I thought they were closer to proxies (2ed planescape proxies) then demi or quasi god status.
Im sure some of them are, but many still have their own worshippers, and grant prayers. Well ok so I guess that in 4e the Deities arent necessary granting the prayers now. Thers a listing in the Campaign Guide of the Exarchs who have their own worshipers, those would be the Demi/Quasi-Powers. The others I would imagine to pretty much be proxies like in Planescape. They should really give us an article or something detailing the exarchs, and giving them some domains and possibly some Channel Divinity powers or something. (hint hint WotC)
They should really give us an article or something detailing the exarchs, and giving them some domains and possibly some Channel Divinity powers or something. (hint hint WotC)
I'll second that.
Player's Handbook 1 said that paladins are not granted their powers directly by their
deity, but instead through various rites performed when they first become paladins.
Does that mean that even after the Spellplague there can be Paladins of Hoar? Or must the paladin has gone through this rites before the Spellplague to become a paladin of this exarch?
But any way, a Paladin of Hoar makes perfect sense. I'm starting to think I should of went with Paladin.
Exarchs arent deities anymore. What happened to their divine power? Where did it go?
-As for where the power went, as far as a definitive answer goes, we don't have any. Most of the transformations from actual deities to exarchs were retcons, meaning that said exarchs never truly were deities to begin with, and as such, there is no phantom divine power running around out there somewhere. I hate retcons, though, so I try to not think of it like that, and instead like you were, that these entities were deities, but are no longer. Being as that, for all intents and purposes, exarchs act and seem like deities, it's easier to simply think of them as deities, despite their rulebook status change. They still exist, they still have churches dedicated to them, they still have people worshipping them...If it acts like a duck, and looks like a duck, it's a duck.
And why did certain exarchs go to certain deities?
-Most likely because of portfolio association. That some seem opposed to each other (A) means that there wasn't much looking done past portfolio, or (B) there's rational/reason behind it, that we just aren't privy to. I prefer to think of option B, since that means that there's information and stories out there (just that we haven't been told them).
"About exarchs not being "actual gods"... exarchs are gods, they're simply gods who don't have big temples in the mortal world. If you look at something like the Greek pantheon, there are a number of well-known Greek gods who would be exarchs by this definition: Hephaestus, Hermes, Eros, Heracles, maybe even Ares. Exarchs are still part of the pantheon and mythology."
Exarchs are still gods, and still have Divine Power. I asked Rich Baker about this in the ask the designers thread the following is his response:
"About exarchs not being "actual gods"... exarchs are gods, they're simply gods who don't have big temples in the mortal world. If you look at something like the Greek pantheon, there are a number of well-known Greek gods who would be exarchs by this definition: Hephaestus, Hermes, Eros, Heracles, maybe even Ares. Exarchs are still part of the pantheon and mythology."
Why are they exarches now? If they are gods why is there a seperate section that has gods, and exarches arent on that list?
Exarchs are still gods, and still have Divine Power. I asked Rich Baker about this in the ask the designers thread the following is his response:
"About exarchs not being "actual gods"... exarchs are gods, they're simply gods who don't have big temples in the mortal world. If you look at something like the Greek pantheon, there are a number of well-known Greek gods who would be exarchs by this definition: Hephaestus, Hermes, Eros, Heracles, maybe even Ares. Exarchs are still part of the pantheon and mythology."
Why are they exarches now? If they are gods why is there a seperate section that has gods, and exarches arent on that list?
Because the designers needed to sell people another set of books. They could not easily have done so without generating a lot of changes in the game/world that were largely unnecessary.
Exarchs are still gods, and still have Divine Power. I asked Rich Baker about this in the ask the designers thread the following is his response:
"About exarchs not being "actual gods"... exarchs are gods, they're simply gods who don't have big temples in the mortal world. If you look at something like the Greek pantheon, there are a number of well-known Greek gods who would be exarchs by this definition: Hephaestus, Hermes, Eros, Heracles, maybe even Ares. Exarchs are still part of the pantheon and mythology."
Why are they exarches now? If they are gods why is there a seperate section that has gods, and exarches arent on that list?
Because the designers needed to sell people another set of books. They could not easily have done so without generating a lot of changes in the game/world that were largely unnecessary.
There isn't a sarcastic smiley in the world good enough for this post. I believe that everyone has been over this quite a lot beforehand though, just because you personally feel something doesn't mean it is universally applied. Personally I felt bringing the bloated pantheon in line was a good decision for me and was a necessary change.
...Personally I felt bringing the bloated pantheon in line was a good decision for me and was a necessary change.
