| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Mournblade
Master of Realmslore
USA
1287 Posts |
 Posted - 08 Jul 2014 : 05:29:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Seethyr
You are all very articulate on what you like and dislike about the changes being made in 5e. I have some similar thoughts, but without really being able to explain it, I just FEEL like the Realms I loved and read for decades is coming back. Who knows if I'll ever find a product like the gray box again (that I retread 100x) and truth be told, I will be utterly disappointed if Maztica doesn't make a comeback at some point, but this is legitimately the first time in a decade (at least) I've liked the direction we're heading. Of course, I still reserve final judgement...
Didn't you get the memo? WOTC said long ago NO ONE played in Maztica or the old empires. Your campaign must be false, because well nobody liked it. So it was better to create a new campaign world that probably wouldn't sell and tag it onto the Forgotten Realms and take up page space.
The 100 year time jump and Returned Abeir was the biggest problem with the 4e shift. Eventually enough story is made to make the time jump bearable. Abeir though I want to see go far far away. I would even say let it have its own book and stand on its own. I don't want Abeir destroyed, I just want it out of the realms where it was arbitrarily placed.
|
A wizard is Never late Frodo Baggins. Nor is he Early. A wizard arrives precisely when he means to... |
 |
|
|
Seethyr
Master of Realmslore
USA
1151 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jul 2014 : 06:38:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
quote:
Originally posted by Seethyr
You are all very articulate on what you like and dislike about the changes being made in 5e. I have some similar thoughts, but without really being able to explain it, I just FEEL like the Realms I loved and read for decades is coming back. Who knows if I'll ever find a product like the gray box again (that I retread 100x) and truth be told, I will be utterly disappointed if Maztica doesn't make a comeback at some point, but this is legitimately the first time in a decade (at least) I've liked the direction we're heading. Of course, I still reserve final judgement...
Didn't you get the memo? WOTC said long ago NO ONE played in Maztica or the old empires. Your campaign must be false, because well nobody liked it. So it was better to create a new campaign world that probably wouldn't sell and tag it onto the Forgotten Realms and take up page space.
The 100 year time jump and Returned Abeir was the biggest problem with the 4e shift. Eventually enough story is made to make the time jump bearable. Abeir though I want to see go far far away. I would even say let it have its own book and stand on its own. I don't want Abeir destroyed, I just want it out of the realms where it was arbitrarily placed.
Haha yes, my favorite subsetting was virtually ignored in 3e and shunted into oblivion soon after, but the Cancer in me (Zodiac sign that is) makes me a sucker sometimes. I actually hope, and believe, that this time around they'll do right by the fans. |
Follow the Maztica (Aztec/Maya) and Anchorome (Indigenous North America) Campaigns on DMsGuild!
The Maztica Campaign
The Anchorome Campaign |
|
|
|
hobbitfan
Learned Scribe
USA
164 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jul 2014 : 07:23:48
|
| I am hopeful that they will do right both by way of the fans and stewardships of the setting. |
|
|
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jul 2014 : 13:23:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
I suspect more will be revealed at GEN-CON re the 5th Ed. iteration of the Realms.
The chances however of the dragons/drow/gods RSE cycle slowing down or WotC moving to a different product model for the Realms is likely zero however. That's what they know and what they are convinced sells.
-- George Krashos
I hope the post more videos (like they did two years ago when the announced 5e) than they did last year for those of us unable to attend GenCon. |
Errant d20 Designer - My Blog (last updated January 06, 2016)
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back. --Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass
"Mmm, not the darkness," Myrin murmured. "Don't cast it there." --Erik Scott de Bie, Shadowbane
* My character sheets (PFRPG, 3.5, and AE versions; not viewable in Internet Explorer)
* Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document (PFRPG OGL Rules)
* The Hypertext d20 SRD (3.5 OGL Rules)
* 3.5 D&D Archives
My game design work:
* Heroes of the Jade Oath (PFRPG, conversion; Rite Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 1: Cantrips & Orisons (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 2: 1st-Level Spells (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Martial Arts Guidebook (forthcoming) (PFRPG, designer; Rite Publishing)
|
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jul 2014 : 18:10:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
quote:
Originally posted by Seethyr
You are all very articulate on what you like and dislike about the changes being made in 5e. I have some similar thoughts, but without really being able to explain it, I just FEEL like the Realms I loved and read for decades is coming back. Who knows if I'll ever find a product like the gray box again (that I retread 100x) and truth be told, I will be utterly disappointed if Maztica doesn't make a comeback at some point, but this is legitimately the first time in a decade (at least) I've liked the direction we're heading. Of course, I still reserve final judgement...
Didn't you get the memo? WOTC said long ago NO ONE played in Maztica or the old empires. Your campaign must be false, because well nobody liked it. So it was better to create a new campaign world that probably wouldn't sell and tag it onto the Forgotten Realms and take up page space.
I think it's more likely that the larger majority didn't purchase or utilize Maztica the way other ares of the setting were used. I'm not sure how they came about this information but I rarely heard much of anything about Maztica except for that one novel series where the Helmites messed up and some info here and there.
I mean, is it such a big wonder why we keep getting large updates on places like Baldur's Gate? Waterdeep? Cormyr? Neverwinter? and even the Western Heartlands? It's probably because more people have been introduced to those areas from other media (video games, novels, etc.) besides TSR-era source books. Can you tell me a novel or video game that we set for the majority of the time in Impiltur? or Nar? or The Vast? Or Dambrath? It's a question I keep asking because, despite some people's love for a certain area if it's largely ignored for the past 15 years then chances are that a portion of the fan-base knows little about it and the less likely anyone will see an update about the place more than a blurb in the next Campaign Setting book.
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
The 100 year time jump and Returned Abeir was the biggest problem with the 4e shift. Eventually enough story is made to make the time jump bearable. Abeir though I want to see go far far away. I would even say let it have its own book and stand on its own. I don't want Abeir destroyed, I just want it out of the realms where it was arbitrarily placed.
The 100 time jump can be filled though I agree the jump was a bit much. Nothing really can be done for it now except to allow authors to write about that time period and some how make it relevant to the new timeline. It's pretty much what R.A Salvatore and Ed Greenwood have been doing. Further, I see no reason why there can't be novels set in multiple times to paint a bigger picture.
As for Returned Abeir, I think it's vastly more interesting than Mexico and Egypt, despite being newer and taking out a portion of Realms history/culture. I just don't personally enjoy those sorts of settings, thinking them far too close to RL parallels to be enjoyable. Obviously YMMV and if we do see a return of those areas and the removal of Returned Abeir, I'm REALLY hoping for at least some detail on ONE of the other continents in Toril that no one has even touched. Maybe those continents have been displaced too and, with the Sundering, they bring back something cool, new, original, etc and then detail it like they would a normal area of the Realms. |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jul 2014 : 18:46:21
|
On that specific point, first, I think most of us would agree that the basic 4E strategy of taking focus off undesired gods and lands by literally removing them from the world was unnecessarily brutal and, once more, overliteral. They could have perfectly well just not mentioned gods beyond the reduced group, and Returned Abeir works just as well as another linked world, as Ed himself has it. And it was a bad precedent to set, unless we want every new design team swapping countries in and out to suit their (or a short-term D&D strategy's) whims.
