Post/Author/DateTime	Post
goldomark 09-24-07, 01:07 PM	What are those. I know that a Faithless does not believe in gods, like the PS Athar, but what is a False :confused: ? Thanks mighty sages :bow:
captaincarot 09-24-07, 01:32 PM	some one who pays lipservice to a god while not really believing in them or some one who pretends to follow a gods tennets while doing quite the opposite. such as a supposed ilmater worshiper who outwardly seems fine but inprivate is a self serving rather nasty person.
daimyotx 09-24-07, 01:33 PM	IIRC - False basically means that you died living a life that is completely contradictory to your chosen patron's dogma. Faithless just means that you never declared a patron and will be consigned to the wall.
goldomark 09-24-07, 02:51 PM	So the False can be, but are not always, clerics who didn't really fallow the teaching's of their god. My questions are: 1) wouldn't the god know of the lies and strip the cleric of its powers? 2) What about alternative sects or teachings of a certain god. Like LE clerics of Helm (Ao have is soul) don't preach the same faith as LG cleric of Helm would. Who would Helm consider True? If I understand everything, clerics who adopted a philosophy (like physical improvement and chooses the celeraty and strenght domains, to give an exemple) rather then a god, are faithless. Weird. Those clerics have faith, even if they don't have a patron deity. They are not atheists.
ExtinctionBeta 09-24-07, 04:04 PM	Um, so wait. If you are talking about FR...wouldn't being Atheist be logically wrong for Gods have been proven to exist? And if you are talking about real life, I wouldn't mind repsonding to this but, I want to make sure before getting anyone upset within their own belifes.
Gray Richardson 09-24-07, 09:56 PM	So the False can be, but are not always, clerics who didn't really fallow the teaching's of their god.Yes, but it could also be an innkeeper of Ilmater who slays his guests to rob them of their money. Or a kindly orc barbarian of Gruumsh who warns the local elf village of an impending raid in order to spare their lives. Or a follower of Bane who pays lipservice to Cyric in order to fit in to a Cyricist community. Or a lycanthrope of Selune who murders indiscriminately, not taking care to tame his bestial side. Or a bard of Oghma who burns the only written copies of his rival's compositions. Anyone can be False, not just clerics, but it generally requires the person to act in heinous disregard or opposition to the creed of his faith. Minor transgressions are forgivable, and depending on the god, even major transgressions may be forgivable with some kind of atonement. But the False are unapologetic or at least heedless of their actions. If you are familiar to Catholicism, it might be a little like the difference between Venial and Mortal sins. But don't take the analogy too far. What qualifies a soul to be "False" may vary from religion to religion and especially on the personality of the god. Basically to be False you have to make your patron god abhor and reject your veneration.1) wouldn't the god know of the lies and strip the cleric of its powers?1a) yes he would know, and 1b) typically they strip powers only as a last resort. I believe Ed Greenwood has said something to the effect that the character would first get signs and visions indicating the god's displeasure as a warning to atone or bring his behavior back in line with the god's rules. Continued failure to correct one's behavior would then likely involve escalating sanctions such as loss of spell slots, or the granted spells being different from those requested. Persistent intransigence could cause the cleric to lose all spells and/or class benefits altogether until he atones. 2) What about alternative sects or teachings of a certain god. Like LE clerics of Helm (Ao have is soul) don't preach the same faith as LG cleric of Helm would. Who would Helm consider True?The one-step rule does not allow any cleric to deviate more than one-step away from his god's alignment. In Faerūn however, some gods have unique and special alignment arrays, see Faiths & Pantheons for which alignments are permissible for each god. However the Heretic feat allows a character to deviate by up to 2 steps from his god's alignment. Typically the heretic remains in good standing with the god so long as he follows the creed of the god or the creed that is established by the heresy. We don't have a lot of textual guidance in this area, but so long as the character has the feat and his behavior conforms reasonably to the mores of the god or the heresy, he should be okay.If I understand everything, clerics who adopted a philosophy (like physical improvement and chooses the celeraty and strenght domains, to give an exemple) rather then a god, are faithless. Weird. Those clerics have faith, even if they don't have a patron deity. They are not atheists.You can't really do that in the Realms. Well, unless your DM lets you of course. Ed Greenwood has said that all divine power in the Realms comes ultimately from a divine source. There may be some clerics of the Realms who THINK they are venerating a philosophy, but all their spells are really coming from a god somewhere who is honoring that cleric's belief and granting him powers and spells because the philosophy impinges on the portfolios of that god or because it pleases or serves the god's interest to do so. It may be a viable option to worship an abstract in other settings, but in the Realms, the gods have a monopoly on the Power.
