How could Auril have defeated and killed Aerdrie Faenya and taken the Winged Mother's floating palace (as stated in the web article) if Aerdrie Faenya was Akadi (who is still around)?
(the death of) a wizard did it?
How could Auril have defeated and killed Aerdrie Faenya and taken the Winged Mother's floating palace (as stated in the web article) if Aerdrie Faenya was Akadi (who is still around)?
Rest assured, the designers will give you a reasonable explanation, one day. Essentially, it is not something pressing, so I would assume that this will not come to pass anytime soon.
As for the fact as such, I have seen worse with the demise of Kiaransalee and Eilistraee. Dunno how Mask's and Deneir's disappearance will be tackled. IMHO, the reduction in quantity was hardly validated and hence I decline to go New Realmsish, at least with regard to the deity changes.
Deities (and Primordials) may choose, if they wish to divest a portion of their divine essence into ‘aspects’. These aspects may claim dominions and portfolios beyond those governed by their parent divinity. Aerdrie Faeyna was an aspect of Akadi which infiltrated and lived among the elven pantheon for millennia. When Aerdrie was slain by Auril, Akadi simply lost the divine essence invested into this particular aspect (ie. Akadi was weakened but not destroyed).
This will be explained in a lot more detail in future D&DI articles.
It's worth noting that most deities recalled all their aspects during the Spellplague to consolidate their power and today exist as singular beings
Would this also apply to say avatars of deities? I ask because it was explained that some of the progenitor beings that came before the Tanari survived by having their remaining aspect/avatar escape and go into hiding where they spent time regaining power.
Die 4ED DIE!!!!
Again, the realms game designers have obviously never read the elven lore from the past three and a half editions. Retcon, retcon, retcon!!!!
Die 4ED DIE!!!!
Really, is it so hard to disagree with the design without being so rude?
As to the topic, Mr. James gave us insight that makes sense and fits with what is going on, thanks.
Here is my brief take on it:
Deities (and Primordials) may choose, if they wish to divest a portion of their divine essence into ‘aspects’. These aspects may claim dominions and portfolios beyond those governed by their parent divinity. Aerdrie Faeyna was an aspect of Akadi which infiltrated and lived among the elven pantheon for millennia. When Aerdrie was slain by Auril, Akadi simply lost the divine essence invested into this particular aspect (ie. Akadi was weakened but not destroyed).
This will be explained in a lot more detail in future D&DI articles.
It's worth noting that most deities recalled all their aspects during the Spellplague to consolidate their power and today exist as singular beings
Sounds good to me.
I just wish this, and an explanation about the nonhuman deities had been given in the campaign guide where it belonged.
IMHO, 3E never managed to get close to the detail given to the FR deities in AD&D. 4E FR have done away with 100odd deities and I doubt - given the publishing plans - that we will see that much info than 3E provided for the 4E REalms. For there is much more important stuff to cover than that, example given places for PC to run into and do some "adventuring".
Really, is it so hard to disagree with the design without being so rude?
Look who's talking! Sheesh!
Really, is it so hard to disagree with the design without being so rude?
As to the topic, Mr. James gave us insight that makes sense and fits with what is going on, thanks.
Actually, it only makes sense to a certain point. While I can understand how the primary deity can split off aspects that become independent entities, I do not see how those splinter aspects can then splinter off again. For example, Selune (intermediate power) splinters off Sehanine. Sehanine (also an intermediate power) then splinters off with Akadi with Sune (under other alias') to form Angharath (sorry probably misspelled).
From my perspective, it makes no sense how the splinters have the power (let alone ability) to splinter off aspects of equal power. If this process works like that, why didn't all the lesser powers splinter and reabsorb to double their power? Also, if Akadi has no priesthood and gains no power from worship, why would she partake in this at all? Further, why can Akadi not grant spells but Aerdrie (a splinter) can? Primordials can create god versions of themselves that are more powerful than they are?
My head hurts
Regarding primordials and their worshipers... Yeah, that situation is a little hazy right now as well. But we now know of at least one primordial that was able to grant divine magic to his followers—Ubtao. Don’t quote me on this, but I image the process is much like demons/devils being able to grant powers to their cults in earlier editions. Who knows, priest of Ubtao/Akadi etc… might have been warlocks all along in 4E terms (or some other yet to be revealed class)
Here is my brief take on it:
Deities (and Primordials) may choose, if they wish to divest a portion of their divine essence into ‘aspects’. These aspects may claim dominions and portfolios beyond those governed by their parent divinity. Aerdrie Faeyna was an aspect of Akadi which infiltrated and lived among the elven pantheon for millennia. When Aerdrie was slain by Auril, Akadi simply lost the divine essence invested into this particular aspect (ie. Akadi was weakened but not destroyed).
This will be explained in a lot more detail in future D&DI articles.
It's worth noting that most deities recalled all their aspects during the Spellplague to consolidate their power and today exist as singular beings
well said...
My head hurts
-You're not the only one.
I have no explanation for Angharradh. The whole situation with her simultaneously being a singular being *and* a triune goddess always made my head hurt (and that was prior to 4E).
-She is/was an entity in and of herself, and Sehanine Moonbow, Hanali Celanil, and Aerdrie Faenya. She is/was a manifestation of all three at the same time, yet each one retains their individuality when not "combined".
-I, personally, say that Angharradh is a myth anyway, so...
-According to Bruce Cordell:
To the extent Angharradh remains an active presence, she is a manifestation of these goddesses (Selune, Sune, and Akadi; primordial in Akadi's case) and their mutual adoration for Corellon and love of the elven people. She hasn't been seen much lately, however.
I have no explanation for Angharradh. The whole situation with her simultaneously being a singular being *and* a triune goddess always made my head hurt (and that was prior to 4E).
I'm a bit late, but this is how I explain it.
You have three individual deities (Aerdrie Faenya, Hanali Celanil and Sehanine Moonbow) who have formed a tight alliance similar to that of the Triad, but they've taken it a step further. They've combined their churches into a single church and created a sort of "manifestation" of themselves into a "three faced" goddess. I wouldn't call it a "true god" or an "aspect".
When joining the church of Angharradh you are in fact giving tribute to all three deities, but it would not be uncommon to favor one over another while still holding strong affections and veneration toward the other two.
In effect, for the deities, this allows them to consolidate their power in times of crisis while maintaining their individuality. As well, it allows them to manifest a joint avatar that has the power and abilities of all three.
As to the nature of aspects, I view them as separate deities with only tangential connections to the original. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that an aspect of a deity could turn upon it's original manifestation and become completely separate. So there is always a danger of manifesting an aspect that could stray too far from the original deity.
The benefits of aspects, however, could be varied but there are two primary reasons I can easily foresee. The first is so the original deity can act as a sort of "parasite" siphoning off some of the divine power gained by the worship thereby sustaining themselves or growing in power. (Although I'd imagine there are limits to that.) The second is so the original deity can gain some sort of advantage or leverage in a certain domain or area of influence, perhaps even to "block" another deity from expanding into that area.
