Anyone else feel this way?
It´s true that the ideals of shade aren´t that different from Netheril, but there are important differences IIRC. The fact that Shar plays such a huge role is a great difference - the netherese weren´t all that keen on gods.
I know they're all powerful wizards with a nation, but honestly, I can't actually see them defeating Fzoul and Manshoon.
I know they're all powerful wizards with a nation, but honestly, I can't actually see them defeating Fzoul and Manshoon.
Well, considering that the Simbul did a good job of continually whupping Red Wizard tushy, I can visualize the Shades doing alright.
But then I love everything that has to do with Shadow. I thought the Zhents and Red Wizards where cool at first but they got tiring for me towards the end. In their defense, they didn't really get any favorable storylines by the later authors.
Also I wish the Shadar-Kai stayed as Shadow Fey and lost the whole total body piercing notion but I'm glad they are getting more press with 4e.
Well, considering that the Simbul did a good job of continually whupping Red Wizard tushy, I can visualize the Shades doing alright.
I had difficulty believing that myself.
*Ssass Tam casts Anti-Magic shell*
Simbul: Crud.
*is stabbed a few hundred times*
*is stabbed a few hundred times*
As far as I remember... this is pretty much what happened in Silverfall, isn't it?. Alassra got her posterior section handed to her by the Red Wizards... and it was only by falling back on her allies that she survived at all as Thay was unable to capitalise on the lapse.
-Like so many other things, overexposure ruins it. And this bird has flown.
I don't know what it is about them but I can't take them seriously as villains. Compared to the Zhents and the Red Wizards, they just fall flat in every possible way.
Anyone else feel this way?
Yes, and I also dislike the focus on Shar. They're all too over the top as villains go. The old Zhents and the old Red Wizards were about subtlety and intrigue, and they've wiped both of those things away. Horrible.
Yes, and I also dislike the focus on Shar. They're all too over the top as villains go. The old Zhents and the old Red Wizards were about subtlety and intrigue, and they've wiped both of those things away. Horrible.
Yes, because Red Wizards the the Zhents are no longer in 4e FR.... riiight.
Really, other then 100 years of change and growth, what has them not being as you want them?
Yes, because Red Wizards the the Zhents are no longer in 4e FR.... riiight.
Really, other then 100 years of change and growth, what has them not being as you want them?
1. Well the Red Wizards are a tiny expatriate organization of magicians.
2. The Zhents are a bunch of Cyricists living in Darkhold lead by a Vampire.
So, yes, there's some statement that they may *finger wag* exist but they're not what they once were and what people typically associate with the Zhents.
Yes, because Red Wizards the the Zhents are no longer in 4e FR.... riiight.
-Not in the way that Therise was citing, no. Should I follow this statement with an '
' as well?If G.I. Joe worked for Belgium, was made up of Europeans, and fought Eco-Terrorists; would they really be G.I. Joe?
-Not in the way that Therise was citing, no. Should I follow this statement with an '
She said; The old Zhents and the old Red Wizards were about subtlety and intrigue, and they've wiped both of those things away.
Where does it say so? Unless she has some uberpowered insight into the Realms that we lack, I see no support for her statement. Are they exactly as they were, of course not. Does this make then lack intrigue and subtlety, of course not...
Where is this statement coming from then?
Also, decidedly less intimidating.
Sort of the crux.
If G.I. Joe worked for Belgium, was made up of Europeans, and fought Eco-Terrorists; would they really be G.I. Joe?
-Only in the same way that pizza is synonymous with tacos, because both are food products made up of a bread holding meat, cheese, and vegetables.
The Red Wizards were originally Ed Greenwood's version of the Scarlet Brotherhood, I've heard at least a couple of rumors to the effect (though they became their own thing), so really Thay-Mart is a very far removed thing from what they should be.
Also, decidedly less intimidating.
So, because they didn't spoon feed exactly, absolutely every detail about the RW, then they are less in your own game?
WTF people, it doesn't take words in a book for me to play my game the way I want. They gave bare-bones info on everything so we could fit it to our needs.
So, because they didn't spoon feed exactly, absolutely every detail about the RW, then they are less in your own game?
WTF people, it doesn't take words in a book for me to play my game the way I want. They gave bare-bones info on everything so we could fit it to our needs.
Actually, yes. I think the current Red Wizards stink as villains.
Actually, yes. I think the current Red Wizards stink as villains.
Well, you're entitled to your opinion and I'm sorry for your loss. Personally, I don't need WotC to tell me how to run my game's villains and I, personally, like that they left things open for DM's to mold without having to fight players who say it isn't cannon or not the way it should be.
Also note, I am a huge Realms fan, I loved the books, 3.x and the fluff, but I also like where they went with 4e. I see it as being better for the game.
Also note, I am a huge Realms fan, I loved the books, 3.x and the fluff, but I also like where they went with 4e. I see it as being better for the game.
Reply With Quote
Yeah, but if they're not telling me how to run my games then I'm not getting my 39.99 worth.
Oh well, I guess my biggest problem is that I don't get what exactly is supposed to be interesting about the Netherese. They're flatter that Lord Voldemort.
So, because they didn't spoon feed exactly, absolutely every detail about the RW, then they are less in your own game?
WTF people, it doesn't take words in a book for me to play my game the way I want. They gave bare-bones info on everything so we could fit it to our needs.
This isn't about spoon-feeding, or anyone wanting such (nice snotty attitude you have, though). The argument is that the Red Wizards are fundamentally changed in most every important way, and that they are remarkably bland in terms of intrigue when compared to their predecessors. Please take time to read Dreams of the Red Wizards, or Unapproachable East, to get just a glimmer of what the Red Wizards used to be.
Yeah, but if they're not telling me how to run my games then I'm not getting my 39.99 worth.
Oh well, I guess my biggest problem is that I don't get what exactly is supposed to be interesting about the Netherese. They're flatter that Lord Voldemort.
Hmm, well you don't have to use them... but I think I understand what you mean. Best advice I can give is use them how you see fit. Change them to suite your needs and make sure you and your group are having fun.
Also note, I am a huge Realms fan, I loved the books, 3.x and the fluff, but I also like where they went with 4e. I see it as being better for the game.
And how do you see it working for the novels?
This isn't about spoon-feeding, or anyone wanting such (nice snotty attitude you have, though). The argument is that the Red Wizards are fundamentally changed in most every important way, and that they are remarkably bland in terms of intrigue when compared to their predecessors. Please take time to read Dreams of the Red Wizards, or Unapproachable East, to get just a glimmer of what the Red Wizards used to be.
I've read both and I still don't see how you seem to think they are less in your game?
And how do you see it working for the novels?
In what sense? I like the 2 I've read that touch on 4e FR and look forward to the new ones.
I'm not really partial to characters in general, blame Terry Brooks and his killing off Walker Boh... but I enjoy the Realms books, new and old.
I believe his argument is that you can have them have the same flavor they always did in your game. However, I do not think he factors in the DDI article on how they look today. If he does, it's a losing battle as his is a less is more perspective.
In what sense? I like the 2 I've read that touch on 4e FR and look forward to the new ones.
I'm not really partial to characters in general, blame Terry Brooks and his killing off Walker Boh... but I enjoy the Realms books, new and old.
Actually, I don't think you need to explain further. I have all the answer I need here. Thanks for answering.
And how do you see it working for the novels?
That all depends on the authors they use over the next few years. Elaine Cunningham took a bunch of basic info and wove great stories around the elves. RAS put the region of Ten Towns and Mithral Hall on the map. More examples are out there. Good authors = good books, regardless of the setting, hack authors = bad books.
Of course, she's now doing work for Paizo on Pathfinder, so... certainly I imagine people are going to read things into that. :P
There was something about it in her blog a while ago... I just have an idea that it wasn't there for very long.
True, though Elaine Cunningham more or less ended up quitting in disgust didn't she?
-No. In her discussions concerning the cancellation of Reclaimation, she only mentioned how she personally couldn't find her own muse. What exactly this means, a million people can come up with different explanations. For some, it might just mean that, for whatever reason, she was unable to come up with a resolution within the bounds that WotC was allowing. For others, it was the direction the setting was going in, or directives that she didn't agree with, that caused it.
-Whatever the case, though, Elaine is a true class act, and wouldn't speak out or blame anyone, no matter who exactly-if anyone- is to blame.
Therise,
I believe his argument is that you can have them have the same flavor they always did in your game. However, I do not think he factors in the DDI article on how they look today. If he does, it's a losing battle as his is a less is more perspective.
Apparently so.
-Whatever the case, though, Elaine is a true class act, and wouldn't speak out or blame anyone, no matter who exactly-if anyone- is to blame.
Very true, she's definitely risen above it which is admirable. I'll be glad to see her other, future works.
I do have a problem with them being the end all of evil in the Realms. One of many threats, yes, that's good.
They are one of many... and I've also seen every DDI tidbit that has come out, thanks.
Yes, but they're the only ones the Harpers care about. They control Sembia and thus threaten the Heartlands.
Unless you want to go to *shudders* Agalarond, they're it.
What I am bothered by is the notion that somehow "Netherese" is entirely and exclusively synonymous with the Shades and Shar in the contemporary FR vocabulary. It is as if they are implying that Larloch, Saharel, Aumvor, Ioulaum, and the enclave of Opus have all vanished, which is not much to my liking.
Now onto peripheral issues...
I know they're all powerful wizards with a nation, but honestly, I can't actually see them defeating Fzoul and Manshoon.
In 3E the 12 Princes had an average challenge rating of 30 or so whereas Fzoul and Manshoon were outnumbered 2/12+ and had an average challenge rating of 23-25, so it seems fairly logical to me. Besides, ultimately it was just their minions who were truly destroyed, as they both are alive and well today--in one form or another.
Well, considering that the Simbul did a good job of continually whupping Red Wizard tushy, I can visualize the Shades doing alright.