Maztica and the Old Empires are very different situations. Maztica is supposed to be fantasy Mesoamerica, and it's a TSR add-on. Thay, Mulhorand, Chessenta and Unther are *not* fantasy Egypt and the Near East, they were around from the beginning of the Realms, and if the Earthlikeness of the published versions was seen as a problem it could have been fixed by making them how they were supposed to be in the first place. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jul 2014 : 19:17:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
On that specific point, first, I think most of us would agree that the basic 4E strategy of taking focus off undesired gods and lands by literally removing them from the world was unnecessarily brutal and, once more, overliteral. They could have perfectly well just not mentioned gods beyond the reduced group, and Returned Abeir works just as well as another linked world, as Ed himself has it. And it was a bad precedent to set, unless we want every new design team swapping countries in and out to suit their (or a short-term D&D strategy's) whims.
What deities died during the Spellplague? Helm (un-spellplauge related), Mystra, Azuth, Denier, and Velsharoon were due to the failing Weave. Eilistraee, Vhaerun, and Selvetarm(sp?) were, if I'm not mistaken, un-spellplague related, and Lathander changed into Amaunator. Most of the other gods were talked about OR just weren't mentioned. Lurue? I'm pretty sure she's still around. Kossuth was reveled to be a Primordial (as were Akadi, Auril, and the other one can't remember their name) but still serviceable as patrons for spells. So other than the ones that received some stage-time for their death (like Denier in The Ghost King), which others were killed?
As for being unnecessary, that's pretty much the crux of the debate. Some people think their inclusion is near paramount for the Realms to be "the Realms" while others don't. I certainly don't think ALL of the gods need to be there. I doubt I use more than a handful in any given setting and rarely half are even mentioned. Further, with SO many out there with the TONS of overlap, I think its more confusing for players to pick a deity and actually have that make some sort of narrative sense that will see some light in the campaign the character is in.
As for seeing Returned Abier, sure I'd would've also been happy received these areas in places that haven't had any detail. That would've given me a reason to go to those places, much like they did when they removed Mexico and Egypt. I actually had a reason to run a campaign in Akanūl or Tymanther and it was because characters in my game were from there and I was cool with something new and interesting. I have zero interest in running a game with Pharoahs or in Pyramids or in Aztec ruins. Just not my cup of tea and when they disappeared for things I DID want, well yeah I'm gonna be happy. Luckily the cats out of the bag and I don't have to make the changes to my Realms games as the Sundering supposedly brings back these areas of zero interest.
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
Maztica and the Old Empires are very different situations. Maztica is supposed to be fantasy Mesoamerica, and it's a TSR add-on.
Right, I get that. It's not something I like or enjoy. It's not a place I could ever see myself setting an adventure in or explore. No stories set there are one's I'd be interesting in reading. The RL parallels are just not that interesting to me. Medieval Europe (places in the Western Heartlands, Cormyr, Tethyer, Sembia, etc.) can get away with it because D&D is designed around this. And I'm OK with Asian-themed things too. Heck I'm cool with Rashemi being similar to Russia. I guess it's because the techno-level of the world can easily be set with these places all working together at the same time. I have a harder time accepting Egyptian and Mexican-style places with pseudo-medieval + magic tech thrust into them.
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
Thay, Mulhorand, Chessenta and Unther are *not* fantasy Egypt and the Near East, they were around from the beginning of the Realms, and if the Earthlikeness of the published versions was seen as a problem it could have been fixed by making them how they were supposed to be in the first place.
And how where they supposed to be? I also wouldn't count Thay or Chessenta as "fantasy Egypt" because they have enough original flavor to distinguish themselves as unique, especially Thay (pre- and post-Spellplague). Basically I despite the whole Pharoh, Pyramid, Egyptian-pantheon thing that goes on with Unther and Mulhorand. If they really wanted to interest me with these places they might as well just say "Yea, there's a Stargate in the Dragonsword Mountains and that's where the people get their culture from and that Faerūnian deities just make Aspects of themselves to gain more faithful." THAT would draw me in, I think. At least more so than what I've seen so far. |
Edited by - Diffan on 09 Jul 2014 19:25:57 |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3805 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jul 2014 : 19:45:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
What deities died during the Spellplague? Helm (un-spellplauge related), Mystra, Azuth, Denier, and Velsharoon were due to the failing Weave. Eilistraee, Vhaerun, and Selvetarm(sp?) were, if I'm not mistaken, un-spellplague related, and Lathander changed into Amaunator.
Lathander was as good as dead in 4e, the transformation was made public with the Sundering, AFAIK.
That's a lot of popular and unique gods there. And Spellplague or not, their removal was directed towards the 4e changes. Story-wise it was pretty cheap and removed way more than it added. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
|
|
|
hobbitfan
Learned Scribe
USA
164 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jul 2014 : 19:49:56
|
I didn't like the idea of saying one deity was actually an aspect of another.
I don't see how Yondalla is Chauntea or Gruumsh is Talos.
If that were actually the case, the mortal adherants of that faith wouldn't know the difference...so whay say it is that way.
It's a change made to trim the numbers of gods down...it's not necessary.
No one has to focus on all the gods at once...as with anything that can get complex, introude it in simple terms and then introuduce more complexity to suit the group's taste.
Add options, don't take them away.
|
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jul 2014 : 19:59:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
What deities died during the Spellplague? Helm (un-spellplauge related), Mystra, Azuth, Denier, and Velsharoon were due to the failing Weave. Eilistraee, Vhaerun, and Selvetarm(sp?) were, if I'm not mistaken, un-spellplague related, and Lathander changed into Amaunator.
Lathander was as good as dead in 4e, the transformation was made public with the Sundering, AFAIK.
His aspect changed, like it has other times before. And further, there were still Morninglords of the faith as evident by the Paragon Path: Morninglord. Was it exactly the same deity? No, the faces of Lathander / Amaunator are more like emotional states. One's a bit more carefree and the other is more strict. They hold the same believes, just going about it in different ways.
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
That's a lot of popular and unique gods there. And Spellplague or not, their removal was directed towards the 4e changes. Story-wise it was pretty cheap and removed way more than it added.
Their popularity isn't the point, how many "died" is. In my accounting, 8 deities were "killed". And I use air-quotes because, obviously death is a very fluctuating state for Realm deities (just ask Mystra, haha). Further, their removal being cheap is subjective. Personally I didn't care for the Weave or how Mystra's ENTIRE existence revolved around mitigating people's use of ALL magic (not just arcane but divine too). It was far too much power for one deity to wield in my personal opinion and, from a setting perspective, should have made her nearly the MOST powerful deity next to Ao, if Ao can be called a deity. That doesn't sit well with me at all. Knocking her down a peg or three was a good adjustment for the balance of deities across Realmspace.
