| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| mhamza |
Posted - 17 Jun 2014 : 20:07:09
Since all the Gods are coming back, I did some reading on the FR to re-familiarize myself with the deceased ones, and a thought struck me now since Asmodeus not only killed Azuth to absorb his divine essence but also took over as the Duergar patron God after Laduguer and Deep Duerra's deaths, doesn't this mean that he will probably be wanted dead by the aforementioned three, not to mention possibly Mystra for killing her favorite servant and the Mordinsamman, who despite their enmity with Laduguer, I don't think they can stomach a deity such as Asmodeus taking over an entire dwarven subrace.
So to summarize do any of you think he might be offed? |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Zeromaru X |
Posted - 12 Nov 2024 : 21:13:20
We are in the 1505 DR, according to the last Drizzt novel, and Asmodeus was never in trouble. Even more. seems all this was just according to keikaku all along. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 12 Nov 2024 : 19:07:56
Yeah, they may say that in the 2024 DMG, but personally I'm not big on it. If anything, have Gargauth return and take over Asmodeus' cults. I also like the idea of Deep Duerra and Laduguer returning. I'm all for there being different gods for the Duergar (Orcus, Laduguer, Deep Duerra, etc..) and the duergar having different types of communities as a result. For instance, communities of duergar worshipping orcus should be using undead as workers. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 11 Nov 2024 : 00:34:07
Besides, I don’t think there’s much beyond “cultish” behaviour for Asmodeus in the Realms. Davoren the Warlock [from Erik's Depths of Madness] was a worshipper of Asmodeus, and belonged to a cult of like-minded individuals… which suggests that the Ninth Lord has only some cults scattered around in Faerűn. |
| Delnyn |
Posted - 10 Nov 2024 : 22:00:42
I still doubt Asmodeus has any incentive to join the Faerunian pantheon and put himself under Ao's. His multispheric power outside Realmspace is irrelevant. If anything, becoming a god would be a net downgrade for Asmodeus. |
| TomCosta |
Posted - 10 Nov 2024 : 17:37:06
I think conflicting lore on whether the duergar gods are back or not is sort of the point. It allows for DMs to decide what they want and create stories around it if they choose or ignore it completely if they prefer. So if you liked 4E Realms, this works. If you hated it, it also works. |
| pukunui |
Posted - 10 Nov 2024 : 08:10:22
Apologies for the thread necro. Just wanted to point out that the new 2024 DMG states that Asmodeus has the power of a lesser deity.
Also, although some 5e books made it seem like Laduguer and Deep Derra came back after the Second Sundering, according to Icewind Dale: Rime of the Frostmaiden, it's been Asmodeus All Along. From page 285: "Infernal Master. Asmodeus, lord of the Nine Hells, impersonates duergar gods in order to cultivate evil within the hearts of duergar who are already corrupt. He offers them divine guidance and vengeance against their enemies while urging them to acts of brutality, all the while concealing his identity." |
| redking |
Posted - 09 Jul 2014 : 14:35:08
quote:
Originally posted by The Masked Mage
The logical reason is to appease the people who buy their products. The drastic changes made in the past, for whatever reason, took an incredibly popular product and squashed its potential. At least to me, they seem to be trying to rectify a mistake. At the very least, the leaps one is asked to take to return the realms to its former unique glory are equal to or less than those that were taken taken to get to where we are.
Don't get me wrong. I 1000% agree with you that the changes of the spellplague were reckless and poorly thought out. Replacing whole nations with other nations is beyond foolish.
That said in fixing this problem I hope that they won't cause even more problems. Bringing back Bhaal and Myrkul and the like just reduces the drama of their deaths. Don't like that at all. I didn't even like the return of Bane (unless it is actually Xvim). |
| The Masked Mage |
Posted - 08 Jul 2014 : 18:56:26
The logical reason is to appease the people who buy their products. The drastic changes made in the past, for whatever reason, took an incredibly popular product and squashed its potential. At least to me, they seem to be trying to rectify a mistake. At the very least, the leaps one is asked to take to return the realms to its former unique glory are equal to or less than those that were taken taken to get to where we are. |
| redking |
Posted - 08 Jul 2014 : 11:49:37
I am not liking much of ANY of this retconning. I have read all of the sundering books, except for the most recent.