I had difficulty believing that myself.
*Ssass Tam casts Anti-Magic shell*
Simbul: Crud.
*is stabbed a few hundred times*
Actually it would be the other way around. If 3E Szass Tam choose to face the 3E Simbul using the 3E spell antimagic field, then the Simbul would win. Her physical ability scores, hitpoints, melee attack bonuses, ranged attack bonuses, initiative, and armor class all exceed those of Szass Tam when the effects of antimagic are applied to them.
Of course it would be unlikely for her to need to resort to that. If Szass Tam’s first response to her presence was to cast antimagic field (assuming his +2 initiative modifier beat her +8) then the Simbul would just use silver fire, an epic spell, or simply take a move action and then collapse the ceiling onto him with a sonic chain lightning when her turn came around.
Meanwhile if the battle took place under 2E rules then her options are exponentially increased. Conversely, if it took place under the 4E rules then the point would be moot, since antimagic field no longer exists in the new game and as far as Szass Tam is aware the Simbul had "perished" about 50 years ago.
As far as I remember... this is pretty much what happened in Silverfall, isn't it?. Alassra got her posterior section handed to her by the Red Wizards... and it was only by falling back on her allies that she survived at all as Thay was unable to capitalise on the lapse.
Actually she was slashed several times by a prismatic sword, but that aside I think your recollection of the events are taken a bit far out of context.
In the 52 pages of the Simbul’s novella in Silverfall, she slays a grand total of 35 Red Wizards and 4 Nighcloaks of Shar. Initially she only set out to slay three—the rest were slain simply for good measure, out of boredom, or after discovering their links to a larger and more sinister cabal, which in this case was revealed to be headed by a Shar-tainted Halaster Blackcloak. Of those 39 individuals, roughly only five or six were apprentices or lesser minions, whilst the rest were quite potent in the Art—powerful enough to have myriads of unique high level spells or magic items (Harkon’s prismatic sword, Azmyrandyr’s explosive meteor swarm, Thaltar’s black fire, Roeblen’s sword of feebleminding, Staeyn’s spider of Shar, etc), have fairly complex spell battle strategies, command positions of authority and power in a Faerûn-wide shadow weave cabal, as well as commandeer their own individual webs of conspiracies and intrigue. The three initially pursued by the Simbul were mighty enough to bring Alustriel near the point of death, thus at a minimum would be in epic/near-epic levels.
Roughly sixteen those who perished at her hands did so in the grand finale of the Simbul's story, and were logically the mightiest members of the cabal. It was only after ALL of these individuals were thoroughly slain, disintegrated, or literally torn asunder did the Simbul finally slump wounded against a wall and call out for Elminster to come to her aid.
In context of the 39-0 bodycount, and the fact that she could still speak and think clearly at the denouement (which is all a mage needs to survive) whilst her foes were simply dead, is hardly what I would consider “having one’s posterior handed to them”.
Likewise, I have this weird block that the Netherese have as much smarts in their entire bodies as Fzoul and Manshoon do in their pinkies. Mostly because of the way Ed has described them.
In response to the original question...
Great Bejebuz, woman! Can't you ever spit it out in piece mail?
I've gotta get my printer working now, because your crap is so long that I have to read it on the train to work.
I wish you would just rant with stupid crap like the others so I wouldn't have to invest time into it.
However;
I am infinitely more sick of Fzoul (and now he's a demigood too, that gets under my skin). So I am gratefull to the shades for blowing up the Keep and taking away some of Fzoul's clout in the region. At least the Zents are back in the care of a Manshoon, even if not the Manshoon.
As for the Netherese in general, I would like to see Larloch have more clout, perhaps even in Shade's society, but considering his personality I doubt it will happen.
I believe, The_Simbul, we were mostly having difficulty believing that the Simbul is honestly THAT ubber that the Thayans wouldn't figure out some way to destroy her. It undermined them as a threat and her as an intelligent character if she could just wade in, spells flailing.
Likewise, I have this weird block that the Netherese have as much smarts in their entire bodies as Fzoul and Manshoon do in their pinkies. Mostly because of the way Ed has described them.
In the context of 3E, in contrast to all known/listed NPC Red Wizards therein, it can be said that the Simbul...
*is much higher in effective character level/challenge rating
*has far more spells/magical abilities per day
*has far more hitpoints
*has better saving throws and defenses against magic
*has better spot and initiative modifiers (surprise rounds, ambushes, etc)
*has in the many centuries of her lifespan had both more opportunity and personal inclination to acquire and glean vastly much more magical knowledge and experience from the farthest corners of the realms and the outer planes, and do so centuries before her adversaries even came into being.
Likewise, in 3E all of the same points of comparison can equally be applied to the Princes of Shade in comparison to Fzoul and Manshoon. In both instances the logical conclusion is that they would prevail, and in both instances it is ascribed to both their “uber” factor AND their experience/cunning.
While the Shades may have had less written about them in lore and in fiction than say Manshoon, that is hardly a reason to assume any less of their cunning or their capabilities.
As far as Silverfall is concerned, the Simbul actually is portrayed as a substantively more clever adversary than her foes, and in most of the encounters she either ambushes or otherwise anticipates/manipulates their tactics in order to gain an upper hand. I left vague the precise events, tactics, and clever twists she uses and emphasized the final body-count to avoid spoilers and to simply make the point and move on, rather than get engrossed any further in story trivia.
Not sure I'm going to actually run it but in the campaign I'm tinkering with in my head I'm focusing on the Red Wizards. They'll behave more like a nation in exile than a merchant house and their grand conspiracy will be to steal a new country for themselves.
The magic trade angle is simply their biggest export and means of planting cells in different countries.
My point is that the perceived changes to some groups are just that, a matter of perception. For me the Red Wizards are still the scheming, manipulative ******* they always were. They've just had some setbacks and are modifying tactics.
There's nothing in the FRCG which counters that opinion and whilst I might well tone down the racial inclusivity they seem to have developed ala Rose Keep as unique to a few outlying enclaves it's not a mood destroyer.
So, yes, there's some statement that they may *finger wag* exist but they're not what they once were and what people typically associate with the Zhents.
I always had the Imperial March playing when the Zhents went to town
I'm working on a 4e FR campaign set in and around Thunder Gap, as I may have said a score of times already, and part of the way I think about these things is to prepare a big map of players involved: the good, the bad and the ugly.
Working through the FRCG and the previous lore in order to work out who the power groups in the area are just doesn't give me the feeling that the Shades, Shar and assorted allied groups are the sole or even the main villains in the areas. Certainly they're a big threat, especially where the campaign is set, but they're by no means the only one unless you choose to see them that way. Imperial Cormyr is as big a threat, there's a Fire Titan with a city under the Dales that has all sorts of possibilites, there's the Faerûn for the Pointy Ears movement, there's the CotD - whose leader lives downstairs for Selûne's sake! - there's nobles pining for the good old days when the peasants knew their place and liked it (damn it!), there are dragons and oni and orcs and kobold and Red Wizard factions and drow and ... it goes on for a while. Not to mention the Eminence of Araunt, who make a great wild-card since they pretty much want to oppose or conquer all of the above.
The Shar worshippers aren't even a unified threat, with different organisations working at cross purposes to different and sometimes opposing aims.
Not sure I'm going to actually run it but in the campaign I'm tinkering with in my head I'm focusing on the Red Wizards. They'll behave more like a nation in exile than a merchant house and their grand conspiracy will be to steal a new country for themselves.
There's a thread in Running the Realms that would welcome contributions and ideas! I'm thinking of having one of my the factions of the RWs running with a similar idea.
Bel
Overall I like the concept of their return but not loving the "dominated by shades " deal. Not a problem for me because I will just change it to suit my needs.
P.S. Plus Mask and his worshippers will keep the shades on their toes.
What I am bothered by is the notion that somehow "Netherese" is entirely and exclusively synonymous with the Shades and Shar in the contemporary FR vocabulary.
Well, personally I don't mind that New Netheril is Shade essentially. But that Shar is the one in charge of everything even just remotely connected to Shade or shadovar I can't stand, really.
It is as if they are implying that Larloch, Saharel, Aumvor, Ioulaum, and the enclave of Opus have all vanished, which is not much to my liking.
Well, perhabs they have not existed, ever :D
I believe, The_Simbul, we were mostly having difficulty believing that the Simbul is honestly THAT ubber that the Thayans wouldn't figure out some way to destroy her.
Actually, she really is THAT uber. The problem is that her 3e stats simply don't reflect this awesome power. The things the Simbul achieved in the novels by far exceed the things she would normally be capable of according to her stats. Just look at El in Hell (though at this time her powers were augmented by Mystra) ;)
I always liked the Shades in 3e for a couple reasons. They were the "new power" on the block, and as such I could play up their immense power countered by their utter lack of familiarity with how the rest of Faerun had fared since their absence. Also they were one city in a big world, and (as others have mentioned) given the not-so-devout origins of Netheril I always portrayed them as having just a few Shar devotees, the rest being thankful of her boons but more in the way any FR wizard in 3e was thankful to Mystra. The rest could be just haughty, archaic politico wizocrats.
Given the new environment in 4e (and their century to adapt to it) I'm not sure how they aren't the biggest bully of the region.
Also I agree the focus on the Shades in 3e was neat but overdone - so continuing it into 4e is bound to make people sick of 'em.
