For those of you who didnt know, Thargaun was the first Nentyarch of the Narfell Empire, which he united outgoing from his kingdom, which was bearing his fathers name, "Tharos". Thargaun was a worshiper of Orcus "the demonlord of the undead" btw. And now we have undead across Impiltur, very subtle. :D
Do you think as well we will soon have a new "Nentyarch" in a refound Narfell Empire? How about Raumauthar, will it return as well with a new "Arkhan" on its throne?
Well in the 2001 FRCS they claim that nothing is going on anymore considering sorcery in the area of Narfell and now it seems we are dealing with no less figure than Orcus. At least it has an epic scale now. Zhengyi always felt like a side issue to me. ^^
I miss our old points-of-light setting.
This one is too 'busy' for my taste.
Another incredibly powerfu Nation where there was nought but untamed wildeness and barbarians before?
I miss our old points-of-light setting.
This one is too 'busy' for my taste.
Hey man I enjoy this. Sure some great stuff has been lost during the transition from the 3.5 FR to the 4.0 FR, but when it comes to providing some worthy opponents and leaving out the lackey fealing I always got when I had to deal with the "Chosen" or the omnipresent Harpers, this new situation is an extreme advancement. Now we are the guys who have to fix it! We have to stop the Netherese. We have to defeat Orcus. We have to reveal the plots of the Zhentarim. We have to prevent the Thayans from conquering Aglarond. No Simbul will single-handedly crush an advancing thayan army. No Vangerdahast will gather up a miraculous gambit to show the netherese princes their limits. No Chosen, not even Mystra can interfere. Dont get me wrong I liked the seven sisters, Khelben and all the others, yes even Elminster. But in the FR before the Spellplague existed more epic heroes than villains. The villains really had a hard time to come across as a real threat. In every second village you were able to find a good aligned spellcaster able to cast ninth grad spells. The good epic NPC density was way too high. In the old realms it was much more heroic to be a villain than trying to be a "petty" hero. Even if you finally reached level 20 you still had to be content with holding a much lower rank than the "really powerful" personalities. Now it is how it always was supposed to be. The Realms are full with villains and we are the ones now who have to deal with em. The "good - evil"-ratio has been reversed and thats a good thing.
I couldn't agree more. 4e gives the PCs more space... However, I don't think Narfell will become an empire once more. They are not numerous enough. They simply don't have the numbers needed. ;)
Ehm, old Narfell included everything between the Earthspur and Galena mountains on one side and the lake Ashane on other side. Which means Vassa, Damara, Impiltur, Narfell, the Great Dale and Thesk. I guess this region provides a sufficient number of people. :D
Ehm, old Narfell included everything between the Earthspur and Galena mountains on one side and the lake Ashane on other side. Which means Vassa, Damara, Impiltur, Narfell, the Great Dale and Thesk. I guess this region provides a sufficient number of people. :D
And you're talking about having this return? :P I don't think this will happen canonically, though I may yet be proven wrong.
That doesn't make it any less great an idea for a campaign at home. Stopping Orcus' designs is the plot of the entire published story arc that WotC started in KotSF, if I'm not mistaken. Orcus also provides a good alternative to Shar and the Shadovar (or any other well-known or expected opponent) for your PCs to face.
I also agree 100% with your assessment on the current "State of the Realms". I like that evil's on the rise, and the one-time heavies (such as Mystra's Chosen) have been humbled.
And you're talking about having this return? :P I don't think this will happen canonically, though I may yet be proven wrong.
That doesn't make it any less great an idea for a campaign at home. Stopping Orcus' designs is the plot of the entire published story arc that WotC started in KotSF, if I'm not mistaken. Orcus also provides a good alternative to Shar and the Shadovar (or any other well-known or expected opponent) for your PCs to face.
I also agree 100% with your assessment on the current "State of the Realms". I like that evil's on the rise, and the one-time heavies (such as Mystra's Chosen) have been humbled.
Well perhaps Im perfectly ignorant to ask this, but what is KotSF?
Well perhaps Im perfectly ignorant to ask this, but what is KotSF?
Sorry, I should have known that was overly vague. I was tired and lazy, I guess. That would be Keep on the Shadowfell. It gets things started with 1st level characters, and is followed by an entire campaign that will possibly end with a showdown with Orcus himself at level 30. Several modules/adventures are already released, and more are on the way.
