| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| sno4wy |
Posted - 28 Jul 2020 : 08:36:28
THIS POST CONTAINERS PRETTY MAJOR SPOILERS.
You've been warned.
Really, there are serious spoilers beyond this point.
If you're still scrolling, you're ok with seeing them.
Alrighty, sorry about that, but wanted to be safe. I need some help with how to reconcile a huge thing that happens in Relentless with Realms canon. So, in Relentless, a creature that turns out to be Charon basically simplifies the Realms pantheon into a binary heaven/hell system like we have with a lot of Earth religions. It's really strange, because this entity is stated to be Charon, yet doesn't behave at all like FR Charon or even Grecian/Roman Charon for that matter, because they're the arbiter of good versus evil, and who goes to heaven versus who goes to hell, instead of a mere boatman/guide of souls. In any case, in Boundless, this creature entrapped Artemis Entreri into a "cocoon of conscience", in which Artemis was granted knowledge that he was going to suffer in hell for the way that he's led his life. Artemis gets busted out of this cocoon and now he's redeemed by virtue of being afraid of going to hell. Additional validation is lent to Charon's assertions of their identity and what awaits in the afterlife because Yvonnel 2.0, the character who's the most powerful drow that's ever lived and who knows things of great import, recognizes Charon to be who they say they are and backs up the heaven/hell theory.
Obviously, this goes against the entire cosmology of the Realms, and I just have no idea how to reconcile this new piece of canon with what's been established of the existing world for such a long time. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Irennan |
Posted - 22 Aug 2020 : 02:49:02
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
Well, they have pointed the finger to us atheists since 2e with things like the Wall of the Faithless and other stuff, so I don't mind if religious people get the same treatment for a change.
Sorry, this makes no sense. I dislike the Wall as much as you (well, Idk how much you dislike it, but I outright hate it), but this pretty much is: "something wrong was done to me, so I don't mind something wrong being done to people who didn't do that to me, but have something in common with those who did this to me."
If you put it that way, it sounds wrong, yes.  But, having felt bullied for so many years, I guess I'm bit bitter and see this as some form of retribution to the fans who always have justified that Wall. I shouldn't lump the people who dislike it and happen to be religious as well.
I'm sorry if I offended you in some form.
I wasn't offended myself, I found the statement itself to be offputting, that's why I addressed it. But don't worry, no offense taken. |
| CorellonsDevout |
Posted - 22 Aug 2020 : 02:09:19
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
Well, they have pointed the finger to us atheists since 2e with things like the Wall of the Faithless and other stuff, so I don't mind if religious people get the same treatment for a change.
Sorry, this makes no sense. I dislike the Wall as much as you (well, Idk how much you dislike it, but I outright hate it), but this pretty much is: "something wrong was done to me, so I don't mind something wrong being done to people who didn't do that to me, but have something in common with those who did this to me."
If you put it that way, it sounds wrong, yes. But, having felt bullied for so many years, I guess I'm bit bitter and see this as some form of retribution to the fans who always have justified that Wall. I shouldn't lump the people who dislike it and happen to be religious as well.
I'm sorry if I offended you in some form.
I'm not a fan of the Wall, either, nor am I all that religious--though I wouldn't call myself atheist, either. But this is what I mean about projecting lol (though I'm not aiming this directly at you). In FR, religion is very much a part of the world, and the fate of souls is also very much a thing. RAS can be an atheist IRL. I don't care about that. The issue is when he projects that into a setting he is not only writing in, but practically representing. When he twists the lore because he is bitter about his experiences as a Catholic (then, conversely, adds Christian concepts of reward and punishment). He is allowed to be angry/bitter at real world religion. He just shouldn't use that to justify what he does to the FR lore. Dragons are fine, elves are fine, magic is fine, heck primordial and demons are fine, but gods are an issue? Makes no sense to me. There are atheists who are happy playing clerics. If they can do that, then surely Bob can set aside his feelings about the real world God and, at the very least, not crap on the FR ones. |
| Zeromaru X |
Posted - 22 Aug 2020 : 01:52:29
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
Well, they have pointed the finger to us atheists since 2e with things like the Wall of the Faithless and other stuff, so I don't mind if religious people get the same treatment for a change.
Sorry, this makes no sense. I dislike the Wall as much as you (well, Idk how much you dislike it, but I outright hate it), but this pretty much is: "something wrong was done to me, so I don't mind something wrong being done to people who didn't do that to me, but have something in common with those who did this to me."
If you put it that way, it sounds wrong, yes. But, having felt bullied for so many years, I guess I'm bit bitter and see this as some form of retribution to the fans who always have justified that Wall. I shouldn't lump the people who dislike it and happen to be religious as well.