I do not believe aspects can be created that are equal in power to the original, and I would even argue that creating a new aspect likely requires some amount of sacrifice of power. There is no reason that I can see that an aspect (being independent from the original) could not create aspects of its own, which would of course be even further removed from the original.
Once you toss in the influence of mortal worship upon a deity you have some interesting consequences...
-I've given up trying to sort it out. As demonstrated, it's entirely too convoluted for it's own good.
I second that...
During Araushnee's rebellion, when the 3 goddesses combined to form the gestalt entity "Angharradh", it provided a conduit for the true Sehanine to manifest within the Realms, they were channeling the real Sehanine, which was the only circumstance under which Sehanine could crossover from Faerie and enact her will in Toril.
However, Garen Thal suggests that after the Spellplague, Faerie (aka the Feywild) has become more closely attached to Toril, and now Sehanine can manifest herself wholly in Toril without the aid of the three goddesses merging. However, Corellon's queen goes by the name of Angharradh in the Realms, as Selûne still has the Sehanine alias.
I like this explanation a lot because it explains why Angharradh is a separate deity now and does not need the 3 goddesses to combine anymore to manifest.
You can read Garen Thal's original post at this thread here over at Candlekeep: http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=11601
Garen Thal had a beautiful explanation that he proposed for what exactly Angharradh is. Essentially, he proposed that when Corellon interloped to Toril, Sehanine was unable or unwilling to crossover with him. Sehanine stayed in Faerie. When elves migrated to Toril, they gazed upon the moon and called her Sehanine, and Selûne began to answer their prayers in Sehanine's name.
-This, of course, is not what previous lore says. Previous lore, in Demihuman Deities, and Evermeet: Island of the Elves during the 2e era, as well as Faiths and Avatars in the 3e era, says quite clearly that Angharradh is Aerdrie Faenya, Hanali Celanil, and Sehanine Moonbow, not Akadi, Sune, and Sehanine Moonbow.
I have no explanation for Angharradh. The whole situation with her simultaneously being a singular being *and* a triune goddess always made my head hurt (and that was prior to 4E).
Well, quite understandable. If one looks into Greek, Roman, Germanic, or Celtic mythology, one does find multiple-gods and goddesses. The idea is not disimilar to venerating the Seldarine (instead of a specific deity) or the Sovereign Host of Eberron. Obviously, in a world with essentially just "one god" and dominated by monotheism, concepts of polytheism can hardly be explained suffciently enough for everyone. That said, one can hardly explain the existence of magic and what it is either.
As for Garen's explanation ... I for one would refrain from doing Wizards' work on here. They have got themselves into the mire, they should get out by themselves too.
Taking the Spellplague into account I would say that the three goddesses that made up Angharradh essentially split in half. Half of the divine essence that made them up returned to their parent aspect - in Sehanine's case this would be Selune. The other half of the divine essence would have merged with the unity deity known as Angharradh.
As far as I can tell this is the only explanation that bridges the old lore with the new lore, while forming a basis of plausibility. Ultimately, it comes down to aspects, what they are, how they work, and their limitations. If they work as I described them then it falls into the realm of plausibility.
-This, of course, is not what previous lore says. Previous lore, in Demihuman Deities, and Evermeet: Island of the Elves during the 2e era, as well as Faiths and Avatars in the 3e era, says quite clearly that Angharradh is Aerdrie Faenya, Hanali Celanil, and Sehanine Moonbow, not Akadi, Sune, and Sehanine Moonbow.
I see no conflict. It has been revealed that Aerdrie Faenya was Akadi. It was revealed that Hanali Celanil was Sune. So current lore does not conflict with the old lore, you simply did not understand the old lore in it's entirety.
Surely you can understand that sometimes the same god is worshiped by two different cultures under two different names. I can think of several real world examples: ie. Zeus/Jove/Jupiter, Hera/Juno, Venus/Aphrodite, Ares/Mars, Jehovah/Yaweh/Allah, Avalokiteśvara/Guan Yin/Chenrezig/Kannon.
Note that in the last example Kannon is female in Japan, but Avalokiteśvara is male in the Indian tradition, but they are different conceptions of the same divine being.
As for the gestalt deity Angharradh, Garen Thal's interpretation makes complete sense to me, I am not saying it is the only valid interpretation, but it answers all the questions.
As for separate and unified, I don't know of any instances in lore where Angarradh existed at the same time as the constituent goddesses, as far as I know they had to merge to become her and then separated to become themselves again. If you can point me to some instances when they were both around at the same time, then I could look at the specific circumstances and see if I can explain it to you further.
One thing I can speculate is that if Angharradh were around at the same time as any of her constituent goddesses were present, then I could surmise that they might have each created an avatar and merged the avatars together, that would explain it all very nicely. Or maybe they merged together and then Angharradh split off an avatar, and then the original goddess reverted back. Mechanics-wise, but I am sure there may be more than one theory that could explain all the facts.
I see no conflict. It has been revealed that Aerdrie Faenya was Akadi. It was revealed that Hanali Celanil was Sune. So current lore does not conflict with the old lore, you simply did not understand the old lore in it's entirety.
-The omniscient source states that it was Aerdrie Faenya, Hanali Celanil, and Sehanine Moonbow. The new omniscient source states that it was Akadi, Sune, and Selûne. There is a disconnect. Two omniscient sources saying two different things. The new information is not "revealing" information as it is changing information that is already established.
Surely you can understand that sometimes the same god is worshiped by two different cultures under two different names. I can think of several real world examples: ie. Zeus/Jove/Jupiter, Hera/Juno, Venus/Aphrodite, Ares/Mars, Jehovah/Yaweh/Allah, Avalokiteśvara/Guan Yin/Chenrezig/Kannon.
Note that in the last example Kannon is female in Japan, but Avalokiteśvara is male in the Indian tradition, but they are different conceptions of the same divine being.
-This does not work, as a comparison. We, on Earth, do not have the ability to know objectively and absolutely what deities, if any, exist within the universe. Concerning the Forgotten Realms, due to the omniscient third-person point-of-view narrator of 3e sources, we did have completely objective and absolute knowledge of what deities exist within the universe.
As for separate and unified, I don't know of any instances in lore where Angarradh existed at the same time as the constituent goddesses, as far as I know they had to merge to become her and then separated to become themselves again. If you can point me to some instances when they were both around at the same time, then I could look at the specific circumstances and see if I can explain it to you further.
-None exist. The only major source we have that depicted Angherradh in "novel format" was Evermeet: Island of the Elves, and in said novel, the three goddess' merge into Angherradh, causing Aerdrie Faenya, Hanali Celanil and Sehanine Moonbow to temporarily cease to exist as independent entities.
Jehovah/Yaweh
I'd like to point out that both of these are actually just really crappy transliterations of the original Hebrew and not actually two distinct names.
On topic - I agree with LK on this one. We don't need to have faith or guess or have doubts when it comes to the Realms. We know that the gods and goddesses exist, what they do, with whom they are sleeping, and where dead souls go.
-The omniscient source states that it was Aerdrie Faenya, Hanali Celanil, and Sehanine Moonbow.