Sorry, I should have known that was overly vague. I was tired and lazy, I guess. That would be Keep on the Shadowfell. It gets things started with 1st level characters, and is followed by an entire campaign that will possibly end with a showdown with Orcus himself at level 30. Several modules/adventures are already released, and more are on the way.
Oh cool, I guess I have to look into this.
In every second village you were able to find a good aligned spellcaster able to cast ninth grad spells.
Prove it.
Prove it.
I guess I would be tempted to really try to prove it to you, if it had been at all about how many good aligned high-level npcs were running around in the realms before 1385, but its not. I guess you would agree with me that anyone here - including you and me - is entitled to have her/his own opinion and I was just pointing out my opinion. How I subjectivelly felt about the old realms. Its not about numbers here, but about perception and I have no trouble accepting that yours differs from mine. I'm sure you are perfectly aware of what "pawn"-feeling I was speaking even though you didnt feel the same way.
I guess I would be tempted to really try to prove it to you, if it had been at all about how many good aligned high-level npcs were running around in the realms before 1385, but its not. I guess you would agree with me that anyone here - including you and me - is entitled to have her/his own opinion and I was just pointing out my opinion. How I subjectivelly felt about the old realms. Its not about numbers here, but about perception and I have no trouble accepting that yours differs from mine. I'm sure you are perfectly aware of what "pawn"-feeling I was speaking even though you didnt feel the same way.
Yes, I believe I know what you are talking about, and you are right in presuming that I haven't felt that when playing in this setting.
However, while you are indeed entitled to your opinion and your own perceptions of things, I would still have to contend that the statement I responded to (that is, "In every second village you were able to find a good aligned spellcaster able to cast ninth grad spells.") has no basis in the sourcebooks that I've found. Again, if you felt like a pawn, or overwhelmed, that's how you felt and I'm not going to argue with that. But this is not the first time I've ever come across that statement--to my mind, it's an annoying myth, a strawman, a canard without any evidence to back it up, and I'm not the type of person to just let silly myths about the setting go by without challenge.
I appreciate that you haven't taken this personally. This isn't about you, it's about a myth that I think has played a part in damaging the reputation of a setting I like.
The Eberron Campaign Setting consciously went in the opposite direction, so this is definitely a widely held perception. When the absence of "high level NPCs" serving as mayor in every other town was touted as being "different than other settings", we all understood which "other setting" was being referenced.
Though I do tend to believe that the numbers would support the conceit, I don't think it has to effect the way we play our games. (I also don't care enough to take you up on your challenge, Rinonalyrna ;)). For some it stresses verisimilitude, for others it doesn't.
Just my two cents, observations, and what have you.
The perception of being a pawn to the powers that be I think is something of a newer attitude within society, which leads into a discussion over changes in the way people view government and their ability to change things as an individual which is probably best avoided. Suffice to say, older generations probably have a very different take on the issue than new ones, but as the older generations are the ones who wrote this stuff, it makes sense that it doesn't necessarily resonate with the current crop of gamers coming into the setting. Its not a flaw so much as it is a difference... neither is wrong, neither is right, they're just two different ways of approaching and thinking about gaming.
In a lot of respects, I think the high-level (which has two fairly different meanings generationally), retired adventurers running every other town is a correct perception of the Realms. Of course, having said that, I'm also under the impression that this was intentional, as it used to be pretty much the goal for adventurers to becomes lords or ladies of their own town or whatever, so it was used to illustrate that it was indeed possible to achieve that, and was actually something of a normal convention for the setting. Its something of a 'old school approach' really, which isn't necessarily reflective of modern attitudes towards gaming, much less politics. Its very reflective of older gaming conventions and attitudes however, and so if looked at from that context, it very much makes sense to have done things that way.
The perception of being a pawn to the powers that be I think is something of a newer attitude within society, which leads into a discussion over changes in the way people view government and their ability to change things as an individual which is probably best avoided. Suffice to say, older generations probably have a very different take on the issue than new ones, but as the older generations are the ones who wrote this stuff, it makes sense that it doesn't necessarily resonate with the current crop of gamers coming into the setting. Its not a flaw so much as it is a difference... neither is wrong, neither is right, they're just two different ways of approaching and thinking about gaming.