I hope that WOTC has a logical reason for these deities returning. I know that this is fantasy but this is straining my suspension of disbelief. |
| Arcanus |
Posted - 08 Jul 2014 : 01:53:46
Well she has been inactive for so many years she may as well be dead no matter what canon conflicts there may or may not be.
I tend to think of her as being dead. |
| The Masked Mage |
Posted - 07 Jul 2014 : 23:56:12
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
Aye, Leira is dead. Several 2e and 3e sources confirm this, as did Ao in Crucible as I recall.
There was, however, some hypothetical mental meanderings between George and Steven in '05 that basically posited the idea that Leira was still around and secretly allied with Mask. Their aim: to steal control of the Shadow Weave from Shar who they've been running as their dupe for a while now.
This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. All it would take to reverse every word in the past saying she is dead is a sentence or two in 5th E stating this or some other plot for the future. It really could be any plot an author wanted because a goddess of mischief and magic could be playing at anything and we would not know until the endgame. I like the idea of Mask being her ally, it brings her into all the Cale novels plots without even having her name in print there :P |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 06 Jul 2014 : 15:53:41
quote:
Originally posted by The Arcanamach
I'm not saying that Wizbro shouldn't sell the setting as applied to the rules (NPCs write-ups and whatnot). I'm saying that there's no need to adjust the setting to fit the rules as in the example of killing off gods to justify the changes.
But you pretty much have to adjust the setting for the rulesets... What's the point of a goddess of illusionists when there are no illusionists? When all users of magic are treated identically, why should one group get a deity but not the others? Anyone can be an assassin -- but likewise, anyone can be an archer. Why a deity for one and not the other?
And how can you introduce new game elements to the setting if you're not going to change anything at all in the setting? If I read about a character who is a member of New Niftyclass 7, and I want to make my own New Niftyclass 7 character, I'm not going to play that character in a setting where it's not possible and/or doesn't fit. For example, I love the Realms... But my current character is a Gun Mage, in an Iron Kingdoms campaign. Gun Mages are from the Iron Kingdoms, so they make sense there. As much as I love the character and that concept, though, I'm not even going to try to play him in the Realms.
I'll agree that we don't need an RSE every week, and that the endless flood of RSEs has been ridiculous. But the published Realms is a game setting, and when the rules change, the published Realms has to change to still be a viable game setting. Some changes can be introduced without blowing up everything -- like the still-unexplained sudden use of magic among the previous non-magical dwarves. But some changes need a bigger explanation, and sometimes a major event is the best way to explain large or multiple changes. |
| The Arcanamach |
Posted - 06 Jul 2014 : 14:41:32
I'm not saying that Wizbro shouldn't sell the setting as applied to the rules (NPCs write-ups and whatnot). I'm saying that there's no need to adjust the setting to fit the rules as in the example of killing off gods to justify the changes. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 05 Jul 2014 : 03:46:00
It's hard to sell a game setting when the game has no bearing on or connection to the setting. |
| The Arcanamach |
Posted - 04 Jul 2014 : 23:19:18
quote:
Indeed. It made sense to me that was the reason why because of the same reasons that TSR killed off Bhaal. The ToT was the event to explain the change from 1e to 2e after all, so a lot of the RP events happened because of mechanic changes.
And this is one of the reasons I think they should divorce the rules from the setting. There was no need to kill off the god of assassins and the goddess of illusionists just to explain away the changes in the rules. Especially since one can still BE an assassin or an illusionist. |
| Kuje |
Posted - 04 Jul 2014 : 16:46:21
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
You know, I never put 2 and 2 together on that until you mentioned it just now. Yeah, they killed Bhaal because of the assassin loss even though people could be "assassins" without the class.... probably same reason for Leira.