Yes.
The new omniscient source states that it was Akadi, Sune, and Selûne.
Yes.
There is a disconnect.
No. Both sources are correct. Sune=Hanali, Aerdrie=Akadi, and Selûne=Sehanine. Same 3 gods, each has 2 names. I believe in math and logic this would be an example of the "transitive property of equality" where if a=b and b=c then a=c. QED
Two omniscient sources saying two different things. The new information is not "revealing" information as it is changing information that is already established.
That doesn't follow. Look, if I told you that Huckleberry Finn was written by Mark Twain, and Tom Sawyer was written by Samuel Clemens, and then I told you Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer were written by the same author, would you insist that I was mistaken? That there was some kind of disconnect? And then if I were to reveal to you that Mark Twain was a pseudonym for Sam Clemens, would you then say I was changing previously established facts? You have not made a good case for why both sources cannot be true. There is no conflict.
Look, the Realms is not some precious little keepsake that we shellac and place high upon a shelf, to be preserved, unalterable, never to be taken down and played with. It is a living setting with authors continuously writing new lore. Some lore will elaborate upon older lore and reveal new insights and new facets to the Realms which may change our perspective and cause us to understand the previous lore in a new way. That doesn't make the new lore incorrect, or even contradictory to the old lore.
My philosophy is one of "strict constructionism" I start with the assumption that all published lore is true, "canon" if you will. Even if new lore seems contradictory to established lore, there may be a way to interpret the new information so that both the prior lore and the new lore are both true. That is what I attempt every time.
I have a lot of fun trying to find those difficult but elegant explanations that can make everything mesh. As a creative person I like the challenge of using my imagination in that way, to think my way out of a corner I seem to have gotten painted into. And I believe that most Realms enthusiastes are imaginative folks who like to do that too.
This does not work, as a comparison. We, on Earth, do not have the ability to know objectively and absolutely what deities, if any, exist within the universe.
Neither do the inhabitants of the Realms, as Ed Greenwood has often said. Faerûnians never know the whole truth about their gods, they just know what they have been told from one source or another, and that information is frequently wrong, misleading or incomplete.
Concerning the Forgotten Realms, due to the omniscient third-person point-of-view narrator of 3e sources, we did have completely objective and absolute knowledge of what deities exist within the universe.
No. Not absolute. Our knowledge of the Realms is never absolute, there are always lots of details left out, and the new lore helps fill in the gaps in our knowledge.
The only major source we have that depicted Angherradh in "novel format" was Evermeet: Island of the Elves, and in said novel, the three goddess' merge into Angherradh, causing Aerdrie Faenya, Hanali Celanil and Sehanine Moonbow to temporarily cease to exist as independent entities.
Well, there you go then. The three goddesses merged to form the gestalt entity Angharradh, and then when they separated, Angharradh got swapped out and the three of them came back. Kind of like Billy Batson and Captain Marvel, or the Hulk and Bruce Banner, or the Demon Etrigan and Jason Blood, etc.
Come to think of it, Firestorm is a further example of a true gestalt entity, a nuclear man formed from the merged consciousness of Ronnie Raymond and Martin Stein, also, I believe, Inza and Kent Nelson combined to form Dr. Fate, another gestalt entity, and Nabu the lord of order may have been mixed in there somewhere too if I recall. I hope these examples are helpful for explaining the gestalt entity concept, probably not so much if you are not familiar with DC comics...
Lastly, Garen Thal's explanation works very well with that info. Prior to the Spellplague, the three goddesses would combine to form the Angharradh entity. But after the Spellplague, Faerie is more closely aligned to Faerûn and so the interloper Sehanine can now manifest directly in Realmspace and does so using the Angharradh persona, leaving the other 3 goddesses free to go off and do whatever they want to do. Sehanine, however, does not use the Sehanine name in Realmspace as that alias is taken by Selûne, so she goes by Angharradh instead.
How could Auril have defeated and killed Aerdrie Faenya and taken the Winged Mother's floating palace (as stated in the web article) if Aerdrie Faenya was Akadi (who is still around)?
Well, in a simple manner...Auril has always been more powerful than AKadi
-First Akadi isn't a real god...therefore she has very few god allies unlike Auril who has Umberlee, Talos, Malar etc.
-Auril, even though she was weakened by Talos has her powers coming from non-other than Ulutiu himself
-Akadi has a bit of a sedentary lifestyle compared to Auril
Well, in a simple manner...Auril has always been more powerful than Akadi
Not by what we know so far.
Auril - Lesser Power of Pandemonium (F&A), Lesser Faerûnian Deity of Fury's Heart (F&P)
Akadi - Greater Power of the Elemental Plane of Air (F&A), Greater Faerûnian Deity of the Elemental Plane of Air (F&P)
If anything, Auril got a decent enough boost when she took some of Talos' "power" ... but still, IMHO Akadi's demise came at the hands of the deus-ex-machina - quill of a WotC designer.
why did i even read this, i gave up trying to understand all this mess and just use my own versions, and moradin can ban-hammer the issue for all i care.
Very destructive ways ;) .
Both sources are correct. Sune=Hanali, Aerdrie=Akadi, and Selûne=Sehanine. Same 3 gods, each has 2 names. I believe in math and logic this would be an example of the "transitive property of equality" where if a=b and b=c then a=c. QED
-Aerdrie Faenya, Hanali Celanil and Sehanine Moonbow cannot be the same entities as Akadi/Auril, Sune and Selûne, respectively, but this is an entire separate argument completely, and is tangental to the current debate. The omniscient source of 3e (and the unsubstantiated voice of 2e products) state that Aerdrie Faenya, Hanali Celanil and Sehanine Moonbow combined to form Angherradh. Not Akadi/Auril, Sune and Selûne. If one wants to accept the flawed premise that the various deities are all one in the same, sense can be made from the situation. But, as I, and many others are doing, noting the flaws in the claim made that the aforementioned Elven deities are the aforementioned non-Elven deities, there appears a disconnect that cannot be patched, currently, with the information we have available to us here.
That doesn't follow. Look, if I told you that Huckleberry Finn was written by Mark Twain, and Tom Sawyer was written by Samuel Clemens, and then I told you Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer were written by the same author, would you insist that I was mistaken? That there was some kind of disconnect? And then if I were to reveal to you that Mark Twain was a pseudonym for Sam Clemens, would you then say I was changing previously established facts? You have not made a good case for why both sources cannot be true. There is no conflict.
-And, when we have evidence that Mr. Twain and Mr. Clemens have been seen separately, or don't look alike, or have separate ages, or whatever else? That is, that Mr. Twain has blonde hair and blue eyes, and lives in Cleveland, and that Mr. Clemens has brown hair and brown eyes, and lives in Houston? Because, we have a lot of evidence that Ms. Aerdrie Faenya and Ms. Akadi have been seen separately, or that Ms. Hanali Celanil and Ms. Sune were actually next door neighbors, or that Ms. Sehanine Moonbow is actually from out-of-state, while Ms. Selûne was born and raised here...