Other deaths were "meh". Helm's was perpetuated by Tyr (oh, I forget he died too, so make it 9) that only happed because of Cyric's closeted involvement. The drow thing I never got behind because I never read those books nor do I accept them into my home game's canon. Denier and Azuth, I honestly could take them or leave them. Their inclusion OR removal did absolutely nothing to my Realms games so I honestly don't care one way or another. And if their removal DID Something, then I'd just ignore it and move on (like I did with Eilitraees). |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3805 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jul 2014 : 20:31:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
His aspect changed, like it has other times before. And further, there were still Morninglords of the faith as evident by the Paragon Path: Morninglord. Was it exactly the same deity? No, the faces of Lathander / Amaunator are more like emotional states. One's a bit more carefree and the other is more strict. They hold the same believes, just going about it in different ways.
Lathander and Amaunator are quite different deities, they stand for different ideas. That's why he changes face according to what is needed. I like this idea, but it is recent and not something that 4e brought.
quote:
Their popularity isn't the point, how many "died" is. In my accounting, 8 deities were "killed". And I use air-quotes because, obviously death is a very fluctuating state for Realm deities (just ask Mystra, haha). Further, their removal being cheap is subjective. Personally I didn't care for the Weave or how Mystra's ENTIRE existence revolved around mitigating people's use of ALL magic (not just arcane but divine too). It was far too much power for one deity to wield in my personal opinion and, from a setting perspective, should have made her nearly the MOST powerful deity next to Ao, if Ao can be called a deity. That doesn't sit well with me at all. Knocking her down a peg or three was a good adjustment for the balance of deities across Realmspace.
Even if they are 8-9, it's a big number and, considering that each of them brings something unique to the setting, a big loss.
I agreen that Mystra had too much power tbh, but why remove her? And in such a cheesy way. Shar and Cyric show up and kill her, the world goes boom. They could have simply toned down her power. This si the point that -I think- Faraer was trying to make, they were unnecessarily 'violent' with the setting.
quote:
Other deaths were "meh".
Helm's death was flat out parodical IMO, it looked like they weren't even trying there. Azuth's was cheap too, randomly landing to Baator and getting killed by an archdevil cause Dweomerheart exploded. Any development and variety that the drow received since the introduction of Eilistraee and Vhaeraun in the Realms during 2e, was taken away with the siblings. Not to mention that WotC had them ''die'' while achieving nothing/very little or even going against their goal/character.
That's not neglectable, at all.
quote:
Their inclusion OR removal did absolutely nothing to my Realms games so I honestly don't care one way or another. And if their removal DID Something, then I'd just ignore it and move on (like I did with Eilitraees).
I think that most people ignored what they didn't like, but it is much easier to ignore an option (it's what options are for, after all, and in any setting everything can be picked or left) than the destruction of something you like. Even if losing a place/character/deity does nothing on your campaign, it might be huge for someone else. Not to mention that their removal from the setting pretty much means that they are bound to receive little to 0 development (and this is the reason why people are complaining). I'm 100% sure we discussed this before, but removing options, destroying things is a bad way to handle a setting. The burden of knowledge can be easily resolved by releasing core books with the essential/major options, providing easy access to the setting, while other lore may be expanded in extra books. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 09 Jul 2014 20:33:56 |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jul 2014 : 20:38:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
And how where they supposed to be?
Well, Ed has said, for instance, 'My original Unther and Mulhorand "echoed" the real-world Asian ancient realms east of the Mediterranean, but in the published Realms, they were detailed by other designers as very close models of real-world historical places (or their Hollywood equivalents).' In this particular case we never got to learn much detail of the pre-Scott Bennie nations. |
|
|
|
Shadowsoul
Senior Scribe
Ireland
705 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jul 2014 : 23:28:14
|
I'm sure this has been said many times before, but the 4th edition Forgotten Realms had a unique impact upon the community. It's impact created an abandonment of Realms fans unlike we have seen before.
The FR section of the website became essentially a ghost town. FR products did not sell well as compared to the other FR products of the past. You have to actually put the post Spellplague in one hand and the PreSpellplague in the other and see which one has more weight. Obviously the Pre SP has the most weight and therefore should be catered to.
Wizards of the Coast broke something that was working perfectly fine. I kind of think the reason they made FR the flagship is so that it would be harder for people to abandon 5e Realms if it's still too much like the 4th edition version. You could have people who absolutely love 5th edition but hate the new Realms.
I'm sorry but I believe the 4th edition Realms fans are a drop in the bucket compared the the past editions Realms. |
Fantasy is escapist, and that is its glory. If a soldier is imprisioned by the enemy, don't we consider it his duty to escape?. . .If we value the freedom of mind and soul, if we're partisans of liberty, then it's our plain duty to escape, and to take as many people with us as we can!
#8213; J.R.R. Tolkien
*I endorse everything Dark Wizard says*. |
|
|
|
Tarlyn
Learned Scribe
USA
315 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jul 2014 : 23:49:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowsoul
Wizards of the Coast broke something that was working perfectly fine. I kind of think the reason they made FR the flagship is so that it would be harder for people to abandon 5e Realms if it's still too much like the 4th edition version. You could have people who absolutely love 5th edition but hate the new Realms.
I tend to disagree. This is my take on FR's selection:
FR is the first setting WotC chose to release because it is the easiest audience to target that they failed to capture in 4e. It is very hard to figure out why 4e D&D didn't appeal to so many D&D fans. They all cite different reasons and not all of them are compatible with each other. By contrast, FR fans reasons tend to overlap a lot if not mirror each other perfectly.
Also, you only need to read Diffan's post in this thread to notice that most of the major changes from 4e are getting axed. Possibly all of them, we don't know the fates of everything for instance nothing has covered the island kingdoms or the shining south. However, the trend with the deities is pretty clear. Ilbrandul a deity that was published dead is alive and kicking and that is very encouraging.
That is just my take, but I think it is a little more optimistic than assuming WotC is attempting to force people to play in a setting they don't like. Keep in mind, that the basic rules use examples from multiple settings and WotC has said in multiple interviews that FR will not be the only setting supported in 5e. FR is just getting covered first. |
Tarlyn Embersun |
Edited by - Tarlyn on 09 Jul 2014 23:51:59 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jul 2014 : 01:04:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
His aspect changed, like it has other times before. And further, there were still Morninglords of the faith as evident by the Paragon Path: Morninglord. Was it exactly the same deity? No, the faces of Lathander / Amaunator are more like emotional states. One's a bit more carefree and the other is more strict. They hold the same believes, just going about it in different ways.
Lathander and Amaunator are quite different deities, they stand for different ideas. That's why he changes face according to what is needed. I like this idea, but it is recent and not something that 4e brought.
