Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Wenin 04-09-07, 11:43 AM	I see that frequently GMs state that they ignore the Avatar Trilogy, and I've wondered why, and what effect this has had on their campaign. If you've ignored the Avatar Trilogy.... In a general statement, why did you ignore it? Does Cyric or Kelemvor exist in your game? Are gods only as powerful as they have faithful? I'd guess that many GMs that avoid the Avatar Trilogy, do it because it just doesn't fit..... IE... they are running a campaign around Trantas, they really can't have a large section of the city destroyed. =) Or, they really like Bane, Mrykul, or Bhaal. Or they don't like the shakeup that has happened nearly constantly around Zhentil Keep. Of the events I recall in the trilogy, those are the major ones. Are there other realms affecting issues involved, that would have a GM avoid the event?
GothicDan 04-09-07, 11:46 AM	The majority of people ignore the Avatar Crisis - as far as I know - because it was a miserable idea that gives an artificial monotheistic feel to the Realms (with the introduction of AO as THE Supreme God and the like), and because it depicts the deities often as overgrown juvenile delinquents lacking the IQ of a warm potato, and because the massive, direct deific influence on the Realms really isn't very keeping in theme. I personally thought that people saying "I can have Illiad-like encounters in the Realms!" are a little bit 'off,' if not entirely wrong. You CAN.... I guess. And, personally, I prefered Myrkul to Kelemvor, the LN Mystra to the NG, and I dislike Cyric, even if I'm not a big fan of Bane. Leira, though, was all about the awesome.
Faraer 04-09-07, 01:03 PM	The Avatar Crisis was an attempt to create a big, well-publicized Realms publishing 'event', tieing in with the publication of 2nd edition AD&D (a minor rules change in the scheme of things), just two years after the first Realms campaign set. It removed effective, long-standing gods (for reasons no one involved seems to remember) and replaced some of them with novel characters who were, I think, less interesting, and certainly less convincing divinities. It demystified the gods by manifesting them all at once -- which is in principle a decent gambit if you feature the event directly in your campaign, but if not, you're left with the demystification, which is seen in the people who perceive Faerūn's gods as being interventionist (and Faerūn as a setting of gigantic crises) although the Time of Troubles was supposed to be exceptional. The novels misportrayed a number of established characters in order to drive along the plot; the modules were poorly conceived (though well executed) linear things; the whole set the precedent for RSEs which I think has been much to the Realms' detriment in several ways. Yes, it introduced the cryptomonotheist, overliteral reconception of the afterlife. To me, it's just a hassle and a pain, an artificial deus ex machina in the bad sense, with nothing much in its favour except some striking scenes in the Shadow of the Avatar novels. Both before and after the Time of Troubles, the worship a god receives is a major, but not sole, factor in its power.
Lord Karsus 04-09-07, 10:16 PM	-I, personally, think that the Time of Troubles was an interesting idea, but that it could have been pulled off a little better. So, in other words, if we could go back in time, I'd edit some parts, rather than prevent it completely. -That's my only major problem with it (and it's not really that "major" of a problem). But, then again, I don't DM in the Realms, so I don't have to bother with all of the D&D-esque problems it raises.
ElberethSilverleaf 04-09-07, 11:35 PM	I couldn't stand it because it brought in this whole "overgod" drek. Also the trilogy was poorly written imo.
Wenin 04-10-07, 08:10 AM	I couldn't stand it because it brought in this whole "overgod" drek. Also the trilogy was poorly written imo. Beyond the stories within the books, Ao has very little effect on the realms itself. Do you still have the power levels of gods dependent upon the faith of their followers?
Faraer 04-10-07, 02:13 PM	Do you still have the power levels of gods dependent upon the faith of their followers?Again, that wasn't introduced by the Avatar Vortex. Cyclopedia of the Realms p. 10: "The "gods" of the Realms . . . grow or diminish in personal power in relation to the number of mortal worshippers they possess."
