| Author |
 Topic  |
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
 Posted - 07 Aug 2006 : 00:51:13
|
| And it's one aspect of the 'tacked on by TSR' Realms that Ed doesn't seem to have any ill-feelings towards (as far as I can tell from his replies). |
Planescape Fanatic
"Fiends and Undead are the peanut butter and jelly of evil." - Me
"That attitude should be stomped on, whenever and wherever it's encountered, because it makes people holding such views bad citizens, not just bad roleplayers (considering D&D was structured as a 'forced cooperation' game, and although successive editions are pointing it more and more towards a me-first, min-max game, the drift away from 'we all need each other to succeed' will at some point make it 'no longer' D&D)." - ED GREENWOOD |
 |
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31774 Posts |
Posted - 07 Aug 2006 : 01:24:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dargoth
quote:
Originally posted by GothicDan
quote:
Ah, thanks. And yes, the Bloodstone Lands weren't originally a part of the FR.
Which is why I'm not particularly upset about the whole thing being 'contradicted' by Planescape (more like, providing an alternate planar view of events).
The Great wheel (The cosmology Planescape is built on) wasnt an original part of the FR either so I can use your arguement to say that Planescape should have no bearing on the Realms
Remember though... the Great Wheel cosmology has been part of the "officially published" Realms since the very beginning. And we know the Realms as presented in the 1e FRCS boxed set differs significantly, in parts, from Ed's home Realms campaign. As for as the history of the published Realms setting goes... the Great Wheel has been there since day one. And since PLANESCAPE came after the original FRCS boxed set, and was built on the 2e interpretation of the Great Wheel, there's still plenty of bearing for PLANESCAPE to have connections to the Realms that have been around since 1987.
|
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
Dargoth
Great Reader
Australia
4607 Posts |
Posted - 07 Aug 2006 : 01:50:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
quote:
Originally posted by Dargoth
quote:
Originally posted by GothicDan
quote:
Ah, thanks. And yes, the Bloodstone Lands weren't originally a part of the FR.
Which is why I'm not particularly upset about the whole thing being 'contradicted' by Planescape (more like, providing an alternate planar view of events).
The Great wheel (The cosmology Planescape is built on) wasnt an original part of the FR either so I can use your arguement to say that Planescape should have no bearing on the Realms
Ah,
but it was part of the original published realms since it existed in 1e and it was/is referenced in the Old Grey Box. Now, true it might not have been a part of Ed's Realms, but a lot of Ed's Realms is different.
and the H series including Throne of Bloodstone is only 1 year younger than the original 1ed FR boxset (Published 1988)
The fact remains that the Planescape team came in and ran roughshod over established Realms events |
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
"Its good to be the King!"
Mel Brooks |
|
|
|
Kuje
Great Reader
USA
7915 Posts |
Posted - 07 Aug 2006 : 02:07:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dargoth
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
quote:
Originally posted by Dargoth
quote:
Originally posted by GothicDan
quote:
Ah, thanks. And yes, the Bloodstone Lands weren't originally a part of the FR.
Which is why I'm not particularly upset about the whole thing being 'contradicted' by Planescape (more like, providing an alternate planar view of events).
The Great wheel (The cosmology Planescape is built on) wasnt an original part of the FR either so I can use your arguement to say that Planescape should have no bearing on the Realms
Ah,
but it was part of the original published realms since it existed in 1e and it was/is referenced in the Old Grey Box. Now, true it might not have been a part of Ed's Realms, but a lot of Ed's Realms is different.
and the H series including Throne of Bloodstone is only 1 year younger than the original 1ed FR boxset (Published 1988)
The fact remains that the Planescape team came in and ran roughshod over established Realms events
The fact remains that they didn't since there is a in game reason for this change, as we've explained, repeatedly. And, furthermore, the Bloodstone material was never supposed to be FR specific, so blame TSR for tacking it onto FR, since you blame TSR for other things, and then when you don't like how the discussion is going, you change your argument. Make up your mind.
Eric gave you a perfectly logical event to explain this and you are still arguing about it and you argued with him about it.
