| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Kelcimer
Learned Scribe
USA
136 Posts |
 Posted - 31 Aug 2021 : 02:06:27
|
Hello sleyvas!
If I understand you correctly, the scenario that you are talking about is putting a sentient cloak up against the players. That can be done without the need for the divine backstory.
If you are talking about having the avatar of a god waging war on Faerun in the flesh, then how exactly are the players supposed to win that one? Even epic level ones? if I play the avatar of the God competently to the extent of his powers, then the players should be toast. I'd have to dumb down the avatar so much in order to make it a contest.
And so what if the evil church they are fighting isn't Gilgeam? Whether the evil church is of Gilgeam or Bane, they are still an evil church that needs to be opposed. It doesn't change what the players need to do. It just puts the scale of the adventure beyond their reach. |
 |
|
|
Kelcimer
Learned Scribe
USA
136 Posts |
Posted - 31 Aug 2021 : 02:54:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
So how could you use this in a way that would involve players? Oh, let me count the ways!
Okay. Go! |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11690 Posts |
Posted - 31 Aug 2021 : 16:59:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
Well, the only thing that goes against your theory is the name. If Bane 1.0 was Gilgeam, he would have renamed him Banegeam or something like that 
It's all about order of operations. Gilgeam existed. He was a relatively good guy. Then he turned into a tyrant according to history. The question then becomes, was this a natural progression... or was Gilgeam subsumed/infected long ago? When later Gilgeam dies after/during the ToT, was he effectively "back to himself" at this point (after all, Bane 1.0 would have been purged from Gilgeam by Ao during/after the Time of Troubles)? So, was there a brief glimpse of the old Gilgeam, and then suddenly Tiamat kills him. Later, priests of Gilgeam use the alabaster staff to raise the preserved godflesh of Gilgeam to fight the forces of Mulhorand that are invading Unther. Then spellplague... Unther to Abeir. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Zeromaru X
Great Reader
Colombia
2442 Posts |
Posted - 31 Aug 2021 : 17:37:26
|
| Well, actually Gilgeam was destroyed way before the Spellplague. It was destroyed a few hours after it was revived, using the Alabaster Staff as well (yeah, it was used to revive him and then later to destroy it). The body got completely disintegrated. The only ambiguous thing in that novel is if the protagonist survived the stuff or not. |
Instead of seeking change, you prefer a void, merciless abyss of a world... |
Edited by - Zeromaru X on 31 Aug 2021 17:52:42 |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11690 Posts |
Posted - 31 Aug 2021 : 17:51:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kelcimer
Hello sleyvas!
If I understand you correctly, the scenario that you are talking about is putting a sentient cloak up against the players. That can be done without the need for the divine backstory.
If you are talking about having the avatar of a god waging war on Faerun in the flesh, then how exactly are the players supposed to win that one? Even epic level ones? if I play the avatar of the God competently to the extent of his powers, then the players should be toast. I'd have to dumb down the avatar so much in order to make it a contest.
And so what if the evil church they are fighting isn't Gilgeam? Whether the evil church is of Gilgeam or Bane, they are still an evil church that needs to be opposed. It doesn't change what the players need to do. It just puts the scale of the adventure beyond their reach.
Players won't be toast. Gilgeam/Bane would be on the power level of a "lesser avatar"..... basically a power level of the avatars as seen during the Time of Troubles. This isn't the power level of say the avatars as seen in Faiths and Avatars, and many might be comparable to say a 20th+ level character. So, a party of high level characters could challenge such an entity
As to the sentient cloak, it's not that the cloak is sentient... it's that the cloak represents some portion of the intellect of a god "trapped" in a minor divine artifact (somewhat like Myrkul "trapped" in the crown of horns). Almost like a "backup copy" or "phylactery" or "horcrux" of the god. The cloak is just the means by which the flesh is then "possessed" or the consciousness transferred... and after that, for all we know, the cloak just becomes a powerful item "The Black Lord's Cloak".... or it becomes another place for the mind to flee to if the body is destroyed, so knowing the truth behind it becomes essential to eradicating the threat. A third option is that there is a "split sentience" of Bane (one in the cloak that's still operating and one in the godflesh as well). A fourth option might become available if this sentience could turn around and also infect OTHER godkings that are in the flesh again. It's all these myriad options that become available if the plot isn't just "its returned Gilgeam".
