Post/Author/DateTime	Post
goldomark 10-30-07, 03:23 AM	If I get the new Dragon column: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20071029&authentic=true, their will be one pantheon for all the capaing settings; FR, Eberron, Greyhawk and points-of-light-world. It kind of feals like PS, but the gods are present in different crystal spheres, not just one or a few. So I guess we're back at a unified cosmology too. PS lives!
Franco Un-American 10-30-07, 04:45 AM	Ummm, I think you've missed the point entirely. It's that the "core" pantheon will consist of members of many previous pantheons, not that every setting will use the same pantheon. I like what I hear, though.
sciborg3 10-30-07, 11:12 AM	Not to be, uh, "weiner"-ish, but I always felt Planescape had little to do with a unified cosmology. In fact I think it would have worked better had the previous settings never been mentioned or accorded less of a substandard position. Eberron having intefering gods would be a disaster.
goldomark 10-30-07, 02:21 PM	Then I don't get it. Why would the new core pantheon prevent this: Originally Posted by James Wyatt When we wanted to put a temple in an adventure, what god would it be dedicated to? We could make Generic Evil Temples™, but that would sap a lot of the flavor out of our adventures, and rob us of specific plot hooks and story lines based on the portfolios and histories of these gods. When we wanted to illustrate a cleric in one of our books, what holy symbol would the cleric hold? Again, we could rely on a stable of generic symbols (maybe the Zapf Dingbat font?), but at the cost of a lot of flavor. Won't the same problems arise again? After all, they are just switching from one core pantheon to another.
Sarella Starshine 10-30-07, 03:23 PM	For adventures based in the default setting they can use the names of the pantheon they have said was an evil deity. For adventures based in Ebberon, Forgotten Realms, or any of the other settings that may or may not be released they will use those deities instead. Its much like what they are doing now. Ebberon-speific adventures use Ebberon-speicific stuff. Forgotten Realms adventures use Forgotten Realms stuff. What they were addressing was if there was no default set of gods in the default setting, and they needed an evil temple. Its (usually) better to have an evil temple to a set god then to have just Generic Evil Temple. The problem is not one of a default pantheon, but one of what would happen without one.
The Ubbergeek 10-30-07, 08:33 PM	It's weird, but I actually like this Conan-ification...
goldomark 10-31-07, 02:14 AM	For adventures based in the default setting they can use the names of the pantheon they have said was an evil deity. For adventures based in Ebberon, Forgotten Realms, or any of the other settings that may or may not be released they will use those deities instead. Its much like what they are doing now. Ebberon-speific adventures use Ebberon-speicific stuff. Forgotten Realms adventures use Forgotten Realms stuff. What they were addressing was if there was no default set of gods in the default setting, and they needed an evil temple. Its (usually) better to have an evil temple to a set god then to have just Generic Evil Temple. The problem is not one of a default pantheon, but one of what would happen without one. This is clearer now, but I'm still confused. I thought that this is what they were already doing. I can't remember a Generic Evil Temple (with no specific god, if I understood your comments) in any books, but I don't have them all.
The Ubbergeek 10-31-07, 02:17 AM	the generic evil temple was a somewhat not serious call for well, a generic evil temple. Faut pas prendre cà littéralement, mon ami. :P
navar100 10-31-07, 02:19 AM	A published adventure says "This is a Temple of Erythnal" Does any DM really have such a problem making it Cyric, Takhisis, Hecata, Set, Loki, Big Bad Evil god if not playing "Greyhawk"?
goldomark 10-31-07, 02:48 AM	the generic evil temple was a somewhat not serious call for well, a generic evil temple. Faut pas prendre cà littéralement, mon ami. :P :doh: Ça prend ben un gars de québec pour me dire ça ;) A published adventure says "This is a Temple of Erythnal" Does any DM really have such a problem making it Cyric, Takhisis, Hecata, Set, Loki, Big Bad Evil god if not playing "Greyhawk"? Well this is exactly why I don't understand the change. If somebody wants to run a pre-made adventure in the Realms, he still will have to change the god in the temple. Old core pantheon or new one. So was changing the core pantheon so necessary? But I'm giving it a rest.