So what does it take to please you? :) |
For some of us, books are as important as almost anything else on earth. What a miracle it is that out of these small, flat, rigid squares of paper unfolds world after world, worlds that sing to you, comfort and quiet and excite you... Books are full of the things that you don't get in real life - wonderful, lyrical language, for instance, right off the bat. - Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium |
Edited by - Kuje on 07 Aug 2006 02:08:55 |
|
|
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
Posted - 07 Aug 2006 : 02:07:58
|
quote:
The fact remains that the Planescape team came in and ran roughshod over established Realms events
NO they DIDN'T.
Multispheric entity.
And if you want to go that way, the H modules "came in and ran roughshod over Realms events" as written by Ed in his ORIGINAl Realms.
Why are the Bloodstone Lands modules any more valid than the Planescape products, when FR was PART of the Great Wheel setting during the printing of the Bloodstone Lands? |
Planescape Fanatic
"Fiends and Undead are the peanut butter and jelly of evil." - Me
"That attitude should be stomped on, whenever and wherever it's encountered, because it makes people holding such views bad citizens, not just bad roleplayers (considering D&D was structured as a 'forced cooperation' game, and although successive editions are pointing it more and more towards a me-first, min-max game, the drift away from 'we all need each other to succeed' will at some point make it 'no longer' D&D)." - ED GREENWOOD |
Edited by - GothicDan on 07 Aug 2006 02:09:34 |
|
|
|
Dargoth
Great Reader
Australia
4607 Posts |
Posted - 07 Aug 2006 : 02:23:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by GothicDan
quote:
The fact remains that the Planescape team came in and ran roughshod over established Realms events
NO they DIDN'T.
Multispheric entity.
And if you want to go that way, the H modules "came in and ran roughshod over Realms events" as written by Ed in his ORIGINAl Realms.
Why are the Bloodstone Lands modules any more valid than the Planescape products, when FR was PART of the Great Wheel setting during the printing of the Bloodstone Lands?
because unlike Dead gods Throne of Bloodstone has an FR logo on the cover (and before you try and shove Powers and Patheons in my face I view the Planescape friendly enteries in that book as shoehorning which DoF has now contradicted anyway)
Dragons of Faerun is:
The latest book on the subject
Its got an FR logo on it
Says Gareth Dragonbane destroyed the Wand of Orcus
End of story
By the way Im rather bemused that the Planescape fans are grasping at the Multispheric/multireality straw when the very idea goes against the Planescape ideals
|
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
"Its good to be the King!"
Mel Brooks |
|
|
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
Posted - 07 Aug 2006 : 02:26:57
|
quote:
because unlike Dead gods Throne of Bloodstone has an FR logo on the cover (and before you try and shove Powers and Patheons in my face I view the Planescape friendly enteries in that book as shoehorning which DoF has now contradicted anyway)
So you think that the catastrophes of Maztica or Kara-Tur are completely appropriate and correct for FR?
quote:
Dragons of Faerun is:
The latest book on the subject
Its got an FR logo on it
Says Gareth Dragonbane destroyed the Wand of Orcus
End of story
And the men who wrote it said that this is only one possible reality.
quote:
By the way Im rather bemused that the Planescape fans are grasping at the Multispheric/multireality straw when the very idea goes against the Planescape ideals
Oh yes. Planescape at all isn't about a subjective reality or concept of truth. |
Planescape Fanatic
"Fiends and Undead are the peanut butter and jelly of evil." - Me
"That attitude should be stomped on, whenever and wherever it's encountered, because it makes people holding such views bad citizens, not just bad roleplayers (considering D&D was structured as a 'forced cooperation' game, and although successive editions are pointing it more and more towards a me-first, min-max game, the drift away from 'we all need each other to succeed' will at some point make it 'no longer' D&D)." - ED GREENWOOD |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31774 Posts |
Posted - 07 Aug 2006 : 03:09:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dargoth
By the way Im rather bemused that the Planescape fans are grasping at the Multispheric/multireality straw when the very idea goes against the Planescape ideals
How so?
PS is built on the multisphere/multireality conception.