-If you felt that the pantheon was bloated, then you should still feel that way. As was mentioned, dispite the new name that's extremely ambiguous (in terms of what exactly it means, what exactly differentiates it from something similar, what exactly they can do or can't do, etc.), they're still deities- they do the same thing deities do, have the same powers deities have, have worshippers like deities, have temples, shrines, and other places of worship like deities, have specific portfolios/spheres/objective concepts affiliated with them, and are otherwise exactly the same as deities. Nothing changed in the "transformation" of some powers from 'deities' to 'exarches' (or other things, in the cases of a few other entities).
Designers don't just do things to make money. They do them because they feel something(s) can be improved. WotC turned the game of D&D on its head in order to fix it up. I follows they would apply this attitude to the Realms as well.
For the former, it worked great. For the later, it was a disaster.
Is there a bottom line issue RE: Money at the root of all of this? Yes.
Does that mean WotC decided to rattle the Realms' cage and sell whatever came out the other end? No.
Most of the transformations from actual deities to exarchs were retcons, meaning that said exarchs never truly were deities to begin with,
There's nothing in the FRCG to support this.
We know from the statements of the 4E Realms designers that they weren't looking to do major retcons. Thus, it's highly unlikely that an exceptionally well known and influential deity like Malar, for example, never granted spells, nor wrought such havoc upon the elves of Faerûn, simply because the FRCG made Malar into an exarch.
A more plausible explanation is that deities who became exarchs did so after and because of the Spellplague. Prior to that time they were fully functioning deities.
All Fourth Edition has done is reaffirm/revise the hierarchy of the deities laid out in older books like Faiths and Avatars, as well as show how many deities were much more closely linked than was previously known.
As to the question of where Malar's divine power went: before the Spellplague, Malar resided with and was subservient to Talos on their home plane of Fury's Heart. When the Spellplague hit, Fury's Heart -like so many other divine realms- was cast about and lost. All the deities of the Realms that survived did so by reforming their own divine dominions in the Astral Sea (see FRCG, page 62).
To me Talos seems more of a primordial than a deity. Thus, a likely scenario would be that Talos cast Malar adrift and went himself to join the other Elemental Lords in the Elemental Chaos. This would have given Malar little choice but to burn his own power to help create and join the Deep Wilds, leaving him bereft of power and thus self-demoted to the status of Exarch.
Unfortunately Talos isn't listed in any grouping on pages 80-81, so it's hard to say for sure.
Designers don't just do things to make money. They do them because they feel something(s) can be improved. WotC turned the game of D&D on its head in order to fix it up. I follows they would apply this attitude to the Realms as well...
In a sense, yes... they "fixed it up" to make it "better" for themselves and their fellow authors. The changes were not made for the fans, although if you like particular changes I can see how it might seem that way. To believe that any of the changes were made for the fans (i.e. in the sense of, "let's give the fans something they'll really love") is extremely naive.
Like Shar and Mask. Not that I like it but I can see the reasoning behind it. So when Gruumsh came to collect Talos, Malar was left with a choice follow Bane, or go somewhere else.
Either way it's up to DM's to choose what they want to do in their games. Which is a great thing IMO.
Talos is now Gruumsh. All ways has been. The Spellplague destroyed to illusion that they were seperate deities.
Thank you Delta. I'd like to think I'm up to speed, but clearly I need to catch up. Can you point me to where this is explained, 'cause I couldn't find any info on Talos in Gruumsh's entry on page 74 of the FRCG. (Not nitpicking here, I just want to fill in the info gaps on Talos' fate.)
To believe that any of the changes were made for the fans (i.e. in the sense of, "let's give the fans something they'll really love") is extremely naive.
In their podcast on the Realms, Rich Baker and Bruce Cordell talked right at the first about what's in the new setting for the fans. The rest of the podcast talks at length about the changes opposite the gaming fan base and their needs.
Are you suggesting these were all lies and propaganda? I find that exceptionally hard to believe.
Or perhaps you were using an extremely narrow definition of the word 'fan', without first clarifying?
I do remember Rich saying to the effect why have 2 CE Gods of destruction. Talos was always Gruumsh. IIRC Rich promtly got flamed for it.
There's nothing in the FRCG to support this.
-Which is the definition of retcon. Alteration without explanation, "the deliberate changing of previously established facts". A subject that varies from the 3e FRCS, or some other 3e source, without an explanation as to why is a retcon. Likewise, things from the 3e FRCS, or other 3e sources that varied from prior 2e sources without explanation as to why were retcons. Among various former deities of the 1e-3e era, we are not given explanations as to why they are no longer given the status 'deity', but are instead 'exarches', something that seems designated a notch below 'deity'. That a plausible definition can be created does not make a difference- until such explanations become reality, from the pens/keyboards of those who are authorized with the ability to do so by WotC, and are made availible to the public in books, articles, etc., continuity is being altered without acknowledgement that A is becoming B, as opposed to A is becoming B, with acknowledgement that A was, in the past, B. Instances of the latter happening have happened, and are indeed not retcons, but rather, changes to the setting. And, changes to the setting, 'revelations', whether or not I personally like them, are ultimatley fine in my book, as long as they have remotely plausible explanations.