Fokinther 04-10-07, 03:04 PM	In my campaign/variant Realms, the Avatar Crisis did not happen, so I don't have Cyric or Kelemvor. I did enjoy the Baldur's Gate Series and its Bhaalspawn plotline, but that's about it. Of course, ignoring the Time of Troubles meant that quite a few things had to be rewritten as well (no Bane/Cyric Zhentarim infighting etc.) I still want Tiamat to get rid of Gilgeam in Unther somehow, but I need to work out the details. I ignored the Avatar Trilogy because I want the gods in my games/novels to remain mysterious forces who do not directly interfere with the mortal world. I don't want them to be statistics to be fought and killed by epic-level heroes either. The second reason why I have no ToT in my campaign is because I choose to ignore most novel events and those RSEs. Look at the timeline- Faerun has been through more epic cataclysms in the past twenty (game) years than it has in centuries. It seems like the Realms version of Ragnorok is on its way! Anyhow, in my campaign a god's personal power is indeed measured by the number and faith of its worshippers.
Eladrinstar 04-10-07, 04:19 PM	I doubt the majority of people ignore the Time of Troubles. Maybe some people who have been playing since 1e, but I doubt most people have been playing that long.
GothicDan 04-10-07, 04:47 PM	I've only played since latter 2E and I'd certainly ignore it. :)
Lord Karsus 04-10-07, 07:15 PM	I ignored the Avatar Trilogy because I want the gods in my games/novels to remain mysterious forces who do not directly interfere with the mortal world. -For the most part, deities still are that way. Sure, deities make themselves known more, but that doesn't mean that they are performing mircales for peasant farmers left and right. I don't want them to be statistics to be fought and killed by epic-level heroes either. -That is a DM decision, though technically, deities should not have actual statistics. :nonono: Look at the timeline- Faerun has been through more epic cataclysms in the past twenty (game) years than it has in centuries. -Just like the real world, there are periods where nothing much really happens, and there are periods where things are constantly happening, and the misinformed are preaching about the end of the world. ;)
Mr_Miscellany 04-10-07, 11:33 PM	I doubt the majority of people ignore the Time of Troubles. Maybe some people who have been playing since 1e, but I doubt most people have been playing that long. IMX people who talk about the Realms online, and came to the Realms after the ToT was published and during or after the release of 3E just aren't that concerned about it enough to ignore it in their campaigns (Dan excepted, of course ;) ). People who ran campaigns during the ToT novel/adventure release....well in RL it wasn't ignored in any of the campaigns I was involved in. But it also wasn't something we as PCs dealt with or I as a DM brought up during play. It was basically like it happened, most of us read about it and, well, whatever. We're playing 2E and lets just get on with the fun. I DIMLY recall people on the Realms-L list of old being 50/50 (anyone with a better memory please chime in). That is a DM decision, though technically, deities should not have actual statistics.Technically Gods do have stats, but you're also right it's the pervue of a DM as to whether Gods in his or her campaign should be killable or not. :D
Burningspear 04-10-07, 11:59 PM	I I still want Tiamat to get rid of Gilgeam in Unther somehow, but I need to work out the details. I however have been playing since just before the ToT, and to me it seems written poorly, executed even worse, and just as an afterthought, regardless of whether or not it has anything to do with the main story line, lets kill of some "redundant" Gods, who are not interesting anyway... I am a big fan of how Gilgeam and the others of that broken up Pantheon have been portrayed (Assuran/ Hoar, Tiamat and more), and i very much "hate" the fact that Gilgeam was written of in such an amateurishly way. He is very much the same kind of "crappy" Tyrant that Bane is as well, and Bane manages to return via the death of a god???, so why has Gilgeam not been able to come back and reclaim his land and Pantheon?, very sad indeed. And please don't give me the kind of "crap" that Bane is in a different Pantheon and thus deserves to live, while the Untherite Pantheon was dying anyway. I have more grievances about out-writing the Untherite Pantheon from the Forgotten Realms, but i am not able yet to put them in words, maybe later.. :plotting:
Lord Karsus 04-11-07, 12:08 AM	People who ran campaigns during the ToT novel/adventure release....well in RL it wasn't ignored in any of the campaigns I was involved in. But it also wasn't something we as PCs dealt with or I as a DM brought up during play. -See, that's how most RSEs should be dealt with.