Sigil itself is ALL about subjective reality and concepts of truth, as GD pointed out above. The planes are ALL about subjective reality and concepts of truth. The deities are ALL about subjective reality and concepts of truth.
The entire PS setting relies on subjective POV and what is and what is not truth.
|
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36804 Posts |
Posted - 07 Aug 2006 : 04:21:37
|
While I don't agree with Dargoth's tendency to never release a topic that he's grabbed, I do kind of agree with him on this Wand of Orcus thing. As I've said before in regards to the Dawn Cataclysm, I can't stand the concept of "oh, well, things happen differently for gods, perhaps even outside of mortal time". It's almost like a deus ex machina that applies only to continuity issues (the pun was not intentional).
We see gods being part of the regular timestream on other issues -- like when they're slain or absorbed, or when they interact with mortals, or when something like the ToT happens. We know that events in the mortal world have an effect on gods, like the way the Fall of Myth Drannor weakened Shaundakul. There is substantial evidence supporting gods being part of the same timestream as mortals, and not apart from it.
The "gods outside of time" reasoning is something I've now seen used twice: the Dawn Cataclysm, which is deliberately left un-pinned down, and now this Orcus thing. In both cases, this reasoning neatly sidesteps any continuity issues that may exist.
I certainly intend no disrespect to anyone, but using the "outside of time" explanation is kind of a dodge, to me. It doesn't explain anything, it merely ducks the issue. That kind of thing obviously doesn't work for Dargoth, and it doesn't work for me, either. We've seen other apparent continuity issues being neatly fixed and explained, but this one is simply dodged. I'd rather have some concrete explanation -- like my explanation that Orcus found a quicker way to repair the Wand -- rather than have it brushed aside with a "gods are different, and we mortals can't comprehend that" explanation.
I can accept a lot of other things about gods, like the multiple manifestations or listening to 8000 prayers at once while battling another god. I can accept the worship=power concept. I can accept deific death or one deity masquerading as another. I just can't buy them being outside of time, too, because that raises too many other issues.
Again, I intend no disrespect to the creators and designers. I just want a concrete explanation. |
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 07 Aug 2006 04:26:07 |
|
|
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
Posted - 07 Aug 2006 : 04:32:47
|
| I think they've already given about as much as an explanation as they're going to give on that topic. :) |
Planescape Fanatic
"Fiends and Undead are the peanut butter and jelly of evil." - Me
"That attitude should be stomped on, whenever and wherever it's encountered, because it makes people holding such views bad citizens, not just bad roleplayers (considering D&D was structured as a 'forced cooperation' game, and although successive editions are pointing it more and more towards a me-first, min-max game, the drift away from 'we all need each other to succeed' will at some point make it 'no longer' D&D)." - ED GREENWOOD |
|
|
|
Kuje
Great Reader
USA
7915 Posts |
Posted - 07 Aug 2006 : 04:41:16
|
| I agree with you on that part Wooly and that really does drive me up a wall. |
For some of us, books are as important as almost anything else on earth. What a miracle it is that out of these small, flat, rigid squares of paper unfolds world after world, worlds that sing to you, comfort and quiet and excite you... Books are full of the things that you don't get in real life - wonderful, lyrical language, for instance, right off the bat. - Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31774 Posts |
Posted - 07 Aug 2006 : 05:35:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by GothicDan
I think they've already given about as much as an explanation as they're going to give on that topic. :)
Agreed.
I would also prefer more elaboration on explanations that use "outside of time" as a justification. However, I also appreciate that the "outside of time" explanation allows for potential explanations to be crafted later as new Realmslore is revealed.
I'm fine with "outside of time" justifications for some Realms elements, so long as they're used in the fashion that demonstrates a proper explanation may not be completely possible at this time.
With changes that have came and gone in the past, we have to accept that sometimes the very structure of the FR setting itself may not be open to ALL explanations regarding certain changes that have been made. Game designers are working with 20 years of published Realms history, so if and when new changes occur like this -- I see the "outside of time" explanation as more of a *placeholder*. A placeholder that allows for a later explanation supported by future Realmslore that takes the change into account and expands on it to make it work with pre-existing material.