I'm sorry if I offended you in some form. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 22 Aug 2020 : 01:38:25
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
Well, they have pointed the finger to us atheists since 2e with things like the Wall of the Faithless and other stuff, so I don't mind if religious people get the same treatment for a change.
Sorry, this makes no sense. I dislike the Wall as much as you (well, Idk how much you dislike it, but I outright hate it), but this pretty much is: "something wrong was done to me, so I don't mind something wrong being done to people who didn't do that to me, but have something in common with those who did this to me."
In RAS' case this also comes with having a completely ignorant and distorted view of certain characters--of the work of others. Using the work of others to get where he is (his personal stuff didn't sell nearly as well Drizzt) and then trashing it. Wanting the advantages of writing in a shared world, but refusing the responsibility of respecting the work of others that he is using. |
| Zeromaru X |
Posted - 22 Aug 2020 : 01:26:03
Well, they have pointed the finger to us atheists since 2e with things like the Wall of the Faithless and other stuff, so I don't mind if religious people get the same treatment for a change.
I do agree with you, however, in as one of the main FR authors, he should respect the setting lore a bit. I've read only a few of his novels, but I find that all of those contradict established lore... |
| CorellonsDevout |
Posted - 21 Aug 2020 : 23:21:41
quote:
Originally posted by Fanatic66
I highly recommend everyone to watch a recent interview with RA Salvatore that talks about Relentless (among other things): https://theroarbots.com/30-years-in-the-making-an-interview-with-r-a-salvatore/. He said that the reveal of Lolth as an "infection" comes from unreliable narrators, aka the illithid, so take the revelation with a grain of salt. He also talks about why he doesn't like Eilistraee, and that he's been working towards this drow civil war for quite some time. He was never happy with people thinking the drow are all naturally evil, and this arc leading to the upcoming civil war was his long term attempt to show that drow, like regular people, can choose good or evil.
Ed Greenwood himself has said that much of Forgotten Realms lore is presented through the unreliable narrator (Elminster, Volo, bards, etc). Much like real world history, we know some truths, and can garner basic information from that, but we don't know all.
However, based on this interview and others of Bob I have seen recently, he seemed to be using the unreliable narrator as a crutch. It is a way of avoiding responsibility for anything that happens in his stories. In another interview, he says he does it in part because if WotC decides to go a different direction a few years from now, he can point to the "unreliable narrator". I get this, but it also sounds like, "I'm gonna do whatever the hell I want". When you are the most popular writer in the FR-verse, and many readers learn about Faerun through you, then you have some responsibility to actually represent the setting you are writing in, methinks.
As I said in the other Relentless thread, I feel like RAS is projecting his "fall" from Catholicism onto the gods of FR. I think there is some bitterness towards real world religion leaking into the pages of his writing. He doesn't like Eilistraee because he doesn't want the drow to be good because of X god, but this negates all that Eilistraee represents, and also just points the finger at all religions. He easily points to how religion corrupts--the matrons of Lolth, Mielikki's decree (which is against Mielikki's character, btw), but not how it heals--Eilistraee, Ilmater, all the other deities who actually care about their followers.
Worship is important in Faerun, however, with exceptions like Lolth, you aren't forced to worship a particular one. Most Faerunians are polytheistic, and they choose their patron deity based on their morals and ethical beliefs--really not that different from the "Mielikki is what is in my heart". Most gods aren't like, "you must worship me because I said so". |
| Irennan |
Posted - 21 Aug 2020 : 19:27:18
quote:
Originally posted by Fanatic66
I highly recommend everyone to watch a recent interview with RA Salvatore that talks about Relentless (among other things): https://theroarbots.com/30-years-in-the-making-an-interview-with-r-a-salvatore/. He said that the reveal of Lolth as an "infection" comes from unreliable narrators, aka the illithid, so take the revelation with a grain of salt. He also talks about why he doesn't like Eilistraee, and that he's been working towards this drow civil war for quite some time. He was never happy with people thinking the drow are all naturally evil, and this arc leading to the upcoming civil war was his long term attempt to show that drow, like regular people, can choose good or evil.
And his stance about Eilistraee seems to come from ignorance tbh.Then again RAS is indeed notorious for not being the most knowledgeable author about FR.
He says that he doesn't like Eilistraee because that level of god-coercion for god reasons reduces the “mortals” to puppets.