Red_Wizard 09-25-07, 06:12 PM	Um, so wait. If you are talking about FR...wouldn't being Atheist be logically wrong for Gods have been proven to exist? And if you are talking about real life, I wouldn't mind repsonding to this but, I want to make sure before getting anyone upset within their own belifes. There is a difference between not believing in god/gods due to a lack of valid proof of a divine beings presence, and choosing not to worship something that is simply a more powerful being, but by no means omnipotent in it's ability to manipulate your surroundings. Some choose to put faith in their self, over faith in something they may or may not fully comprehend.
goldomark 09-28-07, 03:32 AM	Thanks for the insight Gray, you are a bank of knowledge. As for the comments on atheism... I do understand that atheism is weird in a world where the existance of gods has been proven many times. Maybe even on a daily basis. I was referring to a faction or sect from the Planescape setting, the Athar. They don't say Mystra, Tyr, Bane, Ao, etc, do not existe at all. The Athar say that gods are just not gods, but really really powerful indviduals who present themselfs as gods. For good or bad reasons these powerful entities call themselfs gods. The Athar oppose this fallicious pretence. So in this perspective, atheism is possible. And that would make the Athar faithless. Ironicly, some Athars are clerics. But philosopher clerics. Believing in principales. This is why I was talking about a cleric believing in physical improvement. But since faith or the cosmos aren't forces who give power on Abeir-Toril, I'll just have to DMed that rule :D .
GothicDan 09-28-07, 07:08 PM	Being a big Planescape fan, I'll have to point out that the Imaskari had a very similar approach to deities as the Athar, it seems. We know that, in the Realms, you CAN get up to 2nd level spells based on pure personal faith. But beyond that, no. I would not consider the Athar Clerics to be the same type as those on Prime Material Planes. In a way, most of the Factions' philosophy-granted powers were a sign of how strong their faith was, and how the Outer Planes were especially mutable. The Gods of Abeir-Toril, one could consider, BELIEVE strongly enough in themselves that they would probably overpower any mortals' attempts to gain significant clerical power through their own philosophical faith.
goldomark 09-29-07, 03:08 AM	Being a big Planescape fan, I'll have to point out that the Imaskari had a very similar approach to deities as the Athar, it seems. Cool. Did Jaamdath have the same kind of faith? I'm saying this because of the dagger used by Bane, Myrkul and Bhaal. The dagger that was used to kill the God of hate, you know, the Lake of burning Mud or something, featured in Faiths and Pantheons. The dagger was full of Jaamdathi spirits or something (this is far away in my brain). It was said the spirits where there, inpart, because they did not belive in gods. Again I stress that this is far away in my memory and I could be in the potatoes. The Gods of Abeir-Toril, one could consider, BELIEVE strongly enough in themselves that they would probably overpower any mortals' attempts to gain significant clerical power through their own philosophical faith. Well this is where I disagree. Why would the FR gods have more confidence in themselfs then the Greyhawk gods? Why would the ego of the FR gods be, well, bigger? Answer: because they're more popular? Just kidding :D , I couldn't resist, but the question is real. Also, your argument takes away any possibility of real freedom and ability to choose for oneself. I know this is base on Ed Greenwoods words, but it kind of makes the FR lame (please don't flame me for saying this :) ). By that I meen that its lame not being able to choose you faith or atleast the source of you powers. But of course someone with real faith wouldn't choose power, it would stick with its principales. This makes me realize that maybe Ed Greewood is really religious. The end of the Avatar series would indicate that, Ao speaking to a higher being then himself (possibly God). And is beliefs could be reflected in the FR. Interesting! Note that this is not a religious opinion, just a realization.