Continuity breaches still exist under this view as well, but I'm of the mind that it is worthwhile acknowledging that some changes aren't always easily explained within the current context of the setting. Of course, that raises the question of "why bother with changes in the first place if they can't be properly explained?" And as much as I'd like to wish this was actual WotC FR policy in Realmslore creation... the simple fact is, with a shared world that reflects the minds and interpretations of so many different writers and designers... situations like this are bound to come up.
So, while I do agree with Wooly on this, I still accept that the "outside of time" explanation can be of worthwhile use as a placeholder in the Realmslore... so long as an explanation does occur at some point. Otherwise, I've driven higher up on the wall than Kuje. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
Edited by - The Sage on 07 Aug 2006 05:38:54 |
|
|
|
FridayThe13th
Learned Scribe
USA
132 Posts |
Posted - 07 Aug 2006 : 06:11:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dargoth
quote:
Originally posted by GothicDan
quote:
The fact remains that the Planescape team came in and ran roughshod over established Realms events
NO they DIDN'T.
Multispheric entity.
And if you want to go that way, the H modules "came in and ran roughshod over Realms events" as written by Ed in his ORIGINAl Realms.
Why are the Bloodstone Lands modules any more valid than the Planescape products, when FR was PART of the Great Wheel setting during the printing of the Bloodstone Lands?
because unlike Dead gods Throne of Bloodstone has an FR logo on the cover (and before you try and shove Powers and Patheons in my face I view the Planescape friendly enteries in that book as shoehorning which DoF has now contradicted anyway)
Dragons of Faerun is:
The latest book on the subject
Its got an FR logo on it
Says Gareth Dragonbane destroyed the Wand of Orcus
End of story
By the way Im rather bemused that the Planescape fans are grasping at the Multispheric/multireality straw when the very idea goes against the Planescape ideals
Ahh, those misguided primes. The people of Toril see only within the limitations of their own world.
What is your point Dargoth? Are you saying that the destruction of Orcus's wand on ONE crystal sphere should affect his worship across the multiverse.
Remember that all the settings(with the exception of Eberron) are connected through Planescape, like it or not. Bloodstone was made during the time where FR used the Great Wheel as its cosmology, when the Great Tree was nonexistant. According to Planescape, the various cosmologies as seen through the eyes of the "primes" are all just misguided mortal perspecives. Ex. The people of Krynn see all of the lower planes as the Abyss, which based on PS is not true. Primes see what they want to see, in this case, they saw the supposed demise of Orcus and his wand.
I can accept the fact that Orcus no longer has any worshippers on Aber-Toril, but this should not have any long-term effects on his worship on other planes. Dead Gods on the other hand, saw Orcus's demise on his HOME PLANE, which would obviously have Multi-Spheric effects. Remember Dargoth, that while Bloodstone is a FR-only campaign, Orcus is not a FR-only deity.
Orcus is not out of time, but he is certainly not bound by the time of one campaign setting.
Those are just my 2 cents, with further elaboration.
|
"The Lady of Pain? You mean Loviatar runs this place?"
-- Torilian Prime
"You guys should seriously rename yourselves The Horny Society, you popularity would soar."
-- A miscillaneous Kender to a member of the Horned Society
|
Edited by - FridayThe13th on 07 Aug 2006 06:12:28 |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11829 Posts |
Posted - 08 Aug 2006 : 02:47:45
|
>>This confirms that Gareth destroyed the Wand of Orcus in a 3.5 product. This has completely >>invalidated the Planescape modules detailing Orcus return as they cant happan in the Realms >>both on a Cosmology and Timeline level
>>Kiaransalee cant steal the Wand of Orcus as its already been destroyed by Gareth in 1359 >>and there wont be another one until 1459 (Its been D&D Lore since 1ed that it would take >>Orcus 100 years to rebuild it)
>>As I see it there are only 2 options
>>1) Gareth destroyed the Wand of Orcus, a crippled Orcus is currently in the 15th of his 100 >>year quest to rebuild the Wand of Orcus (Ie We completely ignore the Planescape modules: >>Kiaransalee never killed Orcus and never stole the Wand of Orcus.)