In the 52 pages of the Simbul’s novella in Silverfall, she slays a grand total of 35 Red Wizards and 4 Nighcloaks of Shar. Initially she only set out to slay three—the rest were slain simply for good measure, out of boredom, or after discovering their links to a larger and more sinister cabal, which in this case was revealed to be headed by a Shar-tainted Halaster Blackcloak. Of those 39 individuals, roughly only five or six were apprentices or lesser minions, whilst the rest were quite potent in the Art—powerful enough to have myriads of unique high level spells or magic items (Harkon’s prismatic sword, Azmyrandyr’s explosive meteor swarm, Thaltar’s black fire, Roeblen’s sword of feebleminding, Staeyn’s spider of Shar, etc), have fairly complex spell battle strategies, command positions of authority and power in a Faerûn-wide shadow weave cabal, as well as commandeer their own individual webs of conspiracies and intrigue. The three initially pursued by the Simbul were mighty enough to bring Alustriel near the point of death, thus at a minimum would be in epic/near-epic levels.
Roughly sixteen those who perished at her hands did so in the grand finale of the Simbul's story, and were logically the mightiest members of the cabal. It was only after ALL of these individuals were thoroughly slain, disintegrated, or literally torn asunder did the Simbul finally slump wounded against a wall and call out for Elminster to come to her aid.
In context of the 39-0 bodycount, and the fact that she could still speak and think clearly at the denouement (which is all a mage needs to survive) whilst her foes were simply dead, is hardly what I would consider “having one’s posterior handed to them”.
-Now why did I get that scene from Kill Bill in my mind's eye. The one where she (Uma Thruman character) destroy's the Crazy 88 gang.
-The Simbul is one bad ass chicka! :D
18DELTA
Though the 4e changes to FR mind-blasted me so bad I never post here anymore, I'll say this:
I always liked the Shades in 3e for a couple reasons. They were the "new power" on the block, and as such I could play up their immense power countered by their utter lack of familiarity with how the rest of Faerun had fared since their absence. Also they were one city in a big world, and (as others have mentioned) given the not-so-devout origins of Netheril I always portrayed them as having just a few Shar devotees, the rest being thankful of her boons but more in the way any FR wizard in 3e was thankful to Mystra. The rest could be just haughty, archaic politico wizocrats.
Given the new environment in 4e (and their century to adapt to it) I'm not sure how they aren't the biggest bully of the region.
Also I agree the focus on the Shades in 3e was neat but overdone - so continuing it into 4e is bound to make people sick of 'em.
This has made me see what I think is the heart of the issue.
The Shadovar have the same problem as the Drow. Both of these groups derive a lot of their appeal from being mysterious and partially unknowable, which fits them thematically as races of darkness. The drow, as a side effect of popularity, became over exposed and lost a lot of their mystery. The result was that now drow evoke a lot of eye rolling. The shades are going through the same overexposure, which is counter intuitive to the group's flavour.
Now onto peripheral issues...In 3E the 12 Princes had an average challenge rating of 30 or so whereas Fzoul and Manshoon were outnumbered 2/12+ and had an average challenge rating of 23-25, so it seems fairly logical to me. Besides, ultimately it was just their minions who were truly destroyed, as they both are alive and well today--in one form or another.
-The leaders of the Zhentarim, Manshoon and/or Fzoul Chembryl, had a lot more political clout and political power than the Princes of Shade, to make up for the few levels that are missing.
Actually she was slashed several times by a prismatic sword, but that aside I think your recollection of the events are taken a bit far out of context....
In context of the 39-0 bodycount, and the fact that she could still speak and think clearly at the denouement (which is all a mage needs to survive) whilst her foes were simply dead, is hardly what I would consider “having one’s posterior handed to them”.
True enough, although my desire was never to impugn Alassra's abilities... not least because I adore her as a character. My desire was, in fact, quite the opposite. The reason I spun this slightly was to highlight to those who have vocally cast aspersions on her character in terms of her being the Walking Destruction of Thay.... and question why she didn't wipe it out at any time (quite apart from Mother Mystra's decrees)... that even she had limits and possibly they should think of her a little better.
A desire which you have now ably thwarted. :D
Now, in 1479, it's entirely possible that politics not only matter but are very important for the shades, mainly because of the assimilation of Sembia.
...since they still believe that the rulership over Faerun is their divine right, just because they are heirs to Netheril.
-Well, not exactly. Originally, anyway, their sole intent and goal was to regain stewardship over the lands that once composed Netheril, not all of Faerûn. Of course, with power and delusions of grandeur and all of that.
Originally, anyway, their sole intent and goal was to regain stewardship over the lands that once composed Netheril...
... and then, eventually, extend the boundaries to encompass the Heartlands as well.
Of course, the Heartlands is hardly entire Faerun, though it's still a large area. However, I don't think that Telamont (and especially Shar) is satisfied with just the Heartlands.
This has made me see what I think is the heart of the issue.
The Shadovar have the same problem as the Drow. Both of these groups derive a lot of their appeal from being mysterious and partially unknowable, which fits them thematically as races of darkness. The drow, as a side effect of popularity, became over exposed and lost a lot of their mystery. The result was that now drow evoke a lot of eye rolling. The shades are going through the same overexposure, which is counter intuitive to the group's flavour.
I'm guessing this is WotC aim. I believe that the Shades are meant to be disposable members of the Realms power struggle. Like Serpentor in G.I. Joe, the Shades are meant to come in, look unbeatable, get their butts kicked, and allow the Zhents and Red Wizards time to rest and recover to return to greater infamy (5ed?)
Ironically, ticking fans off who still love the old guys.
Actually, the Serpentor analogy is apt, except I think that it's not what you've stated. Serpentor is created because they think that the Cobra Commander and all of his flunkies are too used up and nonthreatening, so they create a NEW guy to fight that's all menacing.
Ironically, ticking fans off who still love the old guys.
Fortunately the movie will have Cobra Commander, not Serpentor.
They left a great many things open and/or vague... it allows DM's and players alike to mold it to their games to make them fun without having to step on toes. This is a good thing, IMHO.
I'm guessing this is WotC aim. I believe that the Shades are meant to be disposable members of the Realms power struggle. Like Serpentor in G.I. Joe, the Shades are meant to come in, look unbeatable, get their butts kicked, and allow the Zhents and Red Wizards time to rest and recover to return to greater infamy (5ed?)
-I loath to think about what the Forgotten Realms in 5e will be like.
Roughly sixteen those who perished at her hands did so in the grand finale of the Simbul's story, and were logically the mightiest members of the cabal. It was only after ALL of these individuals were thoroughly slain, disintegrated, or literally torn asunder did the Simbul finally slump wounded against a wall and call out for Elminster to come to her aid.
My Sig speaks for me on this.
Thanks for the help proving it.:D
I'm guessing this is WotC aim. I believe that the Shades are meant to be disposable members of the Realms power struggle. Like Serpentor in G.I. Joe, the Shades are meant to come in, look unbeatable, get their butts kicked, and allow the Zhents and Red Wizards time to rest and recover to return to greater infamy (5ed?)
Gads, just more villian decay fodder, then.
That's why the Zhents & Red Lizards have to take the rest & recover - the same use/abuse at the hands of authors/devs. (and yes, I get that they don't have to be that way in "My Realms" - which is why the All Powerful /Ignore cannon should be used on most novels and all the Sues/Stus)
The Shades are definately teetering towards overuse (sort of like Mezzo. Drow), and will certainly be given that sort of treatment. But their thumping won't make the Zhents or Reds baddass again. Their (canon) baddassery has already been sucked to a husk.
Instead, the Devs are more likely to introduce some new villiany (even if it's one from the Realms' history, as the Shades are/were when first *poofing* back in), possibly bringing the Twisted Rune into the limelight or some other cabal.
It's the natural outcome of getting their novels in our game setting or our game setting in their novels or however you want to cut the Reeses Peanut Butter Cup - the badguys have to fail and take a tremendous beating in most novels, for the novel heroine to be portrayed as uber (books like Burning Bright being few and far between), so naturally as the "Realms History" unweaves (heh), things slide down this path: Villians show up, look badass, then get over exposed and over hyped, so that novel characters can beat them down, rinse and repeat till nothing but a husk of their former glory is left and they're made to look rather pathetic indeed, and another cabal of mooks is introduced, looking all shadowy and sinister at first, to replace them.
My Sig speaks for me on this.
Heh, awesome link. :D
So having identified the problem, as you see it, how might it be fixed?
Um, as a side note. In how many novels is "a Chosen as the main character", Red Wizard whupping (which would suggest as Mystran)?
Because I count less than 10... in about 200 books.
I was just throwing out random examples, not citing specific instances.
And yet people always seem to throw out the same random example...
Sorry, GreenKnight but yours was the one that finally made me ask the question I have been mulling over the last 10 or 15 times I read something similar.
Or for people to stop blaming the character concepts when the great proportion of their actual problem is the uses that those concepts are put to... and so actually the writing.
I wonder whether I should start an "FR Discussion Tropes" thread. Near the top of the list would come "It's Your Realms", "The Novels Did It" and "It's Just A Game".
What do you think?
So having identified the problem, as you see it, how might it be fixed?
It would require a shift in mindset on both the Devs/Authors *and* fans of the novels, and I'm not sure that's plausible to the point of being economically viable.
However, there are two fixes:
Let game needs rather than novel needs drive developments more. IMO that's where 4E FR fell off the "points of light in a dark workd" theme - while that is used as a rationale for most of the changes, they more nearly cleaved to preserving the successes of novel characters (compare and contrast what happened in Tethyr vs. Calimsham, for merely one example. Sure, Tethyr isn't as bright as at the end of 3.5E, but neither is it a battlezone wasteland. Not that it should be. But it's fairly consistent that they preserved more than not the "light" created in past novels, and continued the trendlines of snuffing out "dark" realms that were foils. Again, ssa kacbwards).
Many people will disagree, no doubt, but that's a basic, off-the-top-of-my-head sollution.
Oh, that and let me "help" them next time they decide to revise the Realms wholesale. :P :D :P
I wonder whether I should start an "FR Discussion Tropes" thread. Near the top of the list would come "It's Your Realms", "The Novels Did It" and "It's Just A Game".
I say go for it.
