| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Faramicos |
Posted - 06 Jul 2005 : 19:23:41
Who do you favor in the role of Lord of the Dead? Cyric as he was after the times of Trouble or Kelemvor after the fall of Cyric from the Throne of the Dead. |
| 24 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 09 Jul 2005 : 19:35:53
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Shadovar
Maybe Kelemvor should dismantle the wall of the faithless and put them into the grey wasteland mentioned by Xaean, that should befit a title of a true Lord of the Dead.
For the Faerunian pantheon, I would suspect.
I hold the view that Kelemvor should *only* judge those mortals who are Faithless or False if they fall under the Faerun pantheon of influence.
As do I. It just doesn't make sense for him to have anything to do with people who fall into the purview of other pantheons.
As do I but some of you know that already. :)
Really? I didn't know that...  |
| Kuje |
Posted - 09 Jul 2005 : 18:26:50
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Shadovar
Maybe Kelemvor should dismantle the wall of the faithless and put them into the grey wasteland mentioned by Xaean, that should befit a title of a true Lord of the Dead.
For the Faerunian pantheon, I would suspect.
I hold the view that Kelemvor should *only* judge those mortals who are Faithless or False if they fall under the Faerun pantheon of influence.
As do I. It just doesn't make sense for him to have anything to do with people who fall into the purview of other pantheons.
As do I but some of you know that already. :) |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 09 Jul 2005 : 16:51:16
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Shadovar
Maybe Kelemvor should dismantle the wall of the faithless and put them into the grey wasteland mentioned by Xaean, that should befit a title of a true Lord of the Dead.
For the Faerunian pantheon, I would suspect.
I hold the view that Kelemvor should *only* judge those mortals who are Faithless or False if they fall under the Faerun pantheon of influence.
As do I. It just doesn't make sense for him to have anything to do with people who fall into the purview of other pantheons. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 09 Jul 2005 : 04:37:34
quote:
Originally posted by Shadovar
Maybe Kelemvor should dismantle the wall of the faithless and put them into the grey wasteland mentioned by Xaean, that should befit a title of a true Lord of the Dead.
For the Faerunian pantheon, I would suspect.
I hold the view that Kelemvor should *only* judge those mortals who are Faithless or False if they fall under the Faerun pantheon of influence.
|
| Shadovar |
Posted - 09 Jul 2005 : 02:47:09
quote:
Originally posted by Faramicos
I agree... I have had a hard time figuring out why the faithless had to be punished with torture for not belonging to any certain Faith...
Perhaps it had been Lord Ao's order or some idea of Jergal(the former lord of the dead before Myrkul) or some idea of Myrkul as well? I think the wall of the faithless is to prevent any lost souls who does not belong to any of the deities realms from running amok in the land of the living and causing havoc, hence to maintain order and prevent the living and the dead from mixing with each other, the faithless are all pinned up in the wall of the faithless. |
| Shadovar |
Posted - 09 Jul 2005 : 02:43:59
Maybe Kelemvor should dismantle the wall of the faithless and put them into the grey wasteland mentioned by Xaean, that should befit a title of a true Lord of the Dead. |
| Faramicos |
Posted - 08 Jul 2005 : 20:20:23
I agree... I have had a hard time figuring out why the faithless had to be punished with torture for not belonging to any certain Faith... |
| Xaean |
Posted - 08 Jul 2005 : 14:09:27
According to this book he also doesn't put the Faithless to the Wall, but into a kind of grey wasteland, where they to have to make the best of their afterlife. I think this better describes the way a lawful neutral god of death would treat those who died without faith. |
| Faramicos |
Posted - 08 Jul 2005 : 10:23:00
That is exactly the problem... We are shown some examples in the Trial of Cyric where he gives people of questionable faith a place in his realm and not in the Wall or perhaps with another god more deserving of the soul... Kelemvor is clearly comprimised by his former life as a mortal and his judgment over the dead are clearly coloured by the feelings lingering from his mortal life. He doesnt have the ability to pull away from the individual and look upon the life of the diceased and judge him thereby... This trend is, thank god, altered in the end of the book and Kelemvor regain some respect in my eyes... But his past still lives in the shadow of the present. |
| Shadovar |
Posted - 08 Jul 2005 : 10:08:02
But still Kelemvor still put the faithless on the wall of the faithless in his realm, am I right? I am wondering what he did with the good souls who are also considered faithless, did he pass them on or just hang them up in the wall of the faithless?