Also, you're going way too big with "waging war on Faerun". I'm talking gathering and solidifying a piece of ground... "Returned Unther"... and maybe gathering some/all of Threskel since the dracolich that used to rule there was recently deceased... and maybe even going up against Chessenta (which may have its own "returned god in flesh" in the form of Tchazzar). Basically, a returned tyrant god trying to solidify an empire under his thumb so that he can begin to work up from there.
And now I'm thinking about "what if the "phylactery" of the dracolich can hold the intellect of a god as well?" |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
Edited by - sleyvas on 31 Aug 2021 18:04:41 |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11690 Posts |
Posted - 31 Aug 2021 : 18:01:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
Well, actually Gilgeam was destroyed way before the Spellplague. It was destroyed aa few hours after it was revived, using the Alabaster Staff as well. The body got completely disintegrated. The only ambiguous thing in that novel is if the protagonist survived the stuff or not.
So... the body disintegrated... or to an observer, it might be the body disappeared... or crumbled here and "reassembled" elsewhere. There's a lot of ambiguity with "disintegration" and "teleported" and such things where the person seeing it may not actually truly understand what happened. After all, to an observer for instance, people beaming with star trek technology might appear to be disintegrating. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Zeromaru X
Great Reader
Colombia
2442 Posts |
Posted - 31 Aug 2021 : 18:06:33
|
Well, there is another problem there. Alasklerbanbastos was destroyed, yes. In 1479 DR. That is not "recently". That is like 8 years before Gilgeam returned. And his philactery was "safe and well", so Alasklerbanbastos has no impediments for his return in that period of time. So, no Threskel for returned Gilgeam/Banegeam. At least, not that easy.
Sorry to be the party popper, but I'm just providing the canon info about the topic. |
Instead of seeking change, you prefer a void, merciless abyss of a world... |
Edited by - Zeromaru X on 31 Aug 2021 18:07:10 |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11690 Posts |
Posted - 31 Aug 2021 : 22:06:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
Well, there is another problem there. Alasklerbanbastos was destroyed, yes. In 1479 DR. That is not "recently". That is like 8 years before Gilgeam returned. And his philactery was "safe and well", so Alasklerbanbastos has no impediments for his return in that period of time. So, no Threskel for returned Gilgeam/Banegeam. At least, not that easy.
Sorry to be the party popper, but I'm just providing the canon info about the topic.
No problem, I honestly was thinking to myself "why again was it so special when they killed him, wouldn't he just come back". Looking back on the novels via the FR Wiki, it seems that he's one of the dracoliches that requires another dragon skeleton to occupy or else he's trapped in his phylactery (honestly trying to remember here... ).... so maybe he wasn't prepped? Maybe he was? There's also something from those novels where Aoth and company also got ahold of his phylactery, and if a god were to get ahold of such a magical object, he might be able to manipulate it to "kick out" the dragon and insert his own godhood (the phylactery might have to be "enhanced" to hold a god's essence though).
Along those lines though... going back to the events of those novels AND the events in the SCAG, and trying to make both true. The one thing we see is Tchazzar back yet again in the SCAG, but he died in the novels, and that was supposed to be a major thing in the novels if I recall correctly. This being like the 3rd time now that he's died and come back (fourth?)... just to throw out an idea, what if he's back, but "lessened" somehow. I'm not exactly sure how, but maybe he's like a ghost who is tied to his home region/city? Maybe he can still grant priest spells, but only within a certain range? Just thinking that "he's back again and no explanation or difference" rings like a bad story. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Zeromaru X
Great Reader
Colombia
2442 Posts |
Posted - 01 Sep 2021 : 01:43:04
|
Yeah, Alasklerbanbastos requieres the corpse of another blue dragon to revive. He is prepped, however. In the novels, is mentioned he has many corpses ready in his cave for the eventuality. He lost his most powerful body (at the time) at the Battle of Lutqcheq, but I guess he must have had at least one or two fearsome corpses out there, just in case.
