Boccob has always been a better Magic God. He is aloof, doesn't interfere....but look at Mystryl/Mystra, first CN, then LN and then NG. Always involved with the Harpers.
She was a poor embodiment of Magic and it is good she is gone...
As usual for WOTC... Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Pas facile.
Toute la vie est comme ca.
Les politiciens prendent une decision...c'est la meme chose...
I'm hoping Azuth will continue as a God of Magic.
-I highly doubt anyone will become the deity of magic. It'd be, in my opinion, redundant to kill Mystra, the deity of magic, for the reasons the designers stated, only to replace her with Azuth, a like-minded deity of magic.
-I highly doubt anyone will become the deity of magic. It'd be, in my opinion, redundant to kill Mystra, the deity of magic, for the reasons the designers stated, only to replace her with Azuth, a like-minded deity of magic.
Better that way, friend from Flatbush....
I always felt it was a stupid concept to...
1. Try and make the Weave everywhere and that life cannot exist without it.
2. Make Mystra actually the Weave while other gods aren't similiarly immortal.
Azuth patronizing Wizards and Study plus Spellcraft is a "God of Magic" without being the God that IS magic.
There's a difference between Azuth patronizing magic and Mystra's embodying it.
-I don't think the casual fan (whom most of these changes are 'for') was aware, or recognized the difference between the two (patronizing and being).
1. Try and make the Weave everywhere and that life cannot exist without it.
-It wasn't. Contracy to popular belief, the absence of the Weave does not make everything go "boom!".
-I don't think the casual fan (whom most of these changes are 'for') was aware, or recognized the difference between the two (patronizing and being).
No offense but no one rose up with pitch forks over Solanari, Lunitari, and Nuitari in Dragonlance or Boccob either.
-Not from Flatbush, but close enough. Bensonhurst. If this was before 1958, then I'd wish I was from Flatbush. Now? No, not so much.
I don't think there is a single nice place in Brooklyn left.
People just live there because they can't afford to live in Manhattan and commute all day.
Very sad.
No offense but no one rose up with pitch forks over Solanari, Lunitari, and Nuitari in Dragonlance or Boccob either.
-I'm not familiar with any.
I don't think there is a single nice place in Brooklyn left.
People just live there because they can't afford to live in Manhattan and commute all day.
Very sad.
-There's plenty of nice places. But, suffice to say that, as the racial make-ups of various neighborhoods has been changing over the years, crime rates and such have gone up signifigantly. Flatbush, for instace, used to be a very nice place. An 'upper-end' type place. Now? Now it's one of the worst neighborhoods in the city. Areas like Prospect Park, Flatbush, and a few other places have become 'Yuppieized' in the past couple of years. Continue the trend, and I'm sure it'll become a nice place again. No more Ebbets Field, but oh well...
-I'm not familiar with any.
-There's plenty of nice places. But, suffice to say that, as the racial make-ups of various neighborhoods has been changing over the years, crime rates and such have gone up signifigantly. Flatbush, for instace, used to be a very nice place. An 'upper-end' type place. Now? Now it's one of the worst neighborhoods in the city. Areas like Prospect Park, Flatbush, and a few other places have become 'Yuppieized' in the past couple of years. Continue the trend, and I'm sure it'll become a nice place again. No more Ebbets Field, but oh well...
Why don't you live in Manhattan?
Why don't you live in Manhattan?
-I never liked Manhattan. Ever since I was little, I've equated it with being dirty. Only businesses and homeless people are in Manhattan. Of course, that's not entirely true, biut childhood prejudices are hard to shake off easily.
-I am a Brooklynite through and through. I'd never want to move to Manhattan.
People can't move from the whole of New York because they can't afford to move for one reason or another, not just Brooklyn.
Bensonhurst, heh, small world after all.
Bensonhurst, heh, small world after all.
-Avenue U, FTW!
It doesn't affect the setting mechanically, but something is missing. Magic is more mundane, less mystical.
And I love active gods.
I too am against Mystra's death. And I find Boccob utterly boring, Greyhawk wouldn't change if he wasn't there, which is different with Mystra.
And I love active gods.
i'm against Mystra dying, though i preferred Mystryl in all ways. Never thought she should be anything but impartial. Truth be told, someone with Jergal's outlook would've been cut out for the job.
Back on topic. Yes I do feel the utter destruction of Mystra and complete removal of all things Weave-related takes away something very distinct about the setting. Love it or hate it, those aspects helped make the Realms more than typical generic fantasy world. Many settings and authors struggle to give magic in their works some sort of distinct framework. The Realms had one, now I don't believe it does.
It doesn't affect the setting mechanically, but something is missing. Magic is more mundane, less mystical.
The history is still there. She got killed. She's history....hehe.:D
I too am against Mystra's death. And I find Boccob utterly boring, Greyhawk wouldn't change if he wasn't there, which is different with Mystra.
And I love active gods.
Concur. Mystra is my hands-down favourite Realms goddess.
Boccob has always been a better Magic God. He is aloof, doesn't interfere...
That's kinda boring though.
And you heard that from someone who likes Greyhawk, and Boccob.-I highly doubt anyone will become the deity of magic. It'd be, in my opinion, redundant to kill Mystra, the deity of magic, for the reasons the designers stated, only to replace her with Azuth, a like-minded deity of magic.
Right, the designers don't want any deity to have Mystra's former role. I don't doubt there will be gods of magic, but nothing like Mystra.
I agree that Mystra and her Chosen are (not were, ARE) important parts of the setting, whether one personally likes them or not.
Why don't you live in Manhattan?
I don't live there, but I live close enough to know that it's a ridiculously expensive place to live.
Pieces of Brooklyn are being transformed into Manhattan Jr.
People can't move from the whole of New York because they can't afford to move for one reason or another, not just Brooklyn.
Bensonhurst, heh, small world after all.
-(Off topic)Be careful WotC may try and "merge" Brooklyn with Waterdeep.:P
-(On topic)Mystra did give The Realms alot of flavor. I could really care less about the "Chosen" but that is just me. Some of the are kinda "hot"(Not El);)
18DELTA
Mystra, first lawful, then good, didn't feel quite right for me. I kinda wanted her to be more like Istus, neither good, nor evil, nor aligned towards chaos, nor towards law.
If I were going to align her in any direction, I'd want her to be chaotic neutral. A wild carefree goddess of magic, encouraging the sorts of chaos that the Magister brought about (the greatest wizards of the world killing each other off for a dubious title, that only made them a target for every other great wizard looking for that honor). In that case, Azuth being lawful would make him a moderating influence on her wild ways, sort of Vishnu-architect to her Brahma-creator, Weaver to her Wyld.
The removal of the Weave, and the plethora of gods, and the re-ordering of nations and lands, seems to me a total debacle. These are the wonderful levels of detail that made this setting *work* and live and breath for so long, and they are, IMO, throwing it all out because they can't be arsed to fit it to their new paradigm. It's lazy. I thought it was lazy back in the Time of Troubles when they bumped off the assassin and illusionist gods (only to reintroduce Assassins and Illusionists anyway! Big freaking OOOPS!), and that was only a tiny sample of how far they've gone this time.
IMO, a new setting, specifically designed to showcase the new concepts, would have made more sense than mangling the ones that came before. As someone who returned to Greyhawk after the Time of Trouble nonsense messed up the Realms I loved, I cannot stress enough how happy I am that Greyhawk is 'dead,' and won't suffer these Realms-Shaking-Events that keep happening to mess up this once grand and vivid setting.
IMO, a new setting, specifically designed to showcase the new concepts, would have made more sense than mangling the ones that came before.
-I agree, and I found it odd that a 'Core World' was never created to implement and showoff all of the new concepts the designers created for 4e.
Mystra, first lawful, then good, didn't feel quite right for me. I kinda wanted her to be more like Istus, neither good, nor evil, nor aligned towards chaos, nor towards law.
Except, Mystra's major defining aspect is the fact she has the Chosen of Mystra whom are good and lovable forces for the Good Guys in the world. Frankly, no one really USES Oghma despite him being the God of Knowledge because he's Neutral and doesn't interfere.
Except, Mystra's major defining aspect is the fact she has the Chosen of Mystra whom are good and lovable forces for the Good Guys in the world.
-There were plenty of Chosen of Mystra who were quite evil, or whose morals are dubious.
Back on topic. Yes I do feel the utter destruction of Mystra and complete removal of all things Weave-related takes away something very distinct about the setting. Love it or hate it, those aspects helped make the Realms more than typical generic fantasy world. Many settings and authors struggle to give magic in their works some sort of distinct framework. The Realms had one, now I don't believe it does.
It doesn't affect the setting mechanically, but something is missing. Magic is more mundane, less mystical.
QFT
I tended to think of Azuth as patron of wizards, specifically, not magic, in general.
I agree, but not too long ago people on these boards were calling Azuth "Mystra Lite".
That's perception for you.
IMO, a new setting, specifically designed to showcase the new concepts, would have made more sense than mangling the ones that came before.
I agree with this, too. I'm saddened at the idea that all of WotC's settings need to be so similar, even if it might (I say "might" because I don't know) be what's best for business.
-There were plenty of Chosen of Mystra who were quite evil, or whose morals are dubious.
That's correct, and just because a Chosen of Mystra is good doesn't mean Mystra is directing them towards good goals (as Faraer once put it).
Basically, it just happens that most Chosen at this time are good. Or it might be that for some reason, goodly Chosen have fit that particular niche better (that is, survived). It's not because Mystra sets out to make "lovable, cuddly" Chosen.
I agree, but not too long ago people on these boards were calling Azuth "Mystra Lite".
Eh. Just one dude that I saw. Azuth's gotten so little play, compared to Mystra, it's easy to dismiss his notable differences. I think Velsharoon and Savras got better levels of detailing, actually...
I think of him as the god of written, codified and studied magic and magical lore. He's the one behind the Incantations and high rituals, while Mystra is more about the raw unfettered potential of magic.
Then again, my own views on it are pretty far from canon anyway. I would have made dwarves and humans more prone to codified rote magic (wizardry) and elves and gnomes more innately magical (sorcerers).
QFT
Somes may argue that a God(dess) of Magic is mudanizing magic, a sort of different Psionic X problem.
Or too humane. As in, not a Grand Mystery as it should be.
Somes may argue that a God(dess) of Magic is mudanizing magic, a sort of different Psionic X problem.
Yeah, well, that's dumb!
Kidding, I just feel like being flippant at the moment.;) :P
I suspect I'm feeling a bit flippant myself really... damned contagious Rino's...
Personally, I'd wanna see a Goddess of Magic and Love. Probably because one could say they both rule our lives. :P Well, that, and deep down I know I'm a romantic... But that's beside the point.
Giving Mystra's porfolio to Sune... now there's a thought I really need to incorporate into 4e if I ever decide to give the new setting a go...
Only if Sune mellows out, she's to flighty for my tastes... Maybe a more "Neutral Good" Goddess of Magic and Love. Donno...
I repeat, it'd be interesting nonetheless, just as if you gave the magic portfolio to Beshaba or something like that.
"Come here my sons, let's do some magic and-- AHAHAHAHA! BURN!!! BUUUURN!"
That's just the way those icky novelists portray her... I'd ignore them personally, and go with something a bit more mystical and subtle. ;) :D
And Sensual. If she was a Goddess of Magic as well, she'd have to be portrayed as a Sorceress. Or, at least she would in my mind. Maybe let her look and act like the Sorceress from the Scorpion King. :P She's good looking and she knows it.
"What? Are you going to try and kill me, or just stare at me?" Favorite line from the movie.
And I'd agree with the Sorcereress bit... fits her far more than wizard would, and that's what we have Azuth for anyway. :D
"Mystra has indeed had evil Chosen (NDAs prevent me from saying much about who, when, why, and so on), but learned that evil beings, whatever their promises to her or initial intent, always drifted into "control" of magic (heavy restrictions), rather than just strategically letting this person but not that person have a particular spell or lore-knowledge. In other words, they always moved towards a situation in which a chosen few (beholden to them or under their overt control) had access to powerful magic, and worked against others enjoying that same access. Even when their intended end result was, say, an empire run by wizards (Thay, for example), the means to creating the empire would be control of magic - - and this control would inevitably corrupt, leading them to value control over dissemination of magic ("Nay, Holy Mystra, the people aren't ready to be handed that magic yet. Let me just prepare them properly first!"/"YOU SAID THE SAME WORDS TO ME SIX SEASONS AGO! WHEN *WILL* THEY BE 'READY'? EVER?").
Yes, all the Chosen have performed evil tasks (killing wizards, sorcerers, priests, and warriors who sought to control magic, deny magic to others, or use magic to enslave or terrorize others, for instance: even if a "bad guy" was being removed, the murder was still murder) to advance Mystra's aims. Magic has been stolen by Chosen, copied or duplicated against the wishes of (or laws crafted by) its owners by the Chosen, some of the Chosen have tricked, killed, and betrayed (into death-traps) particular rulers, and so on.
Of course the Chosen understand their cardinal role (helping Mystra spread the use of magic throughout Faerun, by undertaking specific tasks she orders - - some of which they may not understand or see the point of, at all). Most allies of the Chosen know Mystra's creed, too (note that it's incorrect to view the Harpers as staunch allies of the Chosen; what they are is personal friends in many cases, and power groups whose interests [opposing overly-strong rulers] often coincide, leading them to often work together or at least not oppose or expose each other."
has been part of the Realms from the very beginning. It was my way of viewing and understanding “the interconnectedness of all things” in my world, the ways in which magic and all natural forces (kinetic energy, the weather cycle, tides, sunlight, etc.) were linked and interacted together. The name “Weave” was introduced (I believe) by Julia Martin of TSR and now Wizards, as the way folk of Faerun described these interwoven forces. Neither the concept nor the name are truly original; they have been part of real-world mythologies, world-philosophies, and religions for thousands of years.
Mystra is Ed's wondrous, lovingly and beautifully wrought, exquisitely various and gameable metaphysics of magic and the philosophy, culture and ethics that surround it in Faerûn -- which we've seen in glimpses and inferences, shadows and echoes, but which philosophically unifies Realmslore and provides its metaphysical, moral and thematic web: a magical, enchanted, interconnected world given shared meaning by memory, love, and human and transhuman bonds. It is unique, irreplaceable except through decades of work, and Wizards' removal of it is sabotage.
Petty quibbles about her alignment (little more than a rules formality) or Chosen (a marginal factor) miss the point farcically.