Look, the Realms is not some precious little keepsake that we shellac and place high upon a shelf, to be preserved, unalterable, never to be taken down and played with. It is a living setting with authors continuously writing new lore. Some lore will elaborate upon older lore and reveal new insights and new facets to the Realms which may change our perspective and cause us to understand the previous lore in a new way. That doesn't make the new lore incorrect, or even contradictory to the old lore.
-Except, of course, when new lore is contradictory to old lore. Rectify how, in Faiths and Pantheons, it says that Aerdrie Faenya is an Elven deity with XYZ statistics, and Akadi is a Human deity with ABC statistics, the two not connected in any way, both divine and separate beings in their own right, this can be.
My philosophy is one of "strict constructionism" I start with the assumption that all published lore is true, "canon" if you will. Even if new lore seems contradictory to established lore, there may be a way to interpret the new information so that both the prior lore and the new lore are both true. That is what I attempt every time.
I have a lot of fun trying to find those difficult but elegant explanations that can make everything mesh. As a creative person I like the challenge of using my imagination in that way, to think my way out of a corner I seem to have gotten painted into. And I believe that most Realms enthusiastes are imaginative folks who like to do that too.
-Which doesn't have a bearing on the argument, appealing to the sense that, we fans are a creative lot, and can and should think of various ways to smooth the rough edges created by inconsistencies, gaffes, and other no-prize worthy things. When 'A' says one thing, and 'B' says another, it shouldn't be "up to"- for a lack of better words- me, you, them, us, to finagle things to allow everything to make sense. 'A' and 'B' should make full sense to begin with, in relation to each other. These inconsistencies, gaffes and other no-prize worthy things should not appear, to begin with.
Neither do the inhabitants of the Realms, as Ed Greenwood has often said. Faerûnians never know the whole truth about their gods, they just know what they have been told from one source or another, and that information is frequently wrong, misleading or incomplete.No. Not absolute. Our knowledge of the Realms is never absolute, there are always lots of details left out, and the new lore helps fill in the gaps in our knowledge.
-What the people of Faerûn know, or think they know, does not matter in this debate. We know the truth about deities and demideities, and plots, and nations, and everything else there is to debate and talk about related to the setting, via the omniscient narrator of 3e. You can bring up the trope, "Oh, well, everything that Elminster gave Ed Greenwood is just based on Elminster's own biases, so we don't know the truth", or whatever else, but that is no longer applicable, with WotC changing the style of authorship to the omniscient, third-person point of view narrator. Said narrator doesn't lie. Said narrator doesn't have biases. Said narrator doesn't exist as an individual, as an entity. Books with this narrator state the facts, as are, absolutely.
Well, there you go then. The three goddesses merged to form the gestalt entity Angharradh, and then when they separated, Angharradh got swapped out and the three of them came back. Kind of like Billy Batson and Captain Marvel, or the Hulk and Bruce Banner, or the Demon Etrigan and Jason Blood, etc.
-This was never a problem (how Angherradh was formed, to begin with). Well, for some it was, but the concept has always been explained.
Not by what we know so far.
Auril - Lesser Power of Pandemonium (F&A), Lesser Faerûnian Deity of Fury's Heart (F&P)
Akadi - Greater Power of the Elemental Plane of Air (F&A), Greater Faerûnian Deity of the Elemental Plane of Air (F&P)
If anything, Auril got a decent enough boost when she took some of Talos' "power" ... but still, IMHO Akadi's demise came at the hands of the deus-ex-machina - quill of a WotC designer.
It could be possible that Talos and Shar aided Auril in defeating Akadi.
It could be possible that Talos and Shar aided Auril in defeating Akadi.
No doubt about that. 100 other explanations spring to mind too. IMHO best to ignore them all and keep what we have rather than endure the mumbo-jumbo of the post-Spellplague Realms.
-Aerdrie Faenya, Hanali Celanil and Sehanine Moonbow cannot be the same entities as Akadi/Auril, Sune and Selûne, respectively
False, an "omniscient" source says they are, so they must be so by your own definition. Your failure to accept this fact indicates a flawed or incomplete understanding on your part.
If one wants to accept the flawed premise that the various deities are all one in the same, sense can be made from the situation.
Look, it's canon, so the premise is not flawed, it is automatically correct. Ergo it's true that those deities have multiple aliases/aspects/names. It makes perfect sense to me. That it does not make sense to you indicates only that you have not understood it properly. The authors have told you the correct answer, but they have not shown you their work, and you are having difficulty replicating the steps to make your own math come out to the same answer. You just need to think a little harder to find the correct formula to make it work for you.
But, as I, and many others are doing, noting the flaws in the claim made that the aforementioned Elven deities are the aforementioned non-Elven deities, there appears a disconnect that cannot be patched, currently, with the information we have available to us here.
You say "flaws" I say "seeming incongruities." You don't "get it" so you reject the premise. It's like Aesop's fox who can't jump high enough to reach the grapes, so he says they must be sour and he didn't want them anyway. Don't be the poor fox. Keep jumping for the grapes. ;)
And, when we have evidence that Mr. Twain and Mr. Clemens have been seen separately, or don't look alike, or have separate ages, or whatever else? That is, that Mr. Twain has blonde hair and blue eyes, and lives in Cleveland, and that Mr. Clemens has brown hair and brown eyes, and lives in Houston? Because, we have a lot of evidence that Ms. Aerdrie Faenya and Ms. Akadi have been seen separately, or that Ms. Hanali Celanil and Ms. Sune were actually next door neighbors, or that Ms. Sehanine Moonbow is actually from out-of-state, while Ms. Selûne was born and raised here...
Your argument is a little silly, but I will endeavor to give you a serious answer: The mechanics are explicit that gods can create avatars. These avatars can look however the god wants. A god can be two or more places at the same time and change appearance (even gender) at will. That explains how Selûne and Sehanine could be seen in different places simultaneously, or even stand next to each other. Someone who didn't know the "secret" would be clueless that the two were actually the same god.
Rectify how, in Faiths and Pantheons, it says that Aerdrie Faenya is an Elven deity with XYZ statistics, and Akadi is a Human deity with ABC statistics, the two not connected in any way
That's an easy one: the stats in Faiths & Pantheons are for avatars. Not for the gods themselves.
Which doesn't have a bearing on the argument, appealing to the sense that, we fans are a creative lot, and can and should think of various ways to smooth the rough edges created by inconsistencies, gaffes, and other no-prize worthy things. When 'A' says one thing, and 'B' says another, it shouldn't be "up to"- for a lack of better words- me, you, them, us, to finagle things to allow everything to make sense. 'A' and 'B' should make full sense to begin with, in relation to each other. These inconsistencies, gaffes and other no-prize worthy things should not appear, to begin with.
That's just pure intellectual laziness on your part. WotC has no obligation to you to explain every little thing. You are looking so very hard to find these conflicts, why not put a little effort into figuring them out?
Not every book is written at the same reading level, and you shouldn't fault an author for writing above your grade. In such situations it behooves one to plow on and strive to be worthy of the material, or else choose to read something else more suited to your level.