SgtAnjay 09-29-07, 05:48 PM	The feel, the flavor, the mood of the Forgotten Realms has always been one in which the gods have great power and play their games in the mortal world akin to the way many ancient Earth pantheons did in their myths. It would contradict this aspect of the Forgotten Realms to have people running around who didn't need gods for divine power. It has nothing to do with how religious Ed is. The only characters this possibly limits are divine casters. And considering how wide and varied the gods of Faerun are, this isn't very limiting at all. The only ones who are ever really constrained are clerics, in that they cant just choose two random domains for their cleric; they have to pick a deity and are thus limited to the domains for that deity. BTW, most speculate that the "higher being" at the end of the Avatar series was the DM, not some monotheistic deity. The ancient pantheistic feel of the Realms (making a fire? pray to kossuth. Going to sea? placate Umberlee. Building something? ask gond for help. Oh, and no worship of AO, the overdeity) is actually quite anti-monotheistic.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 09-29-07, 08:33 PM	Also, your argument takes away any possibility of real freedom and ability to choose for oneself. I know this is base on Ed Greenwoods words, but it kind of makes the FR lame (please don't flame me for saying this :) ). By that I meen that its lame not being able to choose you faith or atleast the source of you powers. With a hundred or so gods in the FR, and the setting being polytheistic, how is one not able to choose one's faith in the FR setting? Also, I agree that Ed's degree of, um, being religious doesn't have anything to do with this. I've created plenty of religious characters, but that has nothing to do with how religious I am in real life.
GothicDan 09-29-07, 08:41 PM	I adore playing priestds, Paladins, Crusaders, etc. Sharessans, Sharrans, Selunites, Mystrans, Talosians, Myrkulites, etc. I've done them all. In real life? I'm militantly atheist. :)
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 09-29-07, 08:43 PM	Aye, I love clerics, paladins, and the various deities, yet in real life I'm not religious.
GothicDan 09-29-07, 08:48 PM	Your avatar is quite the nice religious image. :) One of the few truly good ones in 3E, in my opinion.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 09-29-07, 11:10 PM	Your avatar is quite the nice religious image. :) One of the few truly good ones in 3E, in my opinion. Agreed.:) I love Sune, and her dogma.
GothicDan 09-29-07, 11:38 PM	Being an Epicurean, I really love her dogma - and Lliira's, and Sharess's. And, in contrast, Azuth's and Oghma's! :)
Gray Richardson 09-30-07, 04:03 AM	Please note that Ed Greenwood did not create Ao. Ao was introduced by another writer. Although, I don't remember off hand who it was. I would not draw any conclusions about Ed's personal beliefs based on Ao.
Arbourean 09-30-07, 04:30 PM	Another reason to expunge Ao from the Realms.
Gray Richardson 09-30-07, 06:22 PM	Not at all! Just because Ed didn't create Ao, that doesn't mean it is not an integral part of the history and lore of the Realms. Lot's of authors and designers have created nifty places and characters and added to the lore of the Realms through the years. It is a big sandbox, and Ed has chosen to let TSR, WotC and us all play in it. The Realms is a shared world, and so you have to expect that various authors will add to the Realms in unexpected ways. Some additions are exciting and wondrous, while other choices may be seen by some as... well, less wondrous and exciting. I personally like the idea of Ao. Your mileage may vary. But the spirit of playing in a shared world requires us to honor and work with the lore that has been established. Cooperative storytelling is essential to the success of the Realms over the years.