It would require a shift in mindset on both the Devs/Authors *and* fans of the novels, and I'm not sure that's plausible to the point of being economically viable.
However, there are two fixes:Esentially, at the end of a series, more "questions" should exist than did before, more menace introduced than not ("We Blew Up Hellgate Keep! Huzzah! Ooh, too bad PCs in the module released badguys. Now characters in novels will clean that up, too! Huzzah! - in other words, past plotlines have often done things precisely backwards - campaigns being used as foils for novel plots, rather than novel plots helping introduce foils for campaigns. At least from the standpoint of a published game setting, rather than a shared world fiction setting. Oh, and I know the "your Realms doesn't have to be like that" - but it means the published game accessories are of continually decreasing utilty, if "my"/"your"/"our" Realms and "published" Realms drift apart over the course of, say, two decades...)
Let game needs rather than novel needs drive developments more. IMO that's where 4E FR fell off the "points of light in a dark workd" theme - while that is used as a rationale for most of the changes, they more nearly cleaved to preserving the successes of novel characters (compare and contrast what happened in Tethyr vs. Calimsham, for merely one example. Sure, Tethyr isn't as bright as at the end of 3.5E, but neither is it a battlezone wasteland. Not that it should be. But it's fairly consistent that they preserved more than not the "light" created in past novels, and continued the trendlines of snuffing out "dark" realms that were foils. Again, ssa kacbwards).
Many people will disagree, no doubt, but that's a basic, off-the-top-of-my-head sollution.
Oh, that and let me "help" them next time they decide to revise the Realms wholesale. :P :D :P
I for one, totally disagree.
This subordinates the novels to the setting when I read my Forgotten Realms stories for stories about heroism and adventure. Not so that a bunch of pseudo-heroes can FAIL at the setting.
What I despised about Return of the Archwizards was that the Netherese were STILL AROUND at the end.
I hated them THAT much. I hated the Heroes almost worse than the Netherese, but the entire problem with the story was that there was nothing enjoyable about the novels themselves.
Or for people to stop blaming the character concepts when the great proportion of their actual problem is the uses that those concepts are put to... and so actually the writing.
Chicken, Egg. Some of the novels with the (IMO) most lamentable impact on the published-game-setting Realms have been some of the best written.
OtoH, some of them haven't been.
As for the character concepts, what people - both "fans" and "detractors" of said characters - know about them is from the writing, both novels & accessories such as "Seven Sisters".
What do you think?
I think you should do what makes you happy, noting it doesn't automatically make you right and those who disagree wrong. Just as you think I'm wrong and you're right. Saying "I wish people would stop expressing opinions I disagree with" is an invalid (IMO) way of carrying on a discussion.
I for one, totally disagree.
This subordinates the novels to the setting when I read my Forgotten Realms stories for stories about heroism and adventure. Not so that a bunch of pseudo-heroes can FAIL at the setting.
True - as I mentioned in #1, which is why those "solutions" won't work.
Milage will vary. If one's primary enjoyment of the Realms comes from reading the novels, then what you want will be different from those whose primary enjoyment come from the utility of a published game setting.
The two are really at odds in purpose/goals/ends.
So in 5th Edition, probably the Sarukh Empire will be the "Big Bad", everything else, villian-wise not having been wrapped up (the way you would hope, as a solid resolution to novel plotlines) but having been degraded/decayed, and that's just the cycle of the Realms.
I think I said nothing of the sort, so how about leaving me out of it?
I do apologise unreservedly if you were offended by my statement. I had thought the fact that I had specified "people" rather than "you" would mean that you wouldn't take it this way. Obviously I wasn't clear enough. Sorry.
I say go for it.
I think I will. With so many Tropes being linked to these days (I've noticed several people all over the board) I think we need to start out own.
Chicken, Egg. Some of the novels with the (IMO) most lamentable impact on the published-game-setting Realms have been some of the best written.
OtoH, some of them haven't been.
My opinion would be that if a novel has a lamentable impact on the setting it is written to be a part of then the writing obviously has some major flaws.
As for the character concepts, what people - both "fans" and "detractors" of said characters - know about them is from the writing, both novels & accessories such as "Seven Sisters".
Indeed. And and having studied that material, especially the "Seven Sisters" sourcebook I seem to have come to a complete different conclusion. I just wonder how many people actually read this material... and how many repeat popular opinions.
I think you should do what makes you happy, noting it doesn't automatically make you right and those who disagree wrong. Just as you think I'm wrong and you're right. Saying "I wish people would stop expressing opinions I disagree with" is an invalid (IMO) way of carrying on a discussion.
Indeed it is. And if that is what I had been suggesting then I would have been wrong. It is a wondrous thing indeed that I wasn't advocating that view, is it not? As you would know if you had sought clarification. Yet, I do apologise for any ambiguity in my comment. My emotion-tainted outburst was in fact due to the mild frustration of continually encountering the generalisations drawn about the novels and characters rather than the specific elucidation of facts that would assist in enjoyable discussion.
And for the record I don't think you are wrong. I just don't think you are right. In fact I don't think anyone is right. Including me.
3) Novel plotlines featuring villians as protaganists can work to some degree, if they're badass enough without being too horrible; "anti-hero" works do have a fanbase/audience. But this will never be the meat-and-potatoes of FR fiction (nor should it be).
Agreed with the last part. Still, they do make for interesting stories when handled right. For instance, one of my favorite comics from years back was Doom 2099. He not only reconquered his homeland of Latveria, but conquered the country of Myridia, destroyed the island nation of Hellrock (killing Ravage 2099 in his own title, to boot!), conquered the United States, locked the corporate powers who ruled in a room, and told them that by dawn they had to decide which one of them was to die by his hands. Doom's as villainous as they come, but damn if I didn't find myself rooting for him. It's pretty interesting seeing the bad guys win from time to time (at least when their name isn't Cyric :P ).
Barring that, villains should lose not for lack of competence, but because the heroes are more competent. I can't speak to the novels, as I don't read a lot of them, but one of your examples brought to mind the handling of the Borg in Star Trek. Originally they were a monstrous threat, but over the course of the Voyager series, they became utterly mediocre. They were the Keystone Cops of the Delta Quadrant. If the good guy's to win, then they should win because they had to give it everything they had and then some to get across that finish line first. Not because the villains were so dumbed down that a toddler could've outsmarted them. Generally speaking, anyway. Like I said, I got no real idea how villains have been handled in the novels outside of a few books that I've read.
Milage will vary. If one's primary enjoyment of the Realms comes from reading the novels, then what you want will be different from those whose primary enjoyment come from the utility of a published game setting.
The two are really at odds in purpose/goals/ends.
On this you and I are in perfect agreement I think. Sadly I don't see a solution apart from continuous compromise... which isn't going to make anyone's day.
Indeed. And and having studied that material, especially the "Seven Sisters" sourcebook I seem to have come to a complete different conclusion. I just wonder how many people actually read this material... and how many repeat popular opinions.
I own it. It's where I liked Alustriel, and where I took a dislike to The Simbul and her megalomania and love for ethnic cleansing (she says she has a "duty" to ethnically purge the humans opressed by the Red Lizards in the end, and reshape the place according to her whim. Which means she's morally no different from them, IMO). The bit at the beginning where she demolishes the Lizards and says they don't/can't learn had me rolling my eyes and groaning.
That's where I hated that character first. (Before it had only been mild antipathy). And Ed wrote the accessory, with pretty much a free hand, so that's also why I don't let him off the hook the way some others do in how these characters have been portrayed.
Kinda liked Laerel in it too. The other four I could take or leave (some became more obnoxious over time, but weren't in SS).
And for the record I don't think you are wrong. I just don't think you are right. In fact I don't think anyone is right. Including me.
Then you won't mind me expressing my opinions.:P
I for one, totally disagree.
This subordinates the novels to the setting when I read my Forgotten Realms stories for stories about heroism and adventure. Not so that a bunch of pseudo-heroes can FAIL at the setting.
Oh, what you said leads to a new solution, though: Each novel or series of novels could, rather than focusing on novel heroes/characters battling one of the game villians/cabals, could face off against something that comes from "off-stage" - or even split-offs of the main (game) villian/evil cabals; NPCs et al that aren't integral to the game setting as such.
Rather than fighting a Fzoul's plot, for example, they might fight a plot by one of his subordinates, not mentioned in the game products.
By the end of the novel or series, all those could be wrapped up, and the impact on the published game villians would be minimal.
I'm not describing that perfectly well - I don't mean that any menace that characters in the novels deal with have to be entirely de novo, and certainly don't mean they shouldn't be rooted in the Realms. But I do think there should be some distinction between "Game Villians" and "Novel Antagonists" developed, in such a way that the latter doesn't end up sucking the utility out of the former.
I own it. It's where I liked Alustriel, and where I took a dislike to The Simbul and her megalomania and love for ethnic cleansing (she says she has a "duty" to ethnically purge the humans opressed by the Red Lizards in the end, and reshape the place according to her whim.
Ah, how I love that book. I like all of the Seven in different ways, but I have to admit that of them I am definitely edging towards the "take her or leave her" on Alassra. Heck, I enjoyed Sylune more than The Simbul and she was dead (now deader).
That's where I hated that character first. (Before it had only been mild antipathy). And Ed wrote the accessory, with pretty much a free hand, so that's also why I don't let him off the hook the way some others do in how these characters have been portrayed.
Nor do I. Everyone makes mistakes and I always felt that Alassra was pushed too far.
Kinda liked Laerel in it too. The other four I could take or leave (some became more obnoxious over time, but weren't in SS).
I like Laeral most when she is giving Khelben heck for being the judgemental wossname that he is. Still, I had great fondness for the others too. The Storm/Sylune sparring story remains one of my favourites of all time... along with the scene with them as children at the end of Temptation. I adore Storm as a character, even when she lives up to her namesake. I shall be very sad to see her gone. I haven't seen that much with Qilué in (apart from Songs and Swords I think)... and I adored Dove too... especially her interactions with the Knights in Ed's current series. And of course Alustriel when she is being High Lady... but mostly when she is with Taern.