Gene Wolfe, for example, writes some amazing short stories that are hard to understand on first reading, the endings are often complex and confusing. But when I go back and read them again, I find that all the clues are there, sometimes in the smallest detail mentioned in the first paragraph, and suddenly the ending becomes clear and wonderful. He is a genius author in that way. It would be unfair to dismiss him as a bad writer when one has not fully grasped and understood the story and pieced together the mystery.
Likewise, when you see a movie with a complex plot that requires a little thought to figure out, do you get upset that the director didn't spell things out more simply for you? Or do you relish the challenge of figuring it all out for yourself? Would you have Stanley Kubrick simplify 2001? Would you ask Brian Singer to spell out the Usual Suspects for you? Not everyone likes a movie that requires a little thought, but such films reward richly a thoughtful viewer.
I for one like a good puzzle. And I enjoy all the little "seeming incongruities" that new lore can sometimes create. Because sometimes the most interesting stories and lore can arise from working out the explanations.
What the people of Faerûn know, or think they know, does not matter in this debate.
Sure it does! ;)
We know the truth about deities and demideities, and plots, and nations, and everything else there is to debate and talk about related to the setting, via the omniscient narrator of 3e.
False! Ed Greenwood has said that we can never know the whole truth about gods. If Ed said it, then that's good enough for me. ;)
You can bring up the trope, "Oh, well, everything that Elminster gave Ed Greenwood is just based on Elminster's own biases, so we don't know the truth"
I hadn't brought it up, but you do raise a good point.;)
with WotC changing the style of authorship to the omniscient, third-person point of view narrator.
Sounds like your real problem is with WotC's editorial approach, not the lore.
Said narrator doesn't lie. Said narrator doesn't have biases. Said narrator doesn't exist as an individual, as an entity. Books with this narrator state the facts, as are, absolutely.
Where does it say that? Sounds like you are revealing your own bias. You have not substantiated your premise, so I can't really accept your characterization of their editorial intent or your conclusions about the lore.
Look, I see no point in "fault finding" for its own sake. If you are going to point out an inconsistency, it should be for the fun of trying to figure it out or ask for help in figuring it out. Otherwise it just sounds like you are trying to prove yourself smarter than WotC by identifying "flaws" and laying into WotC for making changes that you don't care for. Constructive criticism is all about offering solutions with the critiques. ;)
Look, it's canon, so the premise is not flawed, it is automatically correct.
-Canon is not always correct, which is where many problems stem from. To use a quick example, the canon source Netheril: Empire of Magic, states that, at a time roughly corresponding with Karsus' Folly, the City of Shade was pulled into a misty, shadowy dimension. In the short story "Too Long in the Dark", in the canon source Realms of Shadow, the scene of the enclave falling ends with the Weave being restored, but Lord Shadow and the other Princes continuing to take the Shade Enclave into the Plane of Shadows. And, finally, in the canon source Lords of Darkness says that, on the eve of the event, Lord Shadow had the enclave teleported, returned a few weeks later, saw the destruction of Netheril, and went back to the Plane of Shadows until 1,372 DR. Three different canon sources, two (more or less) different answers. One says around the time of Karsus' Folly, one substantiates that, more or less, saying during Karsus' Folly, and one says right before Karsus' Folly. All three are canon, and they present two (more or less) depictions of what happened. Both cannot be right. One has to be wrong. Thus, either the Shade Enclave was teleported into the Plane of Shadows during Karsus' Folly, and the Lords of Darkness source is incorrect, or the Shade Enclave was teleported into the Plane of Shadows right before Karsus' Folly, then returned afterwards, and left for good, returning in 1,372 DR, and the Netheril: Empire of Magic and Realms of Shadow sources are incorrect. It is impossible for the Shade Enclave to have teleported into the Plane of Shadows on the eve of the event, and then have it teleport to the Plane of Shadows during the event.
Your argument is a little silly, but I will endeavor to give you a serious answer: The mechanics are explicit that gods can create avatars. These avatars can look however the god wants. A god can be two or more places at the same time and change appearance (even gender) at will. That explains how Selûne and Sehanine could be seen in different places simultaneously, or even stand next to each other. Someone who didn't know the "secret" would be clueless that the two were actually the same god.
-This argument doesn't answer any of the issues. Canon (which, according to you, above, cannot be incorrect) directly states that Aerdrie Faenya, Hanali Celanil and Sehanine Moonbow are deities in Realmspace. Faiths and Pantheons says, specifically, that Aerdrie Faenya is an 'Intermediate Elven Deity'. Faiths and Pantheons says, specifically, that Hanali Celanil is an 'Intermediate Elven Deity'. Faiths and Pantheons says, specifically, that Sehanine Moonbow is an 'Intermediate Elven Deity'. It states that Aerdrie Faenya has X qualities, that Hanali Celanil has a Divine Realm here, and that Sehanine Moonbow uses Y weapon. Now, the new FRCG, also canon, says that the above entities aren't deities, never were. So, we have one canon source saying one thing, and another canon source saying another. One set of information is over here, and the other set of information is over here. They should line up, but instead, they aren't meeting, and are running slightly parallel to each other.
False! Ed Greenwood has said that we can never know the whole truth about gods. If Ed said it, then that's good enough for me. ;)
-What Ed Greenwood says, on this, does not matter. When the method of presenting information was changed from the unreliable narrator in 1e and 2e, to the omniscient narrator in 3e and 4e, the entire schpiel about information not being reliable went out the window.
Where does it say that? Sounds like you are revealing your own bias. You have not substantiated your premise, so I can't really accept your characterization of their editorial intent or your conclusions about the lore.
-The definition of omniscient: Having total knowledge; knowing everything (merican Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006). An omniscient narrator does not exist, as the narrators of 1e and 2e did. Omniscient narrators do not have biases, do not alter information to suit their tastes, do not lie about things. The lack of a personality results in only factual information being presented, without bias.
That's just pure intellectual laziness on your part. WotC has no obligation to you to explain every little thing. You are looking so very hard to find these conflicts, why not put a little effort into figuring them out?
Not every book is written at the same reading level, and you shouldn't fault an author for writing above your grade. In such situations it behooves one to plow on and strive to be worthy of the material, or else choose to read something else more suited to your level.
Gene Wolfe, for example, writes some amazing short stories that are hard to understand on first reading, the endings are often complex and confusing. But when I go back and read them again, I find that all the clues are there, sometimes in the smallest detail mentioned in the first paragraph, and suddenly the ending becomes clear and wonderful. He is a genius author in that way. It would be unfair to dismiss him as a bad writer when one has not fully grasped and understood the story and pieced together the mystery.
Likewise, when you see a movie with a complex plot that requires a little thought to figure out, do you get upset that the director didn't spell things out more simply for you? Or do you relish the challenge of figuring it all out for yourself? Would you have Stanley Kubrick simplify 2001? Would you ask Brian Singer to spell out the Usual Suspects for you? Not everyone likes a movie that requires a little thought, but such films reward richly a thoughtful viewer.