>>2) We advance the Planescape plot as far as we can without violating Realmslore ie Gareth >>Dragonsbane destroyed the Wand of orcus, Kiransalee kills a crippled Orcus she doesnt steal >>the Wand of Orcus as it doesnt exist. Orcus is dead we ignore the rest of the Planescape >>material as it doesnt work in the realms. Any clerics of Orcus in todays realms have either >>taken the Servant of the fallen feat or there spells are being granted by another deity
>>(either Kiransalee or Velshoon)
Ok, can't there be another option? I don't see these as being the absolute and only two options myself.
As I see it, Gareth & company destroy the wand. Destruction does not always mean "atomized to dust". If you just took away all its inherent magical ability and left it as a scepter, it could be considered destroyed.
They may have been involved with Kiaransalee at this time (and maybe Gareth and company didn't even realize it, i.e. could Kiaransalee have possessed one of the party and aided in stealing the wand? Or maybe an essence of her was in an intelligent magic item the party came to possess along the way which took control of a party member? ). So, she helps destroy the wand AFTER STEALING IT FROM ORCUS. They do so by putting it in the blood of an avatar of Tiamat at the request of Bahamut. This satisfies that Kiaransalee was part of the stealing of the wand of orcus and was involved in its destruction. After it was destroyed, she gathers up the remaining pieces and hides them wherever the sourcebooks say she hid them using her drow servants. At the same time she attacks Orcus and finishes him off.
The whole Tenebrous thing happens. He searches for his wand, but doesn't find it. In the end, he is destroyed by the last word. Qha-Namog, a servant of Tenebrous, then manages to get ahold of the remains of the wand of orcus and uses them to resurrect Orcus in the Astral.
Orcus could then use some of what he had done as Tenebrous. He destroyed many gods. Theoretically, in destroying them he could have gathered a lot of divine power, which he might have stored away in pockets. He also gained a lot of knowledge, since he had focused on knowledge deities. Perhaps using this divine energy and knowledge he was able to re-invest his wand with power (and maybe it works differently than the original).
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
Posted - 08 Aug 2006 : 03:06:03
|
| Just wanted to post here on the irony of the fact that the thread here has now outlived the quick summer campaign that it pertained to . . . somewhat amusing that . . . |
|
|
|
Dargoth
Great Reader
Australia
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08 Aug 2006 : 04:01:32
|
Allow me to quote from H4
After killing Tiamat and her mates
"Being careful not to touch this most evil artifact, you move the Wand of Orcus into the black stinking blood from the heart of Tiamat it flares in tremendous explosion....."
"When the PCs recover from the explosion they see a small white gem where the Wand was."
Upon returning to the Bahumut he says
"You have succeeded in your mission, and now your realm will be made secure from Demonkind. Plant this gem (The one they pulled from Tiamats heart and the Wand of Orcus) in the courtyard of your castle, and tend the tree that grows from it....."
So not only is it impossible for Kiaransalee to steal a Non existant Wand of Orcus but we now know that Orcus didnt put the Wand of Orcus pack together either as a piece of the Wand of Orcus still resides in Damara today
More on Orcus from Bloodstone Lands
"Evil clerics like those of the Goat head religion (Orcus), now find themselves severely limited in spell selection, especially in the higher level spells. With Orcus banished, there's no one left for them to commune with
The Planescape fans are just going to have to accept that as far as the Realms is concerned
All of the Demonlords Modrons and all of his priests found it impossible to put the Wand of Orcus together again.
|
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
"Its good to be the King!"
Mel Brooks |
|
|
|
Kuje
Great Reader
USA
7915 Posts |
Posted - 08 Aug 2006 : 04:30:15
|
| We don't have to accept it, and what arrogance you have there, when Eric has said, that you continue to ignore, that all FR and Planescape lore about this is valid. |
For some of us, books are as important as almost anything else on earth. What a miracle it is that out of these small, flat, rigid squares of paper unfolds world after world, worlds that sing to you, comfort and quiet and excite you... Books are full of the things that you don't get in real life - wonderful, lyrical language, for instance, right off the bat. - Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium |
Edited by - Kuje on 08 Aug 2006 04:34:30 |
|
|
|
Dargoth
Great Reader
Australia
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08 Aug 2006 : 04:57:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
We don't have to accept it, and what arrogance you have there, when Eric has said, that you continue to ignore, that all FR and Planescape lore about this is valid.
and yet both you and Wooly complained that Erics "Outside of Time" answer was abit of a cop out
Theres a clear contradiction between Realms Lore and Planescape lore
Which material is the Originally?: The Realms! Planescapes clearly contradicted the older FR Lore.