So.....the above is sorta hyperbole.
Mystra is not the Weave in Ed Greenwood's creation and the whole idea of her being so is the result of TSR's pressure to merge the Goddess of Magic with the Weave fully, something Ed never intended to be the case. It also resulted in her being drastically increased in power to a point that made no sense.
But in any case, it's not the Force in my game either.
I point out that Ed has that Lurue is actually the Weave.
Had, more than twenty years ago. Not in his campaign now, not in all of available Realmslore. In any case, so what? If things had been different, we'd just be losing 'Lurue' now instead of 'Mystra'.
But in any case, it's not the Force in my game either.
But it is in the published Realms, and now it's gone.
Do we actually know what happened to the Weave? I don't think it just 'poofed' away (unless a designed said so) And what will the actual game mechanics for casting spells/using spell-like abilities be? To me, the whole Midnight/Mystra theme was a little soap opera-ish for my tastes. A goddess who had other gods jealous due to what happened when they were mortals...I am glad that mechanic has changed....and the story arc ran it's course.
Maybe there will still be the Weave, but no one 'in charge' of it.
But I probably missed the point.
Do we actually know what happened to the Weave? I don't think it just 'poofed' away (unless a designed said so)
It's destroyed in the Year of Blue Fire, as briefly described in the Grand History of the Realms.
And what will the actual game mechanics for casting spells/using spell-like abilities be?
The 4E magic rules. Changing the Realms to match the new rules is one of the main reasons for all this.
To me, the whole Midnight/Mystra theme was a little soap opera-ish for my tastes. A goddess who had other gods jealous due to what happened when they were mortals...
Yes, it was ridiculous and inconsistent with how the rest of Realmslore shows the gods. Wizards, on the other hand, has taken the divine soap opera of the Avatar novels, which was previously obvious literary licence, and made it official, as in the Tyr/Tymora/Helm love triangle (also in the Grand History).
Maybe there will still be the Weave, but no one 'in charge' of it.
Mystra is the Weave -- they're one and the same. The small but important part of her I call the 'pilot intelligence', which is largely Midnight from 1358 to 1385 DR, can be changed or replaced, and Wizards might have worked out something with that, but it didn't suit their purposes because it was the Weave (loosely modelled by the 1E through 3E magic system) as well as the 'character' of Mystra they didn't want.
You may ask, as others did, why the Weave couldn't have been altered rather than deleted. No answer was given, and the whole story and arguments behind these decisions probably won't become public for some years.
But does anyone know HOW the magic system in FR/4E will work? Priests pray for spells from gods (if they are still alive
) and Magic-users USED to tap the Weave...what will they tap into now...a keg of beer?I gathered that the Weave has been destroyed....but how can there be ANY magic in FR without the Weave. I know the designers can say 'Weave is gone due to 'Reason A' or 'Reason B'' But has anyone said HOW magic still exists in a post-Weave world? They should leak that out to calm some fears........
and.....Maybe the Weave was destroyed and the leftover parts reformed and became more stable...so the Weave is in exsistance, but now under no one's control, tapable by creatures smart enough/capable enough to do it.....
But I just made that up
HOW magic still exists in a post-Weave world?
FYI--- The same way there's magic in other worlds.
Wizards found ways to channel magic from Shadows, Elements, and so on.
and Magic-users USED to tap the Weave...what will they tap into now...a keg of beer?
They now tap into "raw magic", supposedly. Which is somewhat amusing, because from what I recall, one of the reasons that the Weave is supposed to exist is to contain raw magic, preventing it from obliterating the minds of mortals or something to that effect. In other words, a safe interface between mortal minds and magic that can be exercised without being obliterated in the process.
They now tap into "raw magic", supposedly. Which is somewhat amusing, because from what I recall, one of the reasons that the Weave is supposed to exist is to contain raw magic, preventing it from obliterating the minds of mortals or something to that effect. In other words, a safe interface between mortal minds and magic that can be exercised without being obliterated in the process.
To be blunt, given what the Weave ended up doing, I can't honestly say this will be more dangerous.
It's like complaining of Dam build up after Chernobyl.
In the pre-Spellplague Realms there are several kinds of variant magics, some of which use the Weave but some of which don't. The Weave is a layer of reality which is the most versatile and effective way to work Art in Faerûn -- to magically tap into and control natural forces -- but others exist. With the Weave unwoven and natural laws changed, mages develop '4E magic' over the next century. Someone else can probably link you to a summary of what we know about those new rules.
These are Ed Greenwood's answers from 2004 and 2005 to the question of what would happen if Mystra was destroyed. Wizards isn't doing it exactly like this, but it may clarify some things.
until a new deity rose to control whatever new system of magic replaced the Weave (remember, Mystra IS the Weave; for her to be destroyed “beyond re-creation,” Azuth and all of Mystra’s Chosen, in whom parts of her power reside, would have to be destroyed, too), magic would be wild or simply wouldn’t work. Probably magic items would do SOMETHING when their stored powers were unleashed, but not function as their wielders expected them to (and not under any precise control or exhibiting any consistency of effects).
It’s doubtful if most spell-using beings would survive such a cataclysm. None of them would survive it unchanged, to be sure. Nor would the Shadow Weave just ‘step in and take over’ if Mystra were destroyed utterly, because the Shadow Weave depends on the Weave; without the one, the other (which opposes it, and is ‘balanced’ to do so) will inevitably collapse too.
So the gods who remained would probably battle for control of magic, in a world in which all magic will have a governing tendency to ‘go wild.’ Farewell Realms as we know them, and so on.
We’re both curious: why do you ask this? :} Is a particularly foolish PC in your campaign planning to assassinate Mystra? (And if so, HOW?)
the Weave can most precisely be defined as a system of "seeing" (identifying, understanding, and influencing or "calling on") the natural flows of energy in Realmspace/Toril/Faerûn.
Some folk say the Weave IS magic, and that magic is natural energy harnessed. Priests of Mystra often say that "Mystra IS the Weave."
The priests are correct: Mystra is the Weave, and if there was another deity controlling magic, whatever precise system of harnessing natural energies (whether it was called the Weave or not) would be (at the least) subtly different from the Weave as Faerûnians know it today.
The "some folk" in my sentence above are for all practical daily purposes correct, but not precisely accurate: the Weave is the predominant and "most correct" (and thus, most powerful) means of harnessing natural energies: in other words, it is magic but it's not the ONLY magic (as evidenced by the Shadow Weave and other, less-powerful alternatives to the Weave: table magic, pluma magic, etc.).
It seems likely that to destroy Mystra would be to destroy the Weave, and vice versa (I say likely because a lot would depend on the deeds and dispositions of other "deities of magic" like Azuth, Savras, Velsharoon, and the nonhuman deities concerned with governance over magic, at the time of the fall of Mystra and/or the Weave). This would NOT mean that Realmspace/Toril/Faerûn would necessarily be destroyed, nor that magic would 'go away.' It probably would mean a lot of widespread magical chaos, and magic that thereafter 'worked differently' (either wholly or subtly) from the system of spells described in the current game rulebooks - - because they deal with magic in Faerûn "under the Weave." So a DM who wants to change magic in his or her Realms campaign to a spell-points system, or back to the spell levels and descriptions of earlier D&D editions, or substitute magic systems from other games, or just "tinker" with the published spells, could readily use a "destruction of the Weave" catacalysm as an in-game reason for such alterations.
Plus Elminster and Azuth are still alive, therefore the Weave must still exist, WotC made another huge had-waving of those facts, killing Mystra doesn't destroys the Weave, and if the developers knew that and said that Shar is blocking the ascension of a new Mystra then they have covered their bases in case the New Realms botch it, they only need to stop Shar's blocking and Mystra would be back.
Really good way of saying they don't know what the hell they are doing.
They now tap into "raw magic", supposedly. Which is somewhat amusing, because from what I recall, one of the reasons that the Weave is supposed to exist is to contain raw magic, preventing it from obliterating the minds of mortals or something to that effect.
-Indeed, it makes you wonder. Perhaps, like with Psionics, Wizards/Sorcerers develop a sort of individual "Mini-Weave" when casting.
Really good way of saying they don't know what the hell they are doing.
No, they just overruled Ed.
Really good way of saying they don't know what the hell they are doing.
No, they just overruled Ed.
I think it's just as Rich Baker put it: consistency is a concern for them, but they have several priorities that outrank it in their thinking.
Most of the content of Ed's posts above, by the way, is explicitly or implicitly known from prior lore.
Plus Elminster and Azuth are still alive, therefore the Weave must still exist, WotC made another huge had-waving of those facts, killing Mystra doesn't destroys the Weave, and if the developers knew that and said that Shar is blocking the ascension of a new Mystra then they have covered their bases in case the New Realms botch it, they only need to stop Shar's blocking and Mystra would be back.
-Wait, what? Killing Mystra has always unraveled the Weave, as Mystra is the Weave.
Parts of what Mystra is reside in Elminster and Azuth, from which a whole Mystra can be regenerated. That's why the Chosen exist, as hinted in The Seven Sisters and shown clearly in the Shadow of the Avatar books (the sources that introduced the concept in print).
It's been established that Shar is blocking Mystra's regeneration.
From anything.
Parts of what Mystra is reside in Elminster and Azuth, from which a whole Mystra can be regenerated. That's why the Chosen exist, as hinted in The Seven Sisters and shown clearly in the Shadow of the Avatar books (the sources that introduced the concept in print).
-Yes, I am aware of that. I have no problem with it, either. But killing Mystra the deity destroys the Weave, regardless of where she has invested portions of her essence. The small portions of divine essence she keeps in these individuals are akin to 'seeds', but do not prevent the Weave from unraveling outright.
Don't prevent it, but also it means the Weave can't be completely and irrevocably destroyed until they are destroyed too.
-If you take an acorn off of a tree, and then cut that tree down, and then throw it in the incinerator, does the tree still exist, as in it's still there and growing and everything?
Since they are still alive then WotC still has one way of restoring Mystra, I'm thinking they left that possibility open because they aren't sure that 4th FR will sell well and they'll need some way of returning everything, they'll use some way of "Unsundering" to return the time to the 14th century.
-Personally, I don't even think they realize, but that's just me.
Don't prevent it, but also it means the Weave can't be completely and irrevocably destroyed until they are destroyed too. Since they are still alive then WotC still has one way of restoring Mystra, I'm thinking they left that possibility open because they aren't sure that 4th FR will sell well and they'll need some way of returning everything, they'll use some way of "Unsundering" to return the time to the 14th century.
It reminds me of the Bane Liches to be honest.
Alediran, fans were talking about how Bane would be reborn from them for years.
Until Xvim destroyed them all.
As long as any Chosen or Azuth is still alive Mystra has the chance of coming back, the only thing needed is a bad result with the new edition.
And dady Bane destroyed Xvim, very ironic.
As long as any Chosen or Azuth is still alive Mystra has the chance of coming back, the only thing needed is a bad result with the new edition.
Eh, they could just easilly say that the Weave is permanently gone and that part of Mystra in them died.
Baker has implied Elminster is no longer a Chosen.
And Azuth is still alive, his divinity is tied to Mystra's power, if he's still around then he still holds a part of Mystra's power.
I like the idea that magic is just an unembodied source of power.
Boccob has always been a better Magic God. He is aloof, doesn't interfere....but look at Mystryl/Mystra, first CN, then LN and then NG. Always involved with the Harpers.
She was a poor embodiment of Magic and it is good she is gone...
Get thee back to Greyhawk!
Honestly, Boccob is BORING. Least Mystra did something.
As long as any Chosen or Azuth is still alive Mystra has the chance of coming back...
-Sure, but the fact remains that Mystra is dead, and the Weave is unraveled.
-I'd be interesting to see, if a revive Mystra plot appears- and I am certain one will, eventually- how these characters will come into play.
Boccob.My mages worshiped Wee Jass.
We get Succubi Girlfriends, Kill the Nonhumans, and accumulate power like rational mages!
And also, unlike your piddling non-interfering god, our goddess FAVORED us over others.
SUEL FOR LIFE!
I don't get the impression that Alediran is arguing that the Weave is gone or that Mystra is dead, so much as the point the as long as one of her former Chosen exists, there's a possibility that she could arise once more... its a convenient backdoor excuse to 'put things back' if they need to. Its a relatively straightforward point that hardly merits arguing over...
-He said, "Plus Elminster and Azuth are still alive, therefore the Weave must still exist...killing Mystra doesn't destroys the Weave."
-But, no one's arguing, don't worry.
Shuruppak. He didn't keep the Chosen status, he just went on a rampage, as far as i know. Also, LK, the acorn/tree thingy doesn't work. it's more of a sapling. Still the same essence, in any case.
-I think the acorn analogy is more appropriate, but if you want a sapling, so be it. The same idea still applies.
-I think the acorn analogy is more appropriate, but if you want a sapling, so be it. The same idea still applies.
No; a sapling's a copy, whereas an acorn isn't.
No; a sapling's a copy, whereas an acorn isn't.
-Saplings (baby trees) 'hatch' from acorns (or other seeds).
-Saplings (baby trees) 'hatch' from acorns (or other seeds).
Many trees are clones anyway.
And Boccob is kinda dull, which I prefer. I don't really like active gods running around and messing stuff up. RSE's give me a headache. Plus Wee Jas is way hotter.
-Saplings (baby trees) 'hatch' from acorns (or other seeds).
No, a sapling's taken directly from the tree and then cultivated; it's basic cloning, whereas an acorn's been fertilised and therefore NOT a copy.
Though I'd definitely go along with Wee Jas being far hotter than Boccob...
But on the Weave still existing, I'd agree that it does, just not on the same level it did before. Might be better to say that the potential of the Weave still exists so long as her chosen exist.
You would presumably know more about it then I would guess, so I will bow to your superior knowledge of plants. However, in fair warning, I will probably continue to use the laymen term just to aggravate you... :P :D
Nah, 'tis fine ;p
But i will have to decapitate you.
I don't know what WotC is thinking (if you can call what they do thinking), but it certainly seems they're tyring to turn the whole damned thing generic.
From what I've read of the new changes, it seems a lot of the gods are going to be dead for 4th...
I don't know what WotC is thinking (if you can call what they do thinking), but it certainly seems they're tyring to turn the whole damned thing generic.
I think they got tired of all of these different deities running around. Granted, if they had done a few more things with them, hammered out their personalities and what not, we wouldn't be in this mess. But maybe that's just wishful thinking...