And yeah, Aoth and Cera Eurtos got a hold of his phylactery, for a time. They lost it when they fought the fake Alasklerbanbastos in Akanûl, and Alasklerbanbastos recovered it and used it to transfer himself to his "most powerful body" (the one destroyed later).
AS for Tchazzar, well, there are like 8-10 years between his death and his rebirth, so, I guess his cult or Tiamat's could have resurrected him. Heck, even Tiamat herself may have done it, if she thought Tchazzar would be necessary again. I also think he should be diminished, somehow. Perhaps he is still mad, or curing his madness cost some of his powers. Or perhaps this is not THE Tchazzar we know... |
Instead of seeking change, you prefer a void, merciless abyss of a world... |
|
|
|
Kelcimer
Learned Scribe
USA
136 Posts |
Posted - 01 Sep 2021 : 06:07:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
So, a party of high level characters could challenge such an entity
I kinda have a problem with that. One of the things that I like to do is not sell something short. If a being is a god, then they are a god. Here's how it feels to me: "Well, it's not really a FULL god. It's mostly a god. Okay. A part of a god. Really just a piece. And not important enough for other gods to make sure it was ended permanently." At that point the players aren't fighting a God anymore, just a leftover.
BTW I am generally aware that the lore says only a god can kill a god. (At least that was what was in the source books I read.) I don't really have an opinion on this lore as such. Just bringing it up to better understand your interpretation. Because if you accept it, then if the players can kill the thing, then it isn't really a god, its just a leftover. Or is it really a god and you are disregarding that lore. Which is cool if you are. Just wondering which way you go on that.
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Also, you're going way too big with "waging war on Faerun". I'm talking gathering and solidifying a piece of ground... "Returned Unther"...
I am sorry, I was unclear. I did not mean to imply waging war on ALL of Faerun. I understood you were keeping the conquests to a confined area. That's confined area is still part of Faerun and so that is why I consider it "waging war on Faerun". Does that make sense?
Anyway, I think we have drifted away from the point that stumps me. How would you bring the detail that Bane 2.0 is really Xvim into a game and make it something the players actually have to deal with? Yes, you have outlined a way to have a divine being being the big bad in a high level game. But how does that detail come into play?
And Wooly Rupert said he could count the ways to do that. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 01 Sep 2021 : 10:41:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kelcimer
Anyway, I think we have drifted away from the point that stumps me. How would you bring the detail that Bane 2.0 is really Xvim into a game and make it something the players actually have to deal with? Yes, you have outlined a way to have a divine being being the big bad in a high level game. But how does that detail come into play?
And Wooly Rupert said he could count the ways to do that.
I also listed ways to do that. |
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!  |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11690 Posts |
Posted - 01 Sep 2021 : 18:08:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
Yeah, Alasklerbanbastos requieres the corpse of another blue dragon to revive. He is prepped, however. In the novels, is mentioned he has many corpses ready in his cave for the eventuality. He lost his most powerful body (at the time) at the Battle of Lutqcheq, but I guess he must have had at least one or two fearsome corpses out there, just in case.
And yeah, Aoth and Cera Eurtos got a hold of his phylactery, for a time. They lost it when they fought the fake Alasklerbanbastos in Akanûl, and Alasklerbanbastos recovered it and used it to transfer himself to his "most powerful body" (the one destroyed later).
AS for Tchazzar, well, there are like 8-10 years between his death and his rebirth, so, I guess his cult or Tiamat's could have resurrected him. Heck, even Tiamat herself may have done it, if she thought Tchazzar would be necessary again. I also think he should be diminished, somehow. Perhaps he is still mad, or curing his madness cost some of his powers. Or perhaps this is not THE Tchazzar we know...