We know from the statements of the 4E Realms designers that they weren't looking to do major retcons.
-Intent, and actuality, are two completely different things. A person might think they're being helpful, when in reality, they're not, and are actually making whatever it is worse. A person might think that by evangelizing, they're bridging the gap between religions/cultures, when in reality, they simply may be fanning flames of dislike. Designers and/or writers might not have been looking to perform major retcons, but nonetheless, numerous retcons ocurred, some being fairly massive and having dire effects on the world at large, others fairly minor in impact; some of which have been elaborated upon and explained to some degree, while others have yet to be elaborated on and/or explained. Among them, the loss of 'status' of numerous former deities into being classified as exarches (whatever that specifically entails, being as the definition of 'exarch' still is not very clear and highly morphic from example to example), the loss of 'status' of numerous former deities into being classified as primordials (whatever that specifically entails, being as the definition of 'primordial' still is not very clear, and is somewhat morphic from example to example), the sudden loss of Darkvision in Dwarves, the height alterations in Halflings, the age differentiation of Elves in the past, as opposed to Elves currently, the transormation of Raw Magic from something inherently dangerous to mortals, that could not be wielded without physical consequences, to something that can be, and is wielded without backlash, etc.
They should do something with the Exarchs. Im not going to consider them "real" gods until they get some domain support, or some Channel Divinity or something. It really sucks being a cleric of Labelas in 4e.
-I'm not sure if Labelas Enoreth is there, but here is a grouping of Chanel Divinity feats for various entities that didn't get them in any of the official books.
-That said, DRAGON/DUNGEON magazine is supposedly always accepting unsolicited articles from freelancers. The lack of acceptance by such luminaries as Shemeska, or Krash, make me a little doubtful on the likelihood of anyone being able to have an article published, as opposed to a group that is "already in", so to speak, however they got to that point, but that option is always there, in theory.
My Realmslore Article Hall of the Frostmaiden speaks briefly about Talos being Gruumsh.
Hey man thanks!
...lots of words...
The issue isn't what the definition of a retcon is, it's that you conclude that certain deities of the Realms were "never" (your words) deities to begin with.
The problem with that conclusion is that it ignores several signposts that point out, quite clearly, that the subset of deities in question were, pre-Spelllague, deities; i.e., they're exarchs going forward from the time of the Spellplague.
It's already been established what WotC's intentions were, c.f., the podcast I linked to earlier, as well as the Design and Development article featuring Philip Athans and Bruce R. Cordell. Their intent as it relates to this discussion is made perfectly clear: "We're not retconning. We're assuming that everything that was, was."
That statement is binding. It recognizes that the exarchs subset were at one time deities. Citing multiple other question mark issues (you forgot halfings; they got taller too - how'd that happen?) won't bury the facts as I've presented them.
Exarchs who were listed as deities in prior editions are, canonically, deities in those eras of the Realms.
My Realmslore Article Hall of the Frostmaiden speaks briefly about Talos being Gruumsh. Details not mentioned in that article is that Malar was severely wounded during an event known as the Stormstar Requiem and was saved only by intervention of Silvanus, whom Malar now serves.
Right!
That statement is binding. It recognizes that the exarchs subset were at one time deities.
And this statement assumes that exarch is not a type of deity.
Exarchs who were listed as deities in prior editions are, canonically, deities in those eras of the Realms.
And if exarchs are still a tier of divinity, then there's no retcon in assuming that they never were anything but exarchs.
Just because they have different table doesn't exclude them from being deities. That's like saying that greater gods are no longer deities just because their in a seperate table than the gods. Just because they have not yet any printed CD feats doesn't make them non-deities, we also haven't yet any CD feats for Cyric or Gruumsh.
...
-While a few deities were not retconned into exarches, but rather, had explanations assigned to their differences between the 1e/2e/3e era, and the 4e era- as you say, "there are several signposts" detailing the transformation- the majority of former deities who are now classified as exarches, or are classified as some other non-traditional deity entity (Primordial, Archfey, Archelemental, Demon Lord, Archdevil, etc.), have no explanations as to why this transformation happened, and why they are no longer counted among "traditional" deities- those entities included as 'Greater Gods', and 'Gods' in the FRCG listing..