Please do correct me if I am wrong. Thanks. |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 08 Jul 2005 : 02:25:53
But at least he has known the touch of death . . . perhaps he better than others to judge mortal souls that have passed on . . . |
| Xaean |
Posted - 08 Jul 2005 : 01:52:17
I like Kelemvor better because he opposes undead. And a God of Death who takes his role serious should be an enemy of all undeath, as undead cheat death. The question remains, if an ascended mortal should become God of Death at all, as death is a cosmic force that existed before the creation of humankind. |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 07 Jul 2005 : 21:09:25
For some reason Cyric always reminds me of Loki as presented in the Thor comic books. Go figure. I also rather like Kelemvor, and I think a god of the dead who has to judge the souls of the dead, should be Lawful neutral. Kel may not be exciting, but then, given his portfolio, is he suppose to be? How exciting is Oghma or Silvanus? |
| Faramicos |
Posted - 07 Jul 2005 : 20:30:13
I am not solely using Crucible in my argumentation, only using it to highlight what i think is a problem in the attitude ragarding death... I was very pleased when Kelemvor turned a more objective eye on the many aspects of his rule and put down an agenda which inspired more respect for death without going to the extremes like Cyric did... I think we agree. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 07 Jul 2005 : 17:32:49
quote:
Originally posted by Faramicos
Much of what you say are excactly what i see as the problem with the new rule of Kelemvor... He is in many ways far better than those before him, but there is one thing that is wrong about him... He is to soft. As i view it, death shouldent be just another part of life. Death should be feared and should make all races strive after staying in the mortal realm for as long as possible... As it is shown in the Avatar books where perople completely stops fearing death and heroes throws their lifes away because they know that Kelemvor is soft and death isnt to be feared when he is the ruler... That isnt, in my ayes, the way to go...
Death should be the ultimate punishment and feared by all... Otherwise, why have it?
Death can be a part of life and still remain something people try to avoid...
Sure, Kelemvor was soft on heroic deaths in one novel, but he has since changed his ways.
In all truthfulness, I grow weary of people basing their opinions of Kelemvor and Mystra solely on the events of the first part of Crucible and ignoring everything else. No offense, of course, but that seems to be the case here.
Back to my original point, though. Just because people accept death and realize its a part of life, that doesn't mean they're not going to fear it or embrace it. Most people, given the choice, would still rather stick to the mortal plane and would go to great lengths to avoid dying -- even if they know that death is something that comes for all.
Myrkul's attitude wasn't about death -- he was into the fear of death. Kelemvor realizes that, fearful or not, death comes for everyone. He recognizes that people may fear it, but he doesn't try to add to that fear, like Myrkul did. He just tries to make people see that it is inevitable, and he tries to treat his charges fairly. What's wrong with that? |
| Jindael |
Posted - 07 Jul 2005 : 12:36:19
I still prefer Myrkul.
Kelemvor is boring. Jergal should just roll his eyes, yoink back his portfolio and be done with it.
Sure, Myrkul is stereotypical and cliché, but at least the dude had some panache.
Also, because of the very specific aspects of death that Myrkul ruled over, it gave death gods of other races a chance to actually be a god and stuff, rather than just Kelemvor’s secretaries.
|
| ode904 |
Posted - 07 Jul 2005 : 12:22:08
Hmm.. What would I say..