See... THIS is why I like passing ideas back and forth on these forums.... yeah... what did happen to Tchazzar's body when he "died". I had been talking about the "godflesh" of manifestations like Gilgeam, and the idea that this "fleshy" form might be somehow different from normal mortal bodies. Tchazzar in some ways might be considered a kind of lesser "godflesh" as well that gets left behind.... we know that the Millenium dragon is in a body that's so decayed it can't even leave its lair, but it can act remotely through a "magical body" of sorts. What if this dragon ascendant finally gave up his failing body after returning from Abeir, and he inhabits Tchazzar? He's a good bit different in personality (more conniving/patient, more of an information gatherer, etc...) and he apparently doesn't like Gilgeam. Could be a good story. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11690 Posts |
Posted - 01 Sep 2021 : 18:33:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kelcimer
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
So, a party of high level characters could challenge such an entity
I kinda have a problem with that. One of the things that I like to do is not sell something short. If a being is a god, then they are a god. Here's how it feels to me: "Well, it's not really a FULL god. It's mostly a god. Okay. A part of a god. Really just a piece. And not important enough for other gods to make sure it was ended permanently." At that point the players aren't fighting a God anymore, just a leftover.
BTW I am generally aware that the lore says only a god can kill a god. (At least that was what was in the source books I read.) I don't really have an opinion on this lore as such. Just bringing it up to better understand your interpretation. Because if you accept it, then if the players can kill the thing, then it isn't really a god, its just a leftover. Or is it really a god and you are disregarding that lore. Which is cool if you are. Just wondering which way you go on that.
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Also, you're going way too big with "waging war on Faerun". I'm talking gathering and solidifying a piece of ground... "Returned Unther"...
I am sorry, I was unclear. I did not mean to imply waging war on ALL of Faerun. I understood you were keeping the conquests to a confined area. That's confined area is still part of Faerun and so that is why I consider it "waging war on Faerun". Does that make sense?
Anyway, I think we have drifted away from the point that stumps me. How would you bring the detail that Bane 2.0 is really Xvim into a game and make it something the players actually have to deal with? Yes, you have outlined a way to have a divine being being the big bad in a high level game. But how does that detail come into play?
And Wooly Rupert said he could count the ways to do that.
You may have a problem with it, but the references you refer to about only a god can kill a god are from 2e F&A (there may be some other sources), and there's plenty of other sources that indicate otherwise whenever you're dealing with a deity who is in physical form. Also, just as with any other character who is powerful, "killing" them doesn't mean they can't come back again. It might just be stopping whatever their plans were for. As I've laid out, I view "gods" in multiple varieties... the non-physical, the "avatar" body that's entirely made of magic, the "manifestation" which is like an avatar but is unable to leave to the outer planes or create additional copies of itself, the "lesser avatar" which is when the life force of a god inhabits another being's body, and finally the "sentience left over in a magic item". In the idea I describe, this version of Bane would be advancing itself up that ladder. Eventually, if unchecked, he might be able to vie with Bane 2.0 for his old position (which might involve him for instance using his new empire to assault some bastion of Banite love like Zhentil Keep or Mulmaster).... or players may even aid him in this effort to oust Bane 2.0/Xvim (the reasoning behind this might be multiple... Xvim's/Bane 2.0's clergy might be doing something the players need to stop, and the enemy of my enemy is my friend, etc...).
Or in short... I can keep laying out ideas, but it is like Wooly said, there's a lot of ways you can do this. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
Edited by - sleyvas on 01 Sep 2021 18:34:52 |
|
|
|
Kelcimer
Learned Scribe
USA
136 Posts |
Posted - 02 Sep 2021 : 04:42:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
You may have a problem with it, but the references you refer to about only a god can kill a god are from 2e F&A (there may be some other sources), and there's plenty of other sources that indicate otherwise whenever you're dealing with a deity who is in physical form.