Hey btw, I am older than Rinonalyrna Fathomlin. ;) I was born exactly 364 days before her. :D My birthday is the 8th March 1980 and hers is the 7th March 1981. ^^
Though seriously, age has little to do with it I suspect. I would contend that how and what introduced you to gaming has more to do with things than physical age. There are a lot of ways to interpret the term generation after all, beyond simple chronological ones.
Feh, mere children... :P
Though seriously, age has little to do with it I suspect. I would contend that how and what introduced you to gaming has more to do with things than physical age. There are a lot of ways to interpret the term generation after all, beyond simple chronological ones.
Does that mean then that I am "young beyond my age"? In that case I thank you sincerely for the compliment. ;)
You're all nearly babies as far as I'm concerned... but I think I'm close to 90 in curmudgeoniness (is that even a word?), so :P
You arent that far away from me, if you really are 36, I wonder why you think you are a curmudgeon?
Btw, dict.cc says there is no world like "curmudgeoniness". ^^
As to my new word, English as a language evolves, so consider yourself blessed to have witnessed the birth of a new word. :D
Well, I've been getting stark white hair since I was 20, so I figure that's gotta count for something...
As to my new word, English as a language evolves, so consider yourself blessed to have witnessed the birth of a new word. :D
Well I feel like Im growing younger, just mentally. Wasnt that you who said there is something more important to rate age than just physical properties? ;)
Yes, but stark white hair gives that dignified look, and even when I was 10 I could hardly wait to hit 40... now that I'm getting close to 40 I'm setting my sights even higher. The older I think I am, the easier it is to be condescending to you little punk whippersnappers. :P :D
LOL, ok I give up then. :D
or something like it
I and my players actually found it interesting to feel the weight of the years and the our heroes worldly insignificance at early levels to be more of a challenge or something so strive towards than as a hindrance. early heros are pawns, its the struggle to make their own way that gives incentive to bother.
why in our current campaign me and my buddies have decided to take on undermountain for the first time and make our fortunes. i purposely made them feel small and unloved in Waterdeep and despite their best efforts fame hasnt come as easily as they have hoped.(greedy impatient souls so they are) They now want to make a mark on the world of faerun and in all our campaigns going forward our current characters will be the NPC's of legend. the "durnans" of our little gaming communities experience of the realms.
the dm has the responsibility to make what they will of the setting, leave out the npcs if necessary. for instance there was no "tolgen" or whatever in goldenfields as it would have tipped the balance of the campaign. i needed pace and urgency and to keep it i removed this high powered cleric not by denying his existence but by putting him on an errand of his own.
You know since I learned to know you guys a little better I wanna share the ultimate secret of great storytelling with you. It doesnt really matter if the big bad guy gets caught or if the protagonist acquires power and station. Well she/he does need to be the hero, though! The only thing of importance is the struggle itself. And the whole thing suffered under the patronage of all these massivelly powerful good guys. They prevented the danger from taking place! Thats why they had been a pain in my ass, since I seemed always to be rendered unable to produce a threat big and really enough to make it work without outright slaughtering everyone.
Look in the old days adventuring in Waterdeep always felt like hunting deer in a tiger cage. You were asking yourself:" What the hell am I doing here? There are two dozen NPCs within the citywalls, who are near or even far above the 20th level and they would have just as much reason to get the villain as I do." Thus I wanted to avoid Waterdeep, Silverymoon, etc. You actually couldn't go to the really cool places since you always lost "contrast" and even worse provided "contrast" to some other characters who draw approval from you for their "Hercules"-status (Demi-god hero). Its just not the job of the PCs to further elevade an NPC. Thus cycling around them was your only option.
Though I do tend to believe that the numbers would support the conceit, I don't think it has to effect the way we play our games. (I also don't care enough to take you up on your challenge, Rinonalyrna ;)). For some it stresses verisimilitude, for others it doesn't.
It's fine, I'm more than happy to let the matter drop (my opinions are still there, but we don't have to debate about it).
Hey btw, I am older than Rinonalyrna Fathomlin. ;) I was born exactly 364 days before her. :D My birthday is the 8th March 1980 and hers is the 7th March 1981. ^^
Heh, that's kinda funny.
Though seriously, age has little to do with it I suspect. I would contend that how and what introduced you to gaming has more to do with things than physical age. There are a lot of ways to interpret the term generation after all, beyond simple chronological ones.