Lets see, taken from Wikipedia: "He [Amaunator] fondly remembers his time as Lathander, however, and encourages some of his clergy, the Morninglords, to keep Lathander's message of hope and optimism alive. Although he was originally a Netherese deity, Amaunator has inherited Lathander's church and is worshipped all over Faerun - ironically, he, like Selune, is now despised in Netheril itself, as that nation worships Shar exclusively.
Amaunator took Mystra's place as the timekeeper of the gods. As a Greater God, Amaunator rules the astral dominion, Eternal Sun, from the Palace of the Four Suns. He is assisted by his exarch Siamorphe and his associate Waukeen. Although originally Lawful Neutral, Amaunator's time as Lathander has changed his worldview to the extent he is now Lawful Good.
...
Now Lathander has the portfolio of spring, dawn, birth, renewal, creativity, youth, vitality, self-perfection and athletics, his domains are good, nobility, protection, renewal, strength, and sun. He requires his followers to be of neutral or good alignment.
Lathander favours those who dispel the undead and aid others. He blesses those who plant new life.
Many followers of Lathander work in various creative arts, such as music, painting, entertaining, and the creation of works of fine art. Lathander is also the god called upon to bless birth- and fertility-related ceremonies.
So like I said, they both embody MANY of the same element and even Amaunator enjoyed his time as Lathander, thus the change from LN to Lawful Good. They have extremely similar styles and portfolios and they generally go after the same aims as well as having nearly identical enemies. The key difference is their approach. Lathander was more care-free (hence the Neutral Good alignment) where as Amaunator was more structured in law (hence the Lawful Good alignment). Thus I don't think the 3.5 Lathander and the 4e Amanuator are all that different.
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
quote:
Their popularity isn't the point, how many "died" is. In my accounting, 8 deities were "killed". And I use air-quotes because, obviously death is a very fluctuating state for Realm deities (just ask Mystra, haha). Further, their removal being cheap is subjective. Personally I didn't care for the Weave or how Mystra's ENTIRE existence revolved around mitigating people's use of ALL magic (not just arcane but divine too). It was far too much power for one deity to wield in my personal opinion and, from a setting perspective, should have made her nearly the MOST powerful deity next to Ao, if Ao can be called a deity. That doesn't sit well with me at all. Knocking her down a peg or three was a good adjustment for the balance of deities across Realmspace.
Even if they are 8-9, it's a big number and, considering that each of them brings something unique to the setting, a big loss.
Yeah, I think this is where we'll just have to agree to disagree. I found FAR too much similarity to Azuth and Mystra; Helm and Tyr; Selvetarm and Vhaerun; Denier and Oghma that a portion of them didn't bring anything "unique" to the setting other than "Guy-Mystra who wears Blue", "Helm, the NOT-Norse guy who isn't maimed", "Denier, the guy who thinks less than Oghma." YMMV but none of these deities (Azuth, Tyr/Helm, Denier) where all that interesting or, really, setting important that their exclusion made everything collapse.
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
I agreen that Mystra had too much power tbh, but why remove her? And in such a cheesy way. Shar and Cyric show up and kill her, the world goes boom. They could have simply toned down her power. This is the point that -I think- Faraer was trying to make, they were unnecessarily 'violent' with the setting.
I'm not sure killing her was the best solution either but, really, killing her after every RSE / edition change has been steadily becoming a tradition in it's own right. It's almost as prolific as killing Kenny in South Park. I would've rather diminished her power and had the weave collapse rather than slaying her outright. But she was never a strong point or deity in most of my campaigns for JUST the very reason I didn't like her.
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
quote:
Other deaths were "meh".
Helm's death was flat out parodical IMO, it looked like they weren't even trying there. Azuth's was cheap too, randomly landing to Baator and getting killed by an archdevil cause Dweomerheart exploded. Any development and variety that the drow received since the introduction of Eilistraee and Vhaeraun in the Realms during 2e, was taken away with the siblings. Not to mention that WotC had them ''die'' while achieving nothing/very little or even going against their goal/character.
That's not negligible, at all.
Helms death was similar to an Opera-like tragedy of which Tyr, his supposed best friend, was responsible for due to a misguided grudge over a love. The point of it was that Cyric had a devilish hand in the ordeal, something that hadn't come out til after the fact. I think it clearly shows that 1) the deities aren't perfect or all-knowing and 2) that the portfolios and ethos they follow are often followed to a fault. This, to me at least, makes them interesting and more 3-dimensional rather than the stuffy, over-bearing, guys and gals I've read about in nearly all the novels up to that point.
Azuth was such a minor and insignificant deity to me that his death barely bliped on the radar when it occurred. Oh yea, he's the guy with spells...and the Magister I think....who's symbol is the finger looking for the wind direction....right? Yep, still completely boring IMO.
As for the non-Lloth Drow deities, like I said I didn't incorporate them into my canon games. I also didn't read the books either. Perhaps had I read the 5 book War of the Spider Queen series or the other series detailing Eilistraee's death I'd be more on your side, but I have no desire to read them. So sure, I'd agree with you that their death wasn't "deserved". However I don't feel that their removal made me pause when I purchased a FR book post-Spellplague.
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
quote:
Their inclusion OR removal did absolutely nothing to my Realms games so I honestly don't care one way or another. And if their removal DID Something, then I'd just ignore it and move on (like I did with Eilitraees).
I think that most people ignored what they didn't like, but it is much easier to ignore an option (it's what options are for, after all, and in any setting everything can be picked or left) than the destruction of something you like. Even if losing a place/character/deity does nothing on your campaign, it might be huge for someone else. Not to mention that their removal from the setting pretty much means that they are bound to receive little to 0 development (and this is the reason why people are complaining). I'm 100% sure we discussed this before, but removing options, destroying things is a bad way to handle a setting. The burden of knowledge can be easily resolved by releasing core books with the essential/major options, providing easy access to the setting, while other lore may be expanded in extra books.
Agreed. However I think the removal of these deities wasn't nearly as drastic as the plopping of Returned Abeir into Faerūn nor the 100 year time gap nor the denying of authors to write in the pre-Spellplague Realms. Couple ALL of these things together, we have a problem. One or even two of these things....I think the Realms fans could've handled. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jul 2014 : 01:20:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowsoul
I'm sure this has been said many times before, but the 4th edition Forgotten Realms had a unique impact upon the community. It's impact created an abandonment of Realms fans unlike we have seen before.
Unlike we've seen before? Apparently the Time of Troubles or Shade's Return were just drops in the bucket then?
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowsoul
The FR section of the website became essentially a ghost town. FR products did not sell well as compared to the other FR products of the past.