Myrkul vs. Bhaal
+
Kelemvor vs. Cyric 'the Mad'
I'll place my bets for Cyric and Bhaal. I just like their names |
| Faramicos |
Posted - 07 Jul 2005 : 11:59:06
Much of what you say are excactly what i see as the problem with the new rule of Kelemvor... He is in many ways far better than those before him, but there is one thing that is wrong about him... He is to soft. As i view it, death shouldent be just another part of life. Death should be feared and should make all races strive after staying in the mortal realm for as long as possible... As it is shown in the Avatar books where perople completely stops fearing death and heroes throws their lifes away because they know that Kelemvor is soft and death isnt to be feared when he is the ruler... That isnt, in my ayes, the way to go...
Death should be the ultimate punishment and feared by all... Otherwise, why have it? |
| The Sage |
Posted - 07 Jul 2005 : 02:17:11
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I like Kelemvor because he's stern but fair, and makes death be just another part of life.
Although I do agree with Wooly, Kelemvor isn't represented in my FR.
quote:
Myrkul I didn't like, because he was another "ooh, death is scary!"-type. Can you say "cliché"?
Myrkul still holds the portfolios he held before the Time or Troubles in my campaign. However, his nature has been slightly altered. Rather than representing the "Death is so scary" theme, Myrkul has taken a step back, embracing the old mysteries of death and promoting a more "Death is the Great Unknown" theme. He's not the Grim Reaper styled creature he was during the early days of the FR published setting, and has little to no active presence in the Realms -- aside from all death-related matters.
quote:
Cyric, as Lord of the Dead, was kinda like that, with some "Heh heh heh, you're mine now!" thrown in.
For a very long time I've held the opinion that Cyric's time as Lord of the Dead was something akin to the classic 60-70's comicbook styled arch-villain. His character and mentality just never seemed to develop past that point. Perhaps, and given more time, Cyric may have evolved to a point where he could effectively represent the Lord of the Dead as something that didn't make DMs roll their eyes every time Cyric appeared in their campaigns.
But, that never happened.
|
| Toedoe |
Posted - 07 Jul 2005 : 01:57:51
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I like Kelemvor because he's stern but fair, and makes death be just another part of life.
Myrkul I didn't like, because he was another "ooh, death is scary!"-type. Can you say "cliché"?
Cyric, as Lord of the Dead, was kinda like that, with some "Heh heh heh, you're mine now!" thrown in.
I have to agree with Wooly here. Myrkul was a stereotype God of the Dead. Cyric's personality wasn't suited for the position. Kel is the best for it. Even Jergal likes working for him. |
| Crennen FaerieBane |
Posted - 07 Jul 2005 : 00:08:38
I always wanted Bhaal to take Myrkul out and steal that role. Bhaal ruled just because his name is cool.
Ok, that was partly a joke. I didn't like any of those characters - but I think Kelemvor is the fairest of all and gives the lowly folk of Faerun less to worry about in the end.
C-Fb |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 06 Jul 2005 : 23:25:16
I like Kelemvor because he's stern but fair, and makes death be just another part of life.
Myrkul I didn't like, because he was another "ooh, death is scary!"-type. Can you say "cliché"?
Cyric, as Lord of the Dead, was kinda like that, with some "Heh heh heh, you're mine now!" thrown in. |
| Anthor The Unforgiver |
Posted - 06 Jul 2005 : 20:43:59
ý would prefer Kelemvor. Cyric was mad and because of that he couldn't control the Dead and fell from the throne of the Dead. Kelemvor would be better. |
| Jindael |
Posted - 06 Jul 2005 : 19:53:59
Cyric, as lord of the dead, doesn’t really fit in with the whole idea of being a judge of souls. I mean, I guess he did it for a while, but still...Cyric?
But, on the other hand, I’ve met toast that was more exciting than Kelemvor.
I miss Myrkul (sp?)
|