-According to the FRCG, the list of recognized and official exarchs is as follows (bolded are official exarchs whose new statuses have been explained in novels/sourcebooks/articles [that I know of], and as such, have not been retconned, but rather, changed with in-setting explantions):
- Abbathor
- Avoreen
- Baervan Wildwanderer
- Bahgtru
- Baravar Cloakshadow
- Brandobaris
- Callarduran Smoothhands
- Clangeddin Silverbeard
- Cyrrollalee
- Deep Sashelas
- Dugmaren
- Erevan Ilesere
- Fenmarel Mestarine
- Fzoul Chembryl
- Garagos
- Hoar
- Hruggek
- Jergal
- Labelas Enoreth
- Lliira
- Maglubiyet
- Malar (but only partially, being that no canon source actually states this, as opposed to the author writing what was intended, but not actually included, leaving WotC free to take things in a different direction than was originally intended, if so desired for whatever reasons.)
- Marthammor Duin
- Milil
- Obould
- The Red Knight
- Sharess
- Shargaas
- Shevarash
- Shiallia
- Siamorphe
- Solonor Thelandira
- Thard Harr
- Uthgar
- Valkur
- Vaprak
- Vergadain
-Some have since been explained in different articles or books, and as such, these events are not retcons, but rather, changes to the setting. Changes that have not been given explanations are retcons, the definition of the word. The above entities went from being (as per 3e terminology) 'Greater', 'Intermediate', and/or 'Lesser' Deities at one point, to no longer being such, but instead, being 'Exarchs', entities defined as being something other than 4e 'Greater Gods' or 'Gods', without any explanation. Until explanation is given, these changes are retcons. Continuity is being altered without explanation- the above entities were, at one point in the past, considered "formal" deities. Now, they are no longer afforded 'deity' status- Why? How? When? Until such information is provided, their change in status is a retcon- regardless of when it might possibly have happened, or why it might possibly have happened, or how it possibly happened. When official sources explain to us why the above entities are no longer considered among "formal" deities, as they had been in the past, it becomes a non-issue, in that the retcons were elaborated and given formal explanations and circumstances regarding why, A is no longer equal to B, when it once was. For most of the above, the overwhelming majority of the above, there is no explanation evident, and A is no longer equal to B because the proverbial circumstances have been rewritten, not because of a specific reason.
And if exarchs are still a tier of divinity, then there's no retcon in assuming that they never were anything but exarchs.
-Deep Sashelas was considered an 'Intermediate Deity'. He is now an Exarch, which, according to the FRCG, are entities also commonly known as 'Demigods'. Demigods never included Intermediate Deities. According to Faiths and Pantheons, Demigods occupied two rungs in the proverbial ladder beneath Intermediate Deities (...Demigods, Lesser Deities, Intermediate Deities...). The amount of power, the abilities that Deep Sashelas possessed, and his relationship with the rest of the Seldarine members has been altered and changed.
And this statement assumes that exarch is not a type of deity.
You're right, I did fall into that trap.
I think I was stuck on the idea that deities who became exarchs were more powerful in past eras of the Realms (and editions of the game) and let that thought bleed into the "deity/non-deity" idea put forth by Lord Karsus.
Thank you for pointing out my error.
And if exarchs are still a tier of divinity, then there's no retcon in assuming that they never were anything but exarchs.
Here I disagree. I think it's appropriate to envision Malar, for example, as having been much more powerful than a mere demigod pre-Spellplague.
...Personally I felt bringing the bloated pantheon in line was a good decision for me and was a necessary change.
-If you felt that the pantheon was bloated, then you should still feel that way.
Of course I still do, but it's just not as bad and anyway - I'm killing the vast majority of them off in my current campaign. Going to a much more refined subset of deities now, which I would want to use in my games, have good detail (EG aren't idiots) and bringing back some of the older gods from 2E I always liked - like Myrkul. Some exarchs were being restored to "God" status, but I do concede it was probably a mistake to assume that they weren't actually gods as they were.
Of course I still do, but it's just not as bad and anyway - I'm killing the vast majority of them off in my current campaign. Going to a much more refined subset of deities now, which I would want to use in my games, have good detail (EG aren't idiots) and bringing some of the older gods from 2E I always liked.
-The way you worded it, I wasn't sure...So, who's making the cut? And who's EG, and why are they not idiots?
Of course I still do, but it's just not as bad and anyway - I'm killing the vast majority of them off in my current campaign. Going to a much more refined subset of deities now, which I would want to use in my games, have good detail (EG aren't idiots) and bringing some of the older gods from 2E I always liked.
-The way you worded it, I wasn't sure...So, who's making the cut? And who's EG, and why are they not idiots?
"EG = example". Shar and Cyric are going, Kelemvor because he's as interesting as watching paint dry, most of the exarchs are getting their divinity stripped from them - although I am not strictly killing a lot of them and in fact quite a lot of others will persist in one way or another. It's more about who I am keeping, albeit I am still deciding on this and my players have such a huge influence in the decision I'm not entirely sure who will be left over. Definitely going to keep Moradin, Tempus, Bane and Torm though for various reasons - but I'm still not sure who else I will keep beyond that. I want my players actions to matter more in who survives.