MarkusTay63 09-30-07, 06:37 PM	Hey Gray, does the fact that the designers have admitted to having no clue what to do with the Fugue Plane in 4e worry you at all? :smirk: You guys love Sune for her dogma? Is that what they're calling those things these days? :D :P
goldomark 09-30-07, 07:11 PM	Of course, you can play a cleric and in real life just not believe in anything. I know I do :) .That was not what I was saying. The ancient pantheistic feel of the Realms (making a fire? pray to kossuth. Going to sea? placate Umberlee. Building something? ask gond for help. Oh, and no worship of AO, the overdeity) is actually quite anti-monotheistic. I agree with what your saying, its just that J.R.R. Tolkien, a devout Christian, did the same thing with the Silmarillion. One entity created the Valars and they did the rest. Are Valars gods or angels? I don't know, but they have a pantheistic feel to them, yet the Original Creator is still there, like Ao. So it also has a monotheistic feel to it. But Ao is not Ed's creation, so my original theory is bleep :weep: . Thinking Ed was a religious man (not anything wrong with that), mostly came from the importances of faith in FR. Let me clarify my resonning. The world is devided between Faithfuls, Falses and Faithless. The ones who are not true to their patron deity or just don't have one, are punished (Kelemvor's realm is a punishment to me). All of this has a christian feel to it. But I forgot (ironic) other variables. Maybe Ed did not make those rules or he was just inspired by christian beliefs, like alot of the creators of DnD. If you consider the implicite values in the game, they have a Judo-Christian feel to them. It makes sense, you know, for a game made in the Western world :D . But thanks to everyone.
SgtAnjay 09-30-07, 07:38 PM	Being punished by the gods is not monotheistic, nor is it judeo-christian, nor even western. Its an extremely widespread concept. I cant think of a pantheonic religion which didn't include myths demonstrating "do what we say or you'll be sorry". There are hordes of them; tales of Zeus zapping with his lightning bolts those who thought they didn't need or were equal to the gods, Apollo's arrows striking down foolish mortals, Artemis punishing a hunter for happening to see her naked, so on and so forth. Many ancient religions had rituals dedicated to pleasing the gods to keep away famine, floods, earthquakes, and other natural disasters. The Aztecs were obsessive about blood sacrifice because, rising to power in a region where several other advanced civilizations had fallen, they truly believed it was the only thing keeping the end of the world from destroying them all. In the ancient world, you ignored the gods at your peril. As far as the afterlife, hordes of ancient pantheistic religions say: Do as we say or you'll be sorry. The Chinese beaurocratic hells follow this; go to a court in each hell, if you were guilty of a "crime" under their jurisdiction, you were punished in that hell until you'd attoned. Then move on to the next hell until you ran the full course. The Norse basically required you to die in combat if you wanted a decent afterlife. The Greeks had a Blessed Land for heroes, a place of punishment for the wicked, and a nondescript "blah" realm for the common masses. In Faerun, this is expressed by: worship the gods, any of 'em, or you'll pay. It is entirely consistent, not altogether harsh in the grand scheme, and not a christian concept in the slightest.
goldomark 09-30-07, 07:49 PM	To my knowledge, most DnD writters come from a judo-christian background. Religious or not, its going to affect the material they write. But I could be wrong. What do I care.
Gray Richardson 09-30-07, 10:53 PM	Hey Gray, does the fact that the designers have admitted to having no clue what to do with the Fugue Plane in 4e worry you at all?Not at all! They are very creative people! They have a year. They will figure it out. I really appreciate that the designers are cluing us into their thought processes and giving us some insight into the ongoing project. I especially appreciate their candor in saying that they haven't finalized certain aspects yet or maybe haven't figured a few things out. I am not going to judge anything until I see a finished product. I would much rather have the designers talking and sharing what information they can in the spirit of open discussion with informed and thoughtful fans, over having the designers clam up because every word they say gets pounced on and criticized by those nattering nabobs of negativism who think that kneejerk derision and doomsaying substitutes for enlightened discourse and critical thought.
Meldread 10-01-07, 12:52 AM	I'm 100% with you Gray. I'm sure there are going to be changes that strike us in the wrong way, but I am also equally sure that there will be changes that each of us can appreciate. At this point in time we only have a tiny little glimpse of what is to come, and have absolutely no idea what the final product will look like. To begin prejudging things now would not be fair. I will make my assessments once the 4th Edition FRCS is in my hands, and if I have criticisms before then I hope to strive to make them constructive.