So four I adore : Laeral, Storm, Alustriel and Dove... two I don't mind : Qilue and Sylune and one I am really not sure about : Alassra.
Then you won't mind me expressing my opinions.:P
I don't mind at all. Life would get very boring if people agreed with me all the time... as long as you accord me the same.
Actually, the Serpentor analogy is apt, except I think that it's not what you've stated. Serpentor is created because they think that the Cobra Commander and all of his flunkies are too used up and nonthreatening, so they create a NEW guy to fight that's all menacing.
Ironically, ticking fans off who still love the old guys.
Oh Hasbro, will you ever learn? :P
I'm guessing this is WotC aim. I believe that the Shades are meant to be disposable members of the Realms power struggle. Like Serpentor in G.I. Joe, the Shades are meant to come in, look unbeatable, get their butts kicked, and allow the Zhents and Red Wizards time to rest and recover to return to greater infamy (5ed?)
Well I hope that things happen along those lines.
I'm a new Realms player, and my entire knowledge of the Netherese and the Shades consists of what I've overheard from other people and what I read in the FRCG. The whole Forgotten Realms is new to me, so there isn't much to be sick of. That being said, my impressions of Netheril are:
1. Despite the whole shadow thing, Netheril doesn't really scream Shar to me.
2. The book describes Sembia and the heartlands of Netheril being treated more with a casual neglect than any sort of evil oppression.
3. The main issues with the Netherese as bad guys involves that they are very powerful and very aggressive. Their main aim is to restore the empire of Netheril as it existed before, without any regard for nations that have been created in its wake. Thats more politics than evil. This leaves some wonderful shades of grey in interpreting this struggle.
4. Whatever happens in the future with Netheril, I forsee the return of Amaunator having something to do with it. Amaunator returning to Netheril and starting a revolution from within sounds very interesting.
3. The main issues with the Netherese as bad guys involves that they are very powerful and very aggressive. Their main aim is to restore the empire of Netheril as it existed before, without any regard for nations that have been created in its wake. Thats more politics than evil. This leaves some wonderful shades of grey in interpreting this struggle.
If SToS or a Dungeon FR adventure would show some of that, I think that the Shadovar might get some more respect. As it is, they are pretty monolithic and seem to lack memorable members with their own agendas.
I think part of the irony is a lot of the changes that people blame the Novels for are actually the reason the Novels are WRITTEN.
Can't speak for everyone, but I'm aware of that.
1. Despite the whole shadow thing, Netheril doesn't really scream Shar to me.
-Sharran worship is the state religion.
-Sharran worship is the state religion.
I don't deny that, but looking at the little bits here and there that I've read, the society at large doesn't really behave by Shar's precepts. That is what I'm talking about.
1) They both share a strong connection to the Shadowfell. Their most favored subjects are also transformed into shades or shadar-kai.
2) They both harbor secrets and maintain a very closed-off postion. For example, outsiders are not allows with Shade so that their secrets remain safe. The Netherese have also suppressed the knowledge of the genocide of the native dwarves.
3) Stories told of Sakkors often focus on loss, heartache, etc.
Personally, I see them as completely interconnected. Netheril is Shar's kingdom as it has always focused on regaining that which they lost.
I don't deny that, but looking at the little bits here and there that I've read, the society at large doesn't really behave by Shar's precepts. That is what I'm talking about.
-That's why the whole bit with Shar is contradictory. She emphasizes secrets, nihilism, that whole bit, and the Shadovar are doing the exact opposite- returning from oblivion (opposite of nihilism) and are taking over by force (as opposed to intrigue).
Hell, even Asmodeus.
Honestly, I find it difficult that many people would want to serve Shar anyway. She's a goddess that offers pretty much nothing in exchange for everything. Better gods for the Netherese would be Bane or Cyric.
Hell, even Asmodeus.
I think that disconnect will end up being part of the story. The princes of Netheril do have a reason to serve Shar, and their forcing it on everyone else.
Hello Amaunator.
Fundamentally, the Netherese are evil people bent on conquest. The new Amaunator cares little for Law at the expense of Good with a capital G.
I can't imagine Mask wants a bunch of followers like the Netherese Princes.
Maybe.
I can't imagine Mask wants a bunch of followers like the Netherese Princes.
Why not? I figure the gods will take what they can get, they probably should not really worry how they get their "god juice" as long as they get great quantites of it. ;)
I think greedy, wealth driven shadovars and citizens of Netheril would be into the god of theives who has/had the 2nd richest church in Faerun. :D
Honestly, I find it difficult that many people would want to serve Shar anyway. She's a goddess that offers pretty much nothing in exchange for everything. Better gods for the Netherese would be Bane or Cyric.
Hell, even Asmodeus.
What if they didn't have a choice? All those centuries stuck in the Shadow, perhaps Shar (as a deity and as an ally) was the only assistance granted them.
I see it as a mix of Stockholm Syndrome and Battered Wife Syndrome ("Sure Shar treats me bad, but no-one else loves me and Shar keeps the shadows from hurting me, so I won't be disloyal")
What if they didn't have a choice? All those centuries stuck in the Shadow, perhaps Shar (as a deity and as an ally) was the only assistance granted them.
I see it as a mix of Stockholm Syndrome and Battered Wife Syndrome ("Sure Shar treats me bad, but no-one else loves me and Shar keeps the shadows from hurting me, so I won't be disloyal")
This
Hello Charles,
Anyone else feel this way?
Depends on if you're talking in-game or out of game.
Out of game the Shades/Shadovar/Netherese are not subjects I read about all that much in the novels, beyond how Artemis Entreri interacts with them and their power grab for Sembia.
In game (as in my two Realms Campaigns [3.5 and 4E]) the Netherise are fricking awesome.
In our 3.5 game, my players have had a chance to confront all the Princes of Shade at once and have gone to bat against their agents all over the Realms.
Their machinations, their deep history and competition over the relics of their civilization have consumed many an hour at the gaming table, to the enjoyment of all present.
I think the Netherise/Shades are great tools for DMs to use in Forgotten Realms Campaigns. I don't perceive them as ineffective as a power group, nor do I think they've saturated FR gaming products.
Honestly, I find it difficult that many people would want to serve Shar anyway. She's a goddess that offers pretty much nothing in exchange for everything. Better gods for the Netherese would be Bane or Cyric.
-Keep in mind, asides for the "bumbling idiots" that worship Shar- the "non-hardcore people"- the "hardcore people" aren't exactly fully sane, with the nihilism and such. Well, maybe that's not the best word. "In the right mind".
Hell, even Asmodeus.
Sure Shar treats me bad, but no-one else loves me and Shar keeps the shadows from hurting me, so I won't be disloyal
I think the shades can take care of themselves pretty well.
Honestly, I find it difficult that many people would want to serve Shar anyway. She's a goddess that offers pretty much nothing in exchange for everything. Better gods for the Netherese would be Bane or Cyric.
Anyone but Cyric.
Btw, I treat him as being dead, effectively. And his worshippers simply don't exist.
So you see, it's so easy to exclude certain pieces of lore. ;) But now, as 3e had to make way for 4e, I guess this prime example comes too late.
Anyone but Cyric.
Btw, I treat him as being dead, effectively. And his worshippers simply don't exist.
-I guess I should tally you in as one of the people who hate Cyric?
-Oghma would make a good patron of the Netherese.
-I guess I should tally you in as one of the people who hate Cyric?
Hate is a little bit... well, it doesn't express my profound aversion to that low-level thief even in the slightest.
Actually, I'm not too fond of the concept of ascended mortals being everywhere you go. A few of them wouldn't bother me, but nearly the vast majority
Actually, I'm not too fond of the concept of ascended mortals being everywhere you go. A few of them wouldn't bother me, but nearly the vast majority
-Karsus, for one, being an ascended mortal that's acceptable, correct?
1) maintained control of sembia
2) destroyed zhentil keep and the citadel of the raven
3) exterminated the phaerimm
4) rebuilt a floating enclave
Keeping in mind that there are 100 or fewer actual shades, it seems a bit much for them not to even flinch with the loss of their powersource.
The princes of shade are decently powerful. Keep in mind that they may have sold out to a shadow godess, they are the 11 sons of an insanely powerful Sorcerer King.
Telamont is the true power. He is the same person who 3000+ years prior used his magic to chop up a mountain, flip it over, and install a mythallar into it. He then used his magic to save his city before the Phaerimm destroyed it.
So, he comes back into 3.5 and finds his magic is gimped by some ****** god.
He lets his shadow-weave embracing sons take over.
Then, the spellplague hits.
Why didn't they suffer horrible losses from the dissolution of the shadow weave?
Again, Telamont. Now HIS magic, his ancient god-killing Netherese magic, is again functional. His sons, who were always his apprentices, easily adapt to the new order under the direction of thier father.
Give the man respect also, he rules by council with his sons. He could easily be a supreme dictator. I find it likely he is hiding the true scope of his power lest anyone remember that the sorcerer kings nearly destroyed the world one time.
Larloch, Aumvor (sp), Iouluam, Terraseer ... These guys are also still alive.
And likely above 30th level. We wont see them published until Wizards is willing to push the envelope of truly epic level play.
If anything, the Netherese threat is understated.
-Karsus, for one, being an ascended mortal that's acceptable, correct?
Actually, Karsus was destined to be a deity from the beginning, but Ao... well, he's simply not reliable, apparently. Thus, we all should blame Ao, for not being able to handle that properly. :P
When Shade shifted to the plane of shadows, they converted their magic to the shadow weave. Upon their return, Telamont did not find his magic "gimped" because he did not draw upon Mystra's weave. He drew upon Shar's shadow weave. So if anyone "gimped" him, it was Shar. With Mystra's current death, the weave was shattered and Shar also lost control of the shadow weave, which is also in tatters. Since the shades entire magic system was based off the shadow weave, their magic should have suffered like any other. Even Telamont would have been without his magic until he adapted.