I think they got tired of all of these different deities running around. Granted, if they had done a few more things with them, hammered out their personalities and what not, we wouldn't be in this mess. But maybe that's just wishful thinking...
Wishful thinking.
There were hints in "Magic of Faerûn" at how Mystra wanted to absord the Shadow Weave and I thought they would just make her do this and become absolutely neutral. I was wrong there...
And the worst thing for me is the apparent death of Savras - no more Alaundo's prophecies, no deity with a history of prophecies (didn't he have himself caught in the staff to live through the Times of Troubles? I'm speculating - haven't read the Grand History
), no more subtle conflicts among deities of magic and Tashalar's history gone (okay that's nothing compared to what happenes to Halruaa but still) - takes a lot of mystery away for me.How can a deity of prophecy die with so little spectacle and no surprising, intelligent and remarkable twist in the story?
As I said, I hope they flesh out the story around Mystra so it becomes more appealing.
And thanks for the quotes by Ed Greenwood, very interesting.
As I said, I hope they flesh out the story around Mystra so it becomes more appealing.
-This is why so many people are up in arms. That such a momentus and crucial event gets a few sentences, and a little blurb of explanation, with no stated plans to ever look back.
How can a deity of prophecy die with so little spectacle and no surprising, intelligent and remarkable twist in the story?
For once, i'll defend 4th ed.
Prophecy (unless it's a forked prophecy or with several versions etc) is unpreventable. Oedipus is an example of this; however much they tried, he was fated to do what he did. A deity that knew it could've warned Mystra, if there was a prophecy, but Mystra would've died.
For once, i'll defend 4th ed.
Prophecy (unless it's a forked prophecy or with several versions etc) is unpreventable. Oedipus is an example of this; however much they tried, he was fated to do what he did.
Actually, one could argue that that was not the case--for what it's worth, I once wrote a paper arguing that Oedipus caused his own problems (we had to argue either that or "unavoidable prophecy"), and I got an "A" on that paper.
That being said, I get the point you're trying to make, although I don't know if I agree with that in the context of the Realms, either (I think Ed has said there is no such thing as unavoidable fate in the Realms).
It is possible that Savras saw this happened, he was seeming to work to his end. Plus there are prophecies from other gods and arcane sources.
Also with Mystra gone, this is true... for now. Even with Shar holding back the next god of magic, I can imagine other gods working to either take the role or give it to someone else. This could be linked to a big first adventure for the new
Realms. Think about it?
Actually, one could argue that that was not the case--for what it's worth, I once wrote a paper arguing that Oedipus caused his own problems (we had to argue either that or "unavoidable prophecy"), and I got an "A" on that paper.
That being said, I get the point you're trying to make, although I don't know if I agree with that in the context of the Realms, either (I think Ed has said there is no such thing as unavoidable fate in the Realms).
There -is- such a thing as unavoidable fate in the Realms. Just ask the previous three incarnations of Mystra.
Even with Shar holding back the next god of magic, I can imagine other gods working to either take the role or give it to someone else. This could be linked to a big first adventure for the new
Realms. Think about it?
First, no sane person would want to become the new deity of magic. By now the trend should be obvious. ;)
Shar's not holding back the next god of magic. In fact, Ao has put out a help wanted ad and offered to pay out divine favors for anyone who takes the job. No one is calling or signing up. :P
Second, I am pretty sure you're right. There will be an adventure to either bring back Mystra or to replace her in the new 4E Realms, and I am wagering it will be done by the Living FR Group. No offense to the leaders of LFR, but I am gagging at the thought of the results. I have nightmarish visions of 60 Chosen of Mystra running around, all level 30 with demi-god powers as rulers of every nation.
(Okay, maybe it won't be *that* bad, but let's face it - there will be people who want to bring back Mystra and there will be people who want to play her Chosen. It is inevitable.)
Actually, one could argue that that was not the case--for what it's worth, I once wrote a paper arguing that Oedipus caused his own problems (we had to argue either that or "unavoidable prophecy"), and I got an "A" on that paper.
-So smart. ;)
(I think Ed has said there is no such thing as unavoidable fate in the Realms).
-Correct. The closest thing there is to the concept of an 'overbearing' Fate is Fate, from Maztica.
-Correct. The closest thing there is to the concept of an 'overbearing' Fate is Fate, from Maztica.
I thought Fate was a Zakharan belief?
I point out that Ed has that Lurue is actually the Weave.
So.....the above is sorta hyperbole.
Mystra is not the Weave in Ed Greenwood's creation and the whole idea of her being so is the result of TSR's pressure to merge the Goddess of Magic with the Weave fully, something Ed never intended to be the case. It also resulted in her being drastically increased in power to a point that made no sense.
But in any case, it's not the Force in my game either.
I never knew that. Pretty interesting. Why Lurue? Just curious.
I thought Fate was a Zakharan belief?
-Yes. al-Qadim is Zakhara, not Maztica.
-So smart. ;)
Aww, thanks.:embarrass
There -is- such a thing as unavoidable fate in the Realms. Just ask the previous three incarnations of Mystra.
That's not fate, that's fiat. Authorial fiat, to be precise.
... Mystra is Ed's wondrous, lovingly and beautifully wrought, exquisitely various and gameable metaphysics of magic and the philosophy, culture and ethics that surround it in Faerûn -- which we've seen in glimpses and inferences, shadows and echoes, but which philosophically unifies Realmslore and provides its metaphysical, moral and thematic web: a magical, enchanted, interconnected world given shared meaning by memory, love, and human and transhuman bonds. It is unique, irreplaceable except through decades of work, and Wizards' removal of it is sabotage.
Petty quibbles about her alignment (little more than a rules formality) or Chosen (a marginal factor) miss the point farcically.
Oh please!
Before I ramble on, let me say that I fully respect your opinion and I think that everybody should play in the version of the Realms that her or she likes most.
Having said that I must point out that you seem to be one of the people who follow Ed's words on the Realms religiously. This is bound to create problems as you might see right now, simply because of the fact that Ed is not the only person who is working on the Realms at the moment. So either you accept the fact that Ed might be wrong on issues regarding the Realms canon (as written) or you will have pointless discussions with everyone who reads the new products.
I am by the way with the Threadstarter on this one. It always seemed wrong to me that something so fundamental like magic would be so strongly associated with a NG goddess. If you think otherwise I would like you to answer me two questions.
1) Was Mystra able to cut someone off the Weave permanently?
2) If yes, why did she allow all the horrible things that the countless evil mages accomplished using the Weave?
1) Was Mystra able to cut someone off the Weave permanently?
-Presumably, as she has demonstrated that she can do this for limited times, she can also do it permanently.
2) If yes, why did she allow all the horrible things that the countless evil mages accomplished using the Weave?
-Have you read Crucibe: The Trial of Cyric the Mad? If not, I suggest that you do, as it specifically addresses this question, in a somewhat roundabout way. Regardless of her alignment, Mystra has responsibilities. The Weave is the source of magic for everyone, not just good guys. It is her duty to allow everyone to tap the power of the Weave, not just those who she feels fit to allow.
Having said that I must point out that you seem to be one of the people who follow Ed's words on the Realms religiously. This is bound to create problems as you might see right now, simply because of the fact that Ed is not the only person who is working on the Realms at the moment. So either you accept the fact that Ed might be wrong on issues regarding the Realms canon (as written) or you will have pointless discussions with everyone who reads the new products.
Faraer does read the new products, not only Ed's words. Some people simply respect Ed's take on the Realms the most.
I am by the way with the Threadstarter on this one. It always seemed wrong to me that something so fundamental like magic would be so strongly associated with a NG goddess. If you think otherwise I would like you to answer me two questions.
1) Was Mystra able to cut someone off the Weave permanently?
I believe so.
2) If yes, why did she allow all the horrible things that the countless evil mages accomplished using the Weave?
Because you can be Good and still be impartial and "business-like" when it comes to doing your job.
I think a NG goddess of magic isn't silly at all. Most portfolios can be said to be neutral, yet most gods are not neutral. The ocean, for example, isn't "evil", yet people tend not to complain about the sea goddess being CE.
I think a NG goddess of magic isn't silly at all. Most portfolios can be said to be neutral, yet most gods are not neutral. The ocean, for example, isn't "evil", yet people tend not to complain about the sea goddess being CE.
You've got Deep Sashelas, which is the Elven ocean god, and he's not evil. You've also go Valkur and istishia, so it's more split there. But i always thought Mystryl's LN was perfect. As long as the Weave survives, things are fine.
-A LN magic deity is bland.
in your opinion. i thought it was excellent=)
in your opinion. i thought it was excellent=)
-Bland, as in the sense, as I said in my very next sentence, that it's very much played out. Everyone has a LN deity of magic these days.
-Have you read Crucibe: The Trial of Cyric the Mad? If not, I suggest that you do, as it specifically addresses this question, in a somewhat roundabout way. Regardless of her alignment, Mystra has responsibilities. The Weave is the source of magic for everyone, not just good guys. It is her duty to allow everyone to tap the power of the Weave, not just those who she feels fit to allow.
So all this talk about Mystra being the Weave is just that: talk. She is a mere caretaker.
Faraer does read the new products, not only Ed's words. Some people simply respect Ed's take on the Realms the most.
I have no problems with that. But there is no need to preach Ed's word as if it was the only 'true' version of the FR.
Ed is not in charge regarding the FR anymore. So people should stop acting as if he were.
Because you can be Good and still be impartial and "business-like" when it comes to doing your job.
No you can't. Let's imagine you are a general in a huge war which takes the lives of many people. Further imagine that you have the power to end this war instantly and without harming a single person. But your job there is to defeat your enemy completely. So you are either doing your job in a "business-like" fashion or you act good.
The same with Mystra. Either she is not allowed to do something against evil mages - and then she is a simple caretaker, or she can do this but chooses not to - in which case she is just not as good as you might think (or as stated).
So either the "Mystra is the Weave" part is rubbish or her NG alignment.
So all this talk about Mystra being the Weave is just that: talk. She is a mere caretaker.
-No, she is the Weave. How does the alignment of her sentience alter the fact that the Weave is accessed by everyone? When she began doing that, she was promptly set in her place, and reminded that her the Weave is universal, and not for those whom Mystra favors.
I have no problems with that. But there is no need to preach Ed's word as if it was the only 'true' version of the FR.
Ed is not in charge regarding the FR anymore. So people should stop acting as if he were.
-Indeed. I agree 100%. That said, Ed Greenwood is the most knowledgeable source on the setting that there is.
-No, she is the Weave. How does the alignment of her sentience alter the fact that the Weave is accessed by everyone? When she began doing that, she was promptly set in her place, and reminded that her the Weave is universal, and not for those whom Mystra favors.
That's exactly the moment when her alignment should have shifted to Neutral. You can't allow evil and call yourself good at the same time.
That's exactly the moment when her alignment should have shifted to Neutral. You can't allow evil and call yourself good at the same time.
-Yes you can. Piergion the Paladinson is a LG Paladin, the Open-Lord of Waterdeep. He knows of Skullport, a hive of scum and villiany. And yet, he allows it to continue to exist, and retains his status as a Lawful Good Paladin at the same time.
-Yes you can. Piergion the Paladinson is a LG Paladin, the Open-Lord of Waterdeep. He knows of Skullport, a hive of scum and villiany. And yet, he allows it to continue to exist, and retains his status as a Lawful Good Paladin at the same time.
He is not a god, is he?
My point is that he would probably take great risks (in terms of: lives of his followers/henchmen) if he tried to do something about Skullport. So he chooses the lesser evil which is part of being human. Mystra isn't human anymore. She does not need to consider something like that. She could safely cut off every evil person from the Weave without even hurting them.
Paladinson would certainly do something about Skullport given sufficient power to do so without losses. If not he is not LG in my book.
He is not a god, is he?
-Why would that make a difference? The concept of alignment applies to everyone: Men, deities, dogs...
Mystra isn't human anymore. She does not need to consider something like that. She could safely cut off every evil person from the Weave without even hurting them.
-And, as has been stated multiple times now, Mystra has been instructed not to ever do anything of that sorts ever again, let she lose soverignty of her portfolio. At work, you don't do what you see fit doing. You do what your boss tells you to do, regardless of your personal feelings about it.
-I worked as a Federal Park Ranger for the last year and a half or so...When my boss tells me that the group of children playing on the baseball field needs to be removed, because they don't have a permit, do I agree? No. They're kids, they're not bothering anyone, and no one is even scheduled to be on that field. That said, I go and I kick those kids off of the field, regardless.
...
-I worked as a Federal Park Ranger for the last year and a half or so...When my boss tells me that the group of children playing on the baseball field needs to be removed, because they don't have a permit, do I agree? No. They're kids, they're not bothering anyone, and no one is even scheduled to be on that field. That said, I go and I kick those kids off of the field, regardless.
The situation with Mystra is more like:
There is a dark cultist who is raping a woman on the field. He has a permit. There are also some teenagers who try to stop him. They don't have a permit. Your boss wants you to remove the teenagers.
Your alignment is NG. Decide.
The situation with Mystra is more like:
There is a dark cultist who is raping a woman on the field. He has a permit. There are also some teenagers who try to stop him. They don't have a permit. Your boss wants you to remove the teenagers.
Your alignment is NG. Decide.
-A horrible analogy. That said, Park Police would be notified.
-A horrible analogy. That said, Park Police would be notified.
Indeed, horrible. As horrible as the things evil mages do everyday in the Realms without the police being notified and with Mystra watching.
Indeed, horrible. As horrible as the things evil mages do everyday in the Realms without the police being notified and with Mystra watching.
-No, horrible as in the two situations do not equivocate, making the analogy, at best, flawed.
You've got Deep Sashelas, which is the Elven ocean god, and he's not evil. You've also go Valkur and istishia, so it's more split there. But i always thought Mystryl's LN was perfect. As long as the Weave survives, things are fine.
There are evil gods associated with magic, though (specifically, different types of magic).
Also, don't focus so much on the one example that I used that you miss my point. My point was that if it's true that a god must be neutral if their portfolio is "neutral", that would mean almost every god in the Realms would have to be neutral, but that's not the case.
I have no problems with that. But there is no need to preach Ed's word as if it was the only 'true' version of the FR.
Ed is not in charge regarding the FR anymore. So people should stop acting as if he were.
Err, no one was making either of those assertions (either through "preaching" or otherwise).
