| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| scuda |
Posted - 20 Oct 2018 : 11:09:32
Hello,
There are now conflicting Canon—I think—instances where the great temple of Kossuth in Thay, the Flaming Brazier, is placed in both:
- Eltabbar (novel Unclean and the Forgotten Realms wiki (3.5e +).
- Bezantur (Powers and Pantheons (2e)
So, where is it really?!?
Cheers. |
| 9 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| cpthero2 |
Posted - 29 Feb 2020 : 21:48:43
Master Rupert,
Yeah, I hear you there. I personally liked the ToT to about a 90% range. There were some things that were a bit not to my liking, but alas, that is how it goes.
As to the consistency, I just feel they've gone to far with lore being seemingly tossed out in the sense of consistency, so this place is of huge importance.
Best regards,
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by cpthero2
Master Rupert,
That completely makes sense. Ahhh...it's just always that itch that wants to get scratched with the consistency of course.
I'm a huge fan of consistency and it's part of what drew me to the Realms. My issues with a lot of the changes aren't (in most cases) with what was done, but with the failure to explain the change or make it consistent with prior lore.
We each have our things that people like and dislike... We still have people that hated the Time of Troubles, and really liked the Dead Three. Me, I liked the ToT and I loved Myrkul as an intelligent artifact happily causing trouble and enjoying being free of the constraints of divinity -- I thought that had so much more potential than Myrkul as a "Ooh, death is scary!" deity.
But that's not to everyone's liking. So as long as we all respect each other's opinions, it's all good.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 29 Feb 2020 : 19:19:29
quote:
Originally posted by cpthero2
Master Rupert,
That completely makes sense. Ahhh...it's just always that itch that wants to get scratched with the consistency of course.
I'm a huge fan of consistency and it's part of what drew me to the Realms. My issues with a lot of the changes aren't (in most cases) with what was done, but with the failure to explain the change or make it consistent with prior lore.
We each have our things that people like and dislike... We still have people that hated the Time of Troubles, and really liked the Dead Three. Me, I liked the ToT and I loved Myrkul as an intelligent artifact happily causing trouble and enjoying being free of the constraints of divinity -- I thought that had so much more potential than Myrkul as a "Ooh, death is scary!" deity.
But that's not to everyone's liking. So as long as we all respect each other's opinions, it's all good. |
| cpthero2 |
Posted - 29 Feb 2020 : 17:55:04
Master Rupert,
That completely makes sense. Ahhh...it's just always that itch that wants to get scratched with the consistency of course.
Best regards,
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by cpthero2
Master Rupert,
Do you know if there have ever been discussions among folk at the 'Keep regarding getting a sort of, "This is our official/unofficial look at things" tome together that summates corrections such as what Seeker scuda mentioned, i.e. this place is really over here, forget that one listing in that other book.
I know that would be huge, especially with all of the stuff that WotC continues to pump out, but it seems like maybe someone already thought of that?
Everybody has their own unofficial look at things.
All eras of the Realms have their fans here. Trying to come up with any kind of "this is our version of what's canon" thing is doomed to failure, even if such a thing was even desired -- and since it would, by design, rule out some things that some people like, it's certainly not something a lot of people would embrace.
I'd be against such a thing, personally -- I may not like what was done to the Realms in the 4E era, but I'm not going to tell anyone they're wrong or unwelcome if they like that era.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 29 Feb 2020 : 17:40:13
quote:
Originally posted by cpthero2
Master Rupert,
Do you know if there have ever been discussions among folk at the 'Keep regarding getting a sort of, "This is our official/unofficial look at things" tome together that summates corrections such as what Seeker scuda mentioned, i.e. this place is really over here, forget that one listing in that other book.
I know that would be huge, especially with all of the stuff that WotC continues to pump out, but it seems like maybe someone already thought of that?
Everybody has their own unofficial look at things.
All eras of the Realms have their fans here. Trying to come up with any kind of "this is our version of what's canon" thing is doomed to failure, even if such a thing was even desired -- and since it would, by design, rule out some things that some people like, it's certainly not something a lot of people would embrace.
I'd be against such a thing, personally -- I may not like what was done to the Realms in the 4E era, but I'm not going to tell anyone they're wrong or unwelcome if they like that era. |
| cpthero2 |
Posted - 29 Feb 2020 : 15:23:00
Master Rupert,
Do you know if there have ever been discussions among folk at the 'Keep regarding getting a sort of, "This is our official/unofficial look at things" tome together that summates corrections such as what Seeker scuda mentioned, i.e. this place is really over here, forget that one listing in that other book.
I know that would be huge, especially with all of the stuff that WotC continues to pump out, but it seems like maybe someone already thought of that?
Best regards,
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Newer lore trumps older lore, officially -- but for me, I'd go with any 2E lore before anything post-2E, because with the advent of 3E, they stop being concerned about prior continuity.
|
| sleyvas |
Posted - 21 Oct 2018 : 22:54:32
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
It's really in Bezantur but RLB dropped the ball on this one and his editor didn't do much better - Mythrellan *cough*. Just ignore the reference to it being in Eltabbar, difficult as that may be.
And I don't think that "newer lore trumps old lore" when a few sentences in a novel are expected to count more than a full write-up in a sourcebook. No way.
-- George Krashos
I'm so glad I'm not the only one that that bugs so much (the Mythrellan reference). She is Mythrell'aa to me (though I have a nasty tendency to spell it Mythrella'a), and I personally have played it up that she faked her death and the Mythrellan name is part of that faking of her death.
Also, agree, definitely Bezantur. |
| scuda |
Posted - 21 Oct 2018 : 14:35:03
Thanks for the quick responses.
I'll go with 2e, since...well, it makes more sense. |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 20 Oct 2018 : 16:56:01
It's really in Bezantur but RLB dropped the ball on this one and his editor didn't do much better - Mythrellan *cough*. Just ignore the reference to it being in Eltabbar, difficult as that may be.
And I don't think that "newer lore trumps old lore" when a few sentences in a novel are expected to count more than a full write-up in a sourcebook. No way.
-- George Krashos |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 20 Oct 2018 : 16:15:49
Newer lore trumps older lore, officially -- but for me, I'd go with any 2E lore before anything post-2E, because with the advent of 3E, they stop being concerned about prior continuity. |
|
|