I don't have a problem with it because of the lore. I am ambivalent about that bit of lore. If a mortal were to be in a position to kill a deity then they should get full credit for it, as it were. Good to know that that bit of lore has been retconned.
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Also, just as with any other character who is powerful, "killing" them doesn't mean they can't come back again. It might just be stopping whatever their plans were for. As I've laid out, I view "gods" in multiple varieties... the non-physical, the "avatar" body that's entirely made of magic, the "manifestation" which is like an avatar but is unable to leave to the outer planes or create additional copies of itself, the "lesser avatar" which is when the life force of a god inhabits another being's body, and finally the "sentience left over in a magic item". In the idea I describe, this version of Bane would be advancing itself up that ladder. Eventually, if unchecked, he might be able to vie with Bane 2.0 for his old position (which might involve him for instance using his new empire to assault some bastion of Banite love like Zhentil Keep or Mulmaster).... or players may even aid him in this effort to oust Bane 2.0/Xvim (the reasoning behind this might be multiple... Xvim's/Bane 2.0's clergy might be doing something the players need to stop, and the enemy of my enemy is my friend, etc...).
Or in short... I can keep laying out ideas, but it is like Wooly said, there's a lot of ways you can do this.
You lay out a far more textured view of gods in a succinct manner then I have heard of before. Eh? Okay sure. If it is articulated in the adventure that he's not an actual god, but has the capacity to fast track back to being a god, then okay, that's an adventure that has proper scale.
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
so knowing the truth [that Bane 2.0 is really Xvim] behind it becomes essential to eradicating the threat.
Is it? Regardless of what the nature of the big bad is, it needs to be put down. That doesn't change what they players have to do.
I just thought of how to improve your scenario and make it the truth that Bane 2.0 is really Xvim actually matter. So the players are trying to kill the big bad/sentient cloak/Gilgeam/Bane 1.0, but find that Priests of Bane 2.0 have the same goal as they do. And then have the Priests of Bane 1.0 help the players. They then start to realize they might just be helping out Bane. Do they want to be doing that? Then they somehow get the info that Gilgeam is Bane 1.0 and that Bane 2.0 is Xvim. Then they have a dilemma. Knowing the true nature of these guys, what do they do? Would they prefer an end game where Xvim is the god of tyranny or Bane 1.0. They then have an informed choice. If they prefer Xvim, then they are choosing to do away with Bane 1.0 and therefore strengthen Xvim. Is that something they want? Or if they back away from it and let Gilgeam continue, he'll give Xvim a lot of headache for a good time to come. Is it in the best interest of the Realms to have these gods focused on tearing each others churches apart? Under which option would more people die? It might be good in the short term for the region to kill Gilgeam, but what about the long term? As a DM I would be interested to see how the players handle that situation.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I also listed ways to do that.
I don't think you have.
|
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 02 Sep 2021 : 05:00:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kelcimer
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I also listed ways to do that.
I don't think you have.
If all the different potential conflicts I listed don't give you something that you can use to involve players, then I'm sorry, I can't help you. |
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! |
|
|
|
Kelcimer
Learned Scribe
USA
136 Posts |
Posted - 02 Sep 2021 : 07:16:48
|
Hello Wooly Rubert!
You previously asked:
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
So how could you use this in a way that would involve players?
And then affirmed:
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Oh, let me count the ways!
Just ratting off that there could be some conflicts is a far thing from relating those conflicts to an adventure that you would run players in. And what you described did not hinge upon the players finding out the knowledge that Bane 2.0 is Xvim, which is ket to my criteria.
It seems as if you consider just inserting lore into a game just to insert lore into the game, tangentially related to the conflict in game is someone making said lore "something the players have to deal with". If so, then that's pretty weak.