However, Eilistraee's lore is described as doing the opposite of coercing mortals. She's in fact described as goddess who strives to empower her people to make their choices and find their path. She's described as helping and conforting them without being intrusive (as in, for example, helping in practical matters of their everyday lives, scaring aggressors away, etc... without being openly revealing of her intervention). You could see her as watching over mortals in their "journey", and by offering them the tools to travel it themselves and overcome its challenges. This is a valid approach to paint a deity character. In fact, one of the reasons I'm so fond of her is that she subverts most tropes involving gods. Even her choice to forgo all she could have wanted just to be with the drow, since she'd foreseen times of need, fits that. The culture inspired by her is based on nurturing arts and beauty, freedom of expression, and acceptance, and being a nurturing matriarchy, this also makes her a really good foil to Lolth.
One of the ways WotC intentionally crapped all over her lore when they tried to get rid of her was by portraying her as the exact opposite of all this, almost line by line. She came off as very similar to Lolth, which was utter BS. But that's a different matter
So, while it's obvious to not want to turn this into a god vs god issue, Eilistraee's culture doesn't need to be motivated by "I do this because I follow her", it can easily be motivated by "I do this, because I believe it's the right thing to do/it's what leads to happines/etc..." Likewise, following Eilistraee, for a drow, can be motivated by "I follow Eilistraee because she embodies what I believe in" or by more personal reasons related to personal stories; depends on the individual. After all, in the ancient times of FR history, when the first instance of her culture appeared, it wasn't Eilistraee to go around converting people, it was people founding a nation based on ideals associated with her. Eilistraee acted as an empowerer and patroness for that.
But let's be real here. His dislike for Eilistraee dates back to far before that interview (he stated it in old interviews too)--and let's also be blunt, it was because the impression was that Drizzt would be "less special" with her around. Which explains all the crap that emerged on WotC's actions towards her over the second half of 3e.
I'm also not buying that he's been planning this for such a long time, and I addressed why in the Relentless spoilers thread. The worldbuilding of the drow makes no sense without dissent, disillusion, and splinter movements being rampant and starting to develop a LONG time before the present ere. Had RAS been so insistent on showing the nuance in the drow, he would have played on that. He would have explored the consequences of such a crappy society, which include people getting fed up of being treated like subhuman sh*tstains. He would have also included different cultures formed over the millennia a long time ago in his representation. He didn't, he always was about Lolth, Lolth, Lolth wanting to get Drizzt, Drizzt hunts, and some more Lolth. And Jarlaxle, but that's not a culture.
But his dislike of dogma vs dogma/coercion vs coercion being just an excuse is even more evident once you start looking into this story--it tries to condemn absolutism, but engages in it when it supports certain moral systems (Drizzt's). The story doesn't discuss this system in a critical way; it doesn't analyze it or show *how* or *why* it can work. Nope, it's taken as "the right choice" a priori, so one absolutism is just traded for another. But I talked about this too in the Relentless spoilers thread. |
| Fanatic66 |
Posted - 21 Aug 2020 : 17:05:32
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Fanatic66
I highly recommend everyone to watch a recent interview with RA Salvatore that talks about Relentless (among other things): https://theroarbots.com/30-years-in-the-making-an-interview-with-r-a-salvatore/. He said that the reveal of Lolth as an "infection" comes from unreliable narrators, aka the illithid, so take the revelation with a grain of salt. He also talks about why he doesn't like Eilistraee, and that he's been working towards this drow civil war for quite some time. He was never happy with people thinking the drow are all naturally evil, and this arc leading to the upcoming civil war was his long term attempt to show that drow, like regular people, can choose good or evil.
So he wants to show that drow can be good or evil while dumping on the only good deity in the drow pantheon? 
I don't remember his exact reasoning, all I remember is that he mentioned he's not a fan of Eilistraee.
Either way, I expect some big changes for the Menzoberranzan drow due to Relentless. Surprisingly, Salvatore said he was planning this break from Lolth for the last few years. Fortunate timing with WotC's recent decisions to move away from "some races are innately bad." Not that Realms drow were ever really innately evil (see Eilistraee, Drizzt, etc.), but there's a big public perception that drow are bad by nature. Its one of the interesting facets of Matt Mercer's Wildemount setting, where there's a large kingdom of drow that rejected Lolth and have a very interesting faith. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 21 Aug 2020 : 16:46:33
quote:
Originally posted by Fanatic66
I highly recommend everyone to watch a recent interview with RA Salvatore that talks about Relentless (among other things): https://theroarbots.com/30-years-in-the-making-an-interview-with-r-a-salvatore/. He said that the reveal of Lolth as an "infection" comes from unreliable narrators, aka the illithid, so take the revelation with a grain of salt. He also talks about why he doesn't like Eilistraee, and that he's been working towards this drow civil war for quite some time. He was never happy with people thinking the drow are all naturally evil, and this arc leading to the upcoming civil war was his long term attempt to show that drow, like regular people, can choose good or evil.