Also, Telamont never had god-killing magic. The only netherese to have created a 12th level spell was Karsus.
The botton line is that according to all previous suppliments and books, the netherese and shades always used weave-based magic (either Mystra's or Shar's). If they had not done so, there never would have been a reason to shift to the plane of shadows as their magic would have been unaffected by Mystryl's death/reincarnation. The enclaves also would not have fallen if they had been drawing upon a source of magic other than the weave.
With a force of only 100 or less true shades, it is unrealistic to believe that Shade could have fought at least 2 major wars and still prospered as much as they did based on the realities of the changes that occurred during the spellplague and the normal attritions of war.
While I think the shades are an interesting enemy, there is no basis for them to be all-powerful other than 4e is the Shar world tour.
-I guess I should tally you in as one of the people who hate Cyric?
-Oghma would make a good patron of the Netherese.
Lump me in there too. Cyric is so overdone and tiresome.
Bane on the other hand...he's fun. Maybe I just perceive the two differently, but fanatics of Bane are so much more fun to run than fanatics of Cyric. Cyric wants everything and wants to destroy everything. Bane is more subtle. You could even have his fanatics working alongside heroes...for a time.
With a force of only 100 or less true shades, it is unrealistic to believe that Shade could have fought at least 2 major wars and still prospered as much as they did based on the realities of the changes that occurred during the spellplague and the normal attritions of war.
Well, upon it's return Thultanthar had some 25,000 inhabitants, most of them were humans. Now they have likely more. I could imagine that they enslaved many savage races (and, of course, the Bedine) upon reclaiming their old teritory, too. Then the troups from Sembia, which are under the comand of Shade.
Well, and the Princes, of course. Telamont is one of the most powerful spellcasters, and the other Princes are all of epic level. Also, keep in mind that they have the tremendous advantage of controlling a flying, near-impenetrable, magic-hurling fortress. So it's not that surprising that they have won their wars.
NOT in MY game.
One of the reasons why I don't think my group will be using the 4e Realms for our games - most of us were hoping that 3e mistake would go away by 4th edition.
Shar is cool, but they need to stop pointing every little thing her way.
Well, upon it's return Thultanthar had some 25,000 inhabitants, most of them were humans.
-Champions of Ruin retconned this number to include multiple Shadow Goblin slaves. I believe they were called the "Krinth". I always confuse them with Shadar-Kai, so...
It's the consistent details that make a setting good. Unfortunately, consistency is not a part of 4e thus far.Telamont's magic before the fall of Netheril was weave-based, just as the other arcanists were. The only difference then was that Mystryl had less restrictions on the weave and magic in general (hence 10th, 11th, and 12th levels of spells).
Now 4th edition Canon:
THE WEAVE
For eons, magic in Toril was focused through the Weave controlled by the Goddess Mystra. Although Netherese wizards of ancient days learned the truth, most people believed that magic would not be possible without the deity's existence. However, the death of Mystra gave the lie to that belief. Now the term "Weave" is just another name for magic, if it is used at all.
Doubtful Karsus was using the weave when he was casting Avatar.
The designers seem to agree with my reasoning in that paragraph.
When there is actual agreement between material coming out in 4e then and only then will I agree that it is canon. If writers continue to produce conflicting products than there is no canon. Currently, they still portray magic as 3e in 4e novels.
If the Netherese were using a power source not under Mystra's control, then they would not have been affected by the destruction of the weave. Since they were, that proves they used magic powered by the weave. That has not been retconned yet because they can not change the history of Netheril. The cities fell = they used the weave to power their magic. Mystryl reincarnates = ALL magic failed. Mystra dies = ALL magic fails.
4e Mystra dies (retcon) = No goddess was ever truly necessary to access magic. Her death was a marketing necessity in the mind of Wizards for the change to the 4e magic system.
Doubtful Karsus was using the weave when he was casting Avatar.
-Incorrect. Karsus' Avatar was a True Dweomer (Level 12), and such spells did indeed draw on the power of the Weave. Otherwise, why would their castings be severely draining of the Weave, to begin with?
But you sure can't buy a TV at Walmart that uses something different.
Yes, even the Netherese used the Weave. Perhaps the reason Karsus was so mad at the power company (Mystryl) was because he knew that the regulation on the power source was hindering growth and development.
The whole idea of magic in a game world being controlled by a diety smacks of a bad GM using duex ex machina to reign in his players.
In any fantasy setting, Magic is supposed to be bigger than the gods. A primordial force that even few gods can handle. Odin impaled himself on the world tree for nine days to discern its secrets.
Don't think of 4E as a change in the way magic works... think of it as "Deregulation" of an existing power source. Magic has been freed from the tyranny of the hot-chick Elminster butt-kisser.
If magic was freed from its limitations and now was stronger it would not take 10 minutes to ritually cast a knock spell whereas before it took a round. I respect your argument but I believe magic is weaker now.
In the story sense, I agree: in 4E generally (not just FR), magic is just another choice. Story-wise, it doesn't feel mysterious or special any more, or even all that different/unique from a warrior's special abilities. In that regard, it is definitely weaker and harder to access (10 min rituals vs. 1 round castings), but functionally more "balanced" with the abilities of other PC types. I'm not sure I really like that...
Now with 4E retconning, I think the idea with Mystra is supposed to be that she encouraged the use of magic through the Weave (as people who tried to access raw magic typically died quite spectacularly). Mystra never "limited" magic except in certain specific situations (no lvl 10+, that kind of thing), she encouraged its use and development by making access to it easier. Mystra's Weave was a buffer and a set of "channels" if you will, that allowed easier and less deadly access to raw magic. Viewed that way, magic is supposedly more "powerful" in that people have figured out how to access raw magic without a buffer/channel. But it certainly feels weaker in play.
Yes, even the Netherese used the Weave. Perhaps the reason Karsus was so mad at the power company (Mystryl) was because he knew that the regulation on the power source was hindering growth and development.
-Karsus was never "mad" at Mystryl.
The whole idea of magic in a game world being controlled by a diety smacks of a bad GM using duex ex machina to reign in his players.
-Maybe in your opinion. I know, I look down on settings in which the source of magic is not explained. That "it's magic" doesn't cut it. That it's a deity in this case, makes no difference...Deity, otherwise otherworldly entity, force of nature, Primordial, whatever.
In any fantasy setting, Magic is supposed to be bigger than the gods. A primordial force that even few gods can handle. Odin impaled himself on the world tree for nine days to discern its secrets.
-Not in the Forgotten Realms. Mystryl/Mystra was the Weave, and the Weave was what allowed mortals to access and interact with magic.
Don't think of 4E as a change in the way magic works... think of it as "Deregulation" of an existing power source.
-It has, being that, in the past, no Weave resulted in no magic accessibility. Now, we have no Weave, and magic being accessible. Something's obviously changed.
The whole idea of magic in a game world being controlled by a diety smacks of a bad GM using duex ex machina to reign in his players.
Not to me.
In any fantasy setting, Magic is supposed to be bigger than the gods. A primordial force that even few gods can handle.
I thought the whole point of fantasy is that there is no "supposed to be". A fantasy setting can be set up any way the creator wants it to be set up.
"Magic to challenge the gods"
No magic is challenging a god if they are in absolute control of it.
Killing Mystra is the single greatest thing Rich and co. did for this edition.
You think Raistlin challenged Takhisis with God-mediated magic? , Vecna was tapping what other diety's power when he was breaking into Sigil? Even the dragon kings of Dark Sun did not tip thier hat to some nature godess before turning the forests to ash to power thier spells.
My main point, is that regardless of how you want to rationalize the change, it is a very GOOD change that brings FR back into line with every other D&D world. Where magic is a force. A god of fire might be immune to fire, wield fire, and even reflect and control fire... but unlike how Mystra used to be, they can not stop you from lighting a torch. Because the force itself is greater than the gods. Fire exists. With or without the god of fire.
Magic should exist in the same way. With or without the god of magic.
In a high magic setting, such as one FR aspires to be, magic should have this one liner backing it up:
"Magic to challenge the gods"
-Again, in your opinion. That is hardly a universal maxim.
No magic is challenging a god if they are in absolute control of it.
Killing Mystra is the single greatest thing Rich and co. did for this edition.
-Incorrect, being as that Karsus' Avatar was obviously cast. That said, again, this is your opinion, and not a maxim of the setting.
You think Raistlin challenged Takhisis with God-mediated magic? , Vecna was tapping what other diety's power when he was breaking into Sigil? Even the dragon kings of Dark Sun did not tip thier hat to some nature godess before turning the forests to ash to power thier spells.
-Dragonlance =/= The Forgotten Realms. Planescape =/= The Forgotten Realms. Dark Sun =/= The Forgotten Realms. Greyhawk =/= The Forgotten Realms.
My main point, is that regardless of how you want to rationalize the change, it is a very GOOD change that brings FR back into line with every other D&D world. Where magic is a force. A god of fire might be immune to fire, wield fire, and even reflect and control fire... but unlike how Mystra used to be, they can not stop you from lighting a torch. Because the force itself is greater than the gods. Fire exists. With or without the god of fire.
Magic should exist in the same way. With or without the god of magic.
-Does not Greyhawk have a deity in control of magic in Boccob?
-
-Does not Greyhawk have a deity in control of magic in Boccob?
Current Living Greyhawk deity listing for Boccob:
"Oversees the maintenence of magic's existence on Oerth, and is interested in the creation of magic items and spells. He sees that Oerths magic is declining and will eventually fade away; he combats this effect and suspects that Tharizdun is responsible."