I for one like a good puzzle. And I enjoy all the little "seeming incongruities" that new lore can sometimes create. Because sometimes the most interesting stories and lore can arise from working out the explanations.
...
Look, I see no point in "fault finding" for its own sake. If you are going to point out an inconsistency, it should be for the fun of trying to figure it out or ask for help in figuring it out. Otherwise it just sounds like you are trying to prove yourself smarter than WotC by identifying "flaws" and laying into WotC for making changes that you don't care for. Constructive criticism is all about offering solutions with the critiques. ;)
-And, again, you are appealing to the sense that, as fans we can and should think of our own solutions. That we do or do not has no bearing on the debate at hand. Whether we attempt to finagle things into bearing however much sense we want/need or not, gaffes, incongruities, and other holes in lore exist. That we attempt to resolve them on our own doesn't make them go away. I can make up a story explaining why, in one panel, Spider-Man has a broken left arm, and then, in another, he has a broken right arm, but at the end of the day, that doesn't make the fact that someone made a boo-boo, by drawing/saying/whatever that Spider-Man had a broken left arm in one panel, and a broken right arm in another.
Otherwise it just sounds like you are trying to prove yourself smarter than WotC by identifying "flaws" and laying into WotC for making changes that you don't care for.
That's ridiculous--I'm pretty sure you can make your point without resorting to statements like that. I know LK personally and can't imagine that he'd endeavor to prove himself "smarter" than a company (a non-sentient entity).
Certain gods being "aspects" of Greater gods is a retcon. It is a very obvious retcon. It is now canon (see my sig for what I think of canon) and that is that for some folks. Others can just choose to ignore it, others can work around it or use it. I may ignore it if it affects a game I run or a game I am playing in. I am fine with it as whole though.
Two words....... Time Share!
Timeshare is also often referred to as "Vacation Ownership." No matter what words are used to describe it, timeshare is a great way to "own your vacation." Millions of Dieties have discovered that a timeshare can give them the freedom and flexibility to enjoy exotic locations, historical landmarks and outdoor activities like floods and plagues. Timeshare also allows Dieties to record lifetimes of memories year after year because they own their vacations and have locked in lodging costs that are not impacted by inflation.
Imagine taking your petitioners on a dream vacation to a tropical island while stretching out in a three billion-bedroom palace. Now imagine traveling with your best friends on a sabatical to the House of the Triad or the Abyss while staying in a medieval castle. A timeshare can make it happen. Today, 9,000,000 timeshare owners now have access to over 5,500 resorts in 95 planes of existance. That's a lot of choices and it's one of the reasons why timeshares have become so popular.
And if you own your own plane, why not make your investment work for you?
Gray is right that many people like finding fault but they don't seem too quick to try and find a way to "fix" what they find faulty.
That's probably true. Good thing this is a just a game/fictional setting, and the lives of real people aren't at stake.
I'm have no investment in this debate, though I think this is a case in which both sides would be best off agreeing on disagreeing. My issue with most of the changes isn't simply whether or not they make sense, but whether or not I like them. If I dislike a change (be it a retcon or merely a "new revelation"), I do the easiest thing and simply choose not to use it, or I tweak it a bit. Again, it's not like someone's life or livelihood is depending on whether or not I can make sense of how Aerdrie Faenya was really Akadi and was defeated by Auril, but certain aspects of her still exist, etc.
All three are canon, and they present two (more or less) depictions of what happened. Both cannot be right. One has to be wrong.
I don't necessarily buy your argument, perhaps you haven't thought hard enough of an explanation that accounts for all the statements. However, Realms editors and authors have long promulgated a rule of interpretation that when Realms lore conflicts, the newer lore trumps the older lore.
It is impossible for the Shade Enclave to have teleported into the Plane of Shadows on the eve of the event, and then have it teleport to the Plane of Shadows during the event.
`I ca'n't believe that!' said Alice.
`Ca'n't you?' the Queen said in a pitying tone. `Try again: draw a long breath, and shut your eyes.'
Alice laughed. `There's no use trying,' she said `one can't believe impossible things.'
`I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. `When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.' ;)
Canon (which, according to you, above, cannot be incorrect) directly states that Aerdrie Faenya, Hanali Celanil and Sehanine Moonbow are deities in Realmspace. Faiths and Pantheons says, specifically, that Aerdrie Faenya is an 'Intermediate Elven Deity'. Faiths and Pantheons says, specifically, that Hanali Celanil is an 'Intermediate Elven Deity'. Faiths and Pantheons says, specifically, that Sehanine Moonbow is an 'Intermediate Elven Deity'. It states that Aerdrie Faenya has X qualities, that Hanali Celanil has a Divine Realm here, and that Sehanine Moonbow uses Y weapon. Now, the new FRCG, also canon, says that the above entities aren't deities, never were. So, we have one canon source saying one thing, and another canon source saying another.
I see no conflict. The elves worshiped these gods under different names and conceptions. Akadi appeared a certain way to the elves and they called her Aerdrie and believed she had x qualities, and so she did to them. Same with Sune and Selûne.
Heck, this is nothing new, in 2nd edition it states that Akadi is worshiped under the name of Teylas in the Hordelands. The Teylas aspect is male, by the way. The Realms has always had gods that were worshiped in different guises and names by different populations. There are plenty of precedents for this! For instance, Earthmother in the Moonshaes is/was actually an aspect (or fragment) of Chauntea (aka Jannath). Amaunator and Lathander are the same god. Asgorath is a female incarnation of Io, and so on. To each culture the gods they worshiped appeared a certain way and had certain qualities. There really is no conflict, the new lore is just revealing information that was not evident from the old lore.
Your concept of the gods is Newtonian. You need to adopt a "quantum" paradigm of divinity. Gods may be perceived as discreet quanta but they propagate as waves. Gods are more like memes than physical beings. They are what people believe them to be. The myths that people tell of them can alter their appearance and their personal history. As popular conceptions of gods change, so too do the gods. Gods are like amoebas, they can split as if through meiosis or mitosis and they can reabsorb their fragments even consume other gods and take those into themselves. Then again, gods are like MPD, adopting one persona to service one population, and a different alter for a different group. Sometimes the alters reintegrate, sometimes they fragment off into distinct and separate entities. Or maybe no one theory can encompass a god. As Ed Greenwood has said: "mortals (PCs) just can never know the truth about divine matters; even the gods lie and distort, and their priesthoods certainly do. So knowing exactly when the Dawn Cataclysm happened, or if Mask is a more effective liar than Leira was, isn’t really of much practical use to a Player Character.
I’ve spoken about this here at Candlekeep before. Simply put, we can never know the truth about the doings of the gods (unless I’m writing about it, of course [Insert Big Cheesy Grin])."
When the method of presenting information was changed from the unreliable narrator in 1e and 2e, to the omniscient narrator in 3e and 4e, the entire schpiel about information not being reliable went out the window.
The definition of omniscient: Having total knowledge; knowing everything (merican Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006). An omniscient narrator does not exist, as the narrators of 1e and 2e did. Omniscient narrators do not have biases, do not alter information to suit their tastes, do not lie about things. The lack of a personality results in only factual information being presented, without bias.