So he wants to show that drow can be good or evil while dumping on the only good deity in the drow pantheon? |
| Fanatic66 |
Posted - 21 Aug 2020 : 16:41:24
I highly recommend everyone to watch a recent interview with RA Salvatore that talks about Relentless (among other things): https://theroarbots.com/30-years-in-the-making-an-interview-with-r-a-salvatore/. He said that the reveal of Lolth as an "infection" comes from unreliable narrators, aka the illithid, so take the revelation with a grain of salt. He also talks about why he doesn't like Eilistraee, and that he's been working towards this drow civil war for quite some time. He was never happy with people thinking the drow are all naturally evil, and this arc leading to the upcoming civil war was his long term attempt to show that drow, like regular people, can choose good or evil. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 31 Jul 2020 : 20:19:53
quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout
Crawford said "The changes ahead are about people, who get to choose who they are and what they believe. Gods are immortal individuals in D&D, and they can be as petty, loving, wicked, cruel, beautiful, compassionate, glorious, or wise as befits them" (I looked for the Tweet lol). He said he agreed when I responded that a way to show an alternate path for the drow is through Eilistraee, and that the gods are active forces.
This does not allay my fears completely, as, one, 5e changes things on a dime these days, and two, in light of events in Relentless, it makes me wonder if they're going to further distance the gods and simplify the cosmology (especially if it's about people and their choices, which it's really always been, but they seem to be emphasizing that more now).
Up to now, 5e has only said that the gods are distant, but it has done nothing to show it (in novels, at least. In sources, they say that gods are distant, but then describe them as usual. Though they do give far less info about them than in the past, but that goes for everything in 5e).
Anyway, that statement at least tells you that they're not going to change the origins of the gods (at least, not more than they've already changed it for the elven and drow gods). |
| CorellonsDevout |
Posted - 31 Jul 2020 : 20:03:54
Crawford said "The changes ahead are about people, who get to choose who they are and what they believe. Gods are immortal individuals in D&D, and they can be as petty, loving, wicked, cruel, beautiful, compassionate, glorious, or wise as befits them" (I looked for the Tweet lol). He said he agreed when I responded that a way to show an alternate path for the drow is through Eilistraee, and that the gods are active forces.
This does not allay my fears completely, as, one, 5e changes things on a dime these days, and two, in light of events in Relentless, it makes me wonder if they're going to further distance the gods and simplify the cosmology (especially if it's about people and their choices, which it's really always been, but they seem to be emphasizing that more now). |
| Irennan |
Posted - 31 Jul 2020 : 19:45:13
quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout
Because of the way it was presented and handled. The whole book is full of contradictions, so yes, Lolth being an "infection" could easily be taken metaphorically, but the book also seemed to both denounce her as a goddess and keep her as one. Kimmuriel learned of this through the corrupted illithid, and yes, one could argue that Kimmuriel is an unreliable narrator, but, from a writer's standpoint, there was the reason the revelation was done through him, and he was more "enlightened" than the others.
Sure, the choice of the character is telling that RAS takes this part seriously, but the fact that Kimmuriel is reporting Illithid knowledge is not related only to unreliability, but to the filter through which the info is known. With this, I mean that the Illithids, who have a strong sense of order and organized society, will see a being that revels in the negative aspects of chaos as a total aberration. As a bug that can shatter the very core principle of their organization. So, a sort of infection, which is what Kimmuriel reported.
For once, it looks like RAS has thought about how a given information looks from the point of view of a certain character, and filtering things is an essential part of writing (and his omniscent, super external narrator has often come short in this sense).
I agree with you, however, that the choice of the perspective from which this info came is totally deliberate, and it can either be because he wanted to send a strong message about Lolth--i.e. being able to talk about her as something with no upsides, an infection (which would also be more impactful in this time of pandemic), and this requires the info to come from someone who would actually think of her as such (also, when even the illithids say that something is extremely bad, you know that something is REALLY bad, and this is also a bonus of using Kimmuriel as to convey the info). Or:
quote:
the book (to me, anyway) seemed to try very hard to make her a goddess *only* because the drow had made her one.
Which makes me see your point. It's a valid concern, and I now understand why it was jarring to you.
However, I wouldn't worry about this having a meaningful impact. WotC have stated that while they're changing the drow, the gods will remain the same. In fact, IIRC, Crawford gave that answer to a question you asked on Twitter. |
| CorellonsDevout |
Posted - 31 Jul 2020 : 18:36:45
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout
That is very true (though said alternatives were conveniently ignored). I was referring more to their origins as presented in the book. It kind of alluded to the Crown Wars and the Descent (especially since all the drow weren't corrupt at that point), but it still seemed jarring to me in the way it was presented. Also, even if Lolth could metaphorically be described as an infection (which she certainly can be), the whole thing was just...weird to me. Perhaps it would have made more sense if RAS had spent more time on it, rather than cramming it all in the last few chapters.
