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 08 Jan 2005 : 22:32:17
quote:
Originally posted by DDH_101
Hmm... but then what happened with the second Mystra? Even Ao himself said that he could not resurrect the Goddess of Magic, which was why Midnight had to replace her.
An interesrting question, the ways of the realm are hard to understand after all.
I can offer a few theories.
1) AO lied about resurecting deities.
2) Bane basically used a divine continegentcy sprll and thus able to resurect himself.
3) Mystra in forming the Seven Sisters (she also knowing she was going to die), made resurection imposible because parts of her were locked in other divine protected entities. Making it imposible for even self resurection, like alone by other divine force.
4) AO perferred Midnight over Mystra.
I am sure there can be other quesess, however I do not believe there is any official explaination available. |
| DDH_101 |
Posted - 08 Jan 2005 : 22:23:00
Hmm... but then what happened with the second Mystra? Even Ao himself said that he could not resurrect the Goddess of Magic, which was why Midnight had to replace her. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 08 Jan 2005 : 21:55:12
quote:
Originally posted by Alparon
now the question part:
Myrkull once said(in Tantras): gods cannot be destroyed, they can only be spread(thats the best translation i can make at this hour)
does bane return have anything to do with this?
Well Bane, it is reported, fore told his death so took steps to resurect himself. As such yes he might have been spread, however planed for his esence to be regathered as him. As oposed to mortals that asended to deity status.
In part what makes a deity is gaining control of a power. This appears to be posible in two ways, a deity taking a power from another deity or a mortal asending bu taking a power that is currently unclaimed. The Time of Troubles allowed some mortals to assend because they manged to take the power before another deity did. |
| Alparon |
Posted - 08 Jan 2005 : 21:42:44
well i do believe that they've already undone the Time of troubles
only one left that didn't return is Myrkull!!!
now the question part:
Myrkull once said(in Tantras): gods cannot be destroyed, they can only be spread(thats the best translation i can make at this hour)
does bane return have anything to do with this?
|
| The Sage |
Posted - 05 Jan 2005 : 06:40:41
quote:
Originally posted by Bookwyrm
Or, in an example I often like to quote (so much so that a certain scribe here is probably sick of it ), restructuring Chult to get rid of dinosaurs, which stick out like sore thumbs.
... Maybe I should just dedicate one entire scroll to that topic, detailing how I made the changes and what Chult looks like today, so that when discussions like this come up in future, you can just link to that particular scroll instead    .
|
| Melfius |
Posted - 05 Jan 2005 : 05:44:33
Well, I didn't want to say that in so many words, but I guess you got the point, kuje! |
| the psychotic seaotter |
Posted - 05 Jan 2005 : 05:19:42
Thats absoluteky hilarious Kuje!!!
My Favorite is the "let's Undo the Time of Troubles" ideas they've had. I just can't buy the return of Bane and I am divided on Kelevor's rise to godhood as well. |
| Kuje |
Posted - 05 Jan 2005 : 03:26:27
quote:
Originally posted by Melfius
Basically, there really is nothing wrong with differences in a home campaign, provided the DM can make them seem as logical as possible for the players, who would be greatly dis-serviced by a 'because I said so' explaination. As the Realms is very highly developed, the larger the change, the more effect it will have on other areas.
You mean, sort of like what the 3e FR team did to so many things that they just changed, "because I or we said so and that's just the way it is, so deal with it!" :) |
| Melfius |
Posted - 05 Jan 2005 : 02:32:26
In my group, we are hesitant to make grand, "blow-up-the-moon" changes to the published Realms for the simple fact that any large change would require a 're-tooling' of the current status-quo. And, basically, we're too lazy to deal with all that! 
We have tried some differences (one of us even went so far as to kill off all the Chosen), and even have promoted two of our PCs to deity status (one the god of Wild Magic, the other the God of Magical Artifice).
Basically, there really is nothing wrong with differences in a home campaign, provided the DM can make them seem as logical as possible for the players, who would be greatly dis-serviced by a 'because I said so' explaination. As the Realms is very highly developed, the larger the change, the more effect it will have on other areas.
But, hey, this is just the opinion of one, addle-coved pixie (yes, I like Planescape, too!). Take it as you will. |
| the psychotic seaotter |
Posted - 05 Jan 2005 : 01:48:58
quote:
Originally posted by Bookwyrm
Perhaps a re-clarification is in order.
The question was why many people are resistant to changing the setting. Not adapting, interpreting, etc., but rather actual change. Such as the existance of smokepowder, for instance -- many feel it changes the setting too much. Or, on the non-canon side, turning Waterdeep into an expansionistic, territorial power, rather than the merchantile one it is currently.
I never saw what got people up in arms about making changes for their in house games. I for one get tired of hearing how changing the Realms is not playing FR. It's the same as saying houseruling is not playing D&D.
That aside, I have made my changes to the canon Realms. Bane will stay dead and Kelemvore will more than likely not be raised to a deity either. (I'm playing just after the ToT)
Smokepowder doesn't exist and I am also going to be dissolving the Lords Alliance soon as well as already decreasing the sizes of most major cities. I want the area I play in a bit more wild than it is.
quote:
Adaptation is encouraged, especially if it makes sense. For instance, bringing in elements of the environmental modual Frostburn into the polar regions of Faerun. Or, in an example I often like to quote (so much so that a certain scribe here is probably sick of it ), restructuring Chult to get rid of dinosaurs, which stick out like sore thumbs.
I know I covered most of this above but I want to add that Mechanically I am not using 3e but a slightly modified 2e that I convert 3e material to. What most people miss about settings is that it is 99% window dressing and not hardset material.
|
| Kentinal |
Posted - 04 Jan 2005 : 23:17:50
Well I have made good use of dinosaurs, however can see the point that they might not fit well from an Warth view when looking at Forgotten Realms.
For some it is clearly a feature and others a bug. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 04 Jan 2005 : 22:56:46
quote:
Originally posted by Elf_Friend
quote:
Originally posted by Bookwyrm
Or, in an example I often like to quote (so much so that a certain scribe here is probably sick of it ), restructuring Chult to get rid of dinosaurs, which stick out like sore thumbs.
I kind of like them. 
As do I.  |
| Mystery_Man |
Posted - 04 Jan 2005 : 13:57:55
quote:
Originally posted by Bookwyrm
Or, in an example I often like to quote (so much so that a certain scribe here is probably sick of it ), restructuring Chult to get rid of dinosaurs, which stick out like sore thumbs.
I kind of like them. |
| Fend Of Greathold |
Posted - 04 Jan 2005 : 10:10:21
i c - my mistake |
|
|
