| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| creyzi4zb1209-25-07, 06:11 AM | So...Mystra's dead. Who's gonna be the new god? Elminster? That ex-cleric of Sune who almost got crazy? |
| Jon-Rigel09-25-07, 09:09 AM | So...Mystra's dead. Who's gonna be the new god? Elminster? That ex-cleric of Sune who almost got crazy? I'd like to see The Simbul become the new Goddess of Magic. Despite the goodie-goodie, benevolent tones of the last incarnation of Mystra, I think of magic as a force of both creation and destruction. The Simbul would/could kick some tail--you know she'd wage some serious war on that waste of divinity named Shar. By the way, there I was this morning, taking a pee, when I realized I was singing: "Orc orc orc orc orc orc orc orc orc orc orc orc orc orc orc orc..." I laughed out loud, nearly ruining my aim. Thanks! :D |
| sleyvas09-26-07, 11:52 AM | I wouldn't mind seeing Elminster ascend to godhood, but not all magic. You know, the god of diviners who use their magic to scry on hot chicks while they take showers (oh, and enemies of the realm and such). |
| Leon_Lionheart09-26-07, 11:55 AM | "Elminster this, Elminster that--give me two thousand years and a pointy hat and I'll kick his arse!" - Edwin |
| GothicDan09-26-07, 12:04 PM | I'd like to see either Azuth take it up, Lurue (far, far shot), or Selune to counter any Shadow magic influence Shar might retain. |
| Zandilar09-26-07, 06:11 PM | Heya, My guess is no one at this point. But we'll see if they really have the guts to leave the Realms without a Mystra-like figure. (I'll spit chips if she's replaced by a male, by the way.) |
| MerrikCale09-26-07, 10:09 PM | here we go Selune here we go here we go Selune here we go |
| GothicDan09-26-07, 10:12 PM | Normally I'd poke fun at you for that last statement, Zandilar. ;) But a female personification of magic, in its raw, mystical form, IS a part of the Realms' thematic mood - so I'll actually agree to it, at least in part, political/gender views aside. Hence why I'd prefer Selune, Shar/Selune, or Lurue to pick it up. But I wouldn't mind Azuth being an 'equal' in such a partnership - in fact, it'd feel very much pagan, similar to how in Norse culture, the runecasters/godhi tended more towards males, while the ecstatic, shamanic seidh users were almost exclusively female (to the point Odin is looked at askance for using similar techniques). I don't want to say logical (wizardly) vs. emotional (sorcerous) approaches... Or do I? |
| creyzi4zb1209-26-07, 10:53 PM | But it has to be Adon? Please let it be Adon.....I doubt if it would be Elminster, since Ariel Manx is not that connected to him in terms of the love issue besides Adon. How I wish it'd be Adon. |
| Lord_Madrigan09-26-07, 11:21 PM | How about this The souls of those who died from the spellplague merge with the weave and from this merger a new god of magic is born. I've heard worse Ideas. |
| MarkusTay6309-26-07, 11:31 PM | That would happen if these were elves. And the new god would look like an Ent... errrr... Treant. :rolleyes: In order of who I would prefer - 1. Boccob 2. Sylūne 3. Isis 4. Lurue 5. Azuth 6. Eilistraee 7. Karsus 8. Titania 9. Corellon 10.Hecate I feel like I just did one of those 'David Letterman' lists. ;) |
| ikki09-27-07, 12:46 PM | Nah, shar & cyric share magic... to the killers goes the loot.. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin09-27-07, 02:40 PM | Normally I'd poke fun at you for that last statement, Zandilar. ;) But a female personification of magic, in its raw, mystical form, IS a part of the Realms' thematic mood - so I'll actually agree to it, at least in part, political/gender views aside. I agree with that, totally--"magic is a woman" in the Realms. I also wonder if they are actually going to refrain from replacing Mystra just to make things different. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin09-27-07, 02:41 PM | But it has to be Adon? Please let it be Adon.....I doubt if it would be Elminster, since Ariel Manx is not that connected to him in terms of the love issue besides Adon. How I wish it'd be Adon. Yuck! |
| Sol_Odlanier09-27-07, 03:14 PM | Yuck! "Yuck" indeed, he likes ORCs you know....:yuck: |
| MarkusTay6309-27-07, 04:04 PM | "Yuck" indeed, he likes ORCs you know....:yuck:SHE likes Orcs. Now we know where all those half-orcs come from. :P |
| Zandilar09-27-07, 06:32 PM | Heya, I agree with that, totally--"magic is a woman" in the Realms. I also wonder if they are actually going to refrain from replacing Mystra just to make things different. I tried to explain this several times, but people just don't seem to be listening to me... People... THE WEAVE IS GONE!!! THERE IS NO MORE WEAVE! THEREFORE NO MORE GOD/ESS OF THE WEAVE! :P :D Azuth and Velsharoon were not destroyed, but blasted into the Astral. They are both likely to make their reappearance, as they have allies other than Mystra who would, in all likelihood, help them. They both may end up gods of specific types of magic, but I don't think we'll ever see again a deity of ALL magic. (Of course, this is only if WotC stick to their guns on this issue. If they don't, I really vote for one of the Chosen, preferably one of the Seven Sisters, to be elevated in Mystra's place.) |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin09-27-07, 07:43 PM | There's no Weave as far as the timeline tells us...but we have no idea what's going to happen after that. Of course, I think it'd be pretty silly, from a designer's standpoint, to be so bold as to destroy the Weave and then just replace it with another one. But WotC and I are on different, err, pages to begin with. :) |
| GothicDan09-27-07, 10:31 PM | If I had to go with the Chosen? I'd love to see the Simbul become the new "Mystra," and either Elminster or Khelben become an Azuth figure. But really, I don't see Elminster as being a god much. No clue why. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin09-27-07, 10:54 PM | Somehow I don't think Elminster would want to be a god.:) That's just the impression I get. |
| Zandilar09-28-07, 12:31 AM | Heya, There's no Weave as far as the timeline tells us...but we have no idea what's going to happen after that. Of course, I think it'd be pretty silly, from a designer's standpoint, to be so bold as to destroy the Weave and then just replace it with another one. It would be completely redundant for them to do so. While I strongly dislike the idea of a dead Mystra and a broken/destroyed Weave, I would equally dislike them replacing it with another type of Weave... It would make even less sense than the whole thing does now, but I suppose that's not saying much. But WotC and I are on different, err, pages to begin with. :) Seems they're in a totally different book to a lot of us these days. :( |
| MarkusTay6309-28-07, 12:59 AM | I would think the Githyanki would be happy - "Hey look! Another island!" :P We lose more Mystra's that way...... |
| SgtAnjay09-28-07, 09:43 AM | I would think the Githyanki would be happy - "Hey look! Another island!" :P We lose more Mystra's that way...... Yeah, it's to the point it's possible to run a "Mystra Archipelago" campaign in the astral... |
| 18DELTA09-28-07, 01:05 PM | SHE likes Orcs. Now we know where all those half-orcs come from. :P :rofl: :lightbulb She likes orc, goes looking for an orc avatar!;) :rolleyes: |
| creyzi4zb1209-29-07, 04:13 AM | :rofl: :lightbulb She likes orc, goes looking for an orc avatar!;) :rolleyes: I dare u to find one that's not on my collection.. |
| Drew1369r09-29-07, 08:48 AM | No weave... means no shadow weave and Shars greatest ally is gone... how sad... all of which is subsumed to magic being created by the person themselves now after mortals figure it out and it will all be ala greyhawk (blech) technically the mystra dead timeline hasn't happened yet as its still 1375dr but I'm already begining to miss the weave :( |
| dragonheart09-29-07, 10:26 AM | Assuming they are reducing the deities then here is a different take on things: Mystra is gone along with the weave AND the shadow weave. In an effort to unify the various pantheonic remnants Thoth of the Mulhorandi deities is raised from Intermediate to greater status and given oversight of all magic in the realms, In addition Ao allows Both isis and Set to to spread their control of ver good and evil magic to the realms as a whole but places a bar on anything rembling seperate power sources ala the weave and shadow weave and notifies them that any attempts to do so will result in their immediate destruction. Realistically the Mulhorandi pantheon as a group is most likely to survive intact as they basically all live together in heliopolis (even Set) so none of them are lilely to be tossed out. the one loss I can see would be Geb who was retreating to leave for home territory and his wife anyway. Of course this whole thread probably should be over in the deities and magic list.:D |