-Yup. I'm a curmudgeon, right, and look at me.
Heh, that's kinda funny.
So, tell me your phone number. :D
In a lot of respects, I think the high-level (which has two fairly different meanings generationally), retired adventurers running every other town is a correct perception of the Realms. Of course, having said that, I'm also under the impression that this was intentional, as it used to be pretty much the goal for adventurers to becomes lords or ladies of their own town or whatever, so it was used to illustrate that it was indeed possible to achieve that, and was actually something of a normal convention for the setting. Its something of a 'old school approach' really, which isn't necessarily reflective of modern attitudes towards gaming, much less politics. Its very reflective of older gaming conventions and attitudes however, and so if looked at from that context, it very much makes sense to have done things that way.
The perception of being a pawn to the powers that be I think is something of a newer attitude within society, which leads into a discussion over changes in the way people view government and their ability to change things as an individual which is probably best avoided. Suffice to say, older generations probably have a very different take on the issue than new ones, but as the older generations are the ones who wrote this stuff, it makes sense that it doesn't necessarily resonate with the current crop of gamers coming into the setting. Its not a flaw so much as it is a difference... neither is wrong, neither is right, they're just two different ways of approaching and thinking about gaming.
For some reason, I never really thought of this. I wasn't around (in gaming terms, that is) for FR's birth, so that's likely the reason. My thanks, Stigger, for shifting my mindset with a simple truth.
The perception of being a pawn to the powers that be I think is something of a newer attitude within society, which leads into a discussion over changes in the way people view government and their ability to change things as an individual which is probably best avoided. Suffice to say, older generations probably have a very different take on the issue than new ones, but as the older generations are the ones who wrote this stuff, it makes sense that it doesn't necessarily resonate with the current crop of gamers coming into the setting. Its not a flaw so much as it is a difference... neither is wrong, neither is right, they're just two different ways of approaching and thinking about gaming.
I'd say it's better that people view government that way, it's closer to the truth
however, I don't see the negative side of it manifesting in D&D (the apathy, belief that you can't change anything), gods and similar powers get more stats than ever
@ addle-cove... great name by the way...
To be honest, I do see that negative side manifesting in some respects, although in a subtle sort of way, although in an inverse. The best example I can think of is Mystra and magic in 3e, one I'm reluctant to use given the tension over the matter, but hopefully people will see this for an illustration rather than an argument.
With 3e and prior editions, you have Mystra 'lording it over' magic and 'restricting' you to 9th level magic for most, and Epic/True Dweomer spells for very, very few. While very powerful stuff, it was still perceived as a limit by some, and that she was holding back mages from real power with it. Now we have 4e, where the limits are supposedly gone now that she is, and the people rejoice. What really happened though was the magic was limited far more than she ever made it be, is considerably weaker than previous incarnations, and not available as often for the higher level spells. But at least you don't have some uppity goddess telling you that can't have spells of any level...
And yes, I get the idea of balancing out the classes and that whole mess, no need to start that argument again. This is not aimed as a snipe against 4e or its supporters, its aimed at a fairly specific group of people who were opposed to Mystra's limiting them as spellcasters. It had nothing to do with the actual boundaries she set, it had everything to do with someone telling them that they couldn't do. That it was a fluff explanation as to why there were spells up to 9th level was irrelevant, it was still some authority figure telling them they couldn't do something, which upset them. With 4e, you've seen the collapse of authority figures with clerics who don't need the gods past 1st level, mages who don't need to depend on a deity to govern magic, and the rest of the classes able to outperform most commoners with their eyes closed and hands behind their backs.
With 3e and previous editions, there was an idea of authority being able to be both good and bad, that there was a place for idealism and power to meet and co-exist. The later period of 3e moved away from that into a darker, and arguably, more realistic approach heavily tinged with cynicism about authority figures, which led us into 4e. Personally, I suspect a lot of the reason that Mystra and her Chosen didn't really appeal to a lot of newer folks wasn't necessarily that they were omnipresent or omnipotent, but that they represented a very different approach to thinking about the world and the way it should work, a disconnect between how things in the Realms were depicted, and how they would really work in a realistic portrayal. Of course that view depends largely on Earthen culture and societal norms... which don't really have to be the case on another world, but that's a different debate entirely.