In the latest books which version is supported Dead Gods or Throne of Bloodstone/Bloodstone lands?
From Dragons of Faerun Excerpt
"Gareth Dragonsbane, future king of Damara, and his adventuring companions returned from an expedition to the Abyss, having stolen the Wand of Orcus, shattered it in the blood of an avatar of Tiamat (checking her plans once again), and returned to Damara with the blessing of Bahamut."
The Realms wins again. You'll note that its says "THE WAND OF ORCUS" it doesnt says it was an Aspects Wand of Orcus nor does it say that it was 1 of Orcus collection of 30 Wands of Orcus
You cant have it both ways Kuje either the Realms Lore is right or the Planescape material is right and as of DoF (The latest Realms book) the Realms lore wins
Now if you want to use the Planescape material in your own campaign then more power to you if you want to use the Great Wheel go ahead but as far as "Canon" is concerned H4 has been vindicated |
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
"Its good to be the King!"
Mel Brooks |
|
|
|
Kuje
Great Reader
USA
7915 Posts |
Posted - 08 Aug 2006 : 05:02:34
|
There is no conflict, as I've told you for the third time now since there is a in game explaination for the changes. There was no retcon, since, again IN GAME explaination.
Sorry, but you are the one that wants it both ways because you are also forgotten, repeatedly, that Bloodstone was NOT originally a part of FR and so it doesn't matter which lore is original especially when there was an IN GAME reason for the change. So, you can't have it both ways Dargoth. All of the Bloodstone lore, FR lore from 2e, and Planescape lore is valid according to the game designer. So, he said it's all valid canon and since he wrote the 2e FR canon and the current canon, I think he knows what he's talking about. Oh, and actually the latest books for FR from 3/3.5e actually supports both, as I told you more then once.
You, we get it, just don't like the answer that he gave you, so why don't you drop the damn argument and pick one.
I'll repeat what Eric said, "I agree.
H4 is correct. Dead Gods is correct. DD is correct. DoF is correct. IMO, there is not a contradiction." |
For some of us, books are as important as almost anything else on earth. What a miracle it is that out of these small, flat, rigid squares of paper unfolds world after world, worlds that sing to you, comfort and quiet and excite you... Books are full of the things that you don't get in real life - wonderful, lyrical language, for instance, right off the bat. - Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium |
Edited by - Kuje on 08 Aug 2006 05:17:55 |
|
|
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
Posted - 08 Aug 2006 : 05:09:15
|
Arguing with designers about things they wrote, and their own words, usually isn't a sign of respect or comprehension. :)
I mean, you can argue with their OPINIONS on things... But saying, "No you didn't say that, that's wrong?" That's another story. |
Planescape Fanatic
"Fiends and Undead are the peanut butter and jelly of evil." - Me
"That attitude should be stomped on, whenever and wherever it's encountered, because it makes people holding such views bad citizens, not just bad roleplayers (considering D&D was structured as a 'forced cooperation' game, and although successive editions are pointing it more and more towards a me-first, min-max game, the drift away from 'we all need each other to succeed' will at some point make it 'no longer' D&D)." - ED GREENWOOD |
Edited by - GothicDan on 08 Aug 2006 05:24:28 |
|
|
|
Shemmy
Senior Scribe
USA
492 Posts |
Posted - 08 Aug 2006 : 05:36:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dargoth
Allow me to quote from H4
After killing Tiamat and her mates
"Being careful not to touch this most evil artifact, you move the Wand of Orcus into the black stinking blood from the heart of Tiamat it flares in tremendous explosion....."