| MarkusTay6309-29-07, 12:59 PM | Getting rid of the Weave was neccessary in order to bring FR more into the 4e world of "one rules for all" - FR was the ONLY world with an 'interface' between the mage and raw magic. Not sure if getting rid of Mystra was necessary, but that is one of the few announced deicides that makes sense (from a meta-gaming standpoint). It's a decent explanation as to why the magic will change, and I don't mind it. What I'm wondering about is how they are going to explain it on all the other worlds, most especially Eberron. Athas will be easy (magic didn't treally work anyway, or just barely). Ravenloft was a low-magic setting, so that shouldn't be hard. Greyhawk will be wierd, but it has withstood worsew. Besides, GH fans PREFER no in-game explanations for rules changes. DL will just enter another New Age (yawn). Planescape sounds like it's coming back with a vengeance, but I doubt there will be an in-game explanation there as well. I don't see Spelljammer making a comeback, at least not in it's present form. They may just marry it to the new Planescape with all this talk of the 'Astral Sea'. So, if anything, FR has the easiest reasoning for new magic, hence it coming frst in the 4e releases. It's the other settings I'm wondering about at this point (I like them all). |
| MerrikCale09-29-07, 01:33 PM | Assuming they are reducing the deities then here is a different take on things: Its not an assumption. They have said they want to and GHoTR did it |
| 18DELTA09-29-07, 01:33 PM | Yeah, it's to the point it's possible to run a "Mystra Archipelago" campaign in the astral... Or Gilligans Island, on the astral sea. ;) |
| 1 ton ghost09-29-07, 02:21 PM | nothing is gospel, nothing is static, or set in stone. 4th ed hasn't even come out and you guys are making all this wild speculation. i know GhotR makes some fairly large scale declarations, but truly, it could go a million ways. the only constant in/out of game is time. we just have to wait out the clock cuz' they could take the ball and run w/ it here a million ways. until they publish the new 4th ed FR, it's all hypothetical. Mystra dying kinda' sucks and all, but it's not like this is the 1st time. you'd think the planet would've figured this out w/ Karsus folly and all. that and she wasn't even that old. i mean, avatar crisis wasn't that long ago and so on. her and Kelemvor are the new kids. new=unexperienced. she had a good run, but, ashes to ashes... possible solutions: -they may not even need a god/weave element. perhaps just seperate dieties for seperate spheres. velsharoon got necro, that's a start perhaps -some crazy mythal-driven plot device, time travel or some $hit. ie)heroes (you guys and your hard earned $) go back, prevent the deicide, viola! -new god w/ magic as a domain. azuth, velsharoon, isis are some i can think of, but this is a quick/unlikely fix. who knows. -or, the whole thing didn't even happen. maybe it's a ruse. some grandeoise game design. they always do these monumental upheavals when changing editions. gotta' stir the pot if you want a new ingredient i guess, but there wasn't anything major when they kicked off 3rd ed., ppl were just happy D&D was back in business. |
| GothicDan09-29-07, 03:25 PM | Some of us only need to be burned by fire once (or twice!) to learn it's hot. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin09-29-07, 07:56 PM | Some of us only need to be burned by fire once (or twice!) to learn it's hot. Yes--it's only common sense. For some of us, myself included, we've been burned before, so there's no reason to come back to the fire again and again and again, hoping this time won't be that hot... And why do people keep saying we're making assumptions, or speculating? The stuff people don't like is already in print! |
| dragonheart09-30-07, 11:33 AM | Its not an assumption. They have said they want to and GHoTR did it technically the only 2 to die so far are Mystra and helm; granted they are scattering any nongreater dieties with their own homeplanes to the 4 winds in their new astral sea but they are not automatically dead. while its clear that they do want to reduce the total number it sounds to me like they have not yet decided which deites beyond Mystra and helm to permanently eliminate. Given that we still have some potential say (see my thread on constructive criticisms). Even given what is in GHotR there is a year between now and the 4e realms manual to do some retconing in now that they are seeing our responses. I do agree that its clear that a number of deities will fade away/die but the questions of just which beyond Mystra and helm (and possibly even wiht helm and their horrid love and duty story in GHotR) are up for discussion and suggestion. |
| MarkusTay6309-30-07, 01:14 PM | No, several Dwarven gods died as well, AND they made the comment that only lesser gods with Greater gods for patrons would survive (creating a dozen or so mini-pantheons). Also, we have been told that the few facts in the GHotR are just a hint of whats going to happen - there will be plenty more entries once all the wrinkles are ironed out and FRCS 4e hits the shelves. About the new mini-pantheons: This is just another dumbing-down effect of 4e - You worship a 'tradition', like war, fighting, combat, etc... and choose the appropriate mini-pantheon. No more abundant choices - one group for fighters, another for druids/Rangers, another for scholars, hopefullty another for magic, etc... I haven't heard anything about this, but what I have heard about magical traditions lends itself to this easily, and since the rules are supposed to be simpler, it all makes sense from a designer point-of-view. |
| SCMrks10-01-07, 10:35 AM | What about Oghma? With the weave gone maybe the god of knowledge teaches new ways to cast spells and adds magic knowledge to his porfolio. But Azuth does have a century to find his way back from the astral sea. Maybe he returns a few years after the spellplague and starts to recovery/healing process. |
| MaskedOne10-01-07, 11:06 AM | I'm holding out a faint hope that Mystra either faked or arranged her own death and comes back within a decade stronger than previous but then again I have severe doubts that WotC is going to run this the way I want it. |
| Rauric10-01-07, 11:21 AM | Maybe if they "retooled" Mystra like they have in the past that could work. Make her LN and haver her meddle less. Make her Chosen deal with only the most important magical matters. I would be ok with this concept. I think Selune should be the new goddess of magic to counter her sister and her weave. If this happens we still have the problem of a good goddess in charge of magic. Maybe if they made her NG or LN. Who knows? I have some wierd idea that they will bring Karsus back to life to be the god of magic. Even though isn't he the Karsestone so he really could be the god of the Shadoweave? :confused: Brain hurts... must.. go.. outside... |
| 18DELTA10-01-07, 11:32 AM | No, several Dwarven gods died as well, AND they made the comment that only lesser gods with Greater gods for patrons would survive (creating a dozen or so mini-pantheons). Also, we have been told that the few facts in the GHotR are just a hint of whats going to happen - there will be plenty more entries once all the wrinkles are ironed out and FRCS 4e hits the shelves. About the new mini-pantheons: This is just another dumbing-down effect of 4e - You worship a 'tradition', like war, fighting, combat, etc... and choose the appropriate mini-pantheon. No more abundant choices - one group for fighters, another for druids/Rangers, another for scholars, hopefullty another for magic, etc... I haven't heard anything about this, but what I have heard about magical traditions lends itself to this easily, and since the rules are supposed to be simpler, it all makes sense from a designer point-of-view. Yeah, the more I learn the less I like of 4E FR. This mantra of cool & simple from the designers is really getting annoying. What if I want complicated D&D? I may just stick with 3.5. I at first liked some of whats going on with the realms, now is just butchery. Everything has to have a role.:rolleyes: I feel bad about your maps. I really liked them.:mad: |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin10-01-07, 01:25 PM | No, several Dwarven gods died as well, AND they made the comment that only lesser gods with Greater gods for patrons would survive (creating a dozen or so mini-pantheons). And don't forget the drow gods. There's a whole trilogy out right now that is basically dedicated to thinning the ranks of the Dark Seldarine. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin10-01-07, 01:27 PM | Maybe if they "retooled" Mystra like they have in the past that could work. Make her LN and haver her meddle less. Make her Chosen deal with only the most important magical matters. I would be ok with this concept. Mystra is a goddess--by definition, she meddles. And again, I have to ask: why on earth is it such a problem for Mystra to be a meddler, but not, say, Shar? Same goes for her Chosen. |