Indeed. It made sense to me that was the reason why because of the same reasons that TSR killed off Bhaal. The ToT was the event to explain the change from 1e to 2e after all, so a lot of the RP events happened because of mechanic changes. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 04 Jul 2014 : 10:54:38
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
According to what I've seen on this wiki, there are 3e books that say she is dead as well. Of course, the Grand History is one of them on page 144. Lost Empires also seems to have a mention on page 42. However, I no longer have my FR books to check since I put them away in storage.
http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Leira
It wouldn't surprise me either if somewhere in the FRCS or Faiths and Pantheons (In Cyric's entries) that there's not a mention of him killing her.
She was also probably killed off during the edition changes because in 2e there was no longer a separate illusion class/school and it got blended in with general wizard/mage mechanics.
You know, I never put 2 and 2 together on that until you mentioned it just now. Yeah, they killed Bhaal because of the assassin loss even though people could be "assassins" without the class.... probably same reason for Leira. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 04 Jul 2014 : 10:52:14
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
Aye, Leira is dead. Several 2e and 3e sources confirm this, as did Ao in Crucible as I recall.
There was, however, some hypothetical mental meanderings between George and Steven in '05 that basically posited the idea that Leira was still around and secretly allied with Mask. Their aim: to steal control of the Shadow Weave from Shar who they've been running as their dupe for a while now.
Interesting that they were thinking along similar lines to me (Leira and Mask allied, especially since didn't Cyric kill Leira with Godsbane.... the same weapon that deceived Cyric and hid Kelemvor's soul from Cyric and was actually Mask). |
| Kuje |
Posted - 03 Jul 2014 : 04:38:29
According to what I've seen on this wiki, there are 3e books that say she is dead as well. Of course, the Grand History is one of them on page 144. Lost Empires also seems to have a mention on page 42. However, I no longer have my FR books to check since I put them away in storage.
http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Leira
It wouldn't surprise me either if somewhere in the FRCS or Faiths and Pantheons (In Cyric's entries) that there's not a mention of him killing her.
She was also probably killed off during the edition changes because in 2e there was no longer a separate illusion class/school and it got blended in with general wizard/mage mechanics.
|
| The Sage |
Posted - 03 Jul 2014 : 04:18:37
Aye, Leira is dead. Several 2e and 3e sources confirm this, as did Ao in Crucible as I recall.
There was, however, some hypothetical mental meanderings between George and Steven in '05 that basically posited the idea that Leira was still around and secretly allied with Mask. Their aim: to steal control of the Shadow Weave from Shar who they've been running as their dupe for a while now. |
| The Arcanamach |
Posted - 02 Jul 2014 : 13:34:37
I question it (and note that I believe she is dead) because it's fun to speculate and as I said previously I actually like her as a deity. So I would be happy to have her back officially.
It's not worth getting worked up over, it's just fan musings on our part. I know she's dead officially...she's had over 100 years to make a comeback (officially that is) and I think she would have re-emerged if she'd been alive.
My take on this is that TSR/Wizbro didn't think she was a very popular deity and chose to leave her dead. Bane/Bhaal/Myrkul and especially Mystra were more popular (and people complained) so the powers that be brought them back in some fashion. Leira hasn't received nearly as much attention from the fans and has been left on the wayside. That's just what I think anyway.
But she's still interesting (moreso than many others IMHO) and bears a retake on her status of being/remaining dead. Again, IMHO. And I'm in complete agreement that her status as goddess of lies and illusions would make her return supremely interesting.
Cheers. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 02 Jul 2014 : 13:16:06
Please, show me a source that chronologically came after Faiths & Avatars that explicitly implies Leira is alive. An absence of mention is by no means an implication she's alive. |
| The Masked Mage |
Posted - 02 Jul 2014 : 13:08:12
Yep. That's the write up I mentioned earlier. And the only time in any sourcebook I've seen anywhere that says flat out she is dead, despite other sources (even ones by the same writer) saying its possible she is not.
My point with the failure to list is that your argument was "All canon sources say Leira is dead. Nothing at all implies she isn't." There is only one source that says she is hands down dead and EVERYTHING ELSE implies she isn't. To make matters worse, unlike the others from the time of troubles her death occurs offstage. She's the - oh yeah by the way Leira is dead too. Do you honestly not see that as dubious when coupled with asides suggesting it is all deception created by the goddess of deception? What is more interesting and probable Cyric somehow manages to hunt down Leira - in her domain in Limbo mind you where he is totally out of his element, and then both surprise her and kill her there without being noticed by anyone for a while. Or the most complex deception in FR history coming right from the goddess of deception.