As a general rule, I want to keep deities unique to FR (like Torm and Tempus) where possible, but overall condense the pantheon down heavily. Then bring into the game more of a "Primordial" threat, with its power base being returned Abeir and taking over many of the roles that some evil deities (like Shar) have now. This conflict is more in line with the overall 4E "core" conflict with the gods opposing the primordials that I happen to like, while giving me a chance to bring back gods I really enjoyed in 2E like Myrkul.
Here I disagree. I think it's appropriate to envision Malar, for example, as having been much more powerful than a mere demigod pre-Spellplague.
But the main point is that he's still a deity. A weaker type of deity than before, but still a deity nonetheless. Deities have always waxed and waned in power, so exlaining why Malar is now less powerfull deity than before is a lot easier than having the explain why he's no longer a deity.
Here I disagree. I think it's appropriate to envision Malar, for example, as having been much more powerful than a mere demigod pre-Spellplague.
But the main point is that he's still a deity. A weaker type of deity than before, but still a deity nonetheless. Deities have always waxed and waned in power, so exlaining why Malar is now less powerfull deity than before is a lot easier than having the explain why he's no longer a deity.
That is a great way of looking at it!
My Realmslore Article Hall of the Frostmaiden speaks briefly about Talos being Gruumsh. Details not mentioned in that article is that Malar was severely wounded during an event known as the Stormstar Requiem and was saved only by intervention of Silvanus, whom Malar now serves.
And maybe someday we'll know what said event even was, and maybe even the details of it. 
I still want to know what the hell happened to the Seldarine. Other than Fenmarel and Shevarash, they were all Intermediate gods except for obviously Corellon. (Angharradh can go to hell, it pisses me off that she even existed in the first place and is now supposedly official even though she now has no way of ever having come into existence in the first place since the events that allegedly led to her formation couldn't have possibly happened the way they're supposed to have. She was at most Moon elves being confused. ) Now they're all Exarchs and Rillifane Rallathil has so far as we know undergone a critical existence error.
Grr, burn in the pits of Baator, 4E Realms.
/sigh
LK, your definition of retcon is not the same as the commonly held definition of the term. Retroactive continuity implies that the changed fact *has always been that way*. You're arguing that retcon stands for any change without an explanation, which is a misuse of the term. The two are totally separate and your desire to lump them together just leads to needless confusion.
There have been retcons in the transition to the 4E realms, but by and large most of the large scale changes to the setting occurred as a result of the 100 year fast forward and are not retcons. In those instances continuity has not changed at all. Time has simply shifted forward and you're unaware of the conditions that led from A to B.
None of the pantheon demotions in the 4E realms are retcons. Every change happened in-setting as a result of the Spellplague and aftershocks from that event. Just because you don’t know all the details doesn’t make it a retcon.
None of the pantheon demotions in the 4E realms are retcons.
Well, I would say that the transformations of former deities into primordials and primal spirits are indeed recons
None of the pantheon demotions in the 4E realms are retcons.
Well, I would say that the transformations of former deities into primordials and primal spirits are indeed recons
I suppose I meant demotions in the sense of a deity becoming an exarch, but you are absolutely correct Mirtek. Any god that changed their planar keyword from a deity to a primordial/primal spirit/archfey is definitely a retcon.
Those changes are a result of designer fiat as opposed to an in game change such as the Spellplague. Talos and Gruumsh being the same cosmic entity is also a retcon.
The following examples, however, are not retcons: The new cosmology. Holy symbols changing. Obould’s ascendency to an exarch. Auril’s increase in power. Malar’s decrease in power. Torm’s increase in power. Selûne’s increase in power. Deaths of Mystra, Mask, Azuth, etc. etc…
As to the OP's query, Silversword answered spot on. Exarchs are still divine. The term is just 4E parlance for demi/quasipower.
-Retcon: "The deliberate changing of previously established facts in a work of serial fiction...Some retcons do not directly contradict previously established facts, but "fill in" missing background details, usually to support current plot points...Related to this is the concept of shadow history or secret history, in which the events of a story occur within the bounds of already-established events, revealing a different interpretation of (or motivation for) the events." Said definition does not restrict a retcon to a case of "X was and always has been X, according to newer source". Examples of retcons include "fill-ins" that alter a character/plot in some way as the narrative moves from Point A to Point B, and revelations what "what you saw isn't really what happened", among other things. Are these ticks being met? Was Deep Sashelas, once an Intermediate Deity, now an Exach, considered a Demideity? Check. Is Hanali Celanil, once an independent Intermediate Deity, now actually a misnomer for Sune? Check. Is Ubtao, once a Greater Deity, not even a deity anymore, instead actually being a Primordial? Check.