Doesnt sound like he is the source of anything there...
More like some dude at a dying water resiviour trying to keep the community that depends on it alive.
But does not water exist without the water company?
To get back on topic:
This thinking of course is why the Netherese are the BBEG in my campaign. And not just Telamont and his shadow-spawn. Ioulaum and Larloch are the ones who will be the truly epic challenges for my gaming group. Already Ioulaum-possesed Alhoon are enroute to irritate and hinder my players.
Szass Tam is just a pawn of Larloch. And he wiped out his entire nation with a ritual that likely wasn't possible before the death of Mystra. Ioulaum was a legend in the days of Netheril before Larloch cast his first spell.
Netherese Archwizards are far more fearsome than the gods to my players. In previous editions, they would lure them to FR due to the restricions on magic. (in a 3.0 game I ran with the Epic level handbook, they would encounter them on other planes where I would take full advantage of epic level spells.)
Why do I care enough about how FR works compared to other settings? Does Mystra control the weave even in the Nine Hells? Forgotten realms is nice and all, but I own every book and have been gaming since the 80s. My players demand A more ecclectic approach. Thier favorite setting is planescape. Forgotten Realms has traditionally been the world they get the hell off of if they wanted to use the Epic Level handbook in any capacity. And yet... Who is the highest level humans in history? Who challenged the gods themselves? Who had the highest level, nastiest foes? No other published material had forty+ level characters. Netheril is the gold standard for any fallen empire of magical might. Modern wizards pale in comparison. They can only aspire to the feats achieved in that golden age.
Even Elminster remembers the mythallar installed in Myth Drannor as one of the heights of magic in his age. A standard spell installed in every floating city of Netheril.
Sick of the Netherese? I think not. They are the most powerful beings in the realms who still share some humanity that the players can identify with.
Gods, Dragons, Primordials, Abominations... Just another stat block to overcome. 3000 year old wizards? They were human... once.
Even Elminster remembers the mythallar installed in Myth Drannor as one of the heights of magic in his age. A standard spell installed in every floating city of Netheril.
Hold the phone. Was there a Mythallar (an object, not a spell to my understanding) in Myth Drannor? I know that there was a Mythal (that El had a part in creating) but this is the first I have ever heard of there being a Netherese Mythallar in the City of Song. Where can I read about this? I can't find a reference to it anywhere.
The blatant disregard of previous decades of lore doesn't change the previous material for anyone who paid attention to it. Magic was always weave-based. Period. That Wizards now says it was all a lie is nothing more than an easy way to avoid actually having to provide a thoughtful explanation for the new reality. A nice reality for people new to the setting, but a slap in the face from any loyal consumers.
Personally, I don't actually mind this explanation as I've never liked the idea of magic controlled by Mystra and much prefer the "neutral" magic of 4th edition.
I don't understand how the Netherese managed to survive the spellplague so intact though.
When there is actual agreement between material coming out in 4e then and only then will I agree that it is canon. If writers continue to produce conflicting products than there is no canon. Currently, they still portray magic as 3e in 4e novels.
Yeah, that's pretty silly.
If the Netherese were using a power source not under Mystra's control, then they would not have been affected by the destruction of the weave. Since they were, that proves they used magic powered by the weave. That has not been retconned yet because they can not change the history of Netheril. The cities fell = they used the weave to power their magic. Mystryl reincarnates = ALL magic failed. Mystra dies = ALL magic fails.
4e Mystra dies (retcon) = No goddess was ever truly necessary to access magic. Her death was a marketing necessity in the mind of Wizards for the change to the 4e magic system.
Yeah. I agree here and I still don't understand how they've justified this. I'm not unhappy with Mystra getting whacked off (in fact, it's one of the changes I like best) and all the other overpowered twinks dying/getting depowered as a result of it, but I don't know how the Netherese actually managed to get more power out of the whole affair. Killing off the over-powerful chosen with Mystras death was a great change because I no longer have to do it myself, but I would have thought the Zhents and other groups who aren't always magic dominated in their power sources would have been the ones to take more control.
Edit: Then again, it's not like I care. Nobody takes away my old books and 4th edition has done many things I would have done myself (like removing high level good NPCs, my players are the heroes, not overpowered twinks), but in the end if I need X evil group I make it. I need an ancient evil empire in the Sea of Swords? I make it. I need the Netherese to not destroy Zhentil keep, it's automatically done. Nobody takes my old books away and the purpose of a setting is not to be a set in stone novel. Personally, I'm probably keeping the Zhents as they were because I like them more than the Netherese.
Unless they were using the Shadow Weave. In which case they would've gotten hit as well. :/
Current Living Greyhawk deity listing for Boccob:
"Oversees the maintenence of magic's existence on Oerth, and is interested in the creation of magic items and spells. He sees that Oerths magic is declining and will eventually fade away; he combats this effect and suspects that Tharizdun is responsible."
Doesnt sound like he is the source of anything there...
-Then what is the source of magic? That it magically "is" is silly, and unrealistic. It comes from somewhere. That Mystra is the source of magic is respectable, it yields a definite answer.
Does Mystra control the weave even in the Nine Hells?
-No, this is demonstrated in the Time of Troubles, and in Elminster in Hell.
Hold the phone. Was there a Mythallar (an object, not a spell to my understanding) in Myth Drannor? I know that there was a Mythal (that El had a part in creating) but this is the first I have ever heard of there being a Netherese Mythallar in the City of Song. Where can I read about this? I can't find a reference to it anywhere.
-There were no Mythallar in Myth Drannor, don't worry. ;)
Unless they were using the Shadow Weave. In which case they would've gotten hit as well. :/
-Only the man and women on the Shadow Enclave. They were the first to discover the Shadow Weave.*
*Or so they thought, anyway. It's certainly possible that an group that existed before them did so, to much less fame.
In a high magic setting, such as one FR aspires to be, magic should have this one liner backing it up:
"Magic to challenge the gods"
Where is that written?
-There were no Mythallar in Myth Drannor, don't worry. ;)
Oh good. I thought I was going out of my mind. Not least because I couldn't understand why the Elves in the City of Song would install an artifact from a people whose use of magic they disapproved of and which, should they be in close proximity to it, would make them uncomfortable and possibly ill (ref 2E Cormanthyr).
However since I am a comparative newcommer I thought I would be better to phrase my bewilderment as a question rather than a statment ;) .
I suppose whether you prefer gods as the source of your magic system is related to what fantasy you have read and liked in your formative years.
For me it was always Elric of Melniboné, the Riftwar saga, Palladium/Rifts RPG.
If it's magic that requires a god... it has always equalled Cleric in my mind.
There are varied and powerful forces in our natural universe that do not require gods : Gravity, Light, Fusion, Sound, Wind. They work without the guidance of a supernatural intelligence. And pitiful mortals can come to master and control these forces.
In an unnatural universe where a force known as magic exists, why does it need to have a sentient superpower guiding it's flow?
My answer will always be: It doesn't. And any diety who tells you otherwise, is a Tyrant and deserves to be destroyed by the very power they sought to monopolize.
Mythallar was a mistype, sorry, meant to simply type Mythal (Which was also developed by the Netherese).
-Incorrect. True Mythals are works of Elven High Magic, and those that are not, Wizardly Mythals, were first developed by Mithanthor, an Elven magician, and later copied by others.
There are varied and powerful forces in our natural universe that do not require gods : Gravity, Light, Fusion, Sound, Wind. They work without the guidance of a supernatural intelligence. And pitiful mortals can come to master and control these forces.
-Being as that we do not know if G-d exists or not, your argument here is inherently flawed, as there is no conclusion.
In an unnatural universe where a force known as magic exists, why does it need to have a sentient superpower guiding it's flow?
-An origin.
There are varied and powerful forces in our natural universe that do not require gods : Gravity, Light, Fusion, Sound, Wind. They work without the guidance of a supernatural intelligence. And pitiful mortals can come to master and control these forces
is insufficient. It's hardly "inherently flawed" to point out that scientifically speaking, there is no requirement in the natural world for a God to be involved in the production of something like lightning. Unless you can point out to me where in the generation of lightning you need a God or Gods with actual evidence, I doubt this is anywhere near as "flawed" as you claim.
I much prefer the current magic, because I prefer magic not to have some sort of origin as volatile as a God, as the spellplague when Mystra died demonstrates nicely.
I can't agree with your arguments Lord Karsus and I think your simple dismissal of this argument
is insufficient. It's hardly "inherently flawed" to point out that scientifically speaking, there is no requirement in the natural world for a God to be involved in the production of something like lightning. Unless you can point out to me where in the generation of lightning you need a God or Gods with actual evidence, I doubt this is anywhere near as "flawed" as you claim.
I much prefer the current magic, because I prefer magic not to have some sort of origin as volatile as a God, as the spellplague when Mystra died demonstrates nicely.
I agree with this, and would take it one step further... Being a big fan of Feist, I like his take on magic, as espoused by Nakor the Blue Rider; there is no magic, just "stuff" to be manipulated. This "stuff" is everywhere and in everything. What this stuff is is unexplainable, but anyone can manipulate it if they know how.
Mystra was never the source of magic, just the weave which allowed others to tap into raw magic in a safe and controlled manner.
I can't agree with your arguments Lord Karsus and I think your simple dismissal of this argument
-You cannot conclude that "gravity, light, fusion, sound, [and] wind" are processes that work without the guidance of a deity of some sort, being as you cannot prove that a deity of some sort does not exist. Likewise, if I said that such natural processes did work with the guidance of a deity of some sort, my argument would be flawed, in that I cannot prove that a deity of some sort does exist. As such, your argument is flawed.
-You cannot conclude that "gravity, light, fusion, sound, [and] wind" are processes that work without the guidance of a deity of some sort, being as you cannot prove that a deity of some sort does not exist
Actually I can, completely and utterly because there is no evidence. Your insistence the argument is flawed is utterly false, because Occam's razor suggests that the simpler argument is that no extraneous Gods are required to make any natural process work (because such things as lightning have known, established causes).