The whole thing was just weird, even if it addresses some points.
Why did the story of Lolth feel so jarring to you? I mean, there was so *little* info in that recount that you could make it fit with basically everything. The only specific info is old Yvonnel being scared of spiders before meeting Lolth, and drow experiencing (*gasp*) genuine joy before Lolth. Remember that the infection thing is just what illithids think, but Lolth has appeared in person in the Drizzt books, so it's not like RAS is saying that she is a neurosis.
RAS ignoring Eilistraee and Vhaeraun (and now Zinzerena and Malyk too) is just him writing Drizztland and not FR, as always. But even the Drizztland version of Lolth is compatible with FR (and her position in FR cosmology), that's my point.
Because of the way it was presented and handled. The whole book is full of contradictions, so yes, Lolth being an "infection" could easily be taken metaphorically, but the book also seemed to both denounce her as a goddess and keep her as one. Kimmuriel learned of this through the corrupted illithid, and yes, one could argue that Kimmuriel is an unreliable narrator, but, from a writer's standpoint, there was the reason the revelation was done through him, and he was more "enlightened" than the others.
Now, I have no love of Lotlh, and I am all for her diminishing, but the issue I have is you start denouncing one deity as an "infection", then other denouncements are going to follow. If Lolth is an entity, and a goddess, but yet not, then what does that mean for the other FR deities? Yes, it's metaphorical, but the book (to me, anyway) seemed to try very hard to make her a goddess *only* because the drow had made her one. It's Bob's track record with the deities that has me concerned and made it jarring (plus, as you said, it was goofy).
And yes, the 180 with Quenthel was equally jarring/goofy. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 31 Jul 2020 : 14:30:54
quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout
That is very true (though said alternatives were conveniently ignored). I was referring more to their origins as presented in the book. It kind of alluded to the Crown Wars and the Descent (especially since all the drow weren't corrupt at that point), but it still seemed jarring to me in the way it was presented. Also, even if Lolth could metaphorically be described as an infection (which she certainly can be), the whole thing was just...weird to me. Perhaps it would have made more sense if RAS had spent more time on it, rather than cramming it all in the last few chapters.
The whole thing was just weird, even if it addresses some points.
Why did the story of Lolth feel so jarring to you? I mean, there was so *little* info in that recount that you could make it fit with basically everything. The only specific info is old Yvonnel being scared of spiders before meeting Lolth, and drow experiencing (*gasp*) genuine joy before Lolth. Remember that the infection thing is just what illithids think, but Lolth has appeared in person in the Drizzt books, so it's not like RAS is saying that she is a neurosis.
RAS ignoring Eilistraee and Vhaeraun (and now Zinzerena and Malyk too) is just him writing Drizztland and not FR, as always. But even the Drizztland version of Lolth is compatible with FR (and her position in FR cosmology), that's my point.
The jarring (lets just say damn goofy) part was Quenthel going "ohhh, maybe evil is bad". This is the kind of stuff that you carefully embed in the plot from the very beginning of the story (I mean, the Quenthel 180. not Lolth not caring, because that's been obvious as hell since forever). You establish a fatal flaw, make it clear (by *showing* it and its consequences), have the character fail multiple times *because* of that fatal flaw, have them resist the world trying to change them and slowly break their resistance through failures and reality-checks, until the character either overcomes the flaw and changes, or doesn't (or does it partially, or doubles down on it, or what you have) and spirals into really bad stuff. Otherwise, it feels like... well, an asspull. Because it is. Note that it would have been far more reasonable to have Quenthel decide that she has to retain her influential position in Menzo *without* relying on Lolth, because Lolth had already abandoned her multiple times, and she'd already been confronted with failure because of an unquestioning devotion (which could be her fatal flaw in this case), and she comes to the realization that Lolth truly doesn't care. But she would still remain the establishment, because there was no foundation for her turning against the establishment in the story. Her deciding "yo, we gotta be merciful to people" without any actual redemption arc is an asspull.