| gomeztoo10-01-07, 01:30 PM | The goddess of magic has been CN, LN, and NG... in that order. Seems time we get a NE goddess of magic... All hail Shar? |
| Rauric10-01-07, 01:44 PM | Mystra is a goddess--by definition, she meddles. And again, I have to ask: why on earth is it such a problem for Mystra to be a meddler, but not, say, Shar? Same goes for her Chosen. I pretty much want all of the meddling to stop. From all sides. Eh, I don't know. Writers have really portrayed her in a bad way imo. |
| Omni-Wyvernil10-01-07, 01:57 PM | So far we've had three Mystra/Mystryls... so if there's a fourth, I'm going to guess it will be a TN goddess, since there's no fairer way to represent the god of magic. If a new Weave does form, I'm going to guess that the Shadow Weave is gone (from what I could tell, they added it simply because the previous Mystra was good and they wanted to give an alternative to evil spellcasters). That, or a completely new method of magic use is discovered. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin10-01-07, 02:06 PM | I pretty much want all of the meddling to stop. Fair enough. I'm just tired of people complaining about Mystra and her followers being "meddlers" when every other god and powerful person in the Realms does exactly the same thing... |
| thacod2010-03-07, 02:19 AM | killing mystra and the weave was the worst thing that could happen in FR. Thats why i set my campain 2000 yrs in the future, where Mystra was dying but was able to put the last of her self in the weave to save it, and in time it slowly came back. Now the Knight of the Weave are the protectors of the New weave and the new Faerun Federation. I will explaine more if anybody wishes to know. |
| arcanist supreme10-03-07, 08:10 AM | yes, i wish to know. :) tell me more. |
| Alediran10-03-07, 08:53 AM | If this happens we still have the problem of a good goddess in charge of magic. Maybe if they made her NG or LN. Who knows? WHY is that a problem? I completely fail to understand the reasons you have to say this. |
| Red_Wizard10-03-07, 09:45 AM | Fair enough. I'm just tired of people complaining about Mystra and her followers being "meddlers" when every other god and powerful person in the Realms does exactly the same thing... I agree to a certain extent, however Mystra meddles in affairs that don't concern her. She assumes she is the head of the pantheon, and by that right should oppose anything and everything her mortal self deemed wrong. The rest meddle well within the rights of their portfolios, and that is where my issue arises. Let them meddle all they want-- personally I find it amusing and interesting--, but I say keep the ball on your own court, or it's liable to get popped-- ala Cyric and Shar killing Mystra. |
| Alediran10-03-07, 11:18 AM | I agree to a certain extent, however Mystra meddles in affairs that don't concern her. She assumes she is the head of the pantheon, and by that right should oppose anything and everything her mortal self deemed wrong. The rest meddle well within the rights of their portfolios, and that is where my issue arises. Let them meddle all they want-- personally I find it amusing and interesting--, but I say keep the ball on your own court, or it's liable to get popped-- ala Cyric and Shar killing Mystra. That is one of the reasons I found interesting in the latest Mystra, that she had to struggle with herself all the time while trying to be a responsible Goddess of Magic. Two of the things that resulted from that struggle where the changes for the selection of the Magister, and the Mageduel system, that allows to show how powerful a Sorcerer or Wizard is, without having to loose at least one of the duelists. This helps improving magic because there are less spellcasters biting the dust who could be researching new spells if they weren't dead. |
| Red_Wizard10-03-07, 12:59 PM | Furthering magic is one thing, but constantly deciding what is right and wrong makes for a poor master of the weave. Also, protecting whole areas from other areas, simply because you like certain mortals that dwell there, is stepping beyond your portfolio, if your domain is solely the governance of magic. |
| GothicDan10-03-07, 01:06 PM | Red Wizard is right. I just don't think the reality he talks about has anything to do with FR. ;) |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin10-03-07, 01:46 PM | I say keep the ball on your own court, or it's liable to get popped-- ala Cyric and Shar killing Mystra. Well, any goodly deity is likely going to annoy Cyric and Shar somewhere along the line. And that's perfectly legitimate, because when you have dogmas like those particular deities do, people aren't going to like you. Does "keep the ball in your own court" also apply to Cyric and Shar, and their followers? Why can they interfere however they want, but Mystra can't? Should goodly deities hold back just to avoid angering them? |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin10-03-07, 01:52 PM | Furthering magic is one thing, but constantly deciding what is right and wrong makes for a poor master of the weave. Many, if not most, of the gods have "neutral" portfolios, but have more extreme alignments. There's no reason why the sea goddess has to be CE, but she is. The goddess of love and beauty doesn't have to be good. Therefore, the goddess of magic doesn't have to be neutral. Also, protecting whole areas from other areas, simply because you like certain mortals that dwell there, is stepping beyond your portfolio, if your domain is solely the governance of magic. Doesn't every god protect people they like? Also, I wouldn't say Mystra gives absolute, unconditional protection to any single place. Otherwise, why would, say, the Simbul have to work so hard to protect Aglarond? If Mystra were protecting the realm no matter what, she wouldn't need to do anything. |
| ExtinctionBeta10-03-07, 02:57 PM | So...Mystra's dead. LOL! It's about time. Does this mean the time of troubles is about again? And if yes, to make it fair...let's say Mask died..does that mean thieves can not steal at the moment? Or only if one of ED GreenWoods characters dies the world goes into turmoil...? Because his characters are better than all others..I'm sure if Elimenster was killed it would be overly dramtic...red carpets comming down...golden hallways...a hundred years of tears...statues of the great man. But then again, there is no such thing as a good guy main character dying...or if they do..it's no because a "bad guy" beat them was the victor..usually because they did some dramtic sacrfice that saves everyone. I am really getting tired of this repetitave series. All of you I would suggest to read Raymond E Fiest. |
| gomeztoo10-03-07, 03:28 PM | Having a conflict between alignment and responsibilities makes for cool stories... but not of the person isa god. i mean, seriously, I get a headache of all the god-novels out there. I would like the setting to be about people. Instead it is all about gods offing each other. That is what disappoints me most of the Realms. |
| Steel General10-03-07, 03:49 PM | Maybe Jergal will stop playing second fiddle/chamberlain to Kelemvor and grab up the mantle of magic... "Hmmm...been hanging around for a few milennia, this City of the Dead stuff is getting kinda droll. I think I'll give the old magic thing a whirl." :D |
| 18DELTA10-03-07, 04:18 PM | What if Cyric, is now the God of magic?:eek: |
