| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Darius Talynth
Acolyte
Canada
21 Posts |
 Posted - 02 Dec 2008 : 03:31:00
|
I have enjoyed all of the discussion reading through the thread thus far and its evolution into the comments about the over gods...
So i feel guilty reeling back to comment somewhat on the original post...
seeing this thread lead me to my copy of FOR1 Draconomicon, the first FR accessory in the FOR series and published in 1990. Here was the first mention to my recollection of Asgorath the world shaper and this was before we had mention of Io. Ao first arrives though in the 1989 novel Shadowdale, first of the Avatar trilogy. I believe Io first appears later in a generic 2e accessory that discussed deities for monsters (I can't remember the title maybe Monster Mythology? although I own the book). In this book they "retcon" Asgorath into Io when they discuss how to use this new book with FR. Mind you Zorquan (the Greatest Wyrm!) is also combined into this new Io as well IIRC.
So "Ao does not equal Io".
For what it is worth, FOR1 Draconomicon remains one of my favorite FR accessories. The fluff was fantastic and I tried to incorporate it right away into my campaign even creating a human paladin on loan to Xymor (now retconned back into bahamut)... I think FOR1 Draconomicon is the best of the D&D products, realms or otherwise, on dragons. Just my opinion of course.. |
Edited by - Darius Talynth on 02 Dec 2008 03:36:48 |
 |
|
|
Gray Richardson
Master of Realmslore
USA
1291 Posts |
Posted - 02 Dec 2008 : 08:04:49
|
There's also a bunch about the dragon gods in Cult of the Dragon supplement. I don't think that Io uses the name "Io" in the Realms, but goes by Asgorath, and is usually refered to as a "she". Asgorath (Asgoroth?) appears in the 4e FRCS in the history section too (that part written by Brian James).
To what extent Asgorath is a manifestation, fragment, avatar, or alias of Io is open to debate. It might be more of a Takhisis/Tiamat type of situation where Asgorath is more of a cognate to Io. Asgorath is acknowledged as the mother/creator of dragons on Toril.
|
|
|
|
Quale
Master of Realmslore
1757 Posts |
Posted - 07 Dec 2008 : 10:11:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
Hmmm... Would you have had Aoskar occupy the position held by the Lady of Pain before his demise, Quale?
there are many possibilities like the one Gray suggested
think it would be a waste that the name ''Aoskar'' is just a coincidence
my theory is that he was an Imaskari creation, artificial, construct of divine energy
he didn't rule Sigil before the Lady, he was an Imaskari attempt to take over
they figured the Lady would be similar to Ao in design, hence the name
why she didn't destroy him right away he entered the city is a mystery
maybe she kept him for a future lesson, maybe he really was a growing threat until the destruction of Imaskar (both probably destroyed at the same time considering some unofficial timelines, though in our alternate FR Imaskar was destroyed by the rilmani), maybe she thought Aoskar would be her liberator
|
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36793 Posts |
Posted - 07 Dec 2008 : 13:34:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by Quale
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
Hmmm... Would you have had Aoskar occupy the position held by the Lady of Pain before his demise, Quale?
there are many possibilities like the one Gray suggested
think it would be a waste that the name ''Aoskar'' is just a coincidence
my theory is that he was an Imaskari creation, artificial, construct of divine energy
he didn't rule Sigil before the Lady, he was an Imaskari attempt to take over
they figured the Lady would be similar to Ao in design, hence the name
why she didn't destroy him right away he entered the city is a mystery
maybe she kept him for a future lesson, maybe he really was a growing threat until the destruction of Imaskar (both probably destroyed at the same time considering some unofficial timelines, though in our alternate FR Imaskar was destroyed by the rilmani), maybe she thought Aoskar would be her liberator
Two questions: Why would they want to take over Sigil? If they had that much power, they could have bypassed it and gone anywhere on the planes. And how did they know about Ao? He was unknown before his appearance at the end of the ToT, and he took steps to ensure that knowledge of him would vanish. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
Draezen
Acolyte
25 Posts |
Posted - 07 Dec 2008 : 18:08:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gray Richardson
I think Aoskar was just an ordinary god of portals.