"When the PCs recover from the explosion they see a small white gem where the Wand was."
Upon returning to the Bahumut he says
"You have succeeded in your mission, and now your realm will be made secure from Demonkind. Plant this gem (The one they pulled from Tiamats heart and the Wand of Orcus) in the courtyard of your castle, and tend the tree that grows from it....."
If that's all that H4 says on the subject, then it's not really clear that the Wand of Orcus was actually destroyed. It just flashes with light and vanishes. That's far from being a firm indication of the wand itself being destroyed, and plenty of room for alternate interpretations, and indeed the later, more detailed material from the GMM/Dead Gods cycle.
I don't see the conflict there if that's it, rather just a bit of pretty harsh hostility towards the material from Dead Gods, or really just the PS material in general. Did Monte Cook come over to your house and kick your puppy or something? |
Shemeska the Marauder, King of the Crosstrade; voted #1 best Arcanaloth in Sigil two hundred years running by the people who know what's best for them; chant broker; prospective Sigil council member next election; and official travel agent for Chamada Holiday specials LLC.
|
|
|
|
Dargoth
Great Reader
Australia
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08 Aug 2006 : 05:42:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shemmy
If that's all that H4 says on the subject, then it's not really clear that the Wand of Orcus was actually destroyed. It just flashes with light and vanishes. That's far from being a firm indication of the wand itself being destroyed, and plenty of room for alternate interpretations, and indeed the later, more detailed material from the GMM/Dead Gods cycle.
I don't see the conflict there if that's it, rather just a bit of pretty harsh hostility towards the material from Dead Gods, or really just the PS material in general. Did Monte Cook come over to your house and kick your puppy or something?
Hows this for a Firm indication:
From Dragons of Faerun Excerpt
"Gareth Dragonsbane, future king of Damara, and his adventuring companions returned from an expedition to the Abyss, having stolen the Wand of Orcus, shattered it in the blood of an avatar of Tiamat (checking her plans once again), and returned to Damara with the blessing of Bahamut."
It didnt teleport off in a flash of light it was destroyed utterly except for one small Gem which Gareth Dragonsbane took back to Damara |
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
"Its good to be the King!"
Mel Brooks |
|
|
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
Posted - 08 Aug 2006 : 05:44:06
|
| And you do realize that the Avatar of a God who wields a weapon of the deity has the same weapon name as that of the god's item itself, right? |
Planescape Fanatic
"Fiends and Undead are the peanut butter and jelly of evil." - Me
"That attitude should be stomped on, whenever and wherever it's encountered, because it makes people holding such views bad citizens, not just bad roleplayers (considering D&D was structured as a 'forced cooperation' game, and although successive editions are pointing it more and more towards a me-first, min-max game, the drift away from 'we all need each other to succeed' will at some point make it 'no longer' D&D)." - ED GREENWOOD |
|
|
|
Dargoth
Great Reader
Australia
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08 Aug 2006 : 05:52:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by GothicDan
And you do realize that the Avatar of a God who wields a weapon of the deity has the same weapon name as that of the god's item itself, right?
Again from Dragons of Faerun
"Gareth Dragonsbane, future king of Damara, and his adventuring companions returned from an expedition to the Abyss, having stolen the Wand of Orcus, shattered it in the blood of an avatar of Tiamat (checking her plans once again), and returned to Damara with the blessing of Bahamut."
You'll note that it says "having stolen THE Wand of Orcus..." it doesnt say having Stolen A Wand of Orcus or having stolen an Avatars Wand of Orcus etc
|
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
"Its good to be the King!"
Mel Brooks |
|
|
|
Archwizard
Learned Scribe
USA
266 Posts |
Posted - 08 Aug 2006 : 06:31:17
|
You do realize that even the quotes you presented from H4 and DoF contradict each other. One says the wand vanishes, the other says it shatters. In both cases neither is a definitive indication of utter and final destruction. I don't see why the Planescape plot is rubbing you the wrong way, it's not like it cheapen what Gareth Dragonsbane and his companions did. They rid the land of a horrible and potent evil, two of them even. An event significant enough to have him made king.