| Red_Wizard10-03-07, 04:20 PM | Conflict of alignment isn't what I suggest, it's conflict of Portfolio. They are two very different things. For example Cyric could murder a whole flock of Tempus's generals, and in response Tempus could march upon a place sacred to Cyric with intent to destroy. Being gods of Murder, and War respectively, neither would be overstepping their bounds for doing so, and so I have no issue with either. Mystra however wishes to promote the use of magic, or at the very least should, and there for should allow both the good and the bad to be put to use. It would not be her place to stop a mage from leveling a hamlet with his spells, nor from creating a spell that could do so in the first place. The innocent lives lost, while grating to her kind nerves, are not her concern, and should not be treated as such. Look at her actions during the Trial, and it is fairly clear to what I speak. Granted her position has been dampened somewhat since then, but were Ao not in the way, I am certain she'd return to her old ways. Again, I don't suggest the god of magic can't be good alignment wise, only that they must remember what their place is in regards to the balance, and distributed portfolios. |
| GothicDan10-03-07, 04:35 PM | And, again, this happened for.. ONE NOVEL before AO slapped her down. What.. Is... The.. Problem? |
| Valten10-03-07, 05:17 PM | But then again, there is no such thing as a good guy main character dying...or if they do..it's no because a "bad guy" beat them was the victor..usually because they did some dramtic sacrfice that saves everyone. I am really getting tired of this repetitave series. All of you I would suggest to read Raymond E Fiest. Didn't Shandril die? What about her husband too (got to page 200 or so but losing interest, feel free to spoil). |
| Red_Wizard10-03-07, 05:29 PM | And, again, this happened for.. ONE NOVEL before AO slapped her down. What.. Is... The.. Problem? No problem, though it has not only happened in one novel. Two novels in the quintet alone had her meddling outside of her portfolio. All I'm saying is that I like the meddling gods, I just think they should meddle within their portfolios. Also, I was noting that if we do see a new god of magic, I think for the peace of mind of the many, they'll hang back for a time. Not saying I don't like their involvement, because I really do, I just grow tired of all the "No more Mystra, no more Elminster, down with Drizzt" crowd. Perhaps with 4e the changes will draw the complainers away from what the realms really is, and leave them stranded in the wasteland that will be 4e Faerun. :P |
| GothicDan10-03-07, 05:31 PM | Ugh, novels. I sure wish they'd stop writing novels about gods. :) Anyway, sorry if I was a little vitriolic there. I think all of us are a bit touchy with the 4E stuff - and me moreso than most, due to caffeine poisoning. Huargh.. |
| Red_Wizard10-03-07, 05:39 PM | No worries, you are indeed correct, we're all a tad wound up over this 4e who ha. But if we all run at each other howling like mad men, in the end isn't it Hasbro that wins, since they would see to have managed to divert our anger away from themselves? ;) |
| GothicDan10-03-07, 05:46 PM | I'm hardly even angry at them any more. The setting - the official, WotC supported one - is already dead to me. |
| Red_Wizard10-03-07, 05:54 PM | I'm starting to feel the same way. Before I was a Canon preacher 'til the end, and have argue that position many a time on these boards. Now however I am strongly considering resurrecting Bhaal in our current campaign, just for flavour. |
| GothicDan10-03-07, 05:54 PM | Pft. Resurrect Myrkul. :) |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin10-03-07, 06:54 PM | I'm hardly even angry at them any more. The setting - the official, WotC supported one - is already dead to me. Yeah, I feel pretty much the same way. And yes--good people have died in novels, and not always in grand sacrifices either. |
| Zandilar10-03-07, 07:03 PM | Heya, Many, if not most, of the gods have "neutral" portfolios, but have more extreme alignments. There's no reason why the sea goddess has to be CE, but she is. The goddess of love and beauty doesn't have to be good. Therefore, the goddess of magic doesn't have to be neutral. Actually, I beg to differ regarding the deity of love and beauty. Love is an inherently Good concept, and I think a Neutral or Evil deity of love would probably be more along the lines of a darker version of Sharess than Sune... A deity of lust rather than a true deity of love, if you see what I mean. (Mind you, I'm overjoyed that both love and pleasure are represented by Good deities, as the latter in particular is too often cast as Neutral at best, and Evil at worst.) Doesn't every god protect people they like? Also, I wouldn't say Mystra gives absolute, unconditional protection to any single place. Otherwise, why would, say, the Simbul have to work so hard to protect Aglarond? If Mystra were protecting the realm no matter what, she wouldn't need to do anything. I never got the impression that Mystra meddled outside her portfolio (at least after the events in Crucible: The Trial of Cyric the Mad, which was set just scant years after Midnight's ascension). I don't know what Red Wizard is on about. |
| GothicDan10-03-07, 07:07 PM | Actually, I beg to differ regarding the deity of love and beauty. Love is an inherently Good concept, Zandilar, while I agree with you overall, I don't think it's possible to label ANYTHING as "inherently" Good or Evil, especially in FR. Morality doesn't really apply in FR, according to Ed, nor does Fate. There is no true "Good or Evil," just whatever a given Church considers acceptable or unacceptable, and so on. Without any established pantheon head, there can be no INHERENT morality. I almost peg pleasure as "Neutral," myself. HOW one achieves pleasure can be Good or Evil, though. |
| Zandilar10-03-07, 07:07 PM | Heya, Didn't Shandril die? What about her husband too (got to page 200 or so but losing interest, feel free to spoil). Yes, and in a decidedly non-heroic manner - she committed suicide (backlash and whatnot not counted here). Narn lived, though he did try to kill himself. He was stopped by Alustriel, IIRC. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin10-03-07, 07:10 PM | Heya, Actually, I beg to differ regarding the deity of love and beauty. Love is an inherently Good concept, and I think a Neutral or Evil deity of love would probably be more along the lines of a darker version of Sharess than Sune... A deity of lust rather than a true deity of love, if you see what I mean. (Mind you, I'm overjoyed that both love and pleasure are represented by Good deities, as the latter in particular is too often cast as Neutral at best, and Evil at worst.) Well, I can't say I'd see a neutral deity of love as being all that much darker, myself--I don't think a goddess of love could only be good, even if it wouldn't make much sense for her to be evil. My point was that the gods have personalities, and it's all part of the setting. :) If the goddess of magic happens to favor goodly use of the Art, it's her perogative. As others have pointed out time and again, there are enough settings out there where gods of magic are neutral or evil, and sometimes even magic is presented as "dark". |
| Zandilar10-03-07, 07:14 PM | Heya, GothicDan, I suppose you have a point. However, the heart of Love is Good... There are some expressions of Love that are not, but I don't think Love on it's own could be truly represented effectively by a deity that is Evil. Neutral might get away with it, but over time I suspect that deity would tend more and more towards Good. Love is at the basis of just about everything that the PHB represents as Good - altruism, respect for life, and concern for others. And I agree with you on Pleasure. I'm just happy that, as it happens, pleasure in the Realms is represented by Good. Makes for a (complete) change from the whole (mostly Judeo-Christian) idea that pleasure is somehow bad or evil. |
| Zandilar10-03-07, 07:20 PM | Heya, Well, I can't say I'd see a neutral deity of love as being all that much darker, myself--I don't think a goddess of love could only be good, even if it wouldn't make much sense for her to be evil. By definition, a neutral deity of love would have to have the negative expressions of love as more prominent, otherwise what is the point? She'd (or he'd) have to represent obsessive stalker kind of love as well as the more pure forms, for example... Which is "darker" to my mind. (Personally I don't think the obsessive stalker kind of love is truly love, but we're simplifying concepts here, and a stalker may well say they love their stalkee.) My point was that the gods have personalities, and it's all part of the setting. :) If the goddess of magic happens to favor goodly use of the Art, it's her perogative. As others have pointed out time and again, there are enough settings out there where gods of magic are neutral or evil, and sometimes even magic is presented as "dark". No arguments from me here. :) |