goldomark 10-01-07, 01:43 AM	To begin prejudging things now would not be fair. I will make my assessments once the 4th Edition FRCS is in my hands, and if I have criticisms before then I hope to strive to make them constructive. FR and DnD designer are very creative people and do alot of work advancing the game. But I can critic a few things. Like 4E and what info they purposely release. New mechanics and fluff. The info is realeased to get our feedback, the good and the bad. For instance, I didn't think the Great Wheel needed some tweeking, but what they came with is suprisingly good. Atleast what they showed us. This comment isn't fleshed out, but I'm shure its the kind of critic they aimed for. Like this one; I think the new implements and magical traditions feel like Harry Potter meets Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. A bit sarcastic, I agree, but its what I think of the work in progress :angel: . If alot of us say the same thing, maybe we will influence 4E in a positive way. The way a majority of us want it to be. After all, we buy those products. So before its released, I'm going to say my opinion. Wow! Almost forgot. My question about Jaamdath (maybe the spelling is wrong). Where they like the Imaskari and just belive gods are powerful beings, but not gods? Thanks. Sorry about the issy fit :) .
Suin Bahhar 10-01-07, 07:55 AM	Jaamdathi venerated several gods ( I believe one for each of the 6 psionic disciplines). Auppenser is the only god left of the Jaamdathi pantheon.
AffableDoomwalker 10-01-07, 08:19 AM	I think the 'faithless' aspect is a little broadly generalized. The reasoning behind petitioners is to cover the backsides of the people who never declare a patron deity - considering that Faerun is a polytheistic world, you can pray to several different deities depending on your current needs, a good example being a sailor, regardless of alignment an experienced sailor around the sword coast knows you'd be a fool to not offer prayers, sacrifices, and general appeasement to both Talos and Umberlee when you were preparing for a long journey on the water; a farmer would certainly pray to both Lathander and Chauntea, and perhaps a deity with a weather domain as well. So, at least in my interpretation of the written description of the afterlife, regardless of your having a patron deity or not, if you pray regularly to any particular deity or set of deities you have a right to petition, and thus spend your afterlife in/around your petitionee's plane. The faithless are, quite literally, atheists. In FR terms their punishment in the Fugue plane is well and truly deserved. Not that I have anything against atheism in real-world terms, but when you're playing pretend in a giant sandbox that literally teems with deific influence that can, will, has been, and often will be proven at any moment's notice - its kinda silly to deny that gods exist; I could describe the Avatar Crisis/Time of Troubles in great detail, but hell, how about that little miracle known as Cure Light Wounds?
Red_Wizard 10-01-07, 09:33 AM	You guys love Sune for her dogma? Is that what they're calling those things these days? :D :P Don't tell me you wouldn't appreciate looking at the pair of big, round, perfectly formed....Holy symbols she'd be happy to show you. ;)
goldomark 10-01-07, 01:52 PM	Jaamdathi venerated several gods ( I believe one for each of the 6 psionic disciplines). Auppenser is the only god left of the Jaamdathi pantheon. Auppenser? 6 gods for every psionic dsciplines? By the Nine Hells, this is what happen if you don't buy every new book that comes out. I feel so retarded and old, all of a sudden :weep: . But thanks, now I'll just go stuff my face full of chocolat :cookie: .
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 10-01-07, 02:52 PM	I really appreciate that the designers are cluing us into their thought processes and giving us some insight into the ongoing project. I appreciate it, too, but I just don't like most of the changes they've announced so far for the FR setting. I just don't. And yes, some changes that have occured (not just announced--occured) have made me feel very upset. Maybe that makes me a giant blob of negativity--oh well. I'm not going to pretend to be cheerful and optimistic when that's not the case at all.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 10-01-07, 02:55 PM	To begin prejudging things now would not be fair. It's not prejudging if you're evaluating products that have already been published and released.
Meldread 10-01-07, 04:04 PM	It's not prejudging if you're evaluating products that have already been published and released. I wasn't aware that the 4E FRCS was already published and in your hands. :uh-huh:
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 10-01-07, 04:24 PM	I wasn't aware that the 4E FRCS was already published and in your hands. :uh-huh: That wasn't the book I was talking about, buddy.