-On the related sidenote that was brought up, that the collective we doesn't know the details, because they cannot be found within canon sources, means that said details don't exist in an official capacity- canon information does not extend to the intent of authors/designers, information that was never included- for whatever reason- in the work of authors/designers, apocryphical works by authors/designers, etc...
/sigh
-Retcon: "The deliberate changing of previously established facts in a work of serial fiction...Some retcons do not directly contradict previously established facts, but "fill in" missing background details, usually to support current plot points...Related to this is the concept of shadow history or secret history, in which the events of a story occur within the bounds of already-established events, revealing a different interpretation of (or motivation for) the events." Said definition does not restrict a retcon to a case of "X was and always has been X, according to newer source". Examples of retcons include "fill-ins" that alter a character/plot in some way as the narrative moves from Point A to Point B, and revelations what "what you saw isn't really what happened", among other things. Are these ticks being met? Was Deep Sashelas, once an Intermediate Deity, now an Exach, considered a Demideity? Check. Is Hanali Celanil, once an independent Intermediate Deity, now actually a misnomer for Sune? Check. Is Ubtao, once a Greater Deity, not even a deity anymore, instead actually being a Primordial? Check.
-On the related sidenote that was brought up, that the collective we doesn't know the details, because they cannot be found within canon sources, means that said details don't exist in an official capacity- canon information does not extend to the intent of authors/designers, information that was never included- for whatever reason- in the work of authors/designers, apocryphical works by authors/designers, etc...
Deep Sashelas becomming an Exarch isn't a traditional retcon, rather it is the result of omission of detail. It only barely qualifies as a retcon simply because no reason was given when introduced, and even then only by the barest of technicalities. The issue of many gods being demoted to Exarchs really could have used a sentance or two of explanation. "As a result of the myriad of deaths, and other events resulting from the Spellplague, many dieties lost followers, and thus divine power becoming demigods, what sages now refer to as Exarchs." That deals with both what an exarch is and how many gods were demoted, while minimizing the retcon value of any further revelations on the subject by keeping the explanation increadably broad.
Hanali Celanil actually being Sune is a classic, blatant, retcon. Supposed hidden information suddenly being revealed. Particulary as older books often reference relationships between the two. Ubtao the Primordial is as well. Even the changes to the Elemental gods to Primordials counts. (Though those are more a case of being prototypes of a sort for the general Primordial concept, and a good use of retcon.) Heck everything involving Abeir is a retcon of massive proportions. Its like Spider-man suddenly discovered his powers didn't come from a radioactive spider after all. ;)
Hanali Celanil actually being Sune is a classic, blatant, retcon. Supposed hidden information suddenly being revealed. Particulary as older books often reference relationships between the two.
This one actually made sense to me. They seemed way too similiar. Besides gods can have more than one aspect or avatar active at any given time. I just dont like how they say Hanali is really Sune, I think it should be the other way around. I guess really its a matter of prespective.
You know, for all this talk about A becoming B or X changed by fiat into Y, I'm not seeing much recognition of the fact that the Realms are just deep.
More than once I've had my Realms bell rung by Ed Greenwood (and occasionally Steven Schend) letting slip some factoid about how things are in the Realms that I never thought of, because I chose (erroneously) to assume that what I read in some sourcebook is all there was to know about a topic.
Realmslore, like the rules for D&D, just doesn't cover everything. Ed's hinted that there are connections amongst the human/demi-human deities (sorry, Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, 2nd Edition term there) in the past. Is it really such a stretch to learn just how deep some of those connections -i.e., Hanali celanil and Sune- are?
For someone like me who's wondered more than once why it was necessary to have so much domain/sphere overlap between deities for the various races, the idea that "one deity is the other, suited to the race in question" makes a lot of sense. Pre-Spellplague, I can still see Hanali and Sune existing separately, answering prayers separately, collecting souls on the Fugue Plane separately, but each intrinsically linked to the other in a way that speaks to how the planes work in ways beyond the reckoning of mortals, much like how the Dawn Cataclysm took place.
It's possible, and true, that some things in the Realms always were, and we just didn't know about it until now.
Dungeon Masters, not Dungeon Lackeys, hey?
I could buy into Silvanus and Rilifane being the same, however I'd rather have Rilifane being an archfey....
I couldn't. Not at all.
I could buy into Silvanus and Rilifane being the same, however I'd rather have Rilifane being an archfey....
I couldn't. Not at all.
Sounds like a personal problem.;)
Of course I still do, but it's just not as bad and anyway - I'm killing the vast majority of them off in my current campaign. Going to a much more refined subset of deities now, which I would want to use in my games, have good detail (EG aren't idiots) and bringing some of the older gods from 2E I always liked.
-The way you worded it, I wasn't sure...So, who's making the cut? And who's EG, and why are they not idiots?
I actually rethought about this since you asked and now that I have I can answer this better.