No you can't. Let's imagine you are a general in a huge war which takes the lives of many people. Further imagine that you have the power to end this war instantly and without harming a single person. But your job there is to defeat your enemy completely. So you are either doing your job in a "business-like" fashion or you act good.
Meh, that's a strawman argument.
-No, horrible as in the two situations do not equivocate, making the analogy, at best, flawed.
Where exactly is my analogy flawed?
You boss would like you to turn away when evil things are happening (in my example).
Mystra's boss wants her not only to turn away but actually to assist without making a difference regarding alignment or the kind of deed that is going to be done using the Weave.
So Mystra's situation is even worse than my analogy.
EDIT: by the way, we should probably stop because of this:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=915423
see Alignment
Where exactly is my analogy flawed?
-You are assuming that:
A) I have the power to stop said rapist.
B) My boss doesn't care that there is a rapist doing something vile on her watch, and is preoccupied with the children playing without authorization.
-Mystra II's mandate, which she inhereted from Mystra I, and from Mystryl before her, is to allow access to the Weave to all, not just a select few.
He is not a god, is he?
My point is that he would probably take great risks (in terms of: lives of his followers/henchmen) if he tried to do something about Skullport. So he chooses the lesser evil which is part of being human. Mystra isn't human anymore. She does not need to consider something like that.
Eh, I disagree. See below...
She could safely cut off every evil person from the Weave without even hurting them.
Being a deity, Mystra is more far-seeing than that, though. As far as she's concerned, if a wizard is able to add to the magical arts, that's a good thing in her book, whether that wizard is "good" or "evil". Also, cutting people off from the Weave based on their alignment gives no regard to the concept of free will (people are more than just what their alignment is).
I don't understand how people can complain about Mystra being heavy-handed and too good, and then complain about her NOT putting the smackdown on all evil-aligned casters. That seems like a contradictory position to me.
The situation with Mystra is more like:
There is a dark cultist who is raping a woman on the field. He has a permit. There are also some teenagers who try to stop him.
The dark cultist would be breaking the law by raping someone, so it wouldn't matter if he had the right to be on the land or not.
As noted before, terrible analogy! At least explain how these horrible analogies have anything to do with Mystra.
There are evil gods associated with magic, though (specifically, different types of magic).
Also, don't focus so much on the one example that I used that you miss my point. My point was that if it's true that a god must be neutral if their portfolio is "neutral", that would mean almost every god in the Realms would have to be neutral, but that's not the case.
Well, the sea is treacherous, and i've thought it'll sound stupid, i've taken a course in navigation at sea, and only one step form being a captain of a ferry, Umberlee isn't really evil, but the sea is treacherous. That's how it is. if you're in an unsafe vessel (i've had to turn back more than once due to winds and waves) you do. Only a numpty would continue into inhospitable seas.
Umberlee's CE because she's basques in adoration more than she really requires it. Give her lip service and she'll be fine; forget it, and she'll mash your boat.
The sea is treacherous to man, but in the end it's still neutral.
Yeah, but that's ishtishia's role. Umberlee just invokes the badder parts of the sea.
Before I ramble on, let me say that I fully respect your opinion . . .
Don't 'oh please' me, then.
Having said that I must point out that you seem to be one of the people who follow Ed's words on the Realms religiously. This is bound to create problems as you might see right now, simply because of the fact that Ed is not the only person who is working on the Realms at the moment. So either you accept the fact that Ed might be wrong on issues regarding the Realms canon (as written) or you will have pointless discussions with everyone who reads the new products.
The spirit, intent and letter of Ed's work is being contradicted by Realms-2008 much as every other author's is.
The current lore is certainly relevant to a comparative discussion of the new setting. It's less relevant to people using the new Realms that has changed it in-world or retroactively (for reasons mostly external to the setting), and I don't plan to have any pointless discussions with them.
I am by the way with the Threadstarter on this one. It always seemed wrong to me that something so fundamental like magic would be so strongly associated with a NG goddess.
. . .
2) If yes, why did she allow all the horrible things that the countless evil mages accomplished using the Weave?
Gods aren't mortals, don't think or decide as mortals do, aren't free to act as mortals are (whether you personify that by Ao or take it as the working of cosmic laws). In addition to your other replies, her alignment is as I said little more than a rules formality. Whereas Tyr for instance is both Just and LG in a strong sense, Mystra is essentially Magical, and NG only in a weak, tertiary sense. Midnight, Mystra's pilot consciousness, is NG. Mystra as a whole is not well described by the alignment system.
Ed is not in charge regarding the FR anymore. So people should stop acting as if he were.
He never was in charge. The standing of what the creator of a world (and most of its detail) writes about it is separate from legal and commercial matters.
So either the "Mystra is the Weave" part is rubbish or her NG alignment.
As I explained, it's the latter -- not rubbish, but not to be taken at face value or confused with what the alignment of a mortal means. Realmslore old and new, however, is perfectly clear on the former.
Yeah, but that's ishtishia's role. Umberlee just invokes the badder parts of the sea.
-Ishtishia is just water, in general. Umberlee is the ocean, in general. Neither are anything more or less than nautral, in simply existing.
That's exactly the moment when her alignment should have shifted to Neutral. You can't allow evil and call yourself good at the same time.
Hmm. Allow evil? May I offer you a vacation package in a nice little villa in a empire called Ishtar? Allow....
-Ishtishia is just water, in general. Umberlee is the ocean, in general. Neither are anything more or less than nautral, in simply existing.
Indeed. And really, there are no "bad" parts of the sea. Just because an aspect of nature is dangerous to man does not mean it is "evil". Is a cliff "evil" because if you fall off of it, you'll be hurt or killed?
Does that make the river 'evil' because it killed te kid or 'good' because it save the village from 'dread'?
Hmm, let say there's a drought in a village and is affecting the village in a big way, now there's a kid playing near the river area and a sudden storm hits and the river suddenly floods and kill the kid.
Does that make the river 'evil' because it killed te kid or 'good' because it save the village from 'dread'?
Neither. Only sentient beings can be good or evil. To be one of those things requires a rational choice (I choose to kill that person because I hate him, I choose to help that old lady cross the street), something that non-sentients can't do.
:: Waves back ::
Just because an aspect of nature is dangerous to man does not mean it is "evil".
-Yes.
Indeed. And really, there are no "bad" parts of the sea. Just because an aspect of nature is dangerous to man does not mean it is "evil". Is a cliff "evil" because if you fall off of it, you'll be hurt or killed?
What i meant was that Umberlee is evil, not the ocean. She's just got a tendency to want you to say a few prayers to her, or she's gonna make things difficult for you. Deep Sashelas, who also holds the Ocean portfolio, is good, but that doesn't make him any less suitable as an Ocean god. Umberlee isn't the ocean the same way Mystra was the Weave, Umberlee just happens to be evil!
What i meant was that Umberlee is evil, not the ocean. She's just got a tendency to want you to say a few prayers to her, or she's gonna make things difficult for you. Deep Sashelas, who also holds the Ocean portfolio, is good, but that doesn't make him any less suitable as an Ocean god. Umberlee isn't the ocean the same way Mystra was the Weave, Umberlee just happens to be evil!
And what is the Weave? A conduit to safely access magic. Raw Magic doesn't has a god, it simply is, it's the true source of magic. Mystra is the one who makes it secure to mortals, therefore she can be good aligned, I even think that her job could be considered good-aligned.
And what is the Weave? A conduit to safely access magic. Raw Magic doesn't has a god, it simply is, it's the true source of magic.
It's not so straightfoward: the dualistic idea of Mystra as an interface to magic but not magic itself isn't borne out in the sources. The Lady of Mysteries is the goddess of magic. Her divine power is the silver fire, a transcendent magical essence, and the experience of union with her is immersion in it. Her fundamental symbol is a blue-white star of the same stuff and she manifests as a blue-white glow. The structure of the Weave is not separate from the energies that maintain it. The silver fire's exact relationships to life energy, the natural energies of Toril, the Weave and spellfire are not set down for us: they're some of her Mysteries. There may be something even more mysterious that underlies both the silver fire and the energies of the Shadow Weave. Which of these phenomena you call 'raw magic' is a sages' quibble: it's not a term much used in Realmslore.
By the way, my subtler description of Mystra's alignment is heavily drawn from the Elminster books, where we see clearly that Midnight did not replace Mystra -- a small mortal soul couldn't take the place of a vastly more-than-human greater god identical to the magical structure of the world -- but merged with her, replacing the part that died in the Godswar.
I like the idea that magic is just an unembodied source of power.
Boccob has always been a better Magic God. He is aloof, doesn't interfere....but look at Mystryl/Mystra, first CN, then LN and then NG. Always involved with the Harpers.
She was a poor embodiment of Magic and it is good she is gone...
:S >.< grrrr
That doesnt make Boccob a better god!!! That means that boccob fits "better" to YOU!
Afterall, Mystra was a HUMAN before achieving godhood! Thats why she has mortal passions and desires and she is good aligned and not neutral. Thats her individuality! Which also makes it interesting, just like other gods of FRCS....
The fact that she interfares much in FR's conflicts should make you roleplay that fact and hate her IN game. Not asking to remove her from FRCS (or something like that..)
PS: I also dislike Mystra and i always try to show that when i roll a player ^^
There's a difference between Azuth patronizing magic and Mystra's embodying it.
I always felt it was a stupid concept to...
1. Try and make the Weave everywhere and that life cannot exist without it.
QUOTE]
Well thats true... it CAN NOT exist without magic/weave... because FR is indeed a world made of magic. Actually is THE magic world. There are other campaigns that gods OF magic are not like mystra who is THE magic itself... So lets dont try to find and change things in a particular campaign. You can always try another campaign if you dont like FR's lore around magic ^^
The fact that she interfares much in FR's conflicts should make you roleplay that fact and hate her IN game.
That's not a fact at all.
PS: I also dislike Mystra and i always try to show that when i roll a player ^^
-That's quite stupid, in my opinion. Why would...A Halfling juggler hate Mystra? A Lantanese Gnome? A Cormyrian farmer?
Well thats true... it CAN NOT exist without magic/weave... because FR is indeed a world made of magic.
-Yes it can, and obviously so, as Mystra and the Weave will soon be ceasing to be existing, and the Forgotten Realms will go on.
What i meant was that Umberlee is evil, not the ocean.
Right...which was the point I was trying to make, actually.
People complain about Mystra being NG because magic is neutral--countless times I've heard it argued that a god of magic should only ever be neutral. Yet if that were true, that principle (neutral portfolio--neutral god) should be applied to almost every deity, because most portfolios are neutral.
Yet, only Mystra seems to be a problem.
The fact that she interfares much in FR's conflicts should make you roleplay that fact and hate her IN game.
She interferes in the affairs of mortals about as much as most of the other deities.
Yet again, only Mystra is singled out. Not to mention the fact that the typical character, in-game, should NOT be aware of everything any particular god does! They would know only a tiny fraction about the gods and what they do (if that).
So lets dont try to find and change things in a particular campaign. You can always try another campaign if you dont like FR's lore around magic ^^
I think you should get your own facts straight before telling other people what they should do and what they shouldn't do in their own campaign.
I wonder if Umberlee is really evil - considering that without worship she'd be dead...
-Not entirely true. A deity "sustains" itself on not only it's worship base, but the actual power that stems from the portfolio or portfolios it has. This is what allows certain deities, like Kanchelsis, for instance, to survive without any, or very few, worshippers.
I couldn't be happier that Mystra is dead for the following reasons:
1. She never seemed impartial at all...just inconsistent
2. The Chozen always struck me as a bunch of over-sexed self rightous busy bodies.
3. Harpers suck (see above).
4. The so called "Lady of Mysteries" wasn't really very mysterious she was a heavy handed and overt diety. She and her Chosen were always popping up to preach and interfere and reaque would be heroes in such Dues ex machina ways it was laughable (often after a quick obligatory romp between the sheets).
5. Shar, possesing the last fragment of "whole magic" would make a far better goddess of magic, if she takes that role: more ominous, unknowable, fearsome...things that make magic, well, magical.
6. Honestly didnt Cyric earn this? Bless his blackened heart, he worked so hard for it. Let the whiny little sociopath have his moment.
_______________________
"If it lives I've killed it, but if it be Drow...I tortured it for days first. As to yer home, I burnt it to the ground an releaved me'self on the ashes and the dead, and the necklace of Dark elf ears I collected fetched me a king's ransom in Waterdeep" -Korgan Bloodaxe to Viconia :D
... In addition to your other replies, her alignment is as I said little more than a rules formality. Whereas Tyr for instance is both Just and LG in a strong sense, Mystra is essentially Magical, and NG only in a weak, tertiary sense. Midnight, Mystra's pilot consciousness, is NG. Mystra as a whole is not well described by the alignment system. ...
That's a good explanation. They should have described it like that in the Faiths & Pantheons book.
And what is the Weave? A conduit to safely access magic. Raw Magic doesn't has a god, it simply is, it's the true source of magic. Mystra is the one who makes it secure to mortals, therefore she can be good aligned, I even think that her job could be considered good-aligned.
Also a very good explanation. I think I learned a lot in this thread.
...
People complain about Mystra being NG because magic is neutral--countless times I've heard it argued that a god of magic should only ever be neutral. Yet if that were true, that principle (neutral portfolio--neutral god) should be applied to almost every deity, because most portfolios are neutral.
Yet, only Mystra seems to be a problem.
So have you ever asked yourself why people are picking on Mystra? I mean, there must be a reason.
The argument that most gods should be neutral is not really a strong one since there are quite a number of gods with clearly evil or clearly good portfolios. Certainly there are some who are good/evil despite the fact that it would be more appropriate for them to be neutral, but they are mostly not an issue since you can ignore a god if you don't like him. You can't ignore Mystra when you are a spellcaster in the Realms. That's the reason why people are so upset about Mystra's alignment.
That's a good explanation. They should have described it like that in the Faiths & Pantheons book.
Lots of things about the Realms could be explained much more clearly.
You can't ignore Mystra when you are a spellcaster in the Realms. That's the reason why people are so upset about Mystra's alignment.
Her alignment has almost no effect for the average mage. For most worshippers she's much as she was in the pre-Godswar millennia when she was LN. She doesn't withhold magic because you're evil. She doesn't pursue good ends other than the dispersal and furthering of the Art. Evil wizards like Manshoon of the Zhentarim actively worship her much as they did before. Her nominal alignment is for most purposes transparent and irrelevant.