Another problem is that it also came from the wrong character. Not from those who could gain something from changing the status quo (the "have some, want more" which are often those who can get the masses to rebel), not from the people who've been made miserable for years, but from the enforcers. Quenthel&co are those who defended the status quo for a long-ass time. They're the ones who somewhat benefit from it. They are sadistic, they randomly killed other drow with savage glee for stupid crap like accidentaly killing a spider. They tortured people for fun. And now, "talk-no-jutsu" and some memories make them do a 180? Lol? |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 31 Jul 2020 : 13:01:51
Still reading through the thread, but regarding Charon and the realms (and I do see where George mentions that Ed introduced a Charon in dragon #91)…. wasn't one of Entreri's weapons "Charon's Claw". Was there a connection established between the weapon and the daemon in question? Could it be something wherein the weapon somehow "took" Entreri's soul after he died and was torturing him?
https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Charon%27s_Claw_(sword)
I'd very much wonder if this weapon and its name don't have some literalness to them. In essence, was a "claw" of the deity known as Charon removed and somehow fashioned INTO a weapon that was a sword and gauntlet combination, and the intelligence within this weapon somehow tied back to Charon. Also, this weapon apparently according to the novels was bringing Entreri back, so was it somehow stopping his soul going where it should? |
| CorellonsDevout |
Posted - 31 Jul 2020 : 07:12:36
That is very true (though said alternatives were conveniently ignored). I was referring more to their origins as presented in the book. It kind of alluded to the Crown Wars and the Descent (especially since all the drow weren't corrupt at that point), but it still seemed jarring to me in the way it was presented. Also, even if Lolth could metaphorically be described as an infection (which she certainly can be), the whole thing was just...weird to me. Perhaps it would have made more sense if RAS had spent more time on it, rather than cramming it all in the last few chapters.
The whole thing was just weird, even if it addresses some points. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 31 Jul 2020 : 05:46:22
The Lolth thing doesn't flip drow lore on its head. In fact, it tells extremely little, just that the drow were essentially deceived by Lolth. Which they actually were. The fact that Lolth doesn't care about the drow has been true and very in-your-face ever since 2e. As I mention in the other thread, it's actually stupid that the drow didn't decide to just give her the middle finger millennia ago, with the level of ridiculous that she brought to them, and with alternatives going out of their way to reach to them. The most jarring part is that the one to do a 180 was Quenthel. That was a really bad choice IMHO. |
| CorellonsDevout |
Posted - 31 Jul 2020 : 05:28:18
I got the impression it was both a literal hell/heaven and a metaphorical one (self-imposed, as it was conscience as well). Entereri seemed afraid of the final judgement, both of himself, and in the more literal sense.
I liked the fact that souls were energy, and thus couldn't be destroyed--that was cool. The pseudo-Buddhist "one-with-the-multiverse" thmee, while I enjoy the concept irl, isn't consistent with most FR lore, though it was interesting to see the self (or transcended self) experience the join of the universe, which suggests both a oneness, and a sense of (heightened) self.
The scene where the souls were released from the dagger kind of reminded me of His Dark Materials lol. Still, I wouldn't mind them keeping with the indestructibility of the soul as canon, though this would have implications for souls that are supposedly destroyed--they could be trapped somewhere horrible.
In regards to Lolth...that was actually hard to say. As a goddess of chaos and strife, she could also be viewed as an infection, and in a metaphorical way, she was. But this seemed to be taking it literally, too, as the book seemed to try and denounce her godhood, even though it also acknowledged that she was some sort of entity. Either way, it flips drow lore on its head, particularly with the history (while completely ignoring Eilistraee and Vhaeraun, as usual).
|
| Gyor |
Posted - 31 Jul 2020 : 04:17:14
People are taking Heaven and Hell too literally here, Sharon is the collective manifestation of everyones conscience, their sense, of right and wrong, the heaven and hell isn't referring to planes (unlike mentions of the Abyss and Hell later in the book for example) its a self inflicted Heaven and Heaven when one sits in judgement of ones self. Sharon referring to herself Charon was using that as a metaphor I believe, not literal.
And this isn't the only metaphor he uses in the book,he more liberally uses metalhor in the book. When he says Lolth is an infection, not a Goddess, he's not being literal, of course Lolth is a Goddess, but she functions as an infection. The Planes in 5e FR still are what they are (I think 5e default planar cosmology).
The only think that doesn't fit with the cosmology, is when he says souls can't be destroyed, when in FR's history they often have been.
I think in many ways this is the best novel RA Salvatore has written, still alot of battles and stuff, but way more metaphors and way deeper then honestly I've seen him write.
But yeah this some serious bomb shell terrority. It has major implications for FR, most particularly the Drow, but weirdly Illithids as well. Relentless has alot to digress. I can't help but wonder if this will tie into the "unannounced" November D&D source book release, which is backing away from the idea of inheriantly evil humaniod races, Orcs and Drow being used as examples. The book also might have a planar theme. We will see.
|
| CorellonsDevout |
Posted - 30 Jul 2020 : 04:50:19
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Sometimes I don't question "who" -- sometimes I question "if" the novels were edited. Particularly the War of the Spider Queen books -- I think that some of the issues I had with that series could have been fixed by an editor going through and smoothing things out -- especially the jarring personality changes from book to book.