My theory is that Aoskar was an ascended Imaskari wizard, probably one of the first. Maybe even the inventor (or at least discoverer) of portal magic for the Imaskari. Or if not the inventor at least then maybe the best known practitioner of the art.
I think it possible that the name "Imaskar" derives from Aoskar's name. Im'Aoskar could be a genitive or a clan-name form of Aoskar's name. Similar to the Scottish name "O'Leary". Over time, "Im'Aoskar" elided into "Imaskar", the name we are more familiar with.
While the Imaskari were thought to be godless, I would be surprised if none of them ever considered becoming gods. It seems like a natural progression for Aoskar, having mastered portal magic, risen to the leadership of his people, and presumably gained class levels above 20+, to want to explore divine ascension.
Of course, once he ascended Aoskar would still be hard-pressed to get the godless Imaskari to actually revere him as a god. They might have been impressed by his ascension but were not the type to then fall to their knees in worship of him. The Imaskari thought themselves peers of gods, not followers of them. Aoskar's curiosity, love of planewalking, and need to attract followers would have driven him to leave his people behind to wander the planes and nurture a worshiper base.
Rip Van Wormer wrote a very cool story about how the Imaskari may have actually created Sigil (sort of). It is an amazing little piece. Thinking on it, I could imagine Aoskar as Sigil's master architect, or perhaps the one who crafted all of Sigil's portals. It might explain why Aoskar's presence was tolerated for so long by the Lady of Pain.
After a little googling I found the link to Rip's story here: How the Imaskari Created Sigil, by Rip Van Wormer Check it out! It is worth a read.
Interesting thoughts. These here, and also the ones before.
Btw, I didn't know that story of ripvanwormer. Maybe I should throw in The True Story of Ao  |
Realms 4e NPC Characters / Realms 4e Cosmology, Deities, & More
Participate in your own manipulation! |
Edited by - Draezen on 07 Dec 2008 18:09:20 |
|
|
|
Quale
Master of Realmslore
1757 Posts |
Posted - 08 Dec 2008 : 10:06:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Why would they want to take over Sigil? If they had that much power, they could have bypassed it and gone anywhere on the planes. And how did they know about Ao? He was unknown before his appearance at the end of the ToT, and he took steps to ensure that knowledge of him would vanish.
Sigil is not just portals, it's geopolitically the most attractive place in existence
it doesn't mean that they had the power to create something similar to Ao, that was the goal, hence the name, that was the theory but who knows how far they were from accomplishing the impossible, also the development of Aoskar took thousands of years, they didn't had the power right away
Learning about the existence of Ao, there are ways, outside of the crystal sphere Ao cannot conceal its identity that effectively, they could have learned it through bargains with powerful planar entities (or their manipulations), by capturing and interrogating gods in Ao's service, researching the nature of reality of Realmspace and learning that is one basic concept behind it all (probably some hidden demiplane out of Ao's reach)
considering how historical records are always flawed we cannot be sure of the number of Ao's appearances to mortals
|
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36793 Posts |
Posted - 08 Dec 2008 : 15:29:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by Quale
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Why would they want to take over Sigil? If they had that much power, they could have bypassed it and gone anywhere on the planes. And how did they know about Ao? He was unknown before his appearance at the end of the ToT, and he took steps to ensure that knowledge of him would vanish.
Sigil is not just portals, it's geopolitically the most attractive place in existence
it doesn't mean that they had the power to create something similar to Ao, that was the goal, hence the name, that was the theory but who knows how far they were from accomplishing the impossible, also the development of Aoskar took thousands of years, they didn't had the power right away
Learning about the existence of Ao, there are ways, outside of the crystal sphere Ao cannot conceal its identity that effectively, they could have learned it through bargains with powerful planar entities (or their manipulations), by capturing and interrogating gods in Ao's service, researching the nature of reality of Realmspace and learning that is one basic concept behind it all (probably some hidden demiplane out of Ao's reach)
considering how historical records are always flawed we cannot be sure of the number of Ao's appearances to mortals
Ao surely hasn't appeared so many times that word of him would spread to other crystal spheres... And I don't see the Imaskari having enough power to capture and interrogate a deity. Lastly, Ao is the most powerful thing in Realmspace. I doubt anyone would think to look beyond the gods, and even if they did, Ao would be able to hide himself. If he's not been found by anyone until he showed up, I don't see that someone might happen to find out about him.