Like in all persistent worlds, villains return to torment good peoples time and time again. The "Weird Time of the Gods" concept is not all that strange considering a shared world setting. Other massive, multi-world, multi-dimension/universe shared settings have similar ideas, alternate universes, hyper time, sliding continuity, multiverse collapsing retcons. It's all part of the mythology and the charm. |
Edited by - Archwizard on 08 Aug 2006 06:32:50 |
|
|
|
Dargoth
Great Reader
Australia
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08 Aug 2006 : 06:39:51
|
Actually they both agree with each other
H4 doesnt say the Wand of Orcus vanished it says it exploded and the only piece left was the gem Gareth took. Id describe that as shattering. |
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
"Its good to be the King!"
Mel Brooks |
|
|
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
Posted - 08 Aug 2006 : 06:40:59
|
quote:
You'll note that it says "having stolen THE Wand of Orcus..." it doesnt say having Stolen A Wand of Orcus or having stolen an Avatars Wand of Orcus etc
You're arguing the use of ARTICLES OF SPEECH now?
This is just ridiculous.
If you're going to choose to interpret the word 'THE' as being somehow profoundly different from 'A,' then it just shows how rabidly, unnecessarily, and irrationally zealous you are about your stance. Zealots tend to be a little unhinged.
And that being said, I would consider ANY item of ANY deity "THE" for that deity, when one is encountering an avatar. Lathander's Avatar hits with his mace "Dawnbringer" (not the actual name, but anyway), not "Dawnbringer of Lathander's Avatar."
If a DM told me that an Aspect's or Avatar's weapon was "A Wand of Orcus," and not "THE Wand of Orcus," I'd throw the closest drink in his face for being so sloppy in dramatic presentation. |
Planescape Fanatic
"Fiends and Undead are the peanut butter and jelly of evil." - Me
"That attitude should be stomped on, whenever and wherever it's encountered, because it makes people holding such views bad citizens, not just bad roleplayers (considering D&D was structured as a 'forced cooperation' game, and although successive editions are pointing it more and more towards a me-first, min-max game, the drift away from 'we all need each other to succeed' will at some point make it 'no longer' D&D)." - ED GREENWOOD |
Edited by - GothicDan on 08 Aug 2006 06:43:34 |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 08 Aug 2006 : 06:44:00
|
| To the defense of Dargoth, There is a great difference between A and THE, Dan. That being said, I think this discussion is going nowhere and official cannon will just have to be accepted from the latest published product. |
|
|
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
Posted - 08 Aug 2006 : 06:46:15
|
Yes, but not in a world which is known for alternate realities, timelines, and subjective views of reality.
"THE Terraseer" wasn't what we thought he was, for example.
Eric has already said what, to him, is canon, and Eytan agreed.
I don't understand how anyone could argue any further. The two writers of this book clarified their intent.
It's done.
|
Planescape Fanatic
"Fiends and Undead are the peanut butter and jelly of evil." - Me
"That attitude should be stomped on, whenever and wherever it's encountered, because it makes people holding such views bad citizens, not just bad roleplayers (considering D&D was structured as a 'forced cooperation' game, and although successive editions are pointing it more and more towards a me-first, min-max game, the drift away from 'we all need each other to succeed' will at some point make it 'no longer' D&D)." - ED GREENWOOD |
Edited by - GothicDan on 08 Aug 2006 06:48:08 |
|
|
|
Archwizard
Learned Scribe
USA
266 Posts |
Posted - 08 Aug 2006 : 06:50:41
|
Now you're just going into marginal technicalities. Explosion technically isn't shatter. Shatter seems to imply a breaking of the artifact with pieces left over. Then according to your arguments, DoF being the newest lore, overides the old statement of an explosion. Then by being shattered, pieces of the wand survived, excluding the gem taken by Gareth and co. If significant pieces survived, then maybe it doesn't need to be completely remade with a hundred year wait period.
At this point, it might just be better to agree to disagree. Even the words of the designer and writer of the book, which the majority seems to accept, does not satisfy everyone. There is no longer room for discussion, only opportunities to disagree. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Details on Orcus (Timeframe and Details)
Topic Locked