I felt the need to allow my players a lot of flexibility on what gods lived or died in the overall campaign arc (as that's an easy epic campaign to do and very fun, while still accomplishing my overall goal in terms of "My Faerun").
Tempus definitely survives, because I approve of his alignment and what he stands for. Plus I felt if any god could survive a gigantic interplanar war it would be Tempus.
Bane for similar reasons to Tempus.
Torm and Bahamut as the shining beacons of hope in what will be a distinctly darker astral sea when I'm done with it. Bahamut mostly because he's popular with my players and Torm just because he seems to have a good deal of common sense - always appreciated.
Lolth because I happen to like her a lot - not drow minding - but the god itself is interesting to me from a plot and campaign point.
Moradin because I just like him and he basically serves as a good plot mechanism for having things like prisons for Primordials built and such forth.
Corellon as even if I dislike elves, but he's actually a pretty handy god and popular with players so I decided to leave him alone (plus his personal domain is good for high level characters to use as a safe point for adventuring campaigns).
Chauntea as simply put, she's not a part of the war in that campaign and so isn't affected.
Beyond this, I intend to strip many exarchs of their divinity during the campaign and only actually killing or removing very few others. So they are still very powerful - but not divine - entities anymore. There will still end up about 15 "gods" when all is said and done. Many of the other powers in my FR will be replaced with ascended daemon lords, primordials and other things that set up more of a "Gods vs. Primordials" conflict similar to the core world. This is also how I will justify the gods being less present on Toril - their extraplanar affairs are reducing their ability to directly interfere with Toril as they have a common enemy drawing away their attention. They still take a keen and important interest in Toril of course, but not to the same extent and they certainly won't be entirely absent. Toril and its mortals are important pawns to the returned Primoridials.
Keith
-That said, DRAGON/DUNGEON magazine is supposedly always accepting unsolicited articles from freelancers. The lack of acceptance by such luminaries as Shemeska, or Krash, make me a little doubtful on the likelihood of anyone being able to have an article published, as opposed to a group that is "already in", so to speak, however they got to that point, but that option is always there, in theory.
FWIW, I haven't bothered to submit any pitches for a very long time. My time to freelance is limited, and rather occupied elsewhere. But perhaps more so, at this point I'm honestly no longer even interested in writing for the Realms, or at least what has become of it in 4e, and it used to be my favorite non-planar setting.
I wasn't being sarcastic at all. They needed to make the "crunch" fit with 4E, along with a reason for people to buy another set of books (i.e. new lore, or changes to lore), and that's really the bottom line. Sales would have been poor if the lore content wasn't somewhat new or different, if you only needed a crunch update. That's the sole reason for the changes in deities, the spellplague, all of it. No sarcasm.
they did it for many reasons. look at the eberron books. they didn't overhaul the setting, but there was plenty of fluff to put into the books. FR could have been the same. It isn't because they felt that the realms needed remodeling. badly.
I agree with them.
something had to be done.
there were lots of reasons. Realms-bloat was one of them. aligning the game world with the rules was another.
something had to be done.
No, it really didn't. The Realms were fine.
there were lots of reasons. Realms-bloat was one of them. aligning the game world with the rules was another.
something had to be done.No, it really didn't. The Realms were fine.
+2
the FR had its problems, but doing whta they did to it, didnt really fix the problems.
all they did was create more problems by attepmting to fix the old problems.....
you ever hear:
updates: removal of old bugs and adding new ones..
So how about those Exarchs.
So how about those Exarchs.
I prefer the old GP, IP, LP, DP set-up myself, which is why I stuck with that instead of adopting this new super-servant style. And before someone accuses me of being anti-4E, I play in the 4E, 1479 Realms, albeit with many, many changes. ;)
Yeah, that's about all I can contribute at the moment. Give me a bit.
EDIT: ........... Who's your favorite Exarch, maybe? Yeah, let's go with that.
Mine's a tie between Clangeddin, Shevarash, Brandobaris, and Lliira, because, funny enough, they are my favorite deities in their respective pantheons, save for Lliira, who was only behind Helm and Mask (both of whom are ironically... gone now in 4E.