Considering that the Imaskari had enough disdain for deities to block their access to the sphere and then to battle them, I can't see them deciding -- for any reason -- to make one of their own. And even if they did that, why name it after an existing deity, rather than after a particular Imaskari ruler or hero?
No offense, but it is my opinion that you are really reaching here. I don't see any way to assume a connection, and attempting to make that connection simply does not work. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31716 Posts |
Posted - 08 Dec 2008 : 23:09:46
|
Alternatively, it doesn't necessarily have to be "all" Imaskari who share this view. There may be a small number who take some perverse pleasure in twisting a deity to their own whims and using its power against other gods... before ultimately abandoning the abused god itself. The final insult to their power, so to speak.
As for naming a particular deity after an existing one... well, it could make for a convenient cover for a time -- hiding a new deity behind the personae of an existing power. We know gods themselves impersonate other gods sometimes in order to increase their power and/or corrupt a certain element of another god's faith. And if this group of Imaskari are initially keen on their god garnering enough mortal faith from followers, such an act of disguise should help.
|
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
Matt James
Forgotten Realms Game Designer
USA
918 Posts |
Posted - 09 Dec 2008 : 14:36:05
|
| Wow, this thread is a cash-cow of information. Please keep your thought-processes going, I love the information gleaned thus far. |
|
|
|
Lemernis
Senior Scribe
378 Posts |
Posted - 10 Dec 2008 : 11:49:38
|
| * oops, posted wrong thread, sorry * |
Edited by - Lemernis on 10 Dec 2008 11:50:39 |
|
|
|
Quale
Master of Realmslore
1757 Posts |
Posted - 11 Dec 2008 : 14:22:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
No offense, but it is my opinion that you are really reaching here. I don't see any way to assume a connection, and attempting to make that connection simply does not work.
no prob, but reaching, I said in the first post, in my own more Athar-like perspective, all other posts originated from that
quote:
Ao surely hasn't appeared so many times that word of him would spread to other crystal spheres...
One time is enough, AO created the universe 70,000 years ago, and that attracted attention, particularly cause the universe had somewhat different rules. Gods have greater power (are behind all beliefs), therefore Ao has grater control, and the universe is more sheltered. One example are the events involving Vheraun and Inthricis. Such Ao's actions, no matter how well the universe is sheltered (and it isn't cause of many interlopers), have consequences in the multiverse, e.g. they could inspire unfriendly reactions of beings that don't care about the worshippers, but still want their own piece of the pie.
quote:
And I don't see the Imaskari having enough power to capture and interrogate a deity.
is DvR 1 deity aware of Ao? think they're capable, comparing this and the divine barrier or Pandorym
quote:
I doubt anyone would think to look beyond the gods
when you believe the gods are frauds, it's logical that you'll wonder about something beyond
quote:
Considering that the Imaskari had enough disdain for deities to block their access to the sphere and then to battle them, I can't see them deciding -- for any reason -- to make one of their own.
Mockery? scientific experiment? just cause they can? I don't think it was like a taboo for them, traveling folk are likely to be open-minded. I said it was like the construct that collected divine energy, for them it was just a type of energy like any other. If you don't worship/like it, it doesn't mean that it can't be useful.
quote:
And even if they did that, why name it after an existing deity, rather than after a particular Imaskari ruler or hero?
Cause the names are partially deterministic according to the arcana/occult. The name could shape the development of the being. Maybe ''Ao'' was somehow bound to ''skar'', whatever that meant (people?).