Asgetrion 10-01-07, 05:25 PM	I wasn't aware that the 4E FRCS was already published and in your hands. :uh-huh: I guess Rino was referring to 'Grand History of the Realms', which includes some glimpses into FR's future. Before you comment on how we cannot draw any conclusions about them (because 4E FRCS is not published yet), I'll point out two facts for you: 1) They're all "canon" and will stay canon, unless future Realmslore "trumps" them -- which is very unlikely, because: 2) Rich (Baker) has already stated that they won't "change the course" they've chosen for the Realms -- no matter how much FR fans would want it. They might make some *minor* (mostly cosmetic) changes, but I interpreted his words to mean that we just have to accept the events revealed in 'The Orc King' and GHoTR if we're going to play in 4E FR.
Meldread 10-01-07, 07:30 PM	That wasn't the book I was talking about, buddy. No, but that is the book I was talking about when you quoted me as saying, "To begin prejudging things now would not be fair." So my response was simply a correction on your misquoting of me. What I was saying is clear: We only know a small fraction of what has happened. It is pointless to draw any conclusions at this point, especially if we are in for a huge timeline jump. We will not know anything definite and how everything plays out until we have the FRCS in our hands and can take a look at the new Realms. How you got anything to do with GHotR out of that is beyond me.
GothicDan 10-01-07, 07:38 PM	Meldread, the quote you posted just now said nothing about which book you meant. As far as I'm concerned, GHotR is plenty to judge from. Again, some of us are tired of sticking our hands into the fire and getting burned. It's already happened with novels and sourcebooks in the past (the Last Mythal, the recent Drow schpeel, PGtF, etc.), and we've got enough burn marks.
Asgetrion 10-01-07, 07:52 PM	No, but that is the book I was talking about when you quoted me as saying, "To begin prejudging things now would not be fair." So my response was simply a correction on your misquoting of me. What I was saying is clear: We only know a small fraction of what has happened. It is pointless to draw any conclusions at this point, especially if we are in for a huge timeline jump. We will not know anything definite and how everything plays out until we have the FRCS in our hands and can take a look at the new Realms. How you got anything to do with GHotR out of that is beyond me. Read my reply to you above.
Meldread 10-01-07, 08:26 PM	Dan / Asgetrion - Here is the FULL quote: To begin prejudging things now would not be fair. I will make my assessments once the 4th Edition FRCS is in my hands, and if I have criticisms before then I hope to strive to make them constructive. The bold is what Rinonalyrna quoted and took out of context. More to your point, though, if we are in for a major time jump as I suspect we are the last few years of the "old" Realm's really become a moot point in the big picture.
GothicDan 10-01-07, 08:32 PM	Well, I hope you're happy you basically got what you wanted, Meldread. If WotC's decided to cater to people who (in my never humble opinion) just can't (or refuse to) grasp how the Realms has historically worked, then you're in for a treat. The rest of us? Not so much. I'll be working with a friend on a new setting all our own in real life, anyway. That should be satisfying, at least.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 10-01-07, 09:00 PM	I guess Rino was referring to 'Grand History of the Realms', which includes some glimpses into FR's future. Yes indeed, I was talking about GHotR. And the Shadowdale adventure. And The Orc King, a novel. And the Lady Penitent series. And quite a few other novels... Before you comment on how we cannot draw any conclusions about them (because 4E FRCS is not published yet), I'll point out two facts for you: 1) They're all "canon" and will stay canon, unless future Realmslore "trumps" them -- which is very unlikely, because: 2) Rich (Baker) has already stated that they won't "change the course" they've chosen for the Realms -- no matter how much FR fans would want it. They might make some *minor* (mostly cosmetic) changes, but I interpreted his words to mean that we just have to accept the events revealed in 'The Orc King' and GHoTR if we're going to play in 4E FR. Yes, that's exactly how I've interpreted them as well. It's highly unlikely that WotC will have a change of heart when it comes to the major stuff.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 10-01-07, 09:04 PM	The bold is what Rinonalyrna quoted and took out of context. Everything I said is true, Meldread. You (and certain other people) keep insisting "We don't know anything yet!", and it's been pointed out to you that that is not the case. There are deities who are dead as of the current Realms, thanks to a certain series. Popular NPCs have been summarily killed off in adventure "cutscenes" that PCs can't even alter. And you have the nerve to accuse us of prejudging the current direction the setting has taken? And yeah, I sure hope you're as happy as a clam that all the old lore isn't gonna matter anyway.:rolleye2: Whatever!