Now sleyvas took up the challenge, in good faith, and presented a scenario. [Hat tip to sleyvas] With his pleasant persistence in advocating for the scenario and adding clarity where I did not understand him, he ultimately persuaded that it could definitely fit my criteria of being "something the players have to deal with". (Being the last piece of information necessary for the players to make a fully informed choice about something with far reaching consequences definitely means the players have to deal with it.)
You have not done this.
Bragging that you can do a thing, but being bashful about actually doing said thing, is not persuasive. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 02 Sep 2021 : 11:10:38
|
| Moving the goalposts does not change the fact that I presented several ideas that could be developed into adventures. You asked how players could be involved in a thing where Bane was actually Xvim, and I gave you exactly that. |
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! |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 02 Sep 2021 11:11:48 |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11690 Posts |
Posted - 02 Sep 2021 : 13:21:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kelcimer
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
so knowing the truth [that Bane 2.0 is really Xvim] behind it becomes essential to eradicating the threat.
Is it? Regardless of what the nature of the big bad is, it needs to be put down. That doesn't change what they players have to do.
I just thought of how to improve your scenario and make it the truth that Bane 2.0 is really Xvim actually matter. So the players are trying to kill the big bad/sentient cloak/Gilgeam/Bane 1.0, but find that Priests of Bane 2.0 have the same goal as they do. And then have the Priests of Bane 1.0 help the players. They then start to realize they might just be helping out Bane. Do they want to be doing that? Then they somehow get the info that Gilgeam is Bane 1.0 and that Bane 2.0 is Xvim. Then they have a dilemma. Knowing the true nature of these guys, what do they do? Would they prefer an end game where Xvim is the god of tyranny or Bane 1.0. They then have an informed choice. If they prefer Xvim, then they are choosing to do away with Bane 1.0 and therefore strengthen Xvim. Is that something they want? Or if they back away from it and let Gilgeam continue, he'll give Xvim a lot of headache for a good time to come. Is it in the best interest of the Realms to have these gods focused on tearing each others churches apart? Under which option would more people die? It might be good in the short term for the region to kill Gilgeam, but what about the long term? As a DM I would be interested to see how the players handle that situation.
See, you already lay out concepts for where this "scenario" can make an interesting form of play that's not just "And here's the big bad enemy... go kill it". I quickly get tired of games where all a DM does is shove a bad guy in front of me, because half the time I quickly figure out that he made it too powerful and behind the screen he is just fudging dice rolls. I consider that lazy DM'ing.
Regarding your question back to me of "is it critical that the party know what's going on".... all I can say is you need to really look at this from an outsider's standpoint for just a minute. Not from the DM's viewpoint where you KNOW what's going on, but from the party that needs to figure out all these details and put them together in order to figure out HOW to combat the threat. In some ways, fighting this creature is like fighting a lich, except with a lich you know "it has a phylactery, and in this edition the phylactery needs to be nearby.... or in previous editions there also needed to be a body for the phylactery to inhabit". The players don't KNOW where things will go after they knock down this threat, but they might if they figure out the back story. Partly because I want to use the bad quote... but it's like GI JOE says... "Knowing is half the battle".
On the "types" of gods that I laid out, if I dug, I could probably find more. However, those are all examples that exist in FR canonically. Manifestations are what the mulan gods were, but it may have also been what Torm, Mielikki and Eldath were prior to the time of troubles (I've also used the term, "prime-bound gods" for this as well). The intellect within an item can be seen with like the Crown of Horns holding Myrkul, but I'm sure I can find others (and arguably, some minor church artifacts from like Prayers of the Faithful may include some reduced sentience of a god). I didn't include the final "Kind", because I don't consider them "the gods"... but more like "chosen" .... incarnations... which are only found in Mulhorand. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
Edited by - sleyvas on 02 Sep 2021 13:35:37 |
|
|
|
bloodtide_the_red
Learned Scribe
USA
297 Posts |
Posted - 03 Sep 2021 : 00:18:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I would wonder, for those who think Bane 2.0 is Bane 1.0, what explanation they would offer for Bane 1.0 changing so many things to match Xvim? Not trying to argue; it's those changes that make me think Bane 2.0 is either some gestalt entity or Xvim faking it. If Bane 2.0 acted like Bane 1.0, I'd accept them as the same entity -- I'd've never considered any other options.