Again, establish your evidence or I'll insist that a pink Unicorn makes the sun rise every day and that I have this pink unicorn trapped in a box of tic tacs on my desk. Should I ever choose to empty the box of tic tacs, the pink unicorn will be freed and no longer raise the sun every day.
You can't prove there isn't a pink unicorn in my box of tic tacs, I cannot prove there is a pink unicorn in my box of tic tacs. The natural, logical answer is that you don't require a pink unicorn in a box of tic tacs to make the sun rise every morning.
According to you, saying that natural processes that can be explained by known repeatable and testable methods rules out said requirement is "Flawed logic" is quite ridiculous really.
PS: There really is a pink unicorn trapped in my box of tic tacs and there is one tic tac left. The apocalypse is nigh.
Actually I can, completely and utterly because there is no evidence.
-Since when has the lack of evidence ever been proof of anything? That a murder weapon never materializes means that a murder did not take place? The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and vice versa, the evidence of absence is not absence of evidence.
Your insistence the argument is flawed is utterly false, because Occam's razor suggests that the simpler argument is that no extraneous Gods are required to make any natural process work (because such things as lightning have known, established causes).
-Let's put the onus of proof on you. Prove that a deity of some sort is not inherently involved in the natural processes described by you. Prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that, anywhere in the cycle of lightning, from initial negative ionization to the actual strike, that a deity of some sort is not involved in the process.
Again, establish your evidence or I'll insist that a pink Unicorn makes the sun rise every day and that I have this pink unicorn trapped in a box of tic tacs on my desk. Should I ever choose to empty the box of tic tacs, the pink unicorn will be freed and no longer raise the sun every day.
You can't prove there isn't a pink unicorn in my box of tic tacs, I cannot prove there is a pink unicorn in my box of tic tacs. The natural, logical answer is that you don't require a pink unicorn in a box of tic tacs to make the sun rise every morning.
According to you, saying that natural processes that can be explained by known repeatable and testable methods rules out said requirement is "Flawed logic" is quite ridiculous really.
PS: There really is a pink unicorn trapped in my box of tic tacs and there is one tic tac left. The apocalypse is nigh.
-Such is what breathes life into the Pastafarian Noodle Monster as well.
-You can prove that there is a pink unicorn in your box of Tic-Tacs, by virtue of you being able to open it and look. I cannot, being as that I do not know you, know where you work, and so on. Ultimately, however, because you can look over at the box and check to see if there is a pink unicorn or not, we can come to a concrete conclusion. Either there is, or there isn't. You might lie to me, you might not, but in the end, that doesn't matter so much as an absolute answer is obtainable. Such an absolute is not obtainable in the above discussion.
-Since when has the lack of evidence ever been proof of anything? That a murder weapon never materializes means that a murder did not take place? The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and vice versa, the evidence of absence is not absence of evidence.
The lack of a murder weapon in a case of a physical, demonstratable murder is entirely different. I'll point out how you've just coup de grace'd your own argument, because you've fallen into a delightful logic trap you can't escape from now. If you find someone with stab wounds, but you never find the knife that killed them it doesn't mean the knife didn't exist.
But and where you have fatally wounded your argument for me (thanks for this btw) is that you have physical, provable evidence a murder occured on multiple levels. You have a missing person. You have a body of said person. You have injuries that indicate said person was killed.
Where is, in any comparison with your murder analogy, any physical evidence of the Gods *you* are claiming are required?
*Crickets chirp*
Thought so.
-Let's put the onus of proof on you.
That's not how it works I'm afraid. I'm making a negative claim, that you do not need an extraneous God to make lightning and scientific, testable and repeatable processes can establish this easily (it's the interaction of differently charged particles). You can generate "lightning" in a lab through perfectly understood scientific means in fact.
Prove that a deity of some sort is not inherently involved in the natural processes described by you. Prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that, anywhere in the cycle of lightning, from initial negative ionization to the actual strike that a deity of some sort is not involved in the process.
This is not my responsibility, as you are making the positive claim. If I claim someone stole my stuff, I have to
A) Prove stuff of mine was stolen
B) Have evidence that proves they stole it
You're so horrifically confused as to the basis of proof, you have no right to be accusing anyone of "flawed" argumentation here. You need to prove your claims, not me. My claim is that I can generate lightning (or at least the same effect as lightning anyway) through perfectly natural laws and using Occam's razor, quite rightly, lets me cut your extraneous requirement for a God (that is not supported by evidence) out as an explanation.
-You can prove that there is a pink unicorn in your box of Tic-Tacs, by virtue of you being able to open it and look.I cannot, being as that I do not know you, know where you work, and so on.
She's also invisible, that's why other people cannot see her.
Ultimately, however, because you can look over at the box and check to see if there is a pink unicorn or not, we can come to a concrete conclusion. Either there is, or there isn't. You might lie to me, you might not, but in the end, that doesn't matter so much as an absolute answer is obtainable. Such an absolute is not obtainable in the above discussion.
Wrong again. I feel I have an answer that is logically founded on observed evidence and I can say with certainty. Many peoples have ascribed effects such as lightning to Zeus, Odin and such. Worship of these Gods has faded from the world and yet, funnily enough, lightning still manages to function. This is also why I invoke Occam's razor freely, because naturalistic explanations are doing a *lot* better for explaining natural phenomena (including how the very computers we are using work) than invoking Gods have in the past.
I believe that's as concrete an argument as I require. Those arguing in the positive (EG: That's you) need to provide proof of their claims, not the other way around. So uhh, where is it?
-You cannot prove that a deity is not involved in such processes in some way. It's impossible, being that we are not omniscient. That's that, that's all there is to it.
You cannot prove that a deity is not involved in such processes in some way.
You're making the positive claim.
You need to prove it. Not me.
Occam's razor suggests that as naturalistic explanations have tended to yield the most useful and practical results for scientific investigation, they are most likely to be correct. As a result, I can rule out appeals to Gods like Zeus/Odin as they have been failures at genuinely explaining natural phenomena (for example, lightning). This logic is not flawed, it's based on practical applications and general scientific advancement (which goes looking for naturalistic explanations for the world and generally succeeds).
I suppose whether you prefer gods as the source of your magic system is related to what fantasy you have read and liked in your formative years.
Speaking for myself--my answers in this thread are not about what I prefer, I am simply arguing against the idea that a high fantasy setting must abide by the "rule" you mentioned before.
In an unnatural universe where a force known as magic exists, why does it need to have a sentient superpower guiding it's flow?
That's up to the author of the setting to decide.
So then why need a god for nature? War? etc. These are all forces and things people can control for themselves so why single out magic?
Indeed, why have gods at all? I certainly would not mind a fantasy setting that didn't have any gods in it (it'd be refreshing, if nothing else). However, if the author does choose to populate the cosmos of the setting with gods who have power over the world/universe and take an active interest in mortal affairs (and that's what most authors do, in my experience), I don't see why a god of magic would be any more "tyrannical" than any other such deity.
I much prefer the current magic, because I prefer magic not to have some sort of origin as volatile as a God, as the spellplague when Mystra died demonstrates nicely.
Well, to me the Spellplague just demonstrates what happens when people want to redesign a setting. That'd be a subject for a different thread though, I think.
Indeed, why have gods at all? I certainly would not mind a fantasy setting that didn't have any gods in it (it'd be refreshing, if nothing else). However, if the author does choose to populate the cosmos of the setting with gods who have power over the world/universe and take an active interest in mortal affairs (and that's what most authors do, in my experience), I don't see why a god of magic would be any more "tyrannical" than any other such deity.
The point is, Mystra WAS quite Tyrannical.
Kelemvor did not stop sword thrusts at the last minute and decide that you had a damage cap at the last minute before death took your foe.
Kossuth did not stop other clerics from casting flame strike on his followers.
Talos did not grant his followers 10th level lightning spells that would level whole cities.
Were these gods less of a tyrant than Mystra?
Or were they simply the iconic figure for the force they represented. (As opposed to the source of said force?)
In either case, the DM decides. Not the author.
If you want to talk tyrant, let's look at Shar
Rino, what's up with the quadrupal posting? ;p You abuse post count worse than Delta abuses smileys!
My thoughts, exactly. :P
The point is, Mystra WAS quite Tyrannical.
You keep saying that, but haven't proven it.
Kelemvor did not stop sword thrusts at the last minute and decide that you had a damage cap at the last minute before death took your foe.
Kossuth did not stop other clerics from casting flame strike on his followers.
Talos did not grant his followers 10th level lightning spells that would level whole cities.
Were these gods less of a tyrant than Mystra?
Or were they simply the iconic figure for the force they represented. (As opposed to the source of said force?)
The gods of Faerun DO have control over the forces they represent. All of them, not just Mystra.
I'm not sure if your assertion that Mystra is the source of magic is correct. That said, you were arguing (as far as I could tell) that it wasn't fair for a god to have control over a force such as magic. If that's true, than no god should have control over any force in the universe. If a wizard is a de facto priest of Mystra (as you have asserted), then I suppose a farmer is a de facto priest of the god of agriculture, sailors are de facto priests of the sea god, soldiers are de facto priests of the god of war, and so on.
In either case, the DM decides. Not the author.
Umm, you're arguing about the nature of the setting (or any high fantasy setting), as far as I can tell. Therefore, it's totally fair for me to say it's up to the author (or designer). If "the DM decides" is the final word, then why are you arguing about this? If you're a DM, you can do whatever you want.
Rino, what's up with the quadrupal posting? ;p You abuse post count worse than Delta abuses smileys!
I'm not trying to "abuse post count", it's just easier for me to respond to one post at a time. I'm not good at multi-quoting.
That's just how it is.