Meldread 10-01-07, 10:17 PM	Dan, I suppose I am taking it better than others for the simple fact that I was already on my way out. I had already started working on my own game system and homebrew world before the announcement of 4th Edition. I do fully believe that the setting needed a reboot. I feel it was getting too bloated and overdeveloped, and in a large part the novels were just ruining the setting. There were entire sections that you just couldn't have things taking place in if you wanted to stay up-to-date with cannon. Also, novels had the tendency to completely modify stuff that was recently released in a source book - the Deep Imaskari are a good example. In order to be "safe" you pretty much had to have your campaign set around the Dragon Coast or further South. Stay clear of any areas with Chosen, such as the Silver Marches, the Dalelands (including Cormyr), be careful around Thay and stay out of Aglarond (especially if you are running an evil campaign) and stay away from Waterdeep. The Zhents were off limits if you wanted to have your PC's really become movers and shakers and set them in the Moonsea area, if you wanted to stay close to cannon. The Dragon Coast, Turmish, Chondath, Chessenta, Unther, the Border Kingdoms, and to lesser extents Tethyr and Calimshan were all "safe" places. Going even further south, to places like Halruaa and west to Chult or east to Dambrath were/are also places that were "safe". However, all of those places really are not touched all that much in source books. That is in part why they are safe, but they are also under developed when compared to the more used regions... which somewhat defeats the point of playing in a pre-made campaign setting. Really, I know I would be gaming in Eberron right now if they had went with a more generic fantasy world. I love their metadesign goals and how they've set things up over all. It jives really well with how I think the game should be played, but outside of a few particulars that I find interesting I just over all dislike the flavor of the setting. In the end, it's my hope that the metadesign goals for Eberron are applied to the Forgotten Realm's. When Eberron was created the designers looked at what had come before and asked themselves what worked and what didn't. If they are going for a reboot I hope they keep those lessons in mind. A novel should never invalidate a source book that has recently come out the same year. I enjoyed the Realm's for history and flavor. However, at the same time it was just too much of a hassle to keep up with everything that was changing. A fresh start will definitely make that easier as would a book like GHotR. There are things that I like and dislike about the changes. I have really taken a liking to the new Cosmology. I am not sure why, but I have never really been interested in the planes before. Now, though, I can see my games moving toward that direction. On the other hand, I dislike the prospect that Netheril could make a come back. The allure of Netheril was in its mystery and ancient past. In the same way ancient Rome seems almost romanticized in the modern world, it too would lose much of its glory if it were suddenly "reborn" in our modern society. I would personally like to see things like Cormyr becoming ancient history. I would like to see a distant blood descendant of the last king of Cormyr trying to piece together a broken and shattered kingdom. A few small city-states would be all that remains. That's asking for the PC's to aid him and embark on an epic adventure to not only tame the land, but re-forge a nation. That is something a good DM could work with for years. Perhaps, the best part about the fresh start is my ability to work changes upon the setting. I am not worried about deities who die because I can always resurrect them. I am not worried about changes made because it is easy to make modifications to fit my liking. These are things that are significantly harder to do in the current setting without a large time jump or a retcon. If I want a new Mystra it is not difficult for me to create that, however in the current setting I can't easily kill her off without having major fall out. So for all of the above I find myself cautiously optimistic about the changes.
GothicDan 10-01-07, 10:43 PM	In the end, it's my hope that the metadesign goals for Eberron are applied to the Forgotten Realm's. When Eberron was created the designers looked at what had come before and asked themselves what worked and what didn't. If they are going for a reboot I hope they keep those lessons in mind. A novel should never invalidate a source book that has recently come out the same year. This paragraph, right here, shows just how vastly different our mindsets are. And it makes me REALLY sad that WotC's basically catered to people like you, who patently do not enjoy the majority of the setting as it's been, rather than people who HAVE enjoyed it and agree with it so very deeply. Mind you, that's not supposed to be an offensive "people like you" *spit*, but I was just using the term to highlight the difference. Why in the world do we need TWO Eberrons?