What is more the style of good old Ed Greenwood FR? A many layered subtle mystery or a hack & slash tableau?
By the way, I asked Ed this once and got his - Sorry I'm afraid I can't answer that question, which to me seemed like someone was going to write about it some time, but that was too long ago to hope its been in the works for so long. I'm going to stick with the much more interesting plot until comes out with a response like the line there from F&A saying that it is correct and all the rest is hogwash. I don't see that happening any time soon.
At any rate, clearly this is one where you and I will never see eye to eye :) And here I thought the Master of Mischief himself would be all for a goddess who's mischief spans centuries and dupes the biggest tool in the pantheon. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 02 Jul 2014 : 12:40:12
The 2E FRCS predates the revelation that Leira was dead.
But the write-up for Leira in Faiths & Avatars is quite clear. Page 93: "Despite a fog of counterclaims and declarations, Leira perished shortly after the Time of Troubles at the hands of Cyric and Mask (in the form of Godsbane)."
And I don't see how a failure to list a dead deity in a later source is proof of anything, especially after it is established in both fiction and sourcebooks that said deity is dead. Should we question the death of Ibrandul, based on a lack of mentions in 3E? Should we question the deaths of Murdane or Valigan Thirdborn, based on their lack of mention in 4E?
Actually, shouldn't the failure to mention her be considered further proof that she's dead? |
| The Masked Mage |
Posted - 02 Jul 2014 : 09:59:26
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
It's actually a good point to flip around -- what is so dramatically different about Leira that we have to continually question every canon source that flat out says she is dead, when this was not done for any other deity? No one has questioned whether or not Bane was dead, no one has questioned whether or not Bhaal was dead...
All canon sources say Leira is dead. Nothing at all implies she isn't. Why do we keep questioning it?
Unfortunately Wooly, this is just not the case. A time or two she has been listed as dead, but in most sources they say it is a mystery (examples to follow :P).
There is nothing about her - being dead or otherwise in 4th E - and I think we can all agree that it wouldn't matter if it did as all things divine in 4th E are to be cast aside.
In The 3rd Edition Campaign Setting source book it says nothing about her at all. The same is true of the Faiths and Pantheons book. The odd thing is that F&P does have a small section on dead powers but fails to name her...
On to 2nd Edition where all the hints and controversy come from :)
The old Forgotten Realms Adventures hardcover points out that: "since the church knows that most people believe the statements are lies, Leira could stage her own death, report the truth, and have everyone believe her dead. As usual, the gods aren't talking about this."
This is her write up in the 2nd Ed. Campaign Setting Box Set:
"Leira, the Lady of the Mists, is or was the goddess of deception and illusion, the Patroness of Illusionists and Liars. Her appearance, even her very existence, is in doubt. If she still exists, her home would be in the swirling mists of the plane of Limbo.
Leira is (was?) a chaotic neutral minor lesser power, little worshipped except by illusionists, who credit her with their language of Ruathlek.
Leira is believed to be dead, having perished in mysterious circumstances in the Time of Troubles, with her portfolio and worshippers picked up by another god or goddess. In the time since then, no power has stepped forward to claim Leira’s small congregation, or to confirm or deny Leira’s passing. The matter cannot rest long, and a definite response is sure to be forthcoming.
Finally, the Faiths And Avatars expansion from 2nd Ed. has a 4 page section about the dead gods - how they died, what that means, etc. Leira is not mentioned in it even once. Why not? Above I quoted the other hints from her write up later in the book in an earlier post.
In all, I'd say it is hardly as black and white as you believe it to be. Are there a couple times where it says she is dead in a source other than the passage we've been discussing from Prince Of Lies? Yes, but almost all of them then go on to say that it might be a lie.