Now, through whatever process, there's an actively good, constantly interfering Mystra which people gossip about on messageboards through Chinese whispers. But she isn't the Mystra of Realmslore.
The argument that most gods should be neutral is not really a strong one since there are quite a number of gods with clearly evil or clearly good portfolios. Certainly there are some who are good/evil despite the fact that it would be more appropriate for them to be neutral, but they are mostly not an issue since you can ignore a god if you don't like him.
-Her argument isn't exactly that most deities should be neutral, because they represent something that is neutral. Her argument- more of a rhetorical question- is that why is it only Mystra, where this is a problem? Like Umberlee, who was used as an example, Mystra represents something that is entirely and completely neutral. The ocean is just as neutral as magic. Why it is a problem that Mystra has an alignment that "betrays" the neutrality of her main portfolio, whereas it isn't with Umberlee, and others, who have alignments that "betray" the neutrality of their main portfolios.
You can't ignore Mystra when you are a spellcaster in the Realms.
-Sure you can. You think the average, backwards Chultan Sorcerer knows of Mystra, as we know her? And, as you yourself were complaining about (s I took it), Mystra allows both good, evil and neutral spellcasters to exist without any harassment of any kind.
-Her argument isn't exactly that most deities should be neutral, because they represent something that is neutral. Her argument- more of a rhetorical question- is that why is it only Mystra, where this is a problem? Like Umberlee, who was used as an example, Mystra represents something that is entirely and completely neutral. The ocean is just as neutral as magic. Why it is a problem that Mystra has an alignment that "betrays" the neutrality of her main portfolio, whereas it isn't with Umberlee, and others, who have alignments that "betray" the neutrality of their main portfolios.
Because nobody cares about Umberlee (except perhaps clerics of Umberlee) while every PC spellcaster has the strange feeling of Mystra beeing his "boss". I know that this is silly but players often feel this way.
-Sure you can. You think the average, backwards Chultan Sorcerer knows of Mystra, as we know her? And, as you yourself were complaining about (s I took it), Mystra allows both good, evil and neutral spellcasters to exist without any harassment of any kind.
The average Chultan sorcerer may lack the knowledge but the player who reads the novels and plays a Red Wizard has this knowledge. Plus he may have the knowledge about the fact that his enemies are Mystras Chosen. That won't make him like her because he will have this feeling to depend on someone who disapproves of him.
Sure that's probably the wrong way to see these things but it's a common way. To prevent this they should have explained the "Mystra situation" better.
Because nobody cares about Umberlee (except perhaps clerics of Umberlee) while every PC spellcaster has the strange feeling of Mystra beeing his "boss".
-You are creating a hypocritical double standard. It's okay for anyone other than Mystra to "betray" the inherent neutrality of their portfolios.
I know that this is silly but players often feel this way.
-It is silly. In my campaign- which is not the Forgotten Realms, but I use the same deities, for a long, convoluted reason- I have spellcasters in the party (2, a Bard and a Sorcerer Rogue). Neither worship Mystra, nor is she a topic that ever comes up in our gaming sessions.
The average Chultan sorcerer may lack the knowledge but the player who reads the novels and plays a Red Wizard has this knowledge. Plus he may have the knowledge about the fact that his enemies are Mystras Chosen. That won't make him like her because he will have this feeling to depend on someone who disapproves of him.
-You skirted my answer. A backwards Chultan sorcerer will have no knowledge of Mystra. Thus, a spellcaster in Faerûn can ignore Mystra.
I dont play D&D, I just read the forgotten Realms books, which have been a sort of guilty pleasure of mine ever since I played the game Baulder's Gate way....back.
I couldn't be happier that Mystra is dead for the following reasons:
1. She never seemed impartial at all...just inconsistent
2. The Chozen always struck me as a bunch of over-sexed self rightous busy bodies.
3. Harpers suck (see above).
4. The so called "Lady of Mysteries" wasn't really very mysterious she was a heavy handed and overt diety. She and her Chosen were always popping up to preach and interfere and reaque would be heroes in such Dues ex machina ways it was laughable (often after a quick obligatory romp between the sheets).
5. Shar, possesing the last fragment of "whole magic" would make a far better goddess of magic, if she takes that role: more ominous, unknowable, fearsome...things that make magic, well, magical.
6. Honestly didnt Cyric earn this? Bless his blackened heart, he worked so hard for it. Let the whiny little sociopath have his moment.
You should run away from here unless you are expecting a whacking.
The average Chultan sorcerer may lack the knowledge but the player who reads the novels and plays a Red Wizard has this knowledge. Plus he may have the knowledge about the fact that his enemies are Mystras Chosen. That won't make him like her because he will have this feeling to depend on someone who disapproves of him.
Just knowing who are the Chosens, unless the character meets them in-game and they tell the character everything that means to be a chosen they'll don't even know who they are, not even Mirt or Piergeiron know what the Chosens of Mystra are about, and they know a couple of them.
Plus not all Red Wizards should fear Mystra, Red Wizards can be neutral or even evil and don't go against Mystra's dogma. A player who wants to play a Red Wizard and fears Mystra is not fearing Mystra but the DM who can use her ability to cut people from the Weave because the player knows his character is going to get whacked by the party without the power to defend himself. Only jerks who love to screw their party members fear Mystra's SDAs, nobody else does.
I dont play D&D, I just read the forgotten Realms books, which have been a sort of guilty pleasure of mine ever since I played the game Baulder's Gate way....back.
I couldn't be happier that Mystra is dead for the following reasons:
1. She never seemed impartial at all...just inconsistent
2. The Chozen always struck me as a bunch of over-sexed self rightous busy bodies.
Fair enough, those are your opinions, but I disagree.
3. Harpers suck (see above).
See above? Where? You didn't explain your reasoning for this assertion at all.
4. The so called "Lady of Mysteries" wasn't really very mysterious she was a heavy handed and overt diety. She and her Chosen were always popping up to preach and interfere and reaque would be heroes in such Dues ex machina ways it was laughable (often after a quick obligatory romp between the sheets).
No.
5. Shar, possesing the last fragment of "whole magic" would make a far better goddess of magic, if she takes that role: more ominous, unknowable, fearsome...things that make magic, well, magical.
No.
So have you ever asked yourself why people are picking on Mystra? I mean, there must be a reason.
*laughs* I know why people pick on Mystra...I just think the reasons for it are, well, pretty crappy.
The argument that most gods should be neutral is not really a strong one since there are quite a number of gods with clearly evil or clearly good portfolios.
Ummm, that WAS my point.
Certainly there are some who are good/evil despite the fact that it would be more appropriate for them to be neutral, but they are mostly not an issue since you can ignore a god if you don't like him. You can't ignore Mystra when you are a spellcaster in the Realms. That's the reason why people are so upset about Mystra's alignment.
Emphasis mine--that's your argument? That's pretty weak. There are spellcasters who don't pay much attention to Mystra, and for the most part they get left alone, as long as they aren't doing anything to harm the Weave.
-Her argument isn't exactly that most deities should be neutral, because they represent something that is neutral. Her argument- more of a rhetorical question- is that why is it only Mystra, where this is a problem?
Yes, that's correct--thank you.
The average Chultan sorcerer may lack the knowledge but the player who reads the novels and plays a Red Wizard has this knowledge. Plus he may have the knowledge about the fact that his enemies are Mystras Chosen. That won't make him like her because he will have this feeling to depend on someone who disapproves of him.
Lots of evil spellcasters worship Mystra, and it doesn't matter to them that some (not all!) of Mystra's Chosen are good. Mystra does not direct her Chosen towards "good" goals, and she has had evil Chosen and does have neutral Chosen. The Simbul (the main enemy of the Red Wizards) is actually neutral, and she moves against them because she rules a country that they often harass, not just "'cuz they're evil, and she's good" (which she isn't), or because Mystra wants her to harm Thay (she doesn't).
Lots of evil spellcasters worship Mystra, and it doesn't matter to them that some (not all!) of Mystra's Chosen are good. Mystra does not direct her Chosen towards "good" goals, and she has had evil Chosen and does have neutral Chosen. The Simbul (the main enemy of the Red Wizards) is actually neutral, and she moves against them because she rules a country that they often harass, not just "'cuz they're evil, and she's good" (which she isn't), or because Mystra wants her to harm Thay (she doesn't).
While this is true, such details are only known to someone with considerable knowledge about the Realmslore. It is just misleading for new players to state that Mystra is NG. There are certain expectations linked to a NG alignment because a NG player character has to behave in certain ways. That's why I think Faraer's explanation should be the rule (Mystra's alignment as a very distant and relatively unimportant aspect of her nature).
Of course the fact that the novels implicitly promote the image of a good aligned Mystra doesn't help. But hey, I already smell an alignment-debate and they don't really lead anywhere.
The argument that most gods should be neutral is not really a strong one since there are quite a number of gods with clearly evil or clearly good portfolios.
Ummm, that WAS my point.
How is that? I understood that you were saying most of the gods should be neutral because of their portfolios. I can't see Bane or Cyric being neutral. Whether Chautea should be neutral and not NG is on the other hand debatable.
*laughs* I know why people pick on Mystra...I just think the reasons for it are, well, pretty crappy.
Well that's kinda judgemental but I suppose everyone is entitled to an opinion. :D
You should run away from here unless you are expecting a whacking.
-Meh, don't say things like that.
Well that's kinda judgemental but I suppose everyone is entitled to an opinion. :D
-Not really. Of he people who are familiar with Realmslore (ie, all of us), 90% don't have a problem with Mystra being the way she is. Of the people who are not familiar with Realmslore, I'd say that 75% have a problem with Mystra being the way she is. The difference between the two opinions? Knowledge. I'm not calling people who aren't inherently familiar with the setting stupid, but, do you see what I am saying?
-Meh, don't say things like that.
I was acting good-aligned, it was just a warning to alert the poster about something he/she shouldn't say here.
Of course the fact that the novels implicitly promote the image of a good aligned Mystra doesn't help.
No argument with the fact that WotC put the spotlight on characters that aren't really meant to be in the spotlight.
Although, as I've said before, the fact that WotC keeps on asking for more novels about Elminster (for example) says something about how popular he is--it's likely that the people who truly hate and loathe him and are also Realms fans are in the minority.
How is that? I understood that you were saying most of the gods should be neutral because of their portfolios. I can't see Bane or Cyric being neutral.
You misunderstood me.
People like to argue that Mystra should be neutral because magic is neutral.
I was commenting about how no one ever applies that standard to any other gods.
Well that's kinda judgemental but I suppose everyone is entitled to an opinion. :D
At least that particular judgment of mine is an informed judgement.
I was acting good-aligned, it was just a warning to alert the poster about something he/she shouldn't say here.
-Yes, which is why I said not to say that. Said poster can say whatever he/she wants.
At least that particular judgment of mine is an informed judgement.
-Yes! Informed! That was the word that was on the tip of my tongue before, but I couldn't spit out.
-Yes! Informed! That was the word that was on the tip of my tongue before, but I couldn't spit out.
Something like "Yes, you studied. You deserve magic. Hrm. YOU! You need magic! *pssshhh* (a sorcerer is born, instead of the 3E draconic heritage)"
====
With good reasoning / story, it could be plausible for any deity to have a slightly different alignment of what their portfolio would normally give an impression of.
You misunderstood me.
People like to argue that Mystra should be neutral because magic is neutral.
I was commenting about how no one ever applies that standard to any other gods.
What if a new Mystra arises to replace the old killed by Cyric and she happens to be of an Evil Alignment? Would those that maintain that there is nothing wrong with Mystra being good aligned, because she is forced to follow a set of decrees placed upon her by an even greater power find objection?
The new Mystra would encourage the study of magic for personal power and fulfillment. She'd encourage the spread of magic to empower herself rather than for the good and benefit of others, but over all even though intentions may change, the end results are largely the same as the previous incarnations of Mystra.
Would people who defend a NG Mystra find objection? I am certain that many would.
The problem with a good aligned Mystra is not any action she has performed, but rather the actions she has refused to perform. Generally speaking (and painting with a wide brush) being good aligned means you have morals. Being neutral aligned means you are amoral (indifferent), and being evil aligned means you are immoral. In order for Mystra to be good aligned she must take good aligned stands. How does she carry on with her existence (not to mention maintain her good alignment) when a wizard uses her body (and that is what the Weave is) to harm an innocent individual?
A good aligned Mystra, by definition of being good, must take a stand against such things or lose her good alignment. She cannot sit by and whine that Ao won't let her, if Ao stands in the way, then she must dispose of Ao. It is said that she is forced to place her divine power within the Chosen because Ao fears that she could grow to such a power that she might have the ability to challenge him. She could turn to other deities such as Lathander and draw her divine power back from the Chosen, and combine her divine power with that of Lathander to challenge Ao himself.
In the end, a good aligned Mystra must do what is right no matter the cost to herself, even if it means that she might fail, because if she does not she is no longer good but neutral.
This Mystra, the one Cyric has slain, is really a neutral deity. She is not good aligned. Her failure to act against the orders given to her by Ao (and she isn't Lawful, so that can't be used as an excuse) strips her of any claim to a good alignment. Her continued allowance of those who would abuse the Weave for evil ends, such as the Red Wizards, and even her defense of the Red Wizards, strips her of her good alignment.
Would a true good aligned Mystra become weaker than her predecessors? Yes. Being good aligned has its negative sides and it is the hardest alignment to play without getting screwed over. Good guys finish last for a reason. That's because while everyone else is being selfish and doing what they can to advance themselves, they are looking out for others at the expense of themselves. Ultimately this is what Mystra has done. She has bowed to pressure from Ao and other deities rather than challenging it. If Mystra had a backbone she would have called Ao out and dared him to challenge her. She didn't.
Now she watches each and every day as magic is used to torture, enslave and worse and she does nothing.
Mystryl was not good aligned, but her action to sacrifice herself to save Toril and to prevent Karsus from ascending to take control of the Weave was a good act. She didn't know how things would turn out. There was no plan. When Mystryl sacrificed herself at that moment she assumed that the Weave died with her, just as it died with this Mystra when Cyric killed her.
It didn't, but Mystra 3.0 should have learned from that sacrifice. She should have called upon her allies - and she has many - to take a stand. She didn't.
A neutral Mystra administers her portfolio with ambivalence not truly caring what magic is used for so long as it is spread. An evil Mystra administers her portfolio with an equal amount of ambivalence, encouraging the spread of magic to empower herself and those that use it. A good aligned Mystra cannot administer her portfolio with any sort of ambivalence, and can only encourage the spread of magic in certain situations lest she be at risk of no longer being good. There is a higher standard expected and Mystra fell woefully short. There is no sufficient excuse that can be given.