This happened with Rose of Sarifel, too--a complete lack of editing (at least fact-checking). |
| CorellonsDevout |
Posted - 30 Jul 2020 : 04:18:36
quote:
Originally posted by sno4wy
I think Krash hit the nail on the head. However, Catholic guilt doesn't exist in the Realms, or at least, it shouldn't. The most logical conclusion that can be drawn, based on the feedback that I've gotten on this topic, is that the binary heaven/hell perspective is a fallible interpretation by mortal minds that cannot grasp what's really going on with the gods, or that "Charon" is lying. I'm not really sure how to address the Planescape possibility in the context of the character development I'm trying to reconcile, so I'm leaving that off the table for now. Entreri going through yet another massively traumatizing experience and is pushed to completely change who he is, only to discover that it's based in, well, BS, doesn't that just sorta defeats the whole purpose of going down this path of what's basically Catholic guilt?
Thanks to the input here and the reminders that what we know of the gods are by and large told by mortal interpreters rather than interviewing the gods themselves, I can much more easily discard the conflicting cosmology presented in Relentless. However, if going forward this is going to be a thing with Entreri, is it some grand deception, or something else?
I can't actually speak for George, but I think what he meant by Catholic guilt was that RAS grew up Catholic, and could have "projected" that into his writing, including the redemption arc for Entreri and the binary idea of heaven/hell.
It is true that mortals don't fully understand the gods or the cosmos. They don't know the "whole truth" (I don't think even most of the gods know the full truth), but the gods do make themselves known, and while your average mortal isn't going to know the inner workings of the afterlife(s), they know the gods have realms. For example, in the prologue, Kane should have known that, being a monk of the Monastery of the Yellow Rose, an Ilmataran temple (which wasn't once mentioned, of course), he should have known (or at least assumed) his afterlife would likely be in the House of the Triad.
I don't think it's a deception so much as Bob being Bob when it comes to lore. However, he did say in a tweet that changes are going to happen in the Realms (with the release date of Relentless being the context). It does make me wonder if WotC/Hasbro prompted him to write any of this, or if he was referring to the whole thing with Lolth--which was it's own WTF. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 29 Jul 2020 : 20:35:26
quote:
Originally posted by sno4wy
I think Krash hit the nail on the head. However, Catholic guilt doesn't exist in the Realms, or at least, it shouldn't. The most logical conclusion that can be drawn, based on the feedback that I've gotten on this topic, is that the binary heaven/hell perspective is a fallible interpretation by mortal minds that cannot grasp what's really going on with the gods, or that "Charon" is lying. I'm not really sure how to address the Planescape possibility in the context of the character development I'm trying to reconcile, so I'm leaving that off the table for now. Entreri going through yet another massively traumatizing experience and is pushed to completely change who he is, only to discover that it's based in, well, BS, doesn't that just sorta defeats the whole purpose of going down this path of what's basically Catholic guilt?
Thanks to the input here and the reminders that what we know of the gods are by and large told by mortal interpreters rather than interviewing the gods themselves, I can much more easily discard the conflicting cosmology presented in Relentless. However, if going forward this is going to be a thing with Entreri, is it some grand deception, or something else?
I don't think RAS will ever expand on that angle. It's far more likely that RAS will just explore the 'new Entreri' redeemed out of fear--*if* he's getting to write more books. If Entreri is somehow brought on a planeswalking trip by someone, then yes, it will defeat the very purpose of this "redemption" because Artemis will know to have been just tortured and lied to. And I mean, personally, if I were Entreri, I'd totally try to find some super powerful mage and pay them to go see the planes and check the truth. But I don't think RAS will ever have that happen.
If you're referring to Entreri finding out it's all BS in the afterlife, I don't know if he'd actually have a vision complete enough to understand. I mean, he's supposedly "redeemed", so he'll be claimed by some deity that aligns with his new mindset, and he'd think that he actually went to Heaven and was saved from Hell. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 29 Jul 2020 : 19:42:34
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
quote:
Originally posted by sno4wy
However, if going forward this is going to be a thing with Entreri, is it some grand deception, or something else?
Not sure there will be a "going forward" and Salvatore's metaphysical frolic is unlikely to be taken up by any other WotC product. Always interested to find out who edits these novels.