I, for one, think that this could be made into the most interesting return for a deity FR has seen so far. The possibilities are literally limitless. All your questions as to why it would have been done have so many possible answers that could make for a great novel if taken up by one of the great writers FR has... |
| Delwa |
Posted - 02 Jul 2014 : 06:52:43
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Deities in the Realms have come back from the dead before... But coming back from being dead does require being dead.
Leira being dead doesn't really differ at all from when Bane or Bhaal were dead, or the many deaths of Mystra... Except for the fact that while Bane and Bhaal were dead, no one tried to make a case that they weren't dead. And no one has tried to make the case that Mystryl and Mystra 1.0 aren't dead, either.
It's actually a good point to flip around -- what is so dramatically different about Leira that we have to continually question every canon source that flat out says she is dead, when this was not done for any other deity? No one has questioned whether or not Bane was dead, no one has questioned whether or not Bhaal was dead...
I'm not aware of any place in canon that says Ao is always truthful... But I'm also not aware of any reason at all that he would feel obligated to lie, and I'm similarly unaware of any past instances of him being untruthful.
All canon sources say Leira is dead. Nothing at all implies she isn't. Why do we keep questioning it?
That makes sense. I guess the converse of that is none of the aforementioned deities have the portfolio of lies/deception, which would indicate that if anyone would be lying, it would be her.
I need to find a way to place bets on both sides of the debate so that I come out on top no matter what...  |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 02 Jul 2014 : 06:11:14
Deities in the Realms have come back from the dead before... But coming back from being dead does require being dead.
Leira being dead doesn't really differ at all from when Bane or Bhaal were dead, or the many deaths of Mystra... Except for the fact that while Bane and Bhaal were dead, no one tried to make a case that they weren't dead. And no one has tried to make the case that Mystryl and Mystra 1.0 aren't dead, either.
It's actually a good point to flip around -- what is so dramatically different about Leira that we have to continually question every canon source that flat out says she is dead, when this was not done for any other deity? No one has questioned whether or not Bane was dead, no one has questioned whether or not Bhaal was dead...
I'm not aware of any place in canon that says Ao is always truthful... But I'm also not aware of any reason at all that he would feel obligated to lie, and I'm similarly unaware of any past instances of him being untruthful.
All canon sources say Leira is dead. Nothing at all implies she isn't. Why do we keep questioning it? |
| Delwa |
Posted - 02 Jul 2014 : 05:20:59
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
To murder someone is to end their life. I don't see much room for playing with semantics, there.
And I personally assume that Ao wasn't lying because he has nothing to gain by lying, and because all subsequent lore has backed up the fact that Leira is dead. Not vanished, not rumored dead but may have been seen in Vegas with an Elvis impersonator, not pining for the fjords, but flat out dead.
Just adding inquiry to the discussion. What would you say to the idea that it's evident that "dead" when referring to a deity in the Realms doesn't quite have the finality that referring to a dead relative does in this world?
Saying a god is dead in the Realms seems to merely mean they aren't manifesting in the pantheon for one reason or another. We might find later they were in some other form surviving, but not exactly fulfilling their roles as a being to be worshipped.
How is Leira being dead any different from Mystra, or Bane, or Bhaal being dead?
Is it because Ao said so, and if so, where in canon does it say Ao is always truthful? (Not saying it doesn't, I'm not that well read, I'm merely asking) |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 02 Jul 2014 : 04:56:07
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
quote:
Originally posted by The Arcanamach
MM I agree with your assessment, but how do you reconcile Ao's statement that Leira is dead? Are you basically saying that since she was 'playing by the rules [of her portfolio]' that Ao would assist in the lie? Why not simply remain silent then and let the gods believe as they wanted?
Let me reverse that question.... Why WOULDN'T Ao help a god follow their tenets if his doing so is as simple as telling a lie? After all, its always best to reward/support employees who are good at their job.
Why is he helping one deity and not another? Doesn't showing favoritism like that upset the Balance? |
| The Arcanamach |
Posted - 02 Jul 2014 : 01:04:26
You have a point sleyvas...other than just assuming he doesn't lie (and I won't make that assumption) there's not plausible reason why he wouldn't and I certainly don't think he would be above it if it served some purpose. |
|
|