For me it's a very sad case of Teal Life Writes the Game Reality. The whole Bane is gone and, oh, um, Bane is back makes no sense. Except in the real world .
The corporate overlords forced the removal of the "bad" stuff and forced them to make it "not so bad lame kid stuff".
The get people who are clueless about the Realms, or worse simply don't care about the Realms...or way worse HATE the Realms. That person or persons just do whatever they want, fueled by cluelessness and hate.
And you get the mess of the Realms. And we see it n all franchises.
So as much as I do LOVE the "oh page X of book X says X and that means it is 100% OFFICIAL REALMSLORE FOREVER, somethings like the Bane mess I just skip over. |
|
|
|
Kelcimer
Learned Scribe
USA
136 Posts |
Posted - 03 Sep 2021 : 06:29:40
|
Hello sleyvas!
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
See, you already lay out concepts for where this "scenario" can make an interesting form of play that's not just "And here's the big bad enemy... go kill it". I quickly get tired of games where all a DM does is shove a bad guy in front of me, because half the time I quickly figure out that he made it too powerful and behind the screen he is just fudging dice rolls. I consider that lazy DM'ing.
I completely agree. |
|
|
|
TBeholder
Great Reader
2382 Posts |
|
|
Charles Phipps
Master of Realmslore
1419 Posts |
Posted - 21 Mar 2023 : 00:46:26
|
Well, my opinion here would be HEAVILY INFLUENCED by Planescape that I've always viewed as the defacto "canon" way that gods work. It's absolutely NOT how gods are treated in the Forgotten Realms novels or how Ed Greenwood has created them but it provides a lot of interesting twists on it.
Pro-Bane replaced Xvim
1. I don't hate the idea that Bane had a master plan from the very beginning to use Xvim as his horocrux or phylactery. Bane isn't the kind of guy who would have children that he cared about and since Bhaal canonically saw his death coming in the Time of Troubles to make a bunch of Bhaalspawn, I don't see why Bane couldn't have done the same thing. That's an interesting take on Xvim and adds a tragedy to his character that all of his attempts to get out of his father's shadow was just playing right into his hands.
2. In-universe, we know that the worship of Cyric and Xvim never really replaced Bane worship despite the fact he was dead. For whatever reason (Baneliches, Dead Priests) there's always been people continuing to worship the Dead Three. If a deity dies because of a lack of worshipers, surely continuing to worship a "god"
3. Another interesting possibility is that Xvim planned to just impersonate his father but you can't DO THAT without consequence. Shar can get away with impersonating a minor cavern god because she's got a massive following of their own and the same for Lolth and Moander. However, if Xvim is PRIMARILY known as Bane then he'd slowly BECOME Bane. He may not be THE Bane but he might have become so simply by assuming his father's mantle and the worship of him changing his nature.
"What can change the nature of a man?"
"Belief." |
My Blog: http://unitedfederationofcharles.blogspot.com/
|
Edited by - Charles Phipps on 21 Mar 2023 00:47:31 |
|
|
|
redking
Learned Scribe
131 Posts |
Posted - 30 Apr 2023 : 07:35:01
|
Wooly Rupert's Xvim-Bane is my headcanon Bane. It just makes sense. Xvim had plenty of reasons to make the change, mainly that there there still lots of orthodox banites out there getting clerical powers from Cyric, and as Xvim, he could not gain their loyalty. After Bane's apparent death during the Time of Troubles, his church was left in disarray. This would have created an opportunity for Xvim to step in and consolidate power under the guise of Bane's return, which would be more readily accepted by the church's followers than a complete takeover by Xvim himself.
Also, the story of divine resurrection is a powerful narrative, even it it's not true. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Wooly's thoughts on Bane 2.0 and Iyachtu Xvim