Well, here's the thing, WotC has never said their narrative voice is "omniscient". That is a label that you have ascribed to it, and I don't agree that it applies. I think it is something you heard about in English class one time and are endeavoring to hold WotC up to some set of standards you found in your class notes. I would hazard a guess that WotC would take the opposite view, that their "narrator" definitely does not know everything, but rather is conveying the information that it is important for getting the reader up and running so he can play in the Realms.
Even if (for the sake of argument) we were to buy your premise that the narrator is "all-knowing", it still gives you no grounds to make the statement that the narrator has no bias, doesn't lie, or does not alter info to suit his (its?) tastes. I am not aware of any "Omniscient Narrator's Code of Ethics" that requires them to adhere to such regulations. I can think of all sorts of reasons one might be motivated to do any one of those things. I would also posit that such a narrator could be fallible, might be inclined to reveal only partial truths (for sake of convenience or expedience) or even keep secrets, due to it not being the right time to reveal such information. Such a narrator might even be encumbered by dreaded NDA's. ;) Despite your assertions and the change in editorial style, there is no reason to believe the narrator of 3rd and 4th edition FR is any more reliable than narrators of previous editions.
But ultimately I just want to make the point that the published material is our touchstone for the Realms. What is printed is official, its canon. Once people start rejecting this source or that, or saying that something couldn't have happened a certain way, then they are no longer talking about the "Realms" but some sort of parallel, alternate reality homebrew Realms. Which is fine--anyone can change up their Realms however they want--but it is not the canon Realms at that point. To my mind the printed Realms is gospel.
That is both the fun and the drawback to playing in a shared universe. But that's okay, I enjoy sharing the sandbox with others. ;)
I don't necessarily buy your argument, perhaps you haven't thought hard enough of an explanation that accounts for all the statements. However, Realms editors and authors have long promulgated a rule of interpretation that when Realms lore conflicts, the newer lore trumps the older lore.
-Again, one need not need to think of a possible solution to rectify continuity gaffes for them to be valid. That said, yes, the rule of thumb is that the new overrules the old. That said, however: You cannot just "reset" reality (well, obviously, as we see here, with these cases, you can, but...), and have a smooth transition. Information in N:EoM was written with the idea that the Shade Enclave teleported away roughly when Karsus' Folly took place. When spinning and creating new lore, information stemming from Lord of Darkness took that version of the events into account, and information stemming from Realms of Shadow took that version into account.
I ca'n't believe that!' said Alice.
`Ca'n't you?' the Queen said in a pitying tone. `Try again: draw a long breath, and shut your eyes.'
Alice laughed. `There's no use trying,' she said `one can't believe impossible things.'
`I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. `When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.' ;)
-Which does not address the point. The Shade Enclave can not have teleported before the event, and have been gone, and teleported during the event.
I see no conflict.
-These previous sources directly state that these entities, Aerdrie Faenya, Hanali Celanil and Sehanine Moonbow are deities. New sources directly state that these entities are not deities.
Heck, this is nothing new, in 2nd edition it states that Akadi is worshiped under the name of Teylas in the Hordelands. The Teylas aspect is male, by the way. The Realms has always had gods that were worshiped in different guises and names by different populations. There are plenty of precedents for this! For instance, Earthmother in the Moonshaes is/was actually an aspect (or fragment) of Chauntea (aka Jannath). Amaunator and Lathander are the same god. Asgorath is a female incarnation of Io, and so on. To each culture the gods they worshiped appeared a certain way and had certain qualities. There really is no conflict, the new lore is just revealing information that was not evident from the old lore.
-You are talking oranges when I am talking apples. I am aware of what you mentioned, and none of those examples have any impact on my argument. Teylas, Akadi's Tuigan aspect, was never stated to be a deity. Teylas, in the Horde books, from the start, we were told, was an aspect of Akadi. The Tuigan believe Teylas to be a deity, but as I said earlier, what Faerûnians think does not matter to our discussion, being as that we have absolute facts to discuss, while they do not. (ie, Yamun Khan did not have a book that told him that the Teylas that empowered him was actually Akadi, being as that Teylas was a fictional aspect created by the Tuigan).
As Ed Greenwood has said: "mortals (PCs) just can never know the truth about divine matters; even the gods lie and distort, and their priesthoods certainly do. So knowing exactly when the Dawn Cataclysm happened, or if Mask is a more effective liar than Leira was, isn’t really of much practical use to a Player Character.
-All of which is on the "in character" level, while we're discussing on the "meta character" level.
[/i]Well, here's the thing, WotC has never said their narrative voice is "omniscient". That is a label that you have ascribed to it, and I don't agree that it applies. I think it is something you heard about in English class one time and are endeavoring to hold WotC up to some set of standards you found in your class notes. I would hazard a guess that WotC would take the opposite view, that their "narrator" definitely does not know everything, but rather is conveying the information that it is important for getting the reader up and running so he can play in the Realms.
Even if (for the sake of argument) we were to buy your premise that the narrator is "all-knowing", it still gives you no grounds to make the statement that the narrator has no bias, doesn't lie, or does not alter info to suit his (its?) tastes. I am not aware of any "Omniscient Narrator's Code of Ethics" that requires them to adhere to such regulations. I can think of all sorts of reasons one might be motivated to do any one of those things. I would also posit that such a narrator could be fallible, might be inclined to reveal only partial truths (for sake of convenience or expedience) or even keep secrets, due to it not being the right time to reveal such information. Such a narrator might even be encumbered by dreaded NDA's. ;)
-The omniscient narrator is a lack of a narrator. We are presented the information from the third person point of view as is, and that is all. There is no one to lie about information, because there is no physical, actual person telling us this information. There is no one to slant information, there is no physical, actual person telling us this information. There is no one to edit information, because there is no physical, actual person telling us this information. There is no one to keep secrets, because there is no physical, actual person telling us this information.
The Shade Enclave can not have teleported before the event, and have been gone, and teleported during the event.
Ah, but it can. This seems to be hurting your brain. You might want to sleep on it, and come back to it with a fresh perspective. I am sure you can figure it out if you put your mind to it. I have faith in you. ;)
These previous sources directly state that these entities, Aerdrie Faenya, Hanali Celanil and Sehanine Moonbow are deities. New sources directly state that these entities are not deities.
You should probably cite some direct quotes from an official source, I am not sure the actual words employed by WotC state the facts in the way that you think. I believe you will find that WotC says those gods were "revealed" to be these other gods. The distinction is that they always existed, just had secret lives using other names.
For instance, if both our dads were traveling salesmen, gone from home a lot, and as we got to know each other we told stories about our dads and shared pictures of them, only to find out that our two dads were the same guy, it would not mean that your dad had never existed. It would not mean that my memories and knowledge of him were any less valid than yours. The new information does not invalidate what went before.
Teylas, Akadi's Tuigan aspect, was never stated to be a deity. Teylas, in the Horde books, from the start, we were told, was an aspect of Akadi.