). Poor Segojan, I see, was eaten by Urdlen, or something along those lines. So... yeah, I'm glad I ignored the divine shake-up and stuck with the old ranks. I'm much happier this way. 
dwarven exarchs its Clangeddin.
elven exarchs its Erevan
human exarchs: Siamorphe
[ I prefer the old GP, IP, LP, DP set-up myself, which is why I stuck with that instead of adopting this new super-servant style. And before someone accuses me of being anti-4E, I play in the 4E, 1479 Realms, albeit with many, many changes. ;)
Why you! Youre Anti-4e!!! NAh im kidding, actually you took what you liked and made it your own Realms (yes Nai, Im saying it again!), which is what the designers had in mind i believe so youre definitely doing it right. And I agree on the older god rankings, that still makes sense, the new system seems really dumbed down, but I guess after the Spellplague, the Realms entered into a Dark Ages like era so scholary types come up with simplier ways to explain things, like theres Greater Gods and regualr gods and then Exarchs, or Air, Earth, Water, and Fire are all one big plane now, I dont really see these things as changeing, just peoples perception of it changed.
well my favorite exarches:
dwarven exarchs its Clangeddin.
elven exarchs its Erevan
human exarchs: Siamorphe
Siamorphe? Really? Ive never known any one to actually like her. IM supprised she made the cut in 4e, I always saw her as an aspect of Amaunator, I was surprised they didnt go with that with all these other gods turning out to be aspects of other gods.
But any way my favorite Exarchs in no particualr order:
Labelas, Hoar, Jergal
And I was going to say Dumathoin as well, but I see hes not on the list, Did he get offed in the Dwarven Gods battle with the Duergar gods? Or was he revealed to be an aspect of some Gnomish deity?
He has not been mentioned on anything live or dead, Primal, primordial, archfey, exarch, god, etc....
the ones i like the least are ones like Malar and Siamorphe who have no obvious mortal connection.
there were lots of reasons. Realms-bloat was one of them. aligning the game world with the rules was another.
something had to be done.No, it really didn't. The Realms were fine.
No, they really weren't.
They were about as exciting as, well...I can't really think of a good analogy...they were boring, overcrowded, and overrated.
OH! They were like LA! :P
as far as exarchs go, i like Obould, and Fzoul Chembryl, as they were once mortals who embodied their deity while alive and were elevated for it.
the ones i like the least are ones like Malar and Siamorphe who have no obvious mortal connection.
Actually, I'm somewhat amused that Obould and Fzoul were considered ideal candidates for Exarchs. Obould's designs of peace and order ran against Gruumsh's consume-and-conquer doctrine (and it was hinted at that Obould wasn't much interested in Gruumsh's will, contrary to the popular opinion held by his soldiers), and Fzoul failed to a) eradicate the Cyricist presence in the Zhentarim, b) bring the Moonsea region fully under his control, and c) defend his bastion from the Netherese. It's interesting that in Obould's ascension, success mattered more than faith, and in Fzoul's case, faith mattered more than success. Of course, with Fzoul's failures and subsequent transformation, the Zhentarim are once again entirely under my control, so I suppose I should be happy.
Daelegoth Orndeir would have been a good Exarch: unwavering faith, firm devotion, and a number of successes under his belt. It would've given Amaunator a bit more oomph, if you know what I mean.
Fzoul epitomized absolute obedience to his deity. Obould epitomized absolute success on his own terms.
he died and came back to life for his clan and kin.
I'm surprised that they didnt make Bruenor an exarch....
he died and came back to life for his clan and kin.
Yeah. Next FR campaign I run, he's an exarch.
she's agrigulture now, Silvanus is nature itself, and his Daughter Mielikki has forests.
I want to see Corellon have a half-elven exarch, just for the Sun Elf rage that would result.
Better yet, a human one. Or both. Mmm, rage.
no orc would be allowed into arvandor......
Define 'they', since they were wrong about that.
Now, no drow would be allowed in Fennimar, but Arvandor, sure, there's drow there. If they want to be good little elves and go back to Papa Corellon, he's happy to take them.
The character I wanted to play in 3.5 but couldn't was a half-orc Cleric of Corellon Larethian. (Core setting, not FR, but same thing anyway) Good old Thrull Elfkiller. He'd been raised by a couple of Corellite bards and had turned to the worship of Corellon out of gratitude and due to thinking that since Corellon put out Gruumsh's eye in a fight, that made Corellon a better warrior than Gruumsh anyway. He couldn't say Corellon's name right due to his tusks and always referred to him as 'Nice Elf God'. He would help with the defense of elven settlements by joining orc encampments and causing trouble to keep the orcs fighting each other and providing false information when they actually managed to get around to some planning. Stupid 'clerics of racial gods must be that race' rule.
Great, let's get Corellon some half-elven and human exarches. I nominate Arilyn Moonblade and Danilo Thann, if for no other reason than still having them around in 1479.
The whole Exarch thing still has me a little confused. The way i see it, Chauntea is the cheif Nature deity of the Realms, any other nature deity like Silvanus or Mielikki should be exarchs of her.
Silvanus and Chauntea are both greater gods with specific focus. Mielikki is a less powerful god with a focus very similar to that of Silvanus, which is why she hangs out with him.
It makes a great deal of sense for Silvanus and Chauntea to have seperate domains and such. The things that they stand for are very different from one another. They both involve nature, but so too with Pelor, Torm, and Good.