The first I agree with, however the second is no where near a comparison. You actually have to PRODUCE stuff to sell it. 4E Realms material was SO EXTREMELY LIMITED in scope, depth, detail, and page-count compared to 3E that it's not a large surprise that happened. DDI articles, while good for a great read every month, couldn't compare to the multitude of splat books produced during AD&D/2E and 3E's era. And I fully blame WotC for not producing more. The fan base was there, as evident of them breaking their "3 books and done" setting format when they produced the Neverwinter Campaign Guide and Menzoberranzan book. Basically they shot themselves in the foot with their limited scope in favor of what DDI was supposed to provide but then didn't. I fully believed that if 4E was as well supported with supplements that 3E saw (including the page-count, print style, amount of depth, etc.) then we might not have seen as many changes as we have with the Sundering.
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowsoul
You have to actually put the post Spellplague in one hand and the PreSpellplague in the other and see which one has more weight. Obviously the Pre SP has the most weight and therefore should be catered to.
Yeah, because separating and distancing in the perfect thing this fan-base needs 
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowsoul
Wizards of the Coast broke something that was working perfectly fine. I kind of think the reason they made FR the flagship is so that it would be harder for people to abandon 5e Realms if it's still too much like the 4th edition version. You could have people who absolutely love 5th edition but hate the new Realms.
I find it funny that the Realms worked perfectly fine. It was full of inconsistencies and strange plot holes and all that sort of stuff prior to the Spellplague. And at least the Spellplague attempted a clean break from all that. Further, go ask anyone on other websites what they thought about the Realms. Responses will most likely be...unkindly at best while others would probably make you walk away from the forum. Suffice to say not everyone feels that the pre-Plague realms were peachy-keen wonderland that many here at the 'Keep like to believe.
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowsoul
I'm sorry but I believe the 4th edition Realms fans are a drop in the bucket compared the the past editions Realms.
I'd still appreciate being catered to, at least a little bit, going forth from this point. I think, as I see the Sundering roll out, that a good majority of the Spellplague changes are reversing themselves. So....hurray for you? I guess? |
Edited by - Diffan on 10 Jul 2014 01:21:46 |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3805 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jul 2014 : 01:51:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Lets see, taken from Wikipedia: "He [Amaunator] fondly remembers his time as Lathander, however, and encourages some of his clergy, the Morninglords, to keep Lathander's message of hope and optimism alive. Although he was originally a Netherese deity, Amaunator has inherited Lathander's church and is worshipped all over Faerun - ironically, he, like Selune, is now despised in Netheril itself, as that nation worships Shar exclusively.
Amaunator took Mystra's place as the timekeeper of the gods. As a Greater God, Amaunator rules the astral dominion, Eternal Sun, from the Palace of the Four Suns. He is assisted by his exarch Siamorphe and his associate Waukeen. Although originally Lawful Neutral, Amaunator's time as Lathander has changed his worldview to the extent he is now Lawful Good.
...
Now Lathander has the portfolio of spring, dawn, birth, renewal, creativity, youth, vitality, self-perfection and athletics, his domains are good, nobility, protection, renewal, strength, and sun. He requires his followers to be of neutral or good alignment.
Lathander favours those who dispel the undead and aid others. He blesses those who plant new life.
Many followers of Lathander work in various creative arts, such as music, painting, entertaining, and the creation of works of fine art. Lathander is also the god called upon to bless birth- and fertility-related ceremonies.
So like I said, they both embody MANY of the same element and even Amaunator enjoyed his time as Lathander, thus the change from LN to Lawful Good. They have extremely similar styles and portfolios and they generally go after the same aims as well as having nearly identical enemies. The key difference is their approach. Lathander was more care-free (hence the Neutral Good alignment) where as Amaunator was more structured in law (hence the Lawful Good alignment). Thus I don't think the 3.5 Lathander and the 4e Amanuator are all that different.
Even tho Amaunator encourages his followers to keep the message of Lathander alive, he stands for quite different concepts. You have order and law on one side, and spring, youth, optimism and renewal on the other. I don't see how they're similar. Nonetheless, as I said, I like the idea of his role-switch according to what it is needed and it wouldn't make much sense, if they were so similar.
quote:
Helms death was similar to an Opera-like tragedy of which Tyr, his supposed best friend, was responsible for due to a misguided grudge over a love. The point of it was that Cyric had a devilish hand in the ordeal, something that hadn't come out til after the fact. I think it clearly shows that 1) the deities aren't perfect or all-knowing and 2) that the portfolios and ethos they follow are often followed to a fault. This, to me at least, makes them interesting and more 3-dimensional rather than the stuffy, over-bearing, guys and gals I've read about in nearly all the novels up to that point.
They're gods, they're not perfect but they're far smarter than a mortal. Cyric or not fighting to death over a misunderstanding about a lover (whatever that means for gods), especially as allied deities who work for a similar goal, is plain stupid. Errors make for interesting character (and in this case it wasn't even the point, since they simply wanted to remove them), but stupidity doesn't. I thought your wish was to have gods behave as such and stop constantly meddling or doing stupid things, this drama is quite the contrary of that.
quote:
Yeah, I think this is where we'll just have to agree to disagree. I found FAR too much similarity to Azuth and Mystra; Helm and Tyr; Selvetarm and Vhaerun; Denier and Oghma that a portion of them didn't bring anything "unique" to the setting other than "Guy-Mystra who wears Blue", "Helm, the NOT-Norse guy who isn't maimed", "Denier, the guy who thinks less than Oghma." YMMV but none of these deities (Azuth, Tyr/Helm, Denier) where all that interesting or, really, setting important that their exclusion made everything collapse.
[...]But she was never a strong point or deity in most of my campaigns for JUST the very reason I didn't like her.
[...]Azuth was such a minor and insignificant deity to me that his death barely bliped on the radar when it occurred. Oh yea, he's the guy with spells...and the Magister I think....who's symbol is the finger looking for the wind direction....right? Yep, still completely boring IMO.
[...]As for the non-Lloth Drow deities [...] So sure, I'd agree with you that their death wasn't "deserved". However I don't feel that their removal made me pause when I purchased a FR book post-Spellplague.
Yeah, we'll agree to disagree about how much they means for us, but they're not all the same.
Helm and Tyr are quite different. You have guardians and protection vs justice.
Same goes for Vhaeraun and Selvetarm. They are completely different. You have rebellion and the goal to return the drow to their past glory vs bloodlust and battle. Selvetarm could have been developed quite a bit, because he is a tragic figure, but they didn't care to do that. Just because these two deities both cater to drow males, it doens't mean that they are the same.
Mystra and Azuth are different too, as the former is the Weave, the magic that animates Toril, the latter represents magic as art or science.
Maybe you didn't care about them, but they have clear differences and uniqueness that may have appealed to other people, or that may have been something they based their characters upon, or that they simply liked about the setting. For example, I still feel very strongly about the drow issue and knowing about it had a huge part in turning me away from the new Realms, just like seeing at least Eilistraee (especially her) and Vhaeraun back will have a big part in making me consider picking the new setting.