Karsus the Mad 04-12-07, 08:36 AM	People who ran campaigns during the ToT novel/adventure release....well in RL it wasn't ignored in any of the campaigns I was involved in. But it also wasn't something we as PCs dealt with or I as a DM brought up during play. Ditto. Every DM I know in person includes it, but it's invariably unanimous in it's place in backstage.
MarkusTay63 04-12-07, 03:40 PM	I ignore it for the most part, and my players don't know the Realms all that well so they have no clue it existed. I had stopped playing during the ToT (unrelated), and when I got back into it I just set everything slightly into the future after the return of Myrkul and Bane (I predicted Bane's return, LOL). Kel's been demoted to the judge of the dead (Demi-god for now), and only Baal's still missing. His follower's spells are being answered lately by a power new to the Realms (although not to the Eastern lands). I'll give you a hint, she's got four arms and makes Baal look like a 6yr old halfling armed with a popcicle stick. :devil: So, I guess I used the ToT to help me with my post-ToT power-shifts. In the long run I was able to turn a negative into a positive, so looking back it wasn't completely horrible. ;)
True_Atlantean 04-14-07, 07:01 AM	I actually liked the Avatar trilogy, they were the first FR novels that I ever read, on recommendation from the owner of the local gaming store at the time. I have found that most players dislike the ToT because it messes with their characters, especially the mages and clerics. If it is sprung on players with no warning, then it is confusing, disorienting and 'devalues' the magic users (at least in the players perspectives). However, if the players are told 'up-front' that the Avatar trilogy modules are going to be run, it does change the flavour of the game, but the players know it is coming. However, to reiterate, I liked the ToT and the novels, it has been an awful lot of the newer stuff for the Realms that I haven't liked. I prefer the older feel, back in 2nd ed....
GothicDan 04-14-07, 07:13 AM	I guess it would upset those Mages whose characters cared, for some weird reason, what alignment Mystra was... I mean, even for the very brief time she was denying the spells to evil spellcasters, there's absolutely no reason for them to have known what was going on. It was right after the ToT, when magic went insane, so it could have just been a few flukes... I just really dislike the idea of the ToT itself, and how it played out. A Godswar that went on a little more 'off the stage' would have been cooler. As long as Myrkul had lived.* :( *Or unlived, and remained deity of the dead.
Lady_K 04-14-07, 07:35 AM	I'm glad the Sage never used the Time of Troubles in our Realms campaign. I've always felt that the depiction of the gods in the Avatar novels is just basically literary licence: it doesn't, in any way, match the deities as conceived elsewhere in the Realmslore and should never be taken as definitive of them.
Lady_Mhaor 04-14-07, 01:22 PM	He is very much the same kind of "crappy" Tyrant that Bane is as well, and Bane manages to return via the death of a god???, so why has Gilgeam not been able to come back and reclaim his land and Pantheon?, very sad indeed. And please don't give me the kind of "crap" that Bane is in a different Pantheon and thus deserves to live, while the Untherite Pantheon was dying anyway. I think the reason gilgeam cant come back is because Tiamat absorbed him and the entire pantheon in one fell swoop Unlike when the loyal fury slew bane, no one absorbed either of their portoflio, and so as I understand it the baneson was born just so bane could return if he ever died. And I rather like the idea of the gods being brought down to "mortal" levels, and taught that they weren't the most powerful force in all the realms. Thought they could have left the afterlife alone, but meh
BrennonGoldeye 04-14-07, 09:04 PM	I've always felt that the depiction of the gods in the Avatar novels is just basically literary licence: it doesn't, in any way, match the deities as conceived elsewhere in the Realmslore and should never be taken as definitive of them. I agree fully. I do think that point was made self evident by the stuation though. The were forced into what a mortal body could hold. To a greater Diety that could be compared to quadriplegia. Mystra's actions alone should point to the stress of the situation. I bet that sentence will get some comeback.:) Note than I fudged the ToT in my FR campaign. But the fudge was based on PC interaction. All the Gods are around except for Mask and Kelemvor. Lyonsbane is a Proxy now. The Aspect of Mask fell during The Paladin Wars. You should meet my Shuruppak. :headexplo
Yaeri 04-15-07, 09:30 AM	I very much like the time of troubles. But then, I got into D&D through: Baldur's gate I and II, and from there into 3rd edition D&D. I very much liked the concept of so many gods being destroyed (as opposed to a never changing stalemate) yet all of them leaving behind their traces (spooky temple of Amounator in BGII) and the possibility of some of them returning. I also liked the epic-ness of all the gods suddenly being cast down to earth. Though I can very much imagine the cheap hollywood factor this must hold for many 1st edition realmsians.