What if a new Mystra arises to replace the old killed by Cyric and she happens to be of an Evil Alignment? Would those that maintain that there is nothing wrong with Mystra being good aligned, because she is forced to follow a set of decrees placed upon her by an even greater power find objection?
-That'd be perfectly acceptable. Personally, I like the idea. I'd envision such a Mystra as a "jealous lover" sort of type- "I give you magic, and this is the type of thanks I get?"
-That said, as long as this Mystra adheres to the same rules, and administers the Weave as the current Mystra does, there's no problem.
A good aligned Mystra, by definition of being good, must take a stand against such things or lose her good alignment.
-As already stated, this is not the case. Piergeon (Eh, I think I misspelled that) the Paladin, the Open-Lord of Waterdeep, is a LG Paladin. He allows Skullport, a bastion of scum and evil, to exist. Yet, he is still a LG Paladin.
You don't have to react to every single instance of evil in order to be good. Tyr doesn't manifest an avatar to deliver righteous smoting everytime some injustice is done in a kangaroo court, despite being good-aligned, nor does he lose his alignment for not doing so. Laws are used to ensnare, enslave, entrap, and torture, but you don't see the Church of any LG deity constantly mounting crusades... Tyr and Calimshan should be proof enough of that one. They work quietly and diligently to bring about a change, with as little loss of life as possible.
Same goes for Chauntea really. Thay is undeniably evil, and yet she does nothing to stop them from using slave labor to produce the massive amounts of crops that they do. Does that make her evil or neutral? No... not really. Same could be said for Lathander and his not smoting them for making armies of the Undead.
Beyond that, its not up to the gods to make the world a perfect place, its up to their followers to do that, in so much as that's even possible. The gods are simply there to point the way and provide guidance and occassional assistance (through divine magic mostly)... not fix everything for us whenever something goes wrong. Hence, I have absolutely no problem with Mystra being good aligned, or even evil aligned for that matter, although the Chosen would make little sense if she were evil.
...even evil aligned for that matter, although the Chosen would make little sense if she were evil.
-Mystra has had evil Chosen.
Unquestionably... my point was that I don't really see how the current Chosen would fit in with an Evil Mystra... seems that an Evil Mystra would probably gravitate more towards an enforcer or megalomaniac than a more neutral or goodly sort would. That and I don't really see the current Chosen, the majority of them anyway, really working well with an evil replacement.
-An 'Evil' Chosen would be able to perpetuate and "sell" magic in 'evil' Realms, where the other Chosen are seen as enemies. And, said individual would be able to repair the Weave in said places. In short, an 'evil' Chosen would be able to do what the rest of the Chosen do, but where they are not normally welcome. That's how I'd do it, anyway. A Larloch-type evil.
...
-As already stated, this is not the case. Piergeon (Eh, I think I misspelled that) the Paladin, the Open-Lord of Waterdeep, is a LG Paladin. He allows Skullport, a bastion of scum and evil, to exist. Yet, he is still a LG Paladin.
So how do you think he would justify this if a player character asked him about the Skullport situation?
I just think this is the same kind of alignment oversight as with Mystra. The character is probably around in Realmslore for ages and as in the 2nd Edition you had to be LG in order to be a paladin he was stated as such.
So how do you think he would justify this if a player character asked him about the Skullport situation?
-In the position that he is in, he cannot do anything about Skullport, as politics and such prevent him from doing anything about it, even though he personally abhors the place.
-The same reason why on the international level, states see acts and practices that go wholly against various U.N. treaties (Let's just use the Declaration of Human Rights, for simplicity's sake), and yet, as a whole, the international community does little to nothing about them. It's not because every state has no interest, or because they see no gains to reap from changing things, but politics being what they are, everyone has their hands tied.
-One needs to keep the utilitarian aspect in mind, as well. Perpetuating the existence of Skullport, and keeping it, for the most part, self-contained, makes the lives of Waterdhavian citizens (and there are a lot more of them than there are in Skullport) better. Thus, by playing the numbers, he is doing more good for more individuals allowing Skullport to continue to exist than by leading a 'crusade' into it, and flushing out all of the rats, which then scatter and become problems elsewhere, anew.
-In the position that he is in, he cannot do anything about Skullport, as politics and such prevent him from doing anything about it, even though he personally abhors the place.
-The same reason why on the international level, states see acts and practices that go wholly against various U.N. treaties (Let's just use the Declaration of Human Rights, for simplicity's sake), and yet, as a whole, the international community does little to nothing about them. It's not because every state has no interest, or because they see no gains to reap from changing things, but politics being what they are, everyone has their hands tied.
-One needs to keep the utilitarian aspect in mind, as well. Perpetuating the existence of Skullport, and keeping it, for the most part, self-contained, makes the lives of Waterdhavian citizens (and there are a lot more of them than there are in Skullport) better. Thus, by playing the numbers, he is doing more good for more individuals allowing Skullport to continue to exist than by leading a 'crusade' into it, and flushing out all of the rats, which then scatter and become problems elsewhere, anew.
So basically he accepts the lesser evil as a 'crusade' against Skullport would create even more suffering and pain. That's completely understandable and I would have no problems as a DM with a player paladin acting this way.
The fundamental question here is "Are gods bound by certain circumstances as it is the case with humans?"
a) yes, they are --> I have no problem with Mystra's NG alignment
b) no, they aren't, or they have at least much more freedom compared to humans --> I do have a problem with Mystra's NG alignment.
You pointed out that Mystra pretty much has no choice as AO wouldn't be pleased if she made restrictions on evil spellcasters. The question here should be: What if she did nonetheless? Would she be "fired" or would this act cause even more suffering for the people? If she is only afraid to lose her job I have serious problems with her being NG, if on the other side cutting Evil from the Weave would produce some kind of catastrophe, I am fine with her alignment as she has no choice.
The fundamental question here is "Are gods bound by certain circumstances as it is the case with humans?"
-This is a question we'll never have an 'official' answer to. And, asides for that, the answer would vary from deity to deity, pantheon to pantheon, from time to time, anyway.
You pointed out that Mystra pretty much has no choice as AO wouldn't be pleased if she made restrictions on evil spellcasters. The question here should be: What if she did nonetheless? Would she be "fired" or would this act cause even more suffering for the people?
-It is likely that Mystra would be removed from her 'office'. Recall how there was a trial for Cyric, because it was said that he was not exercising his soverignty over his portfolios properly? If Mystra began ignoring the edicts of Ao hos to properly govern the use of magic, it is likely that she, too, would go on trial and be judged for her incorrect governance of the portfolio.
If she is only afraid to lose her job I have serious problems with her being NG, if on the other side cutting Evil from the Weave would produce some kind of catastrophe, I am fine with her alignment as she has no choice.
-Again, this is something we'll never, ever know.
The fundamental question here is "Are gods bound by certain circumstances as it is the case with humans?"
a) yes, they are --> I have no problem with Mystra's NG alignment
b) no, they aren't, or they have at least much more freedom compared to humans --> I do have a problem with Mystra's NG alignment.
Depending on a lot of circumstances, but mostly yes, they are bound by greater restrictions than mortals. AO himself said to Cyric when he was raisen as a god: "Power you'll have more than you imagined, but you will be less free than before."
One of those restrictions is that they can't appear directly on the Material Plane, the best they can do is send an Avatar. Creating an Avatar weakens the God, and Avatars can be destroyed (Mystra lost 3 avatars during the time she was teaching Elminster how to be a Wizard). That's why most gods don't risk the lost of power and act through their followers.
-An 'Evil' Chosen would be able to perpetuate and "sell" magic in 'evil' Realms, where the other Chosen are seen as enemies. And, said individual would be able to repair the Weave in said places. In short, an 'evil' Chosen would be able to do what the rest of the Chosen do, but where they are not normally welcome. That's how I'd do it, anyway. A Larloch-type evil.
Possibly... assuming someone isn't trying to gank them at every turn to 'prove themselves' or to steal their power (probably better to say spellbooks really)... They might not see the Evil Chosen as an enemy per se, though eventually that might become the case the more they have to defend themselves, but they might also see the Evil Chosen as a target instead.
Though I've no idea what bearing an Evil Chosen would have on this... as I was actually referring to an Evil Mystra, not Evil Chosen. :P ;)
Though I've no idea what bearing an Evil Chosen would have on this... as I was actually referring to an Evil Mystra, not Evil Chosen. :P ;)
-More dyslexia than anything else, seeing 'Chosen' where 'Mystra' was, but that such a relation (Evil Chosen, non-Evil Mystra) has some creedence and sense to it, the relationship between non-Evil Chosen and Evil Mystra would have some creedence and sense to it as well. When you look at it like we were above.
I'd tend to view it more of as a Cold War situation... you know they're going to collapse eventually, its more a question of when, not if.
-More dyslexia than anything else, seeing 'Chosen' where 'Mystra' was, but that such a relation (Evil Chosen, non-Evil Mystra) has some creedence and sense to it, the relationship between non-Evil Chosen and Evil Mystra would have some creedence and sense to it as well. When you look at it like we were above.
I was following that one, I just like poking you in the ribs at times... I do that if you'll recall. ;)
I was following that one, I just like poking you in the ribs at times... I do that if you'll recall. ;)
:lightbulb
Hrm. If a God/dess of magic ascends again for some reason in the future, I just hope that if s/he's neutral, at least to be chaotic. We've learned so far that in Faerûn, magic, as much as there have been attempts to make it a controlled source of power, it always goes ka-blam.
"Always", as in "three times in all of history"?
Same goes for Chauntea really. Thay is undeniably evil, and yet she does nothing to stop them from using slave labor to produce the massive amounts of crops that they do. Does that make her evil or neutral? No... not really. Same could be said for Lathander and his not smoting them for making armies of the Undead.
As the old saying goes (I think it might actually be from the Bible), "the sun rises on the wicked as well as the good." And it has tons of variations, such as "the rains falls for the wicked as well as the good."
As far as Lathander goes, he's the god of Birth, and NG, but he doesn't prevent evil people from having children.
Indeed... thought he was rebirth though, rather than birth itself.
I'm quite sure it's birth. His picture in F&P even has him holding up a baby.
"Always", as in "three times in all of history"?
Three times = always. It's a basic rule of life.
Ok, ok, I'll phrase my arguments better when I'm not at work.
There is also a fundamental disagreement over what it means to be good or evil. Good and evil in my eyes are extreme positions. The vast majority gravitate toward the middle - toward neutrality - and may lean one direction or another. Mystra's actions (and it is actions that count when dealing with alignment) put her by default squarely in the middle with a slight tilt toward good.
Mystra is undeniably one of the most powerful deities in the Realms, and is further empowered by her allies. Had Ao challenged her - had other deities challenged her - she could have (and should have) called upon her allies. Together they could have made a stand. That portfolio belongs to Mystra. Mystra has the right to administer it as she sees fit.
It does not require Mystra to deny evil spell casters access to the Weave, but her alignment does require her to prevent access to certain spells and prevent spells from being used in certain ways. This is also within Mystra's domain. She also has the right to say you can't use spells with the evil descriptor, and arrange the Weave in such away that it becomes impossible. She has the right to say that you can't use spells that steal freedom from other individuals such as dominate person.
I look at things from Mystra's perspective. Imagine, for example, that I am an evil individual. I find a person that I want to torture and ****. You're with me. I then command you (of your own free will) to assist me in this torture and ****. As I commit my actions you hold the person down for me. Should they try and escape, you stop them. Throughout all of this you tell me that I am a vile and evil person. You tell me how wrong my actions are, but you help me nevertheless. You find what I am doing morally objectionable, but at the same time you assist me in those actions. You were not threatened by me. I had no power to force you to do it. In fact, you had the ability to stop me, but you chose - willingly of your own free will - to assist and do nothing.
This is what Mystra does every day. The Weave is her body, and as such when an evil Wizard seeks to **** and torture - or any other number of evil acts - she is assisting that wizard in holding their victim down. She may find those actions objectionable, but she is assisting in those actions nevertheless.
In order to be good aligned she cannot abide by such a thing. She simply cannot. There is no "greater good" or long term thinking involved. Good and evil in D&D are black and white and they apply universally to everyone. They apply equally to both mortals and deities.
Chauntea does not assist the Red Wizards by allowing their slaves to produce food. She realizes that if she refused to allow food to grow the slaves would be the first to starve. They would be punished for her actions. There is no other deity in the entire setting that is in the same position as Mystra, and that is why the focus is so heavily placed upon her.
Now, logically speaking, we know any attempt made by a good aligned Mystra to interfere will have bad consequences. That doesn't matter. The consequences do not matter. If a Paladin has the power to stop someone torturing someone else, then he must stop the torturer. There is no alternative. The consequences are irrelevant. Even if hundreds of people will die as a result, the Paladin still must stop the torture because torture by definition is evil. It is black and white. Mystra is in the same position, except she is actively (even if indirectly) assisting and participating in the act.
I'm quite sure it's birth. His picture in F&P even has him holding up a baby.
Yes, his portfolios in F&P are athletics, birth, creativity, dawn, renewal, self-perfection, spring, vitality and youth.
Although it should be pointed out that Selune is often prayed to and her priestesses sought for council dealing with reproductive cycles, and likewise I would not be shocked if they are sought during and after a birth as well. Largely, though, I think it will depend upon location and it would not seem strange to have both a Priest of Lathander and a Priestess of Selune involved in such an event.
Furthermore, you still are fixed with the idea that gods should stop anything they don't want to happen. You forgett that gods can't act directly on the mortal plane by AO's edict. That's why they have followers to do that, and good-aligned clerics of Mystra can do anything they want to stop people from using magic for evil purposes, and they recieve their spells from Mystra herself. That's Mystra's way of stoping evil magic, by using her followers, it's the only way she can do that without loosing power or being corrected by AO.
That's why she has so many orders that deal with the problems you think Mystra should deal directly. The Harpers, the Guardians of the Weave (specialists in the battle against SW users), the Knights of Mystic Fire, the Shooting Star Rangers. They all deal with the problem of Evil Spellcasters using magic for evil ends.
Three times = always. It's a basic rule of life.
Ok, ok, I'll phrase my arguments better when I'm not at work.
Sure.:D
Meldread, thanks for the confirmation regarding the Birth portfolio.