As I said it's easy to ignore options, but watching the characters/deities/areas/organizations you like getting removed or trashed in a cheesy way because 'burden of knowledge', completely sucks. As you said, depriving the setting of many elements and options that people enjoyed is what turned them away, and the gods surely played a significant role in it. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 10 Jul 2014 02:09:22 |
|
|
|
George Krashos
Master of Realmslore
Australia
6662 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jul 2014 : 02:19:03
|
Diffan, what 4E changes worked for you and why and what would you like to be retained post-Sundering?
-- George Krashos |
"Because only we, contrary to the barbarians, never count the enemy in battle." -- Aeschylus |
Edited by - George Krashos on 10 Jul 2014 02:20:17 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jul 2014 : 02:28:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Lets see, taken from Wikipedia: "He [Amaunator] fondly remembers his time as Lathander, however, and encourages some of his clergy, the Morninglords, to keep Lathander's message of hope and optimism alive. Although he was originally a Netherese deity, Amaunator has inherited Lathander's church and is worshipped all over Faerun - ironically, he, like Selune, is now despised in Netheril itself, as that nation worships Shar exclusively.
Amaunator took Mystra's place as the timekeeper of the gods. As a Greater God, Amaunator rules the astral dominion, Eternal Sun, from the Palace of the Four Suns. He is assisted by his exarch Siamorphe and his associate Waukeen. Although originally Lawful Neutral, Amaunator's time as Lathander has changed his worldview to the extent he is now Lawful Good.
...
Now Lathander has the portfolio of spring, dawn, birth, renewal, creativity, youth, vitality, self-perfection and athletics, his domains are good, nobility, protection, renewal, strength, and sun. He requires his followers to be of neutral or good alignment.
Lathander favours those who dispel the undead and aid others. He blesses those who plant new life.
Many followers of Lathander work in various creative arts, such as music, painting, entertaining, and the creation of works of fine art. Lathander is also the god called upon to bless birth- and fertility-related ceremonies.
So like I said, they both embody MANY of the same element and even Amaunator enjoyed his time as Lathander, thus the change from LN to Lawful Good. They have extremely similar styles and portfolios and they generally go after the same aims as well as having nearly identical enemies. The key difference is their approach. Lathander was more care-free (hence the Neutral Good alignment) where as Amaunator was more structured in law (hence the Lawful Good alignment). Thus I don't think the 3.5 Lathander and the 4e Amanuator are all that different.
Even tho Amaunator encourages his followers to keep the message of Lathander alive, he stands for quite different concepts. You have order and law on one side, and spring, youth, optimism and renewal on the other. I don't see how they're similar. Nonetheless, as I said, I like the idea of his role-switch according to what it is needed, and it wouldn't make much sense, if they were so similar.
I don't see how law impedes the ideas of optimism, youth, spring, renewal. Yes, I agree they're different but that doesn't mean that Amanuantor cannot promote both with his views or clergy. Which means, in many ways, that Lathander's ideals are kept fully going and alive within the church of Amaunator.
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
quote:
Helms death was similar to an Opera-like tragedy of which Tyr, his supposed best friend, was responsible for due to a misguided grudge over a love. The point of it was that Cyric had a devilish hand in the ordeal, something that hadn't come out til after the fact. I think it clearly shows that 1) the deities aren't perfect or all-knowing and 2) that the portfolios and ethos they follow are often followed to a fault. This, to me at least, makes them interesting and more 3-dimensional rather than the stuffy, over-bearing, guys and gals I've read about in nearly all the novels up to that point.
They're gods, they're not perfect but they're far smarter than a mortal. Cyric or not fighting to death over a misunderstanding about a lover (whatever that means for gods), especially as allied deities who work for a similar goal, is plain stupid. Errors make for interesting character (and in this case it wasn't even the point, since they simply wanted to remove them), but stupidity doesn't. I thought your wish was to have gods behave as such and stop constantly meddling or doing stupid things, this drama is quite the contrary of that.
If it were a mortal attempting to fool them, yea it would be dumb. The god of trickery, lies, deceit, etc. make perfect sense to be the one to blow this whole thing out of proportion. Further my wish was that they stop meddling in the world of mortal on an actual, physical level. Keep the Gods stuff to the Gods and keep it primarily out of Mortal goings on and I'm fine. It was pretty much "Some people did some stuff and Gods would literally step in." That sort of stuff is just dumb IMO.
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
quote:
Yeah, I think this is where we'll just have to agree to disagree. I found FAR too much similarity to Azuth and Mystra; Helm and Tyr; Selvetarm and Vhaerun; Denier and Oghma that a portion of them didn't bring anything "unique" to the setting other than "Guy-Mystra who wears Blue", "Helm, the NOT-Norse guy who isn't maimed", "Denier, the guy who thinks less than Oghma." YMMV but none of these deities (Azuth, Tyr/Helm, Denier) where all that interesting or, really, setting important that their exclusion made everything collapse.
[...]But she was never a strong point or deity in most of my campaigns for JUST the very reason I didn't like her.
[...]Azuth was such a minor and insignificant deity to me that his death barely bliped on the radar when it occurred. Oh yea, he's the guy with spells...and the Magister I think....who's symbol is the finger looking for the wind direction....right? Yep, still completely boring IMO.
[...]As for the non-Lloth Drow deities [...] So sure, I'd agree with you that their death wasn't "deserved". However I don't feel that their removal made me pause when I purchased a FR book post-Spellplague.
Yeah, we'll agree to disagree about how much they means for us, but they're not all the same.
Helm and Tyr are quite different. You have guardians and protection vs justice.
Are you suggestion that those who do not seek justice don't protect the weak or guard places? Most Tyrran churches second as bastions for defense. Paladins and Knights of Tyr are just as capable of protecting the interests of law and justice. True, there's a slight difference between straight up protection for that sake alone and pursuing justice, but it's such a fine line that I feel having multiple deities SO close isn't good for the system. You could throw Torm in there too.
Same goes for Vhaeraun and Selvetarm. They are completely different. You have rebellion and the goal to return the drow to their past glory vs bloodlust and battle. Selvetarm could have been developed quite a bit, because he is a tragic figure, but they didn't care to do that. Just because these two deities both cater to drow males, it doens't mean that they are the same.
Fair enough, I'm not so well read on the drow pantheon that I frankly know much difference between two male drow deities. Still, couldn't one deity serve both causes?
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
Mystra and Azuth are different too, as the former is the Weave, the magic that animates Toril, the latter represents magic as art or science.
See, now you lost me. Why do we need a deity for this slight difference? It's just as bad as having Mielikki, Silvanus, and Lurue who all pretty much deal with nature in some form. What about Magic as technology....oh wait we already have Gond. How about Magic as it pertains to Marshmallows? I mean, we might as well start throwing more gods that have just a extremely slight change on the base cause. A God about Magic and how it only pertains to sand. And God of Magic and how it only pertains to enchanting weapons and armor. And a God of Arcane Magic and how it pertains to Balloons. It just seems like, at some point, saturation has been surpassed.