Purple Dragon Knight 04-15-07, 05:36 PM	I actually started play in the Realms by DMing my group through the Shadowdale, Tantras and Waterdeep modules! :) Before that, I was running my homebrew world so to speak, using a few standalone FR products here and there and 'wondering' about this whole Forgotten Realms thing that kept looking at me from a big gray box at my FLGS... I knew that without the big box I'd always be confused about the info I was getting from the other supplements. So to me, the Avatar Crisis adventures were a godsend, as they were basically an introduction to the Realms, a "Grand Tour of the Realms" so to speak. They hold a particular nostalgic value in my eyes, as the three adventures firmed up and solidified my gaming group in ways my "awesome" DMing skills could have never done (they said I was awesome, but I think they were just too lazy to DM themselves, and used flattery to make me do all the work! ;) ) After the three adventures, we moved on to Undermountain, a logical decision as the Waterdeep adventure ended in well, Waterdeep! :D We kept having fun for years there, and never truly mastered Halaster's domain (i.e. PCs one day just went nuts and got out of that "madhouse" as quick as they could, worried that their high-levelness was being wasted in a place where no one paid for their obviously useless cleanup mission, as the monster they killed seemed to reappear right back where they left them a few days later... ;) aaahhh... good old Halaster! :cool: )
GothicDan 04-15-07, 06:36 PM	(spooky temple of Amounator in BGII) Amaunator died long before the Time of Troubles, though.
Burningspear 04-15-07, 07:03 PM	Amaunator died long before the Time of Troubles, though. Did not mean there did not exist a temple dedicated to him and certain followers and servants still existing in it... :plotting:
GothicDan 04-15-07, 07:05 PM	Yes. That's true, but had nothing to do with the point to which I was referring.
Karsus the Mad 04-15-07, 07:06 PM	Amaunator died long before the Time of Troubles, though. Actually, in the game, there's still a last vestige of his essence, which wants you to get pieces of the rod of seven parts, which all just happen to be in Athkatla:rolleyes: And of course the other temple to Amaunator in the wilderness, where the Shadow King resides (not Larloch OR Caledan Caldorien, different Shadow King).
Burningspear 04-15-07, 07:11 PM	I think the reason gilgeam cant come back is because Tiamat absorbed him and the entire pantheon in one fell swoop Unlike when the loyal fury slew bane, no one absorbed either of their portoflio, and so as I understand it the baneson was born just so bane could return if he ever died. Not quite, in my eyes she was not even powerful enough to sustain her presence in the realms and was kicked out before the ToT, and only by bargaining with AO himself she was allowed to come back, witch i think is a very cheap way of writing a god back into the story while she should have been dead in the realms. No Tiamat in my eyes would have at least been faired considering the Tiamat/ Gilgeam story/ effect. not this kind of cheap ripoff. :plotting: :tie: And her not being in the realms to claim his portfolio's means she did not get all the portfolio's he had and neither did she get the whole "pantheon's" place in Faeruhn, She got nothing but death, as they bolth died and and she temporarily had no presence in the realms at that time uptill and during the ToT.