Japan_the_cougar 10-31-07, 05:15 PM	Having just read the article, I'm a little sad, mostly because I liked all the 3rd deities. But having them axe Heironeous and Hextor gets rid of a large dynamic of the standard Greyhawk pantheon. And if Bane is being brought in to be the opposite of Bahamut, then what will happen to Tiamat and all the spawn that were just made for her? I imagine I'm interpreting some of the facts wrong and jumping to odd conclusions, but the half-brother gods play a big role in the d20 future game I'm currently in, so the article hit pretty hard at home for me (even though I play a doctor who pays lip service to Kyuss)
The Ubbergeek 10-31-07, 05:44 PM	Because Core is NOT supposed to be tied directly to settinsg anymore. Will there is Conanesque burrowing, the default core stuff is more like a default, demo example of world creation.... distinct, not tied. Adapting is always to do.... eitheir way, mon pit.
Mr_Seth 10-31-07, 09:05 PM	The new core setting is a warped refinement of the 3.5 core world, the same way that 3.5 warped and refined the core world of 2e - remember the rule that all dwarven women had beards? Or the old orcish pantheon? And please... stop speaking French in an English-language forum. This will only spiral out of control until people are making obscure quotes in Klingon Pig Latin.
Tarascon 10-31-07, 09:34 PM	And please... stop speaking French in an English-language forum. This will only spiral out of control until people are making obscure quotes in Klingon Pig Latin. hW dd y ame aLangu ii iqu diver eh, y ekghob. After all, as the Vulcans say, "I'poprah fasei setebihk t'ovsotuhl-ozhika".
Zousha_Omenohu 11-01-07, 03:02 PM	The new core setting is a warped refinement of the 3.5 core world, the same way that 3.5 warped and refined the core world of 2e - remember the rule that all dwarven women had beards? Or the old orcish pantheon? No, what was the old Orc pantheon like?
Ornum 11-01-07, 03:11 PM	Because Core is NOT supposed to be tied directly to settinsg anymore. Will there is Conanesque burrowing, the default core stuff is more like a default, demo example of world creation.... distinct, not tied. Adapting is always to do.... eitheir way, mon pit. Well, that's not the case in this instance. Its already been stated that the Realms will share the core cosmological setup. The "core" deities won't be a part of the Realms (although it would now be easy enough to allow them to be, if you wanted to), but the general setup of the planes will still remain (gods will have their own domains that float in the Astral Sea, etc.)
lord_zack 11-01-07, 04:06 PM	Even though I'm using the Great Wheel the changes they are making to some of the dietys intrigues me. I'm of course using them in they're respective pantheons, but I'll mine the new ideas and use what I like.
Sarella Starshine 11-01-07, 04:49 PM	Also remember: 4e core setting is NOT greyhawk. Greyhawk I *think* will be relegated back to being a seperate, optional setting (like Forgotten Realms and Ebberon). Things that are Greyhawk will still stay Greyhawk. They want to have enough detail in the core setting that it can be used by DMs who don't/won't/can't make thier own setting (or use an established one), yet, have as little as possible for DM's (and players by extension) to fill out to make it thier own. They were talking about a hypothetical situation with the Generic Evil Temple (there is no Generic Evil Temple in any of the adventures that uses them, because until recently, there was never any question of not having a pantheon in a core setting). They were discussing a 'what if' situation. They came to the conclusiong that having something (in this case a set of core gods) is better than having nothing and making people (DMs in this case) come up with something themselves. Now, in no way this will prevent DMs from making up thier own things, just means that if a DM doesn't/can't/won't, he won't be forced into a postion where he has to.
ripvanwormer 11-01-07, 08:07 PM	No, what was the old Orc pantheon like? Predominantly lawful evil. Otherwise identical.