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
Maybe you didn't care about them, but they have clear differences and uniqueness that may have appealed to other people, or that may have been something they based their characters upon, or that they simply liked about the setting. For example, I still feel very strongly about the drow issue and knowing about it had a huge part in turning me away from the new Realms (ironically not long after I had picked my first sourcebooks), just like seeing at least Eilistraee (especially her) and Vhaeraun back will have a big part in making me consider picking the new setting.
We can agree that there are differences, where we disagree is how unique and clear these differences are. I feel that Magic and most of it's uses can be utilized under one deity. I feel the same way in regards to Nature, Law, Sun, and a dozen other Portfolios and Domains. For some reason, however, the Forgotten Realms is unique in attempting to have a deity for nearly every Season, Race, Class, Archtype, various forms of Magic, technology, etc.
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
As I said it's easy to ignore options, but watching the characters/deities/areas/organizations you like getting removed or trashed in a cheesy way because 'burden of knowledge', completely sucks. As you said, depriving the setting of many elements and options that people enjoyed is what turned them away, and the gods surely played a significant role in it.[/quote]
True, we can only move on from here.
|
Edited by - Diffan on 10 Jul 2014 02:57:21 |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3805 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jul 2014 : 03:02:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I don't see how law impedes the ideas of optimism, youth, spring, renewal. Yes, I agree they're different but that doesn't mean that Amanuantor cannot promote both with his views or clergy. Which means, in many ways, that Lathander's ideals are kept fully going and alive within the church of Amaunator.
What you say makes sense. However the point I'm trying to make is that Amaunator has a very different feel from Lathander. He is a god of order and stability, not of renewal and rebirth.
quote:
If it were a mortal attempting to fool them, yea it would be dumb. The god of trickery, lies, deceit, etc. make perfect sense to be the one to blow this whole thing out of proportion.
It doesn't, IMO, because that's like assuming that Helm and Tyr were blind to not see the stupidity of the whole matter. A god of trickery doesn't auto-deceive everything (they're not perfect either), especially turning a matter like this into a duel to death requires your opponent to be stupid. Couldn't they discuss, clarify? A god of justice surely has to give the accused part the right to prove himself innocent. Also, what the hell was Sune doing, why didn't she tell them that nothing happened? But the whole thing is lame to me, because -esepcially considering the way it has been done (i.e. they simply stated it, AFAIK), it's more comic than anything else. This is the kind of 'cheap' I was talking about, this event has nothing to do with their characters (does it add anything to their story? Is it fitting to what they stand for? It's not an error that adds depth to them and that can lead to character develeopment, it's glaring naivete on their part that you can easily tell was put there just to get rid of them).
quote:
Are you suggestion that those who do not seek justice don't protect the weak or guard places? Most Tyrran churches second as bastions for defense. Paladins and Knights of Tyr are just as capable of protecting the interests of law and justice. True, there's a slight difference between straight up protection for that sake alone and pursuing justice, but it's such a fine line that I feel having multiple deities SO close isn't good for the system. You could throw Torm in there too.
Tyr embodies the judge more than the protector, Helm is the unwavering guardian. I agree that they work well together, tho (I like the Threefold god heresy tbh), in fact one solution couold have been to make Helm an exarch or smth, intead of removing him. There's always a 'softer' solution for such issues.
quote:
Fair enough, I'm not so well read on the drow pantheon that I frankly know much difference between two male drow deities. Still, couldn't one deity serve both causes?
I think that -given his backstory- Selvetarm was supposed to be a targic character, trying to free himself from Lolth's control while fighting the demon that corrupted him. However he was turned into a generic Lolth's lackey.
quote:
See, now you lost me. Why do we need a deity for this slight difference? It's just as bad as having Mielikki, Silvanus, and Lurue who all pretty much deal with nature in some form. What about Magic as technology....oh wait we already have Gond. How about Magic as it pertains to Marshmallows? I mean, we might as well start throwing more gods that have just a extremely slight change on the base cause. A God about Magic and how it only pertains to sand. And God of Magic and how it only pertains to enchanting weapons and armor. And a God of Arcane Magic and how it pertains to Balloons. It just seems like, at some point, saturation has been surpassed.
There are concpets that can have significantly different aspects, and in the Realms deities can embody them. Races are one of such concepts (that's why you have deities representing different aspects of the various races), magic too.
Mystra is the keeper of magic, Azuth is the one who strives to perfect and study and understand it, Savras is a god of seers and divinations, Leira is the goddess of illusions and lies and so on.
This is not what you are describing.
quote:
We can agree that there are differences, where we disagree is how unique and clear these differences are. I feel that Magic and most of it's uses can be utilized under one deity. I feel the same way in regards to Nature, Law, Sun, and a dozen other Portfolios and Domains. For some reason, however, the Forgotten Realms is unique in attempting to have a deity for nearly every Season, Race, Class, Archtype, various forms of Magic, technology, etc.
It's a trait of the setting. But you can easily pick the 'main, greater' deity of the aspect and load everything into him/her/it. Some settings don't even have gods. Shall we try to change that? |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 10 Jul 2014 03:25:38 |
|
|
|
Dark Wizard
Senior Scribe
USA
830 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jul 2014 : 03:44:09
|
Tragedy/opera would have a bit more build-up/set-up to bring about the inciting and innate character flaws exploited/colliding to bring about the ultimate climax event. The Helm/Tyr ordeal had none of those or used none of the established ones.
The Faerunian pantheon never had a strong notion of family in the traditional (or any) sense (a few odd exceptions aside). That is they're not one big extended family like the classical pantheons (Greek, Norse, even the Egyptian/Babylonian/Sumerian ones). This is understandable as most of them are interloper deities. Likewise, marriage amongst the gods themselves is also a rarely mentioned topic, as is conception/birth/motherhood, or even courtship.
What Faerunian deities have, and this holds for most of the demihumans as well, are a series of short-term (by mortal standards) casual flings. Even very lawful deities in significant relationship like Helm and Murdane were 'lovers' and not a married couple. Even the goddesses with portfolios covering marriage and motherhood are not often wives and mothers themselves, at least there are few definitive mentions. Really, the deities of the Realms are all loosely affiliated rogue agents. They all perpetual bachelors and bachelorettes. They're the Friends of pantheons.
Add to that the fact that Tyr and Helm are some of the most no-nonsense deities (Cyric's influence be damned, Tyr outranks him, no?) and they seem like the "bros before hoes" sort of dude-bros (apologies if anyone is offended by that phrase). It really seems silly they would get up in arms and death-duels over a lady-friend. If anything Tymora would have invited them to form a spicy chaotic sandwich with two beefy slabs of lawful.
As for the duergar pantheon's destruction. The dwarves didn't do anything about them for the millennia they've existed and suddenly they succeeded in wiping them out. Ditto for the Drow, and Mystra/Shar.