So yes, I still see a rather large generational gap at play there. Again, I'll reiterate that I don't see them as better or worse, simply different. Now I seriously doubt most folks would actually sit down and think about this stuff and how it applies to them, or even if it does, but I think on a subconscious level its still there. Obviously these are broad generalizations and should be taken as such.
Hmmm... that got a bit out of hand. Oh well. :D
With 3e and prior editions, you have Mystra 'lording it over' magic and 'restricting' you to 9th level magic for most, and Epic/True Dweomer spells for very, very few. While very powerful stuff, it was still perceived as a limit by some, and that she was holding back mages from real power with it.
-Is there anything in D&D even "past" that?
Technically, those 10th, 11th, and 12th levels spells they mentioned in Arcane Age... though you'd pretty much have to be aware of it to make the complaint.
-Well, yeah, these things were things that were created for the story of Netheril and all...It's like why no has too many problems with massive shake-ups in the past: Because they are built into the history, and are "supposed" to be like that. D&D always had a limit of spells (7th, in 1e, I believe, and then 9 and 9 in 2e and 3e). The 9th Level + spells are like those ancient empires that fell, or those ancient powerful NPCs- part of the history, to show what existed, but no longer do/does. I think there may be a 9th Level + Dark Sun Spell, but asides for that, all 9th Level + magic was created for Netheril, and was "killed" with Netheril.
My interpretation of that complaint is folks who wanted to be godlike with their magic who had a DM (possibly multiple ones) stomp on that aspiration, so rather than blame themselves (probably the real culprit here) or the DM (the one who probably informed them of their error), they blame the setting and here we are today.
-Seems to be a common denominator in practically everything...
And yeah, that is becoming a recurring theme in a lot of discussions of late.
Dark Sun kicked everthing up a notch. :D
You could also grant spels to followers between levels 20 and 30 (pretty much demi-godhood in that setting).
Indeed. It was a strange argument to read, especially in light of the whole Spellcasters are too powerful in 3e idea going on. Even more so when it came from someone making both arguments...
Which was one of the many inconsistencoes that always bothered me about the Weave. Supposedly Mystra limited everyone to level 9... but that's how it worked EVERWHERE ELSE in the universe!
So just what the hell was she doing? Making rules saying her Weave made magic work EXACTLY the same way it did everywhere that there was no Waeve present?
I don't even think there was a Weave - I think she was nuts and her priesthood just made the whole thing up. Since Weave casters obviously didn't need it (when they left Realmspace), and interlopers didn't need to know anything about it for their magic to work, it was obviously a figment of someone's imagination.
Maybe Ed's...
You're more than welcome tallric.
@ addle-cove... great name by the way...
To be honest, I do see that negative side manifesting in some respects, although in a subtle sort of way, although in an inverse. The best example I can think of is Mystra and magic in 3e, one I'm reluctant to use given the tension over the matter, but hopefully people will see this for an illustration rather than an argument.
With 3e and prior editions, you have Mystra 'lording it over' magic and 'restricting' you to 9th level magic for most, and Epic/True Dweomer spells for very, very few. While very powerful stuff, it was still perceived as a limit by some, and that she was holding back mages from real power with it. Now we have 4e, where the limits are supposedly gone now that she is, and the people rejoice. What really happened though was the magic was limited far more than she ever made it be, is considerably weaker than previous incarnations, and not available as often for the higher level spells. But at least you don't have some uppity goddess telling you that can't have spells of any level...
And yes, I get the idea of balancing out the classes and that whole mess, no need to start that argument again. This is not aimed as a snipe against 4e or its supporters, its aimed at a fairly specific group of people who were opposed to Mystra's limiting them as spellcasters. It had nothing to do with the actual boundaries she set, it had everything to do with someone telling them that they couldn't do. That it was a fluff explanation as to why there were spells up to 9th level was irrelevant, it was still some authority figure telling them they couldn't do something, which upset them. With 4e, you've seen the collapse of authority figures with clerics who don't need the gods past 1st level, mages who don't need to depend on a deity to govern magic, and the rest of the classes able to outperform most commoners with their eyes closed and hands behind their backs.