-- George Krashos
Sometimes I don't question "who" -- sometimes I question "if" the novels were edited. Particularly the War of the Spider Queen books -- I think that some of the issues I had with that series could have been fixed by an editor going through and smoothing things out -- especially the jarring personality changes from book to book. |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 29 Jul 2020 : 16:45:17
quote:
Originally posted by sno4wy
However, if going forward this is going to be a thing with Entreri, is it some grand deception, or something else?
Not sure there will be a "going forward" and Salvatore's metaphysical frolic is unlikely to be taken up by any other WotC product. Always interested to find out who edits these novels.
-- George Krashos |
| sno4wy |
Posted - 29 Jul 2020 : 11:03:31
I think Krash hit the nail on the head. However, Catholic guilt doesn't exist in the Realms, or at least, it shouldn't. The most logical conclusion that can be drawn, based on the feedback that I've gotten on this topic, is that the binary heaven/hell perspective is a fallible interpretation by mortal minds that cannot grasp what's really going on with the gods, or that "Charon" is lying. I'm not really sure how to address the Planescape possibility in the context of the character development I'm trying to reconcile, so I'm leaving that off the table for now. Entreri going through yet another massively traumatizing experience and is pushed to completely change who he is, only to discover that it's based in, well, BS, doesn't that just sorta defeats the whole purpose of going down this path of what's basically Catholic guilt?
Thanks to the input here and the reminders that what we know of the gods are by and large told by mortal interpreters rather than interviewing the gods themselves, I can much more easily discard the conflicting cosmology presented in Relentless. However, if going forward this is going to be a thing with Entreri, is it some grand deception, or something else? |
| CorellonsDevout |
Posted - 29 Jul 2020 : 04:09:46
I am about 66% of the way through Relentless (don't worry, I don't mind spoilers), and I've read this scene. I actually didn't know Charon existed in the Realms, either, lol, so thanks to those who pointed out where they've been mentioned.
I don't know fully what to make of the scene, tbh. I do agree with Costa in that there are good and bad afterlives, depending on the deity you worship and how you have lived your life. So, there are realms that could be considered "heaven" (Celestia, Arvandor, House of Nature, etc). and "hell" (Banehold, the Abyss, the actual Nine Hells, etc), so Charon may have just been saying "you're going to end up in a hellish place if you stay on your current path", and said "hell" as a way to simplify it. RAS tends to do his own thing and disregard canon (or, at the very least, not fact-check).
OR (and of course, this is purely speculation on my part), considering the fact that WotC/Hasbro basically said, "eff it, the planes are weird", this could be a way of simplifying the planes, and making a binary heaven and hell, with the "good" gods dwelling in heaven, and the "bad" gods living in hell, and thus souls would go to either based on their moral choices. This is already true, to an extend, but it would be "dumbing it down". Why they would choose to do that in the middle of en edition (though 5e is full of lore changes mid-edition), I have no idea. Maybe it's part of their move to get rid of alignment by simplifying the planes. |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 29 Jul 2020 : 03:33:42
-Big yikes. I mean, the afterlife was always a little weird, but this in no way improves things. |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 29 Jul 2020 : 01:33:39
Sounds like Catholic guilt.
-- George Krashos |
| Veylandemar |
Posted - 29 Jul 2020 : 01:00:20
I also haven't had a chance to read the latest two Salvatore novels yet, so my input may be less than accurate given that I haven't seen the context by which Charon is presented.
The way I'd look at such an entity would be through the lens of the 2nd Edition Planescape setting with the first option having Charon as an unknowable power similar to the Lady of Pain or other potentially 'non-deity' powers (Or deliberately non-defined). It very well may predate all or even most of the established Gods, or have origins similar to the various racial pantheon leaders.
Alternatively, taking some of the mystery and speculation away, Charon could be a Greater Deity whose 'divine realm' is the River Styx and domains are quite literally Choice, Consequence and the Conveyance of Souls. (Also touching upon Planescape's rule of threes!)
This latter option obviously runs into problems within Realmspace because of previously established post-mortal happenstance like the Wall of the Faithless and other Realmsy-Death-Doings that've occured under Jergal, Myrkul, Kelemvor and others during the various editions, so I'd suggest that Charon's dealings and influence within Toril's crystal sphere may be muted or outright hindered - which leads to Charon's Claw.
Previously, Charon's Claw was always stated to be an artifact of Netherese make from before Karsus' Folly and the death of Mystryl, I'd suggest that it was instead something that the Shadovar obtained during their forced exile in the Plane of Shadow, mistakenly believing it to be a gift from Shar wherein it may well be part of a cosmic long-game from Charon to quite literally 'get a foot in the door' of Realmspace where he/she/it normally cannot operate.
Of course, any and all of this could readily fall apart with plot points or information from the latest two novels, which I'll remind you I've not yet had the fortune of obtaining.
~V |
|
|