Killing off the Drow pantheon, and Eilistraee in particular, was a boneheaded move. The shenanigans of the evil dark elves gives people their outlet for Machiavellian/Game-of-Thrones-esque machinations (but better, cause ... elves). The good drow are doubly oppressed (evil drow and surface society), they're beautiful, graceful, deadly, immortal and misunderstood (and better than elves, think about that, better than elves). They're the X-Men or sexy vampires of the Realms. Outside of organized play, the freeform/fanfic community surrounding the drow probably exceeds regular D&D games set in the Realms. They couldn't recreate this popularity and resonance if they tried. This was and is lightning striking. |
|
|
|
Dark Wizard
Senior Scribe
USA
830 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jul 2014 : 04:02:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Still, couldn't one deity serve both causes?
This argument can continue until we get monotheism or dualism (cause you want some sort of deep dividing conflict). Nothing against the concept of monotheism in games, but it brings a whole different atmosphere and set of themes and conflicts.
The Greek and Roman pantheons had a god of the wind and then four cardinal direction wind deities (and then minor deities for the ordinal directions, and then a handful even more minor ones). That sort of granularity works for the fantasy concepts and archetypes I like to play with. |
|
|
|
hobbitfan
Learned Scribe
USA
164 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jul 2014 : 05:28:19
|
Dark Wizard raised the point I was going to. Historical pantheons had some overlap. I don't see why fantasy ones wouldn't either.
As long as there isn't redundant duplication of roles within the pantheons I don't see the problem with a full mix.
The Graeco-Roamn pantheons are huge but most people learn them based around a core 12.
I don't see why fantasy pantheons couldn't be introduced in a simpler form like that as well. That would have been much better than nuking gods and goddesses just for the sake of "keeping things simple".
But I'm probably preaching to the choir there.
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jul 2014 : 06:51:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowsoul
I'm sure this has been said many times before, but the 4th edition Forgotten Realms had a unique impact upon the community. It's impact created an abandonment of Realms fans unlike we have seen before.
Unlike we've seen before? Apparently the Time of Troubles or Shade's Return were just drops in the bucket then?
In terms of effects on the community vis-a-vis the Time of Troubles and the Spellplague, the Return of Shade barely registers as a fart in the wind.*
Regarding the Realms community, I think it's overstating things to say the 4E Realms had a "unique effect" in terms of driving fans away from the Realms because this claim doesn't address the effect of 4E D&D on people's choices to play in the 4E Realms.
It also assumes that most people who didn't like the 4E Realms quit the Realms entirely, as opposed to sticking with the Realms and just using 3E and/or Pathfinder or some other system.
During an edition changeover, I think there is always a body of gamers who choose to stick with the older edition of the Realms because they prefer the older D&D rules that the edition was written in.
What 4E failed to do was twofold: convince a significant number of gamers who were used to 3E D&D to make the switch to 4E D&D, and to bring a significant number of new gamers (i.e. gamers new to D&D) into the 4E Realms.
Both of these things 3E succeeded at. Had 3E D&D not been a success, I can readily imagine people saying (mistakenly) that it was the 3E Realms that drove people away from the Realms.
I daresay that more gamers turned away from the 4E Realms because they didn't like 4E D&D, than turned away solely because of the changes in the 4E Realms**.
*And this was by design. The 3E design team decided not to run with an RSE to herald 3E's arrival. Further, there were a handful of distinct issues the online community had with the 3E Realms (revisions to the Realms cosmology chief among them) that far outweighed any hollering about the Return of Shade.
**I believe there was some sort of compounding effect here, such that people who normally go with what's new simply because they like either D&D a whole bunch or the Realms a whole bunch (i.e. those who buy a sourcebook just because the D&D or Realms logo is on it) opted out of sticking with their pattern, because the changes to game and setting, taken together, were too much. I've seen comments to that effect on this forum. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 10 Jul 2014 08:24:46 |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4687 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jul 2014 : 07:04:24
|
| I ignored the return of the Shades. *shrugs* |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
hobbitfan
Learned Scribe
USA
164 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jul 2014 : 08:45:46
|
I think Jeremy has a good point about the combination of dislike for 4E rules and 4E FR in combination driving people off in large numbers.
For some people, 1 or the other was enough to cause people to leave. Both together and having the safe haven of Pathfinder...that's a recipe for the mass exodus that WOTC saw.
I've thought that several times as I've been going back and reading the old threads. Well old topics of discussion to you guys, new ones to me as I've been catching up on old topics and such.
You know, I wish 5E had happened instead of 4E and we could have had 6 years of awesome rpg stuff. |
|
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6361 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jul 2014 : 09:16:47
|
Jeremy is right regarding patterns. I collected FR sourcebooks religiously, it was almost an obsession as i wanted to know everything about the Forgotten Realms.
I purchased every single 3rd edition rulebook with the FR logo on it. Even ones that i read before hand and was not particularly taken with (Champions of Valor - the good guy books always hold less interest for me).
I then started purchasing every single 2nd and 1st edition FR sourcebook that was ever written. i was a student on low income and whenever my grant came through i reserved a portion of that for buying sourcebooks.
And yes i didnt like the cosmology changes in 3rd edition but i just used 2nd edition cosmology instead because the changes were only thematic (i.e. the gods were still the gods it was just where they lived on the outer planes that changed). I didnt like the RSEs but i just pretended they didnt happen because they had very little effect on the rest of the realms (everything always got fixed with an artefact at the end anyway so all the places were the same all the people were the same, everything was still the same).
When 4e came out i had a largely complete collection but i never purchased a single new product, i even stopped checking what products they did release (i had no idea they produced so few until 2 years ago when someone gave a list of 4e FR sourcebooks).
I cant undo the changes in 4e FR to work with my campaign setting because the effect on the system is universal and total and since 5e continues with those changes i cannot buy those sourcebooks either because none of the information presented inside will be relevant to my campaign setting (even though they have the same logo and are set on the same planet every single settlement, nation, person is different, everything i read about is dead and gone).
I must have spent hundreds of pounds a year on FR sourcebooks and would have been able to spend much more now that i am earning a decent wage. But why should i buy something i will never use.
So now i have a much cheaper hobby, i make my own realmslore. My wife is very happy about it since she gets to spend more money on shopping.
|
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions Candlekeep Archive
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 1
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 2
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 3
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 4
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 5
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 6
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 7
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 8
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 9
Alternate Realms Site |
|
|
|
hobbitfan
Learned Scribe
USA
164 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jul 2014 : 10:06:01
|
dazzlerdal: If 5E captures the flavor of the grey box as the Sundering authors have hinted at, then you may well be able to use the new stuff with the old.
Remember, you don't have to use a product in its entirety to get use out of it.
My humble suggestion is wait and see how the new stuff plays out before deciding.
|
|
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6361 Posts |
|
|
Mapolq
Senior Scribe
Brazil
466 Posts |
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Has WOTC committed to fixing the Realms in 5E