It's possible that they didn't know what is Ao, but the master artificer was seeing the word everywhere, or it came to him in a dream, vision etc., sent by Asmodeus (who likes to support disbelief in deities), Demogorgon (who just wanted to shake things up), or leshay (fey are dreamy folk, and they've been there before Realmspace)
or it was Ao that wanted to take over Sigil. |
|
|
|
Razz
Senior Scribe
USA
749 Posts |
Posted - 14 Dec 2008 : 19:49:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kilvan
Of course, Io is not even part of the forgotten realms, so the odds are that there is none. But since I started in the FR setting only 6 years ago, there is alot of lore behind me, so maybe.
Io is, indeed, a part of the Forgotten Realms. He was mentioned in the 2E FR book "Draconomicon" as going by the alias "Asgorath".
He is, I am sure, mentioned in the 3E FR book "Dragons of Faerun" in Chapter 1. Though the draconic pantheon hasn't been directly involved with Faerun as the other deities in millenia, they're still present and still grant their (very few) draconic (and sometimes non-draconic) servants their spells when worshipped. Now, as of Dragons of Faerun, the Great Cycle began again and the first of the deities that started to become much more active lately is Bahamut as he fights against Tiamat (who has been heavily active since a little before the Time of Troubles). I would say Null (who has 2 aspects in addition to his original, as Falazure and Chronepsis) is a close 3rd in activity, or probably tied with Bahamut.
Of course, none of this will ever come to light thanks to abrupt intervention of $E and you now have totally skewed interpretations or inconsistent lore concerning all of that in the new FR anyway. |
|
|
|
Stonwulfe
Seeker
Canada
81 Posts |
Posted - 14 Dec 2008 : 21:58:01
|
Here's the gist: this is a debate that is tied closely to the 'gods system' inherent to poltheism, monotheism, and theophilosophic debate in general. Within and without games context.
The question is: "Does [a] God have perfect Law, or perfect Will?"
The difference is that a Perfect Law (PL) God really can create a rock so heavy not even he can lift it, thus creating a universal law binding to even he. The perfect law then supercedes the power of the PL God, and this type of God's power comes from being a lawmaker. A Perfect Will (PW) God can do anything he pleases, anytime he wishes, anyhow he chooses because the universe obeys his will.
The problem with the former is that we must come to see our God(s) as being an integral part of our universe, and not supreme beings - merely extraordinarily powerful. The latter poses the problem of being distant, fickle God(s) prone to change their mind as they please - there's no security with a fickle God, and no knowing their intentions.
The Faerunian pantheon is the former. Ao, Io, Chaos, and the Lady of Blades are examples of the latter.
It is this simple. |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 15 Dec 2008 : 14:10:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Stonwulfe
The problem with the former is that we must come to see our God(s) as being an integral part of our universe, and not supreme beings - merely extraordinarily powerful.
That's a problem?
|
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
|
Stonwulfe
Seeker
Canada
81 Posts |
Posted - 15 Dec 2008 : 19:16:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
That's a problem?
For devout Christians, Muslims, and Jews... Yes. The standard monotheist view echoes our own relationship with the environment and our world. God is separate, and all of the universe is created, modified, and inspired by him. He can do with it what he wants. In turn, he created us in his image, so we can do whatever the hell we want with the world and get away with it Scot-free, because he said we can.
Whereas, if God is just a part of our universe, and not the separate inspirational creator we imagine him to be, then we have to change how we view God, how we view ourselves, and how we view notions of 'life, liberty, and property' that Locke shoved into the Western psyche. Because it would mean everyone - everything - has a place and that there are some laws you cannot break.
Now let me tell you what I really think... |
Edited by - Stonwulfe on 15 Dec 2008 19:18:49 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36793 Posts |
|
|
Draezen
Acolyte
25 Posts |
Posted - 16 Dec 2008 : 12:01:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Stonwulfe
The Faerunian pantheon is the former. Ao, Io, Chaos, and the Lady of Blades are examples of the latter.
According to that logic it would be only Ao, but not Io or Chaos, since they can't do anything they want ;) |
Realms 4e NPC Characters / Realms 4e Cosmology, Deities, & More
Participate in your own manipulation! |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Io and Ao