Yes, she would likely weaken herself and empower other deities of magic such as Shar. And the point? That is completely irrelevant because if Mystra wants to maintain her good alignment she must act. The concept of the "greater good" is a red haring and an excuse to allow someone to perpetuate evil without stopping them.
Mystra need not interfere directly, only disallow certain magic to be cast through the Weave, which is not against the edicts set down by Ao. She need not outright deny evil spell casters access to magic, she need only prevent the Weave from being used for evil ends. That is within her power to do and it is something she must do in order to continue being good aligned.
Since Mystra refused to do that, regardless of the consequences or the situation, she can by definition no longer be good. At best Mystra is now neutral with good aligned leanings. What her followers choose to do or not do is irrelevant because their alignment has no bearing on Mystra's personal alignment.
Mystra likewise need not enter the Prime Material Plane to accomplish her good aligned goals.
Mystra is in a situation that is the equivalent to this: There is a Good Aligned Paladin and a Neutral Aligned Rogue in the same group. They have captured a Zhent Agent who has information that could prevent the death of a thousand innocent lives. However, the Zhent refuses to speak and betray the organization. The Rogue then begins to torture the Zhent in hopes of making him talk. What does the Paladin do? He has no choice but to stop the Rogue. It does not matter that the Rogue -might- be able to save thousands of lives, and it doesn't matter that the Zhent Agent is irredeemably evil. Torture is evil and therefore the Paladin cannot allow it to take place, even for the "greater good".
This is the case for all good aligned individuals, not just Paladins. In order to be good aligned you cannot abide by evil actions. Period. There is no such thing as the "greater good" for someone of a good alignment. Good and Evil are extremist positions. The moment a good aligned person allows evil to take place they are no longer good - they are neutral who happens to lean toward good. They do not believe in the balance of good and evil, they want to eradicate evil because they directly oppose its very existence.
That is why the vast, vast - VAST majority of people are neutral aligned. A neutral aligned person can believe in the greater good. A neutral aligned person can look the other way while the rogue tortures the Zhent Agent for the greater good. A good aligned person cannot.
This is how it fundamentally works in D&D. It has nothing to do with lore or anything like that it is simply the rules of D&D. I personally hate the whole concept of alignment in D&D, but my personal beliefs are irrelevant to the discussion. Logically speaking you would be correct, but we are not dealing with logic we are dealing with a fundamental game concept.
This is why Mystra cannot be of a good alignment - because she cannot act as she currently does and maintain it.
The nature of magic seems to be overpowering and wild unless there is some kind of a controlling force ruling it (Mystryl / Mystra being that power). The deaths of the magic deities have proven that. Now, it'd be interesting to see a different kind of god/dess in charge. Mystra is not returning, according to what I've read, but that doesn't mean FR should be getting rid of magic deities.
After all, besides the nice detailing of many aspects in the world, Faerûn's deities are unique, so a non-conventional deity would go according to FR's general feel.
That's why I wrote about having a chaotic magic god/dess. And I hope now I make more sense.
As to her helping evil spellcasters... that's kind of like saying that by allowing weapons to be forged, then Gond is an accomplice to any murder those weapons are used to commit. I don't agree that good and evil are extremes on a deific scale, simply because that scale defies mortal understanding, and so mortal concepts of them cannot be precisely applied to them in anything but the most abstract of ways. In my take on her, she prefers that magic be used to good ends, and tries to gently nudge spellcasters in that direction, but denying them their ability to freely judge how best to apply what they have learned and understood is just as evil in a lot of respects, since it denies them their right to free will. Certainly they may well kill a lot of people, but from a divine standpoint, so what? Those they kill go on to the Realm their god, which isn't necessarily a bad thing from a divine point of view.
Certainly she could deny access to spells with the evil descriptor and the like, but doing so would likely instigate a divine war with other deities of an evil bent, so the cost of doing so is just plain not worth it. Certainly she's more powerful than most other individual deities, and yes she could call upon allies, but I doubt she's willing to start that sort of conflagration amongst both the planes and the material world just to prove a point. The cost to her allies, their followers, and indeed her own followers just wouldn't be worth it... I know that seems to contradict what I said about death not really bothering her, but it does not from my point of view, since the collateral costs are relatively minimal compared to a full scale arcane war. The costs of the destruction to not just people, but to settlements, the environment, and the Weave itself from the sheer scale of magical conflict ensuing make any such move counter-productive at best. Just consider what two archmages could do to some place like the Court of the White Bull in Waterdeep, and imagine that on a regional scale... do you seriously think she'd be willing to risk that? I know I don't.
What it comes down to for me, is that I just don't think she can afford to care about every use of magic put to an evil end. As powerful as she may be, she still is limited by the amount of resources she has available to her, so that it doesn't pay to get involved in little things, leaving her interests vulnerable should something major happen. To me, its mostly a matter of resource management, more than morality.
And another thing... before I get sick of typing so much, I don't really see a difference between Chauntea's position and Mystra's. Chauntea allows not only a subsistence level of agriculture, but also a surplus level, which is generally sold off at a profit to Thay's nature, at least last I looked it was. That certainly sounds like aiding and abetting to me... as to Mystra, consider what might happen if she did cut off all those evil little spells that Thayans use. The Red Wizards would likely go looking for a new source of evil magic and start making pacts with all sorts of fell entities, bringing those fell entities and their servants even more into the Prime than they already are, something the Shooting Stars existence says she's not too keen on allowing to happen.
To be honest, I despise a black and white view of good and evil, as nothing says you have to be foolish about how you approach things. There is such a thing as living to fight another day, since you're not going to do anyone any good if you get yourself and your allies killed by proving a point.
As you can see is not the spell that is evil, but the way it's used, therefore there is no reason at all for Mystra to deny evil spells. Because then she has to deny any kind of spell who can be used to harm, which is pretty much every single spell ever developed if used in the right way.
And by D&D definition, caring about the Greater Good makes you good, any person who helps others without expecting a reward is good. Neutrals are those who care about few things but don't go to hurt those they don't care. Therefore Mystra by changing the rules on Magister selection, by creating the Mageduel, and by promoting good-aligned organizations that fight against the abuses of magic is behaving Neutral Good. She is thinking in the Greater Good in the long term, she has Paladins to deal with short term evil. Mystra can be good and she is acting good.
And like Stigger I don't believe in Black/White morality, those who do smack me of Tyrants with their absolutes (and Argentina has a totalitarian president at this moment and it sucks because everybody who is not blind or recieves money from them is an enemy to be fought and destroyed). There are thousands of ways to achieve the same end, the trick is in selecting the best way, and Mystra chose the better way, the hard and slow road that allows her to keep all with magic but slowly changing their ways. That's the best she can do, it's the only way to defeat Shar.
Not actually a matter of canon about Mystra being required to divert power so that she does not challenge Ao... that was simply one theory of many as to why she has Chosen. A popular theory perhaps amongst the mortals, but not something verifiable as fact.
It is irrelevant in any event. Just like in the real world, there have been laws put into place where people have been told that if they do not follow them they will be killed or worse. They objected to those laws and chose death and more often than not they died. Since being good aligned is an extremist position, Mystra would have had to Martyr herself if that was what was required of her if she wanted to keep her good alignment.
As to her helping evil spellcasters... that's kind of like saying that by allowing weapons to be forged, then Gond is an accomplice to any murder those weapons are used to commit.
Gond isn't good aligned. He's neutral. He can prefer that weapons not be used for war, and so long as he does not actively promote that they be used in evil acts, he himself does not become evil. He is indifferent to how they are used, and furthermore is not implicated in their actual use - only their creation. Mystra is implicated throughout the entire process: she is involved during the creation of a spell, the casting of the spell, and the effects of the spell. No other deity can be used as a direct correlation to Mystra, because there is no other deity in a similar position. There is no other deity who wields a similar amount of power and influence over not only other mortals but other deities.
I don't agree that good and evil are extremes on a deific scale, simply because that scale defies mortal understanding, and so mortal concepts of them cannot be precisely applied to them in anything but the most abstract of ways. In my take on her, she prefers that magic be used to good ends, and tries to gently nudge spellcasters in that direction, but denying them their ability to freely judge how best to apply what they have learned and understood is just as evil in a lot of respects, since it denies them their right to free will. Certainly they may well kill a lot of people, but from a divine standpoint, so what? Those they kill go on to the Realm their god, which isn't necessarily a bad thing from a divine point of view.
It is irrelevant as to what we think should apply to deities. What matters is what is cannon and what the rules state, and they clearly state that certain deities hold a particular alignment. I happen to agree with you on principle, but the personal views we hold are irrelevant to the rules that the gods exist under.
Your take on Mystra, under the rules, puts her squarely in the neutral alignment category with a slight leaning toward good. Under the rules, the Mystra you described cannot be of a good alignment.
Certainly she could deny access to spells with the evil descriptor and the like, but doing so would likely instigate a divine war with other deities of an evil bent, so the cost of doing so is just plain not worth it.
Again, I will point out that good and evil are extremist positions. There are a lot of things in life that might just seem to plain not be worth it, but people do them regardless because they hold themselves to be in the right. It has more to do with emotion than logic. The consequences do not matter to someone of a good alignment. Would it cause a war? If Ao did not directly intervene and strip Mystra of her power, yes. Does that matter to a good aligned Mystra? No. Why? Because it is a war worth waging. Because evil is wrong in her eyes and she cannot live knowing that she is participating, even if indirectly, in such evil actions. It is something worth dying over. It is something worth going to war over. Losing is sometimes a risk worth taking if you believe the cause is just. A good aligned Mystra would see the cause as just and the risk worth taking, because if she did not then she would no longer be good aligned.
There is nothing wrong with her losing her good alignment. There is nothing wrong with the actions she has taken. What I am fundamentally saying is that, by the rules, the actions Mystra has taken have placed her into a neutral alignment. By indirectly participating in evil acts, and even taking actions that enable evil to flourish, she is by default no longer good.
Certainly she's more powerful than most other individual deities, and yes she could call upon allies, but I doubt she's willing to start that sort of conflagration amongst both the planes and the material world just to prove a point. The cost to her allies, their followers, and indeed her own followers just wouldn't be worth it... I know that seems to contradict what I said about death not really bothering her, but it does not from my point of view, since the collateral costs are relatively minimal compared to a full scale arcane war. The costs of the destruction to not just people, but to settlements, the environment, and the Weave itself from the sheer scale of magical conflict ensuing make any such move counter-productive at best. Just consider what two archmages could do to some place like the Court of the White Bull in Waterdeep, and imagine that on a regional scale... do you seriously think she'd be willing to risk that? I know I don't.
In a word? Yes. My point above applies to this as well, but to give a more direct correlation I will reference my previous post dealing with the paladin, the rogue and the Zhent agent. Any DM worth their salt who has a Paladin in their group will not allow their paladin to maintain their paladinhood if that Paladin allows the rogue to torture the Zhent agent. It does not matter how many lives that rogue is about to save. It does not matter what the consequences are – torture is evil and therefore the paladin must prevent it from happening. Even if that means thousands of people die as a result. The rogue may forever believe that the paladin stood in the way of him torturing the Zhent agent for the "greater good" was wrong, and that had he been allowed to finish torturing him thousands of lives could have been saved. However, what the Rogue believes is utterly irrelevant to the concept of good and evil which are black and white in D&D.
The same applies to everyone of good alignment. Anyone of good alignment who watches torture or similar evil actions take place, who find themselves in a position to prevent it, and refuse to take action (their reasoning and personal justifications are irrelevant) are therefore no longer good.
What it comes down to for me, is that I just don't think she can afford to care about every use of magic put to an evil end. As powerful as she may be, she still is limited by the amount of resources she has available to her, so that it doesn't pay to get involved in little things, leaving her interests vulnerable should something major happen. To me, its mostly a matter of resource management, more than morality.
That is why she fundamentally changes how the Weave works. She lacks the resources to chase after each and every evil wizard, however she has the ability to change how the Weave functions. She also knows every spell in existence, both good and evil, and can therefore go through each and every single spell known and every possible spell that could be known and configure the Weave in such away that it becomes virtually impossible to use it in an evil manor. Think of it as a computer security system. This does not violate what Ao has placed upon her: she need not block access to the Weave to anyone. She need only disallow certain uses of the Weave, which by the way is already going on because she disallows the study and use magic higher than 9th level. That is a ban put into place by the previous incarnation of Mystra after the fall of Netheril. Therefore, as we can see, there is already a precedent.
And another thing... before I get sick of typing so much, I don't really see a difference between Chauntea's position and Mystra's. Chauntea allows not only a subsistence level of agriculture, but also a surplus level, which is generally sold off at a profit to Thay's nature, at least last I looked it was. That certainly sounds like aiding and abetting to me... as to Mystra, consider what might happen if she did cut off all those evil little spells that Thayans use. The Red Wizards would likely go looking for a new source of evil magic and start making pacts with all sorts of fell entities, bringing those fell entities and their servants even more into the Prime than they already are, something the Shooting Stars existence says she's not too keen on allowing to happen.
The positions of Chauntea and Mystra are completely different. Do you think it is a good aligned act to allow people to starve to death? I do not. She could disallow surplus, certainly, but then you ignore the fact that those who purchase surplus need it in order to feed themselves and their own people. Chauntea is not even remotely in the same position as Mystra – no other deity is – because no other deity has a similar level of influence or power over other deities and mortals.
Should Mystra take action against evil uses of the Weave, would the Red Wizards go off looking for a new source of magic? Probably. However, what is the point, exactly? Again, good and evil are extremist positions not rooted in logic and reason.
To be honest, I despise a black and white view of good and evil, as nothing says you have to be foolish about how you approach things. There is such a thing as living to fight another day, since you're not going to do anyone any good if you get yourself and your allies killed by proving a point.
I despise how D&D alignment is setup as well, and that is why I dislike Mystra being of good alignment. It is a contradiction. If someone of a good alignment must act a certain way in order to maintain their alignment, how can Mystra maintain her alignment? She cannot. Not unless she does something that completely screws herself over. As a DM you would never do this to a player, but this is exactly what has been done to Mystra.
There is no reason Mystra could not act and be exactly as she is now but with a neutral alignment instead. The third incarnation of Mystra is not very different from the second, and over all, they are almost identical. The only major difference is that the second Mystra was neutral and the third was good aligned. What was the point in doing that, exactly? Why must Mystra be forced into a position that she cannot act in a way that her alignment requires her to act?