| SgtAnjay10-03-07, 08:13 PM | I dunno, I could see an evil deity of love. Its all about focus and perspective. Rather than promoting people to love others, or love themselves, they would promote people to make others love them. Hrrm... Love is affirmation, love is power; love is something you should strive to receive. If people dont love you, then obviously there's something wrong with you and you dont deserve it; become something you're not, because what you are isn't worthy of love. People who love you are under your power, so you should evoke love in others for that reason. Using love, manipulating others is easy; use rivalry and jealousy (Love's handmaidens) to control the weak and get what you want. Use the insecurity of those ugly and/or unloved to make them too weak to resist or defy you. Make things beautiful because ugliness is beneath you. There. The dogma of an evil love deity. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin10-03-07, 08:16 PM | Heya, By definition, a neutral deity of love would have to have the negative expressions of love as more prominent, otherwise what is the point? She'd (or he'd) have to represent obsessive stalker kind of love as well as the more pure forms, for example... Which is "darker" to my mind. (Personally I don't think the obsessive stalker kind of love is truly love, but we're simplifying concepts here, and a stalker may well say they love their stalkee.) It's possible a neutral love deity could be presented that way. Or he/she/it could just be unconcerned with how followers interpret love (I've seen a setting where all the gods were neutral and were just like that--including the goddess of love and beauty). Like you, though, I'm delighted that the deities of love and pleasure in this setting are good.:) |
| creyzi4zb1210-03-07, 08:26 PM | Yeah, I feel pretty much the same way. And yes--good people have died in novels, and not always in grand sacrifices either. I guess that answers Beta's frustration....The realms is darker than u think :cool: |
| Red_Wizard10-03-07, 08:31 PM | I don't know what Red Wizard is on about. Red Wizard is on about her chosen just as much as he is on about her. Without the powers she has gifted them, they'd not have been able to survive even half the attempts made upon their lives thus far. Which then leads one to ask whether it is that she is simply too incompetent to see what they are doing, to uncaring of their actions to stop them--to which you might also ask why then are they chosen--, or she in truth approves, and perhaps even encourages their actions to which she violates her station. When the Simbul slays a dozen or more Red Wizards for a perceived slight, often killing ones that had no immediate hand in the action she is angered over, it should be the goddess of magic's job to remove any unfair advantage she has granted to Alassra until one side emerges victorious. Why you ask? Because she is not furthering magic by letting one kill many, often using the powers she is gifted by the goddess, and as a deity of a neutral position, if not possessing a neutral alignment --any longer-- she SHOULD NOT be taking sides in a matter of magical supremacy. Since you asked, that is what I was "on about", that is it in a nutshell. ;) |
| Storm_Silverhand10-03-07, 08:32 PM | Heya, Love is affirmation, love is power; love is something you should strive to receive. If people dont love you, then obviously there's something wrong with you and you dont deserve it; become something you're not, because what you are isn't worthy of love. People who love you are under your power, so you should evoke love in others for that reason. Using love, manipulating others is easy; use rivalry and jealousy (Love's handmaidens) to control the weak and get what you want. Use the insecurity of those ugly and/or unloved to make them too weak to resist or defy you. Make things beautiful because ugliness is beneath you. There. The dogma of an evil love deity. That isn't love. I don't know what it is, but it's not love. The unwritten part of the dogma you came up with is that one must not love, because to do so is to give others power over you. |
| GothicDan10-03-07, 08:43 PM | Good to see you back, Zandilar. And, of course, the fact that we've basically found and labeled the chemical that defines humanly/mortal love, means, to me, as a scientist, that love can be a lot more than what certain peoples' philosophies say it is - and a lot less. Love is strong emotional, usually non-damaging but not necessarily always, attachment to someone. That's as close as I would go to 'defining' it. |
| creyzi4zb1210-03-07, 08:58 PM | Love means I'd die for you...That's what Jesus said. |
| GothicDan10-03-07, 09:12 PM | I'm pretty sure he said a lot more than that. And maybe not that at all. Actually, certainly not that, given as he spoke Aramaic and/or Hebrew... |
| SgtAnjay10-03-07, 09:43 PM | Heya, That isn't love. I don't know what it is, but it's not love. The unwritten part of the dogma you came up with is that one must not love, because to do so is to give others power over you. If you don't know what that is, then count yourself grateful you've missed out on one of the darkest, saddest sides of love. Regardless, that dogma says, in essence: Love is great! Look at all the great things you can get from love! Love is something you should encourage! If you want to give others power over you by falling in love, that'd be your decision; but know what you're getting into, dont be a sucker. Just like Sune doesn't encourage people to create as many love-sick individuals as they can for their own gratification(even though it does promote more people falling in love, happens all-too-often, and is as much a part of love as two soul-mates), this deity doesn't promote giving it away for free. They're two ways of looking at the same emotion. But as long as the deity promotes and encourages love, then they're fulfilling their purpose as deity of love. Its the why its promoting love thats so different, that's evil. It just so happens this deity ignores or scorns all the "good" that love can be used for, just like Sune ignores the "evil" things that can come from love. Love can cause altruism, self-sacrifice, and giving. It can also cause jealousy, rivalry, arrogance, self-absorbtion (look at how I'm loved; I'm incredible!), obsession, tragedy, depression. |
| Dimensional_Drifter10-03-07, 10:09 PM | As I see it, good and evil are simply exist because humanity sees them as good and evil. Thinks that people see in a generally positive light, like love, would to almost everyone seem only right to be good. So I think Sune being seen as CG makes sense, even if she seemed to be portrayed a bit too shallow in the avatar series. Also, even though no one mentioned it, I for one don't see the ocean as being evil, Umberlee simply seems to represent the storms that affect the surface of the seas to me, the danger at sea and the threat it can pose to those upon it. However, I like to think that Eldath, although nothing of the ocean is in her portfolio, to be possibly representative of the calm that contrasts what Umberlee represents. Eldath may have been a sea goddess at one time anyway, she doesn't seem the type to fight to retain portfolios though. I think Eldath appeared near the end of the third Threat from the Sea book anyway to talk to Laqueel the malenti. Besides, with Istishia as neutral representing water itself, I don't think the seas would be inherently evil anyway. ...ok, off topic that was... |
| SgtAnjay10-03-07, 10:35 PM | Well we've all kinda gone off on a tangent....but I think we're all trying to say, in our own unique way, that even though what a portfolio represents isn't good or evil itself (the sea was a good example, winter, or passion) the god with the portfolio can still be good or evil (Umberlee, Auril, Sharess, respectively). So there's nothing wrong with a good, or evil, deity of magic, even if magic isn't good or evil itself. |