With 3e and previous editions, there was an idea of authority being able to be both good and bad, that there was a place for idealism and power to meet and co-exist. The later period of 3e moved away from that into a darker, and arguably, more realistic approach heavily tinged with cynicism about authority figures, which led us into 4e. Personally, I suspect a lot of the reason that Mystra and her Chosen didn't really appeal to a lot of newer folks wasn't necessarily that they were omnipresent or omnipotent, but that they represented a very different approach to thinking about the world and the way it should work, a disconnect between how things in the Realms were depicted, and how they would really work in a realistic portrayal. Of course that view depends largely on Earthen culture and societal norms... which don't really have to be the case on another world, but that's a different debate entirely.
So yes, I still see a rather large generational gap at play there. Again, I'll reiterate that I don't see them as better or worse, simply different. Now I seriously doubt most folks would actually sit down and think about this stuff and how it applies to them, or even if it does, but I think on a subconscious level its still there. Obviously these are broad generalizations and should be taken as such.
Hmmm... that got a bit out of hand. Oh well. :D
Agreed! But at least to me, it had never been about the question if authority is good or bad, and it wasn't about who held power or how much I was able to command myself. My issue was being part of a "staged conflict" in which all factions received their ammunition from the same source just to blow each other into oblivion. I felt like being a rat in Mystra's experimental laboratory maze. You actually couldn't really "fight on her behalf", since you were anyways duped to fight opponents who had been armed by her. Just a gladiator game to amuse her. It felt like participating in the Iran/Iraq war, no matter on whose side you were, as long as you were on one you belonged to the losers. You couldn't win. I found this to be a really devious way of conducting business for a "neutral good" deity. I mean its completelly ok to be a deity whose purpose is to provide magic to everyone, but this entity cant pretend to take on an ethical point of view to spark the conflict in the first place in which all suffer casualties. Boccob never interfered or took a side and he didn't even provide magic itself. He was just the embodiment of the spellcaster mindest.
Technically, those 10th, 11th, and 12th levels spells they mentioned in Arcane Age... though you'd pretty much have to be aware of it to make the complaint. My interpretation of that complaint is folks who wanted to be godlike with their magic who had a DM (possibly multiple ones) stomp on that aspiration, so rather than blame themselves (probably the real culprit here) or the DM (the one who probably informed them of their error), they blame the setting and here we are today.
Where everyone has to become a "Demi-God", the "Chosen" of a deity or their equal. Power to the people! ;) :P
Ergo, humans in my worlds can cast 10th level magic when they hit 25th level and begin ascent to godhood (which is similar to how it works in Dark Sun, but they start at lev 20).
IMG, levels 20-24 are 'Immortal', and 25-29 are 'demigod'. That means you can grant spells to others, as well, once you get to that point. I'm obviously not very big on 'epic' level games, because no PCs EVER got that high.
@MT
Not too sure about the whole granting spells thing, strikes me as something that's not terribly workable in practice at the game table.
That's an odd way of looking at it Nolwelen... to me anyway. I can't say those views ever even remotely occurred to me, as I tend to view good at a divine level being much different from good at a mortal level. For me, good is something that Mystra/Midnight encouraged and advocated, but did not take a strong heavy handed approach to doing so, since the opposition those bad guys provided served a purpose to make the good guys innovate and strengthen Art. Surely that was true in the inverse as well, but at the end of the day, she gave a bit more insight to the good guys, and hence a slight edge. Handing someone all the answers never taught them anything, other than to rely on others... in the long run, it produces better mages using her approach of 'supplying both sides' as it were. That's my take on it anyway.
@MT
Not too sure about the whole granting spells thing, strikes me as something that's not terribly workable in practice at the game table.
To me it looked like doublecrossing. Accepting to be a pawn on the chessboard is hard enough, but realizing both sides get moved by the same "power" invokes the ultimate "puppet-feeling" within me. And the assumption that this power tries a little harder to win whenever your side's turn takes place doesn't comfort me the least. I can't think of an acceptable justification for the act anyway and its a poor rationalisation to try to perceive it as an ominously divine act to further the concept of evolution, especially taking into account magic doesn't depend on conflict to develop, as Mystra pointed out herself on serveral occations.
Mystra activelly encourged conflict between numberous mortals and immortals throughout the timeline. The most simple example would be the struggle between Azuth and Savras. Velsharoon grew into his position as the god of necromancy under Mystra's patronization. No no, conflicts have been staged by her in differing scales and without any further gain for the universe, it was just on her whim to let the idiots fight each other down.