SgtAnjay 10-02-07, 12:41 AM	Why in the world do we need TWO Eberrons?That's it in a nutshell. Some people like the Realms as they are, and as they've been. The Realms are not broken because some people dont like them, yourself, apparently, included. Not everyone will like every setting, and that's a fact of life. But going "oh, I like this setting, so that setting should get blown up to be more like what I like, and then everything will be better" is incredibly self-absorbed and has rather the ring of arrogance. Going around and chastising people because they dont want what they like getting blown up for the enjoyment of people who like something different? Thats has the definate ring of arrogance and self-importance.
Gray Richardson 10-02-07, 02:04 AM	Auppenser? 6 gods for every psionic dsciplines?That is not official and wasn't in any book. In fact, it probably came from a thread where I proposed the idea. The only god of psionics that has been mentioned for sure is Auppenser (so far). But we know there were other gods in the Jhaamdathi pantheon. Several gods have been mentioned as coming from the area or linked to Jhaamdath. Murdane was in the Jhaamdathi pantheon. It is likely that Helm was too. And Garagos has been linked to the Jhaamdathi pantheon as well. In that discussion in question, we had surmised that Eldath was perhaps once a sea goddess of the Jhaamdathi pantheon, one you appealed to for calm waters and favorable winds. We figured Murdane might be her daugher by Auppenser, and that Valigan Thirdborn might be a brother (the thirdborn) in which case other siblings might be deduced. In the Faerunian pantheon we have Mystra who is the goddess of magic, and then we have certain lesser gods who have portfolios related to some of the schools of magic. For instance: there's Velsharoon who has Necromancy, Savras has the school of divination, and Leira had illusion (now held by Cyric.) I had suggested that if Eldath were the consort of Auppenser and the goddess of the sea and travel and still waters, she might well have the portfolio over psychoportation (psionic travel). If Jhaamdath was a psionic nation it seems likely that psionics might be a part of their gods' lives as well. And from there I had speculated that certain other gods (that were likely Jhaamdathi in origin and part of the pantheon) who would fit nicely with some of the other psionic disciplines. I had further speculated that each city of the sword might have a patron deity (more like a patron saint) who had the portfolio that was aligned with the discipline that that city's udoxias specialized in. I figure people might pray to that god as an intercessor on their behalf to Auppenser or in addition to Auppenser, who seemed to be head of their pantheon, or at least very important to Jhaamdath. I had suggested that Murdane might have had clairsentience, LLirra might have had psychokinesis, Milil (aka Melith?) might have had meta-creativity, and then Helm or Garagos might either one have been the patron of soulknives and/or psychic warriors, etc. But this was all just speculation, and none of it is official that I know of.
goldomark 10-02-07, 02:54 AM	That is not official and wasn't in any book. In fact, it probably came from a thread where I proposed the idea. The only god of psionics that has been mentioned for sure is Auppenser (so far). Thank you Indiana Gray :). The speculations on the other gods of Jaamdath seems very thorough. Great work and a very sly way of putting the thread back on track. Auppenser is not in Faiths and Pantheons. Is he in Mysteries of the Moonsea or am I in the potatoes? Are there any other gods in Fearun not found in FaP? Also, by rereading Faiths and Pantheons, I just realized the dagger I thought was of Jaamdathi origines is call the Jathiman Dagger (p.169) and is of Netherese origine. It is a long gone sect, ressembling the Athar that I mentionned before, wipped out by Jergal for their belief; gods can be killed by brute force (lovely). My bad.
Gray Richardson 10-02-07, 07:43 PM	Auppenser was first introduced in Lost Empires of Faerūn. While he is an ancient and dead (well sleeping anyway) god, he is actually a very recent addition to Realmslore.
Asgetrion 10-02-07, 08:56 PM	More to your point, though, if we are in for a major time jump as I suspect we are the last few years of the "old" Realm's really become a moot point in the big picture. I disagree. All these illogical 'deicides' and changes in the Cosmology (Rich Baker has stated that "Core Cosmology" *will* be FR Cosmology, too) will be reflected profoundly in the "New Realms".