| MaskedOne10-03-07, 11:42 PM | Conflict of alignment isn't what I suggest, it's conflict of Portfolio. They are two very different things. For example Cyric could murder a whole flock of Tempus's generals, and in response Tempus could march upon a place sacred to Cyric with intent to destroy. Being gods of Murder, and War respectively, neither would be overstepping their bounds for doing so, and so I have no issue with either. Mystra however wishes to promote the use of magic, or at the very least should, and there for should allow both the good and the bad to be put to use. It would not be her place to stop a mage from leveling a hamlet with his spells, nor from creating a spell that could do so in the first place. The innocent lives lost, while grating to her kind nerves, are not her concern, and should not be treated as such. Look at her actions during the Trial, and it is fairly clear to what I speak. Granted her position has been dampened somewhat since then, but were Ao not in the way, I am certain she'd return to her old ways. Again, I don't suggest the god of magic can't be good alignment wise, only that they must remember what their place is in regards to the balance, and distributed portfolios. While I utterly despised Trial, it did have one useful point. Midnight/Mystra figured out that directly controlling the purposes to which any given being may put magic is inherently tyrranical (i.e. evil) and therefore shalt be avoided except in severe cases no matter how much this grates on her nerves. She made this decision freely (she had been preparing to try and contest or bypass the Circle, if memory serves) WITHOUT any request for clemency attached to it and swore herself to it regardless of the Circle's verdict for as long as she possesed the power to govern the Weave. AO is the common fallback because people seem to trust the threat of overwhelming force more than personal integrity but the point stands that Midnight has no desire whatsoever to walk a tyrant's path by directly coercing all magic use to be acceptable to her personal morality. Her Chosen are another matter but AO who did not directly threaten her in the end is not the first or most reliable control on Mystra's good behaviour. Mystra's personal distaste for tyranny will restrain her more often and with greater speed than AO ever will. Rant over. |
| Zsych10-04-07, 02:20 AM | Wonder if Mystra's dying has anything to do with her desire to absorb the Shadow-weave. If Mystra is the Weave, then perhaps the Shadow-weave is a similar existence(although one that usually doesn't make decisions... leaving that to Shar :) )... maybe the new system of magic will be mindless, and uncontrolled by any specific force. .... Also wonder if those comments about not being able to disclose info on Karsus, might be because he was restored some time in the future, to once again play a part in the future of magic(maybe dying permanently in the process this time... or not) (dang... I wanted Mystra de-throned, not dead.. :P ) |
| Dark Wizard10-04-07, 02:39 AM | A struggling deity and her fading church are more interesting than a dead deity and a now near-pointless religious physical/mortal infrastructure. The former can be a recurring plot, but the later can only be done so many times. |
| Storm_Silverhand10-04-07, 03:24 AM | Heya, If you don't know what that is, then count yourself grateful you've missed out on one of the darkest, saddest sides of love. I have had my fair share of sorrow in regards to love... But maybe not that bad. ;) Regardless, that dogma says, in essence: Love is great! Look at all the great things you can get from love! Love is something you should encourage! If you want to give others power over you by falling in love, that'd be your decision; but know what you're getting into, dont be a sucker. Just like Sune doesn't encourage people to create as many love-sick individuals as they can for their own gratification(even though it does promote more people falling in love, happens all-too-often, and is as much a part of love as two soul-mates), this deity doesn't promote giving it away for free. They're two ways of looking at the same emotion. But as long as the deity promotes and encourages love, then they're fulfilling their purpose as deity of love. Uhh... that doesn't make much sense to me. The "love is power" evil deity doesn't encourage the selfless, unconditional love between a mother and her child, or between soulmates. Therefore, your "evil" love deity isn't really a love deity at all, since they only encourage a one sided/selfish attitude towards love. Your evil deity would be encouraging unrequited love - yes, seek love, but don't give it because you'll be a sucker. Mind you, Sune doesn't appear to encourage all forms of love either, but I suspect that's largely because she's supposedly Aphrodite with a different name... Personally, I'd like to see a deeper side to Sune portrayed (more emphasis on Good), but in the context of what seems to be happening, I think we've lost yet another Good deity to "convenient mis-characterization". Its the why its promoting love thats so different, that's evil. It just so happens this deity ignores or scorns all the "good" that love can be used for, just like Sune ignores the "evil" things that can come from love. Love can cause altruism, self-sacrifice, and giving. It can also cause jealousy, rivalry, arrogance, self-absorbtion (look at how I'm loved; I'm incredible!), obsession, tragedy, depression. Hmm... Altruism is an expression of love, while jealousy is an expression of envy. Jealousy is not always caused by love - for example, it's possible to be jealous of someone because they're wealthy. Not sure if that makes sense. |
| GothicDan10-04-07, 09:11 AM | Altruism is an expression of love, Massively disagree. I'm altruistic because it helps the overall functioning of a society. Remember, Zandilar. Subjective philosophy. ;) |
| Alediran10-04-07, 09:52 AM | Yeah, I feel pretty much the same way. And yes--good people have died in novels, and not always in grand sacrifices either. For example one of Araevin's friends in the first book of LMT, killed by a Fey'ri while he was helpless. |
| Red_Wizard10-04-07, 10:24 AM | There have been far more dumb deaths on the part of "Evil" characters, than good ones. I for one am more than happy to see a few goody goodies bight the dust in a pathetic manner. It's time the tables turned. |
| GothicDan10-04-07, 11:48 AM | It was stupid then, and it's stupid now. I'd prefer personal feelings of vendetta not get in the way of trying construct verisimilitude. |
| Red_Wizard10-04-07, 01:04 PM | I'm not entirely convinced that is the best use of verisimilitude, but regardless. It isn't a a matter of Vendettas, or grudges, it is a point of truth. People don't always die heroically. Stepping on a nail, and dieing of something contracted is just as, if not more likely, to occur, than leaping in front of a charging minotaur to save a loved one. I think the main difference is that even with the manner of death being less than noble, the Good is still making smarter choices than the bad. I find a a story more compelling when intelligence is shown on both sides, not just solely on the one as it has been on the whole. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin10-04-07, 01:23 PM | Also, even though no one mentioned it, I for one don't see the ocean as being evil, Umberlee simply seems to represent the storms that affect the surface of the seas to me, the danger at sea and the threat it can pose to those upon it. Storms at sea are a part of nature, and aren't evil in and of themselves, so I don't see why a goddess of them has to be evil. That was mainly my point--the argument that Mystra should be neutral because magic is neutral can apply to many (if not most) of the gods. But Mystra is the only one that ever seems to get singled out... |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin10-04-07, 01:26 PM | Wonder if Mystra's dying has anything to do with her desire to absorb the Shadow-weave. The Shadow Weave already belongs to Mystra, as per Ed Greenwood and the recent adventure books. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin10-04-07, 01:32 PM | There have been far more dumb deaths on the part of "Evil" characters, than good ones. I for one am more than happy to see a few goody goodies bight the dust in a pathetic manner. It's time the tables turned. I agree, and I dislike "stupid evil" myself. But isn't it partly the nature of the beast that's responsible here? Books by their very nature tend to feature protagonists succeeding and antagonists being defeated. That has to account for the one-sided amount of deaths, and since people (readers and most likely authors) like it when villains get theirs, many of the villain deaths are likely to be ignominious. I'm not saying I agree with this--I ended up disliking the Bladesinger novel because I thought the antagonist was portrayed in an exceptionally silly manner. But I don't expect to see the tables turned any time soon. |