The whole purpose of the Magister title is to generate conflict or at aleast competition and what was the Magister's greatest contribution to the cosmology? Its a pretty worthless position aynway. If you had managed to acquire a certain amount of mastery in the arts you better stayed below the divine radar entirely or aimed for something larger anyway.
Mystra left me only two final conclusions about the old realms. First you had to move along the path she had predetermined for you or you would have been crushed at one point for certain. Second, even if you did follow the given path you had to be content with the fact that her support was only a catalyser to create competition and she didn't care if this competition was going to cripple you. Another deity who employs the same mechanism to further his goals is Cyric.
Agreed! But at least to me, it had never been about the question if authority is good or bad, and it wasn't about who held power or how much I was able to command myself. My issue was being part of a "staged conflict" in which all factions received their ammunition from the same source just to blow each other into oblivion. I felt like being a rat in Mystra's experimental laboratory maze. You actually couldn't really "fight on her behalf", since you were anyways duped to fight opponents who had been armed by her. Just a gladiator game to amuse her. It felt like participating in the Iran/Iraq war, no matter on whose side you were, as long as you were on one you belonged to the losers. You couldn't win. I found this to be a really devious way of conducting business for a "neutral good" deity. I mean its completelly ok to be a deity whose purpose is to provide magic to everyone, but this entity cant pretend to take on an ethical point of view to spark the conflict in the first place in which all suffer casualties. Boccob never interfered or took a side and he didn't even provide magic itself. He was just the embodiment of the spellcaster mindest.
Mystra was neutral good for just under 50 years during Midnight's reign. Prior to that she was chaotic neutral as Mystril and lawful neutral as Mystra 1. All three had a slight preference for good but only Midnight actually held the alignment and Midnight spent some time trying to alter things put in motion by her predecessors. She shifted the position of Magister out of the aquire by death of predecessor method and started encouraging Thay's magical wal-mart routine among other things.
@MT
Not too sure about the whole granting spells thing, strikes me as something that's not terribly workable in practice at the game table.
Which is why I went on to say that none of my games ever got that high - they usually topped-out at level 12.
Those are my 'theoretical' rules, which I know exist somewhere in the background, but never enter play.
Basically, I don't seperate gods and mortals, I have one 'level system' for everyone, and only one being gets to be level '100'. :D
Mortals - 0-24
Dieties - 25-49
Primordials - 50-74 (my 'Overgods' - not the 4e ones)
Conceptuals - 75-99 (usually called 'old ones' or 'Elder Gods')
The One - 100 :D
There are 25 levels in each grouping, and the first five levels in any group act as the 'farm team' for that group. To convert to DvR, just add 24 to a deities DvR to see what level it fits in to my system. And of course, there are still levels within the deific range, just like in the standard system.
Once you get beyond Deity level, there really are no seperate levels until you reach the next higher group. Also, there are four spell levels at the primordial level (just like the deities), but only three at the Conceptual level, so that only THE ONE can cast 21st level spells (a nice, mystical number). Ao would be around level 55 in this system.
@ Nolwelen -
I suppose I can see how you'd reach that perspective, even though I profoundly disagree with it. Different ways of looking at the world though, so, whatever works for you.
With 3e and previous editions, there was an idea of authority being able to be both good and bad, that there was a place for idealism and power to meet and co-exist. The later period of 3e moved away from that into a darker, and arguably, more realistic approach heavily tinged with cynicism about authority figures, which led us into 4e. Personally, I suspect a lot of the reason that Mystra and her Chosen didn't really appeal to a lot of newer folks wasn't necessarily that they were omnipresent or omnipotent, but that they represented a very different approach to thinking about the world and the way it should work, a disconnect between how things in the Realms were depicted, and how they would really work in a realistic portrayal. Of course that view depends largely on Earthen culture and societal norms... which don't really have to be the case on another world, but that's a different debate entirely.
So yes, I still see a rather large generational gap at play there. Again, I'll reiterate that I don't see them as better or worse, simply different. Now I seriously doubt most folks would actually sit down and think about this stuff and how it applies to them, or even if it does, but I think on a subconscious level its still there. Obviously these are broad generalizations and should be taken as such.
Hmmm... that got a bit out of hand. Oh well. :D
Well stated, Stigger. I've travelled this line of thought before, but never articulated it.