Or is Akadi an aspect of Teylas? The actual words from Faiths & Avatars are: "Akadi is known as Teylas in the Hordelands, a god of the Elemental Plane of Air. The distinction between a female and male form of the Lady of the Winds makes no difference to the faith." Thus we see that Akadi IS Teylas, and Teylas IS Akadi. These aspects share a singular godhead that has multiple manifestations, including Aerdrie Faenya.[/i]
what Faerûnians think does not matter to our discussion, being as that we have absolute facts to discuss, while they do not. (ie, Yamun Khan did not have a book that told him that the Teylas that empowered him was actually Akadi, being as that Teylas was a fictional aspect created by the Tuigan).
"Absolute"? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Why do you think you have better knowledge than the Tuigans? Who is to say that their conception of Teylas is not the correct one? Why do you believe "Akadi" is the primary personality and Teylas the aspect?
Myself, I take an Einsteinian approach, I believe there is no superior or "absolute" reference point when it comes to the gods. Every believer's conception of their god is equally valid. Multiple similar conceptions tend to force gods into aspects for a given population of worshipers by weight of consensual belief.
This is what I meant when I said that like photons, gods are perceived as discreet quanta but propagate as waves. Akadi is a waveform that is perceived by different observers as certain fixed personas, but all are encompassed within the deity of Air. The elves are not wrong in the way that they see her as Aerdrie. Neither are human Faerûnians wrong to call her Akadi, nor are the Tuigans wrong to see him as Teylas. Akadi is legion. Akadi contains multitudes. And it would be misguided in my opinion to try and claim that one aspect is prime over all the others.
The omniscient narrator is a lack of a narrator.
Okay, but does it necessarily follow that a lack of narrator implies omniscience?
We are presented the information from the third person point of view as is, and that is all.
Okay, with you so far...
There is no one to lie about information, because there is no physical, actual person telling us this information.
You have neglected the comprehensive list of authors and editors on the title page...
There is no one to slant information, there is no physical, actual person telling us this information. There is no one to edit information, because there is no physical, actual person telling us this information. There is no one to keep secrets, because there is no physical, actual person telling us this information.
Okay, this I think is where your argument breaks down: you are trying to apply literary theory to extrapolate objective facts based on WotC's choice of style of writing. Aside from the Rube Goldbergian concatenation of logic that it takes to link choice of narrative mode as definitive in factual matters pertaining to elven deities, your understanding of narrative voice is just plain wrong.
Third person narrative mode does not automatically imply omniscient narrator. There are at least three, if not more, types of third person point of view, including third person subjective (which may or may not be a character in a story describing what happened to others) which can definitely be unreliable. Then there is third person objective, which is journalistic in style, reporting the facts as known to the narrator (whether named or unnamed) who does not necessarily ever refer to himself or include himself as a character in the retelling. Lastly there is third person omniscient, which, although all-knowing, can still pass judgment or offer opinions on characters or events, and most importantly (according to Wikipedia) "the reliability and impartiality of the [third person omniscient] narrator may in fact be as suspect as in the third person limited."
I submit that the narrative style of WotC falls more into the journalistic reporting-of-facts variety point of view of the third person objective mode. Not the omniscient mode. Journalists typically report facts as true that can later turn out to be false or only partially true when additional facts are later uncovered. They report only what is known to them at the time. Think of WotC as the CNN or the New York Times of the Realms, reporting on events as they happen and presenting in-depth articles of interest. While the reliability of these respected news organizations is high, no one would claim CNN or the New York Times to be infallible or free from bias and definitely not omniscient. Yet they use the same narrative mode as WotC in reporting the news.
However, regardless whether WotC's POV is objective or omniscient, you are simply incorrect when you state such a narrative POV implies infallibility, reliability or impartiality. Omniscient voice can be just as fallible, biased, or unreliable as any other choice of voice. :coolcthul
no matter what any one of you can buy, another will find unacceptable, and wont buy into it.
now before i finish the peanut butter, im going to go find some grape jelly and two slices of bread and make me a pb&j sandwhich
I just like it when people throw in a reason for something that might be a "mistake". It is like the old No-prize from Marvel.;)
Hey, I won't deny that that can be fun.
Cannon is always correct. Of course there are retcons and the like, but it's impossible for the cannon to be "incorrect" when you are dealing with a fantasy world. Correctness or incorrectness is based upon something you can prove - the entire world is mutable and under the control of WotC, and thus what they say is cannon is cannon.
To us it doesn't make much sense, and makes us feel like individuals who once believed the world was flat and the center of the universe. Then later we're told, based on new evidence, that this belief is false. Every retcon is like that. I'm sure if there is a text book back from those days they were written in an omniscient narrative as well. It is what they believed to be true, right up until new evidence was revealed to prove it was false.
We have a similar situation here with the Realms. Whenever new cannon, even if it contradicts the old they are the "facts" as best they are known at the time. If they are changed or modified then that's simply an updating of the "facts" as best they are known.
We have a similar situation here with the Realms. Whenever new cannon, even if it contradicts the old they are the "facts" as best they are known at the time. If they are changed or modified then that's simply an updating of the "facts" as best they are known.
A minor difference being, of course, that our ancestors discovered the world was round as a reflection of the physical world. Something that could not be effectively challenged in a bi-directional manner ("Excuse me Ms. Terra, I think you are lying to us when you say you are round!"). The "discoveries" now are decisions made by human beings with whom we are in contact. Something that can be challenged (" must be stopped!"). And, let's face it, if the fallout from those decisions is too great they can be re-retconned at any time.
Discussing the immutability of current canon after a major mutation? I've had my popcorn out since the beginning of this discussion and have been enjoying the back and forth greatly :D ...in between the occasional
of course. Now back to my popcorn!Cannon is always correct. Of course there are retcons and the like, but it's impossible for the cannon to be "incorrect" when you are dealing with a fantasy world.
Unless, of course, it later turns out to have been incorrect.
What I was saying was that cannon is cannon. It cannot be "incorrect" in the context the word is being used. Cannon is what WotC says is cannon, nothing less and nothing more. It doesn't even matter if it doesn't make sense as cannon does not need to be tied to logic or reason. If WotC wants to go back and retcon the Simbul and say she was really a man all along, then that is cannon - it doesn't really matter if all the lore we have on her states otherwise.
That was what I was trying to say.
That was what I was trying to say.
I was using your post as a springboard for my own point. I wasn't setting out to refute it but my attempt was more like attempting to extend it by highlighting the inherent difference in discovery method.
My apologies for any offence caused, Meldread.
Yes, the "discoveries" being made now are mutable as well, and I realize that they can be changed. I wasn't aware I was saying they weren't.
My comment wasn't actually aimed at you. I was (or at least, was trying to be) a bit ironic. It's hard for me to think about the meaning of "canon", now (and it is "canon", not "cannon") and not see it as extremely arbitrary. Arguments of this sort are akin to arguing the classic "angels dancing on a pin" debate.
It doesn't even matter if it doesn't make sense as cannon does not need to be tied to logic or reason.
Which is more or less exactly why I don't think it's important.