| Dimensional_Drifter10-04-07, 01:53 PM | Storms at sea are a part of nature, and aren't evil in and of themselves, so I don't see why a goddess of them has to be evil. That was mainly my point--the argument that Mystra should be neutral because magic is neutral can apply to many (if not most) of the gods. But Mystra is the only one that ever seems to get singled out... Yes, nothing in nature is evil. The best thing to do would be to give the sea to a neutral deity. Funny thing is that most life lives in the sea and the sea is actually an easier environment to live in than on land, as lifeforms don't need to worry about conserving water and needing to adapt to temperatures and weather and such. I actually dislike Umberlee entirely. It is just somethings are easier to percieve as evil than other things, and some things easier to percieve as good, despite the fact that good and evil aren't easily defined and may not even exist except for in the human mind. Umberlee doesn't have to be Evil. Mystra didn't have to be good. I for one, am all for a neutral deity of magic. Many things that are "good" and many things that are "evil" could simply be neutral. It's just what they are seen as and it really doesn't matter that much. Now just imagine an evil magic deity... |
| Red_Wizard10-04-07, 01:54 PM | I don't expect it, but I'd like to see it nonetheless . Then again, I like it when the "bad guys" win, so I suppose I'm biased in that sense. ;) |
| GothicDan10-04-07, 01:54 PM | I think the main difference is that even with the manner of death being less than noble, the Good is still making smarter choices than the bad. I find a a story more compelling when intelligence is shown on both sides, not just solely on the one as it has been on the whole. You're probably right. But that's still not a thing I approve of, and still, I would not approve of it going the other way around. Though part of me thinks that a certain degree of being evil IS inherently stupid. The smart evil ones are the ones we don't hear about - the ones that the DMs make. That's at least in part how Ed tried to get around TSR's Code of Ethics in the past. |
| Dimensional_Drifter10-04-07, 01:57 PM | There should be less stupid villains. To be successful, a villain would have to be rather smart. Most however, would want good to win more often -- or so I would think. Sometimes though, one would think that good has it too easy. |
| Alediran10-04-07, 02:15 PM | There should be less stupid villains. To be successful, a villain would have to be rather smart. Most however, would want good to win more often -- or so I would think. Sometimes though, one would think that good has it too easy. Many smart villains sometimes do the stupidest thing in the world: annoying good people with their ambitions (killing someone loved, attacking his/her village, etc). That's when the heroes come and they win not mainly because they are smart (many are), but because they have the will to defeat the BBEG no matter the cost, and that gives the heroes an edge that evil villains usually don't attain. |
| SgtAnjay10-04-07, 02:37 PM | Uhh... that doesn't make much sense to me. The "love is power" evil deity doesn't encourage the selfless, unconditional love between a mother and her child, or between soulmates. Therefore, your "evil" love deity isn't really a love deity at all, since they only encourage a one sided/selfish attitude towards love. Your evil deity would be encouraging unrequited love - yes, seek love, but don't give it because you'll be a sucker.Talos doesn't encourage the good side of storms, Umberlee doesn't encourage the good sides of the sea, Auril doesn't encourage the good side of winter. Sune doesn't encourage the negative aspects of love. That doesn't mean Talos, Umberlee, Auril, or Sune dont live up to their portfolios. It just means they look at their portfolios from their alignment's point of view. Hmm... Altruism is an expression of love, while jealousy is an expression of envy. Jealousy is not always caused by love - for example, it's possible to be jealous of someone because they're wealthy. Not sure if that makes sense.Altruism can be an expression of pity, or duty (this is pretty common in my line of work), or cold logic. Jealousy may not always come from love, but its impossible to deny that love causes jealousy, just like it can cause obsession, anger, or egoism. Just like Umberlee emphasises shipwrecks and drowning, but is still a goddess of the sea, just like Auril emphasises killing cold and merciless blizzards, but is still a goddess of winter, so an evil deity of love could emphasize all the negative aspects and consequences of love, and still be a deity of love. Yes, nothing in nature is evil. The best thing to do would be to give the sea to a neutral deity. Funny thing is that most life lives in the sea and the sea is actually an easier environment to live in than on land, as lifeforms don't need to worry about conserving water and needing to adapt to temperatures and weather and such. I actually dislike Umberlee entirely. It is just somethings are easier to percieve as evil than other things, and some things easier to percieve as good, despite the fact that good and evil aren't easily defined and may not even exist except for in the human mind. Umberlee doesn't have to be Evil. Mystra didn't have to be good. Most forces aren't good or evil, very true. But they have dual natures; fire can help, fire can hurt. The sea can be incredibly beneficial, and it can destroy. And so on. So most things could have a neutral being to represent its lack of inherent morality, a good deity to represent its good side, and/or an evil deity representing its destructive side. All of those approaches are equally valid. I for one, am all for a neutral deity of magic. Many things that are "good" and many things that are "evil" could simply be neutral. It's just what they are seen as and it really doesn't matter that much. Now just imagine an evil magic deity...You mean like, I dunno, Nuitari, Vecna, Velsharoon, Set, Kiaransalee, and so forth? Yeah, its been done. Plenty. 'Sides, if every portfolio with a neutral aspect had to have neutral deities, that would be quite the boring pantheon. There's nothing wrong with deities having points of view anymore than there's something wrong with mortals having them. |
| Dimensional_Drifter10-04-07, 02:53 PM | I never said that all should be neutral. (when I said that about magic deity, I meant if one's portfolio encompassed all magic, then neutrality would make perfect sense to me. I had nothing against Mystra's portrayal) The alignment of the deities are what gives them character, and neutrality can be boring, however a neutral morality doesn't necessarily mean boring and never siding with good intentions nor evil ones. I don't like Umberlee, but that doesn't mean I don't see which side of the portfolio that is represented. Many people have died at sea, and it is a force to be reckoned with, as magic would be as well if it truly existed. When I said imagine an evil magic deity (which I know has been done many times) I meant, a good or neutral one would be vastly prefered. I don't think killing off Mystra was a good idea, and I never want to see Shar representing magic. I was trying to say that for a new deity of magic, I would rather it be a neutral one. Of course no one said there had to be a new magic deity, but if there were one (as the thread's topic is about -- new deity of magic -- not good vs evil and what portfolios). I really want to know what WotC has in mind now that the weave is gone (as does just about everyone else) |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin10-04-07, 10:20 PM | Regarding stupid villains: the problem with really stupid villains is that they prompt the reader to wonder why they are such a threat in the first place. For example, the villain from the Bladesinger miscalculated again and again, said and did some downright idiotic things, and I had to wonder, "Is this the person who is such a grave threat to the well-being of Rashemen? The book told me she was such a patient, master manipulater, and went undetected for so long--why is she now acting like such an unsubtle, bumbling fool?" It's yet another case of books telling the reader one thing, but showing another. Also, don't the heroes seem just a little less heroic if a villain is so easy to outsmart? |
| GothicDan10-04-07, 10:57 PM | Rino, I have the same pet peeve - I DESPISE writing that 'tells us' how a person is X and Y, instead of SHOWING it. GRRM is really good at NOT doing this. |