Lord Karsus 04-15-07, 07:22 PM	And of course the other temple to Amaunator in the wilderness, where the Shadow King resides (not Larloch OR Caledan Caldorien, different Shadow King). -How many Shadowking's are there? I can understand that there might be a lot of different Shadowkings in different settings (Let's face ot- Shadowking is the next John), but 3+ in one setting...Now we're just getting a little excessive. Let's not throw the WitchKing/Queen into the mix...:rolleyes:
Karsus the Mad 04-15-07, 08:07 PM	-How many Shadowking's are there? I can understand that there might be a lot of different Shadowkings in different settings (Let's face ot- Shadowking is the next John), but 3+ in one setting...Now we're just getting a little excessive. Let's not throw the WitchKing/Queen into the mix...:rolleyes: Well, there's the Witch-Queen of the North and the With-Queen of Aglarond...sisters to boot:P Then the Lich-King...well, I suppose that doesn't really count...lich, witch...ehhhhh...
Fabius Maximus 04-15-07, 08:23 PM	He's actually called the Witch-King. ;) I get that wrong everytime, too.
Burningspear 04-15-07, 08:26 PM	Well, there's the Witch-Queen of the North and the With-Queen of Aglarond...sisters to boot:P Then the Lich-King...well, I suppose that doesn't really count...lich, witch...ehhhhh... it wonders the mind that only male liches have been shown in artwork, would be cewl to see some female ones, although not to pinup :D
Karsus the Mad 04-15-07, 08:26 PM	He's actually called the Witch-King. ;) I get that wrong everytime, too. :eek: I just checked. How I never realized that before I have no bloody clue:confused: it wonders the mind that only male liches have been shown in artwork, would be cewl to see some female ones, although not to pinup There's that picture of Lady Saharel of Spellgard in LEoF. She's a ghost now, but was once an archlich. The piccy looks like she kept the lichiness look. Thankfully she's fully clothed:P
cat_god 04-15-07, 10:10 PM	I got into FR by watching my dad play BG and BGII. For that reason I never really had any problem with the ToT. However, the first FR death god I heard of was Myrkul, when I played Icewind Dale, and he's just sort of stuck with me ever since.
Lord Karsus 04-16-07, 12:18 AM	However, the first FR death god I heard of was Myrkul, when I played Icewind Dale, and he's just sort of stuck with me ever since. -I'm sure you'd be happy to know that Myrkul isn't dead, then. ;)
Burningspear 04-16-07, 12:23 AM	-I'm sure you'd be happy to know that Myrkul isn't dead, then. ;) nope, indeed, but just merely happily giggling in a little crown, supposedly happy because he is not stuck with godly restrictions..as if....not justifiable i think..
Lord Karsus 04-16-07, 12:24 AM	-Close enough. ;)
Yaeri 04-16-07, 10:58 AM	Amaunator died long before the Time of Troubles, though. Ah yes, he was a netherese god. I should have known. It seems that every time I post on the realms forums I somehow state something completely wrong, that I actually knew. Luckily there's you guys to prevent me from repeating the same mistake, and force me to come up with a new one. :D ;) Actually, in the game, there's still a last vestige of his essence, which wants you to get pieces of the rod of seven parts, which all just happen to be in Athkatla:rolleyes: And of course the other temple to Amaunator in the wilderness, where the Shadow King resides (not Larloch OR Caledan Caldorien, different Shadow King). I don't remember the vestige part/Athkatla Amaunator quest. Yup that temple with the shadow dragon was the one I was referring to. :)
CuttinCurt 04-17-07, 12:35 PM	IMO, the avatar series books were not that good, as most of you state here. About the best "read" I had on the ToT was from the Legacy Series when the Salvatore had the psionic house crumble because they waited to long to act. I found that quite well written and that is about all I can say about the ToT. In my games, it was in the background, as no character worshipped any of the gods that died, however, we did have a cleric of Torm, and he was quite a hit in Cormyr. However, it was mostly in the background. CC