| creyzi4zb1210-05-07, 08:38 AM | Regarding stupid villains: the problem with really stupid villains is that they prompt the reader to wonder why they are such a threat in the first place. For example, the villain from the Bladesinger miscalculated again and again, said and did some downright idiotic things, and I had to wonder, "Is this the person who is such a grave threat to the well-being of Rashemen? The book told me she was such a patient, master manipulater, and went undetected for so long--why is she now acting like such an unsubtle, bumbling fool?" It's yet another case of books telling the reader one thing, but showing another. Also, don't the heroes seem just a little less heroic if a villain is so easy to outsmart? The problem with stupid villains is that they can sometimes be unstoppable. And intellect most of the time gives way to strength in most crisis situations. Take the movie "The Hills have Eyes 1 and 2", Plasterface, TexasChainsaw Massacre, The 13 ghosts, The Blob, The Giant Eggplant who ate Newyork. Villains who are dumb are most of the time almost unstoppable giving the protagonists a hell of a hard time. Making them intelligent would somewhat alter some balance in the conflict. Take the movie Saw I, II, III and House of 1000 corpses for example. Now u see what happens if a villain is intelligent and powerful = No happy ending To sum it all up a dumb villain is just as good as an intelligent villain. |
| GothicDan10-05-07, 09:55 AM | Crayzi, you are very weird. I'll just say: Godzilla. |
| Keryth10-05-07, 12:15 PM | Huh? Mystra is dead? Where and when did this happen? I know I've not read FRnovels in a while, but first Khelben and now Mystra? |
| Dork_in_Hiding10-05-07, 12:27 PM | Hey how about everyone does what I'm doing...pretend nothing ever happened and continue with my campaign. The spell plaque is a horrible idea. 4e is ever worse than the caveman show on ABC. I believe there is enough information from 1-3.5 editions to play in the realms till I'm sixty. Unless Wizards bashes in my door arrests me and burns all my books in my yard in nazi censorship way. |
| Alediran10-05-07, 01:24 PM | Huh? Mystra is dead? Where and when did this happen? I know I've not read FRnovels in a while, but first Khelben and now Mystra? Take heart that Khelben at least had a good death and now is spending his afterlife in Arvandor. |
| Storm_Silverhand10-05-07, 08:44 PM | Heya, Altruism can be an expression of pity, or duty (this is pretty common in my line of work), or cold logic. Jealousy may not always come from love, but its impossible to deny that love causes jealousy, just like it can cause obsession, anger, or egoism. Okay, so maybe I was wrong about altruism by it's real world definition. However, altruism is one of the central tenants of the definition of Good for Dungeons and Dragons (it's in the PHB). Also, Love might seem to be the cause those things in some people, but it isn't. Love coupled with insecurity causes jealousy... Without the insecurity, there would be no jealousy. It's a complete oversimplification to say that Love is the root cause of jealousy, IMHO. I think, in the end, we're probably going to end up agreeing to disagree. (My original sig on these boards said I was a "cynical romantic optimistic pessimist", this argument comes from my romantic and optimistic side.) Huh? Mystra is dead? Where and when did this happen? I know I've not read FRnovels in a while, but first Khelben and now Mystra? At the end of A Grand History of the Realms. It's been all over the boards lately, I'm surprised you missed it with all the threads dedicated to the changes to the Realms that are shown in AGHotR. Cyric, with Shar's backing, somehow managed to infiltrate Dweomerheart (the only place he could have killed her), and murdered her. Somehow bypassing the senses of every deity who would be effected (like every deity in the Realms, since they all have clergy and their clergy use all the Weave). |
| Zsych10-05-07, 10:17 PM | I vote for the return of a (somewhat reformed) Karsus, with the return of the Netherese empire!!! Although I actually expect the reborn Netherese empire to have fallen or be dying by the time shown in the preview chapter of Orc King... Not that I wouldn't appreciate a great Netherese empire being around and being elaborated on in the sourcebooks. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin10-06-07, 10:41 PM | Hey how about everyone does what I'm doing...pretend nothing ever happened... That is precisely what I plan to do. |
| 18DELTA10-06-07, 11:35 PM | That is precisely what I plan to do. What a novel idea!;) I am all ready planning on restating what ever needs to be restated. :D |
| Stigger10-08-07, 04:08 AM | Perception is defined by culture... as are definitions defined by cultural perception. Kinda hard to figure out what Faerun's perceptions and definitions on anything would really be since our culture, perceptions, and definitions are likely radically different from one another. Wanna go for realism and realistic play? Dump all the modern definitions, morality, and perceptions and just go by what's written in the books... you know, the ones that were shaped by those semi-modern definitions those short few years ago... ;) |
| ClobberinTime10-12-07, 01:52 PM | I'm guessing they will have multiple god's of magic, each having specific portfolios. Since they already have the wicked witch of the west i.e the goddess of evil magic:Shar, now they need Glenda Goodwitch, who will likely be: Selune, goddess of 'goodly magic'. Azuth will probably stick around as s neutral god of magical invention or something. |
| AlphaShard10-12-07, 02:25 PM | What about the idea of there not actualy being a God/Goddess of Magic, do we really even need one? I think it has led to having a Monopilistic view of Magic as if the Deity of Magic is control of the universe. Perhaps 4e is heading in a direction of magic being managed by the mortals as opposed to the Gods. |
| Alediran10-12-07, 02:26 PM | What about the idea of there not actualy being a God/Goddess of Magic, do we really even need one? I think it has led to having a Monopilistic view of Magic as if the Deity of Magic is control of the universe. Perhaps 4e is heading in a direction of magic being managed by the mortals as opposed to the Gods. It would be contrary to the realms fluff. The gods exist, they are the forces that shape the world and since magic is one of them, there is a goddess that manage this force. |
| Storm_Silverhand10-12-07, 07:07 PM | Heya, What about the idea of there not actualy being a God/Goddess of Magic, do we really even need one? I think it has led to having a Monopilistic view of Magic as if the Deity of Magic is control of the universe. Perhaps 4e is heading in a direction of magic being managed by the mortals as opposed to the Gods. Mystra and the Weave is one of the things (the major thing, IMHO) that sets the Realms apart from YAGFS (Yet Another Generic Fantasy Setting). So I say not only is an over all deity of magic is necessary, Mystra herself is necessary for the Realms to be the Realms. |
| ExtinctionBeta10-12-07, 07:42 PM | Wrong post section -edited to another topic |
| Nolwelen10-12-07, 10:52 PM | I would like to petition for NO MORE DEITIES OF MAGIC. Let Mystra rest in peace and dont create a new deity of magic for everybody's sake. An autonomous functioning weave will do the FR better service. |
| creyzi4zb1210-15-07, 11:12 AM | How about an evil god/goddess of magic? More evil than Cyric or Shar...wouldn't that be a change? |
| MaskedOne10-15-07, 12:39 PM | What about the idea of there not actualy being a God/Goddess of Magic, do we really even need one? I think it has led to having a Monopilistic view of Magic as if the Deity of Magic is control of the universe. Perhaps 4e is heading in a direction of magic being managed by the mortals as opposed to the Gods. 3.X already set the groundwork for breaking that monopoly by introducing the concept of Raw Magic, psions as being Weave free and the Shadow Weave as existing outside Mystra's control. Killing Mystra and destroying the Weave doesn't break the monoploy, the monopoly no longer exists. All that was left was the creation of a spellcasting tradition without attachment to psion systems that wielded raw magic. |
| Storm_Silverhand10-15-07, 06:35 PM | Heya, How about an evil god/goddess of magic? More evil than Cyric or Shar...wouldn't that be a change? No, it wouldn't be. An evil magic deity is quite a common idea. |
| Stigger10-16-07, 03:29 AM | And a sickening one at that... but, I shall not derail this thread with a rant over monotheistic worldviews creeping into settings... which does kinda seem to be the case with the whole Devil rewrite thing, but... so, yeah. |
| ClobberinTime10-17-07, 03:10 PM | Gods and or Goddesses of Magic often had alignments in Earth Pantheons. Look at Loki. Shar is solid as the goddess of evil magic. Look for Selune to become the new goddess of good magic. |