Since Mystra cannot or will not act in accordance with her alignment, she can no longer be good aligned.
The alignments are more like:
Lawful Exalted | Neutral Exalted | Chaotic Exalted
Lawful Good | Neutral Good | Chaotic Good
Lawful Neutral | True Neutral | Chaotic Neutral
Lawful Evil | Neutral Evil | Chaotic Evil
Lawful Vile | Neutral Vile | Chaotic Vile
And I was thinking of putting Orderly as extremist Lawful and Anarchic as Extremist Chaotic but it got too big to read :P. With that in mind Mystra can be perfectly NG without slipping to TN, she does enough to be considered good, but not enough to be Exalted.
That's the alignment system I use at home, a 5x5 table of 25 archetypes, with tendencies in the 9 core alignments NG (TN), CG (NG), LN (LE). And characters can go from Chaotic Vile to Lawful Exalted if they do the right things, no loss of experience or any other unpleasant thing.
And if Mystra starts denying those spells she acomplishes nothing. It's not the spell but the way it's used. That's why except for clerics who can't cast spells with the opposite alignment nobody changes their alignment by animating the dead, there are many examples when the Undead were used for good purposes. And if Mystra does begin to deny those kinds of spells then Wizards start to get creative. I can tell you many ways of using even "innocent" abjurations to harm/kill somebody. Let's take Ironguard for example, it allows you to pass through solid metal. Any smart Wizard with Delay Spell Metamagic can kill somebody with Ironguard+Dispel Magic, he only needs to cast Ironguard on the subject, cast Delayed Dispel Magic and shove the subject inside a big chunk of metal, large enough to cause serious shunting damage.
I do not disagree that certain otherwise harmless spells can be used in unintended and harmful ways. The question is: Do you think a divine being, the maintainer of the very thing that you require in order to cast that spell, the very body you draw upon to use magic, a being that literally has god-like intelligence and wisdom, lacks the ability to foresee such things and prevent them? Suddenly - magic can no longer be used to kill someone. Any attempt at using the Weave to cause death no longer works. You may use magic to subdue an opponent, but to kill them you'll actually have to do it the old fashioned way. You may no longer use magic to strip away the free will off someone, nor may you use magic to alter their mind against their free will. Suddenly, the vast majority of magic used to harm others and do evil becomes irrelevant.
As you can see is not the spell that is evil, but the way it's used, therefore there is no reason at all for Mystra to deny evil spells. Because then she has to deny any kind of spell who can be used to harm, which is pretty much every single spell ever developed if used in the right way.
That isn't exactly true. It is not so much modifying spells but the Weave itself. At the very minimum Mystra should have disallowed the use of spells with the evil descriptor.
And by D&D definition, caring about the Greater Good makes you good, any person who helps others without expecting a reward is good. Neutrals are those who care about few things but don't go to hurt those they don't care. Therefore Mystra by changing the rules on Magister selection, by creating the Mageduel, and by promoting good-aligned organizations that fight against the abuses of magic is behaving Neutral Good. She is thinking in the Greater Good in the long term, she has Paladins to deal with short term evil. Mystra can be good and she is acting good.
Define what the Greater Good. I define it as allowing evil actions to take place, having the ability to stop them, but chosing not to because you believe that there will eventually be an even better pay off in the end. Yet, because you do not control the future, this pay off is completely subjective, and thus you neglect doing what is right in order to presue something that may take place. To a good aligned person this would be wrong. In order to be good aligned this is something that would gnaw at your very soul. Simply the thought of allowing sometime to be tortured, raped or worse and refusing to intervine or prevent it knowing full well that you could do so, is something that is completely uncomprehensable to you. It is something that goes fundimentally against your very nature. If it does not feel that way to you, then you cannot be good aligned. That's just the way alignment works.
There is nothing -wrong- with not allowing Mystra to be good aligned. There is nothing -wrong- with her allowing these actions. What is wrong is her alignment.
And like Stigger I don't believe in Black/White morality, those who do smack me of Tyrants with their absolutes (and Argentina has a totalitarian president at this moment and it sucks because everybody who is not blind or recieves money from them is an enemy to be fought and destroyed). There are thousands of ways to achieve the same end, the trick is in selecting the best way, and Mystra chose the better way, the hard and slow road that allows her to keep all with magic but slowly changing their ways. That's the best she can do, it's the only way to defeat Shar.
Yes, it is an extremist point of view. It is an all-or-nothing point of view. It's the difference between the far right and the far left. You have the far left (good aligned) who are concerned with others, who are willing to make personal sacrifices in order to improve the lives of others and the world. You have the far right (evil aligned) who are concerned primarily with themselves, who care little for the lives of others and little about the world outside of how it directly impacts them. Then you have everyone else (the neutral aligned), those who fall somewhere between the two extremes.
That is how D&D alignment works. You have the extremists (the good and evil guys) and then everyone else (the neutral guys).
I personally hate the D&D alignment system because it over simplifies complex ideas. It brings up the problems that we are discussing now, and if I had it my way, there would be no such thing as alignment in D&D. Good and Evil in the real world is based on culture and your personal experiences. It has little to do with objective reality. To some torture may be a perfectly legitimate act. To others it may be morally reprehensible. To me, it is irrelevant what they both believe because in a role-playing game it is their beliefs that are important. It doesn't matter what their alignment happens to say. If your character believes torture is wrong - then he believes it is wrong and you should act in accordance. You do not need an alignment to tell you that you MUST act a certain way.
However, our personal view points on alignment are irrelevant. In D&D Alignment -IS- Black and White, and that is my point. Because it is black and white Mystra therefore cannot be good aligned due to the actions she has taken.
I disagree. Alignment is more like this:
Lawful Good | Neutral Good | Chaotic Good
Lawful Neutral | Lawful Neutral (Leans Good) | Lawful Neutral (Leans Evil) | Lawful Neutral (True Neutral) | Neutral | Neutral (Leans Good) | Neutral (Leans Evil) | Neutral (True Neutral) | Chaotic Neutral | Chaotic Neutral (Leans Good) | Chaotic Neutral (Leans Evil) | Chaotic Neutral (True Neutral)
Lawful Evil | Neutral Evil | Chaotic Evil
As you can see all the weight on the scale is placed in the middle. That makes much more sense because both good and evil are very well defined and absolute in D&D.
Mystra 3.0 would be Neutral (Leans Good) on that scale. She is an entity that seeks to bring about good in the world, but either lacks the ability, the will power, or the strength of character to actually commit herself to true good.
My approach is far more flexible for me because the standard 9 alignments fit mortals perfectly, they are the grey alignments, and they are not black and white, not even the PHB defines them as inflexible as you see them.
The good you are thinking is EXALTED, which is the good that Upper Planes Outsiders and some mortals who represent concepts of pure good in their flavors of law and chaos (with Zaphkiel being Orderly Exalted in my alignment and Morwel being Anarchic Exalted).
For me it's:
White: EXALTED
Grey: 9 classic alignments with tendencies
Black: VILE
Extrem Lawful: Orderly
Extrem Chaos: Anarchic
Since Mystra is not a Goddess of Pure, undiluted good concepts she is on the Grey area, and she has enough merits to be a NG Goddess because she is a moderate Good Goddess. Tyr for example should be an Orderly Exalted, because he represents true and pure justice without malice or ambition. Just like Sune should be Anarchic Exalted, because love is a force of pure good that doesn't follow any kind of rule.
You are mixing exemplars of pure alignments with other who aren't perfectly good nor evil but are enough to be considered like that. Think of it as a scale from 0 to 100 in both axes.
Moral: 0 = Pure Evil, 100 = Pure Good
Ethical: 0 = Pure, 100 = Pure Good
Between 35 and 75 it's neutral
Mystra would be
Moral: 80
Ethical: 50
A Neutral Good character.
Tyr should be
Moral: 100
Ethical: 100
An Orderly Exalted character.
Sune should be
Moral: 100
Ethical: 0
An Anarchic Exalted character.
Read the Introduction for the Book of Exalted Deeds.
"The Book of Exalted Deeds is for players who aren't satisfied by slapping a good alignment label on their character and then acting no different from the neutral characters in the party. This book is all about how to make a good alignment mean something, and how to live up to the ideals implied in that alignment."
Also I would encourage you to read the introduction to Chapter One of the book of Exalted Deeds.
"What is good?
Many characters are happy to rattle off long lists of sins they haven't committed as evidence that they are good. The utter avoidance of evil, however, doesn't make a character good - solidly neutral, perhaps, but not good.
Being good requires a certain quality of temperament, the presence of virtues that spur a character, not just to avoid evil of its appearance, but to actively promote good."
The Book of Exalted Deeds is not something "special" that outlines good outside of the normally defined boundaries. It outlines what it means to be good in the standard D&D alignment system.
I do not disagree that certain otherwise harmless spells can be used in unintended and harmful ways. The question is: Do you think a divine being, the maintainer of the very thing that you require in order to cast that spell, the very body you draw upon to use magic, a being that literally has god-like intelligence and wisdom, lacks the ability to foresee such things and prevent them? Suddenly - magic can no longer be used to kill someone. Any attempt at using the Weave to cause death no longer works. You may use magic to subdue an opponent, but to kill them you'll actually have to do it the old fashioned way. You may no longer use magic to strip away the free will off someone, nor may you use magic to alter their mind against their free will. Suddenly, the vast majority of magic used to harm others and do evil becomes irrelevant.
And then even good aligned spellcasters switch to the Shadow Weave because there are times when even good people need to do something like killing the orc horde who is going to burn, **** and pillage the nearby villages. Even in the Book of Exalted Deeds the use of violence in the right context is not considered evil. If Mystra does that then she is robbing people of their free will to use their knowledge as they see fit, something that rings of somebody who is Lawful Evil and a Tyrant (read Concerns of the Mighty about that).
Anything can be used to good or evil, that's why taking every single spell that can be used to harm others is evil in the long run, because there is going to be a time where deadly violence is the only way for good people to defeat evil.
That isn't exactly true. It is not so much modifying spells but the Weave itself. At the very minimum Mystra should have disallowed the use of spells with the evil descriptor.
And then you forget that even the most vilest spell can be used in the right place and time to do good. Only a jerk of a DM would strip a Paladin from his divine powers when the Paladin has no other option but kill their enemies with his sword and spells.
Let's use an analogy: I have an atomic bomb in my house and I demand the Goverment to stop corruption and start working for the people of their country or I'll detonate it right above them. Is the type of weapon I'm using or the reasons for using it what's relevant? (retorical question, it's obvious that the reasons are the important aspect of this, not the tool I'm using to change something).
The Law always takes into account the intent of the person when he commited an act against the law is killing somebody wrong? Yes. Is killing somebody who was going to steal your house and **** your daughter wrong? Absolutely not, you defended your property and the phisical and mental health of your daughter and you also eliminated another evil person from the world.
Define what the Greater Good. I define it as allowing evil actions to take place, having the ability to stop them, but chosing not to because you believe that there will eventually be an even better pay off in the end.
I define it as the ultimate victory of good over evil at the end of the day.
Yet, because you do not control the future, this pay off is completely subjective, and thus you neglect doing what is right in order to presue something that may take place.
You don't need to neglect the current time, on the contrary, thinking about both things at the same time gives you a better picture of the path you need to take. If Mystra is doing the greater good by alowing evil spellcasters their magic and slowly converting them to good then she is doing the best thing she could, not only she avoids Shar from getting another follower but she also wins another spellcaster to her way of thinking. She is also doing the greater good by allowing destructive magic in the hands of mortals who can choose to use it in the right way, even a Harm Spell can be used for good.
To a good aligned person this would be wrong. In order to be good aligned this is something that would gnaw at your very soul.
To a myopic good-aligned it would be wrong, to those who understand what is at stake if they proceed only by their gut is neither wrong nor right, it's simply the best they can do, Good is not being perfect boy scouts all the time, it's about fighting for a better world, even when it means that sometimes you are forced to take hard decisions like allowing a lesser evil to prevent a greater evil.
Simply the thought of allowing sometime to be tortured, raped or worse and refusing to intervine or prevent it knowing full well that you could do so, is something that is completely uncomprehensable to you. It is something that goes fundimentally against your very nature. If it does not feel that way to you, then you cannot be good aligned.
They do indeed feel it, I get very angry every time I read somebody was killed by somebody in a robery, or when a woman is raped, but I have to accept that I don't have the power to change those facts and I have to do good where I can in the best way I can, and that makes me good aligned, not neutral, because neutral characters don give a **** if somebody is being robbed or raped or killed.
That's just the way alignment works.
Not at all, you should read the dialoge between Roy Greenhilt and a Deva when he died and went to the Celestial Realms.
Here you have:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/images/rXOM35367HR6bp4C4kO.gif
There is nothing -wrong- with not allowing Mystra to be good aligned. There is nothing -wrong- with her allowing these actions. What is wrong is her alignment.
Yes it is because it means you are not considering every action she took to improve things.
LN Mystra allowed the Magister to be killed and replaced by the killer, NG Mystra never did that.
LN Mystra allowed spellcasters to get killed in duels, NG Mystra created the Mageduel to prevent the death of those who didn't want to die in a Mageduel, and she can't prevent the death of those who choose to duel without Mageduel because she would be robbing them of choice, and that's the way of Tyrany.
Yes, it is an extremist point of view. It is an all-or-nothing point of view.
Only Outsiders who represent alignments are forced to that, everybody else has the right to be good and still not prevent something evil to happen if they can't prevent it.
It's the difference between the far right and the far left. You have the far left (good aligned) who are concerned with others, who are willing to make personal sacrifices in order to improve the lives of others and the world. You have the far right (evil aligned) who are concerned primarily with themselves, who care little for the lives of others and little about the world outside of how it directly impacts them.
I find that way of thinking very lacking, especialy considering that the country I live always whent from extreme left to extreme right and both sides ended being Tyrants.
That is how D&D alignment works. You have the extremists (the good and evil guys) and then everyone else (the neutral guys).
If that was the way D&D thinked about alignments then the Atonnement spell should not even exist at all. You are
I personally hate the D&D alignment system because it over simplifies complex ideas.
I like it because it doesn't simplifies ideas, it's only a guideline on the usual behaviour of a character, it's not an absolute rule about how a character MUST act always and that's why you fail to grasp what I'm telling you.
It brings up the problems that we are discussing now, and if I had it my way, there would be no such thing as alignment in D&D.
The only ones who have problems with it are those who can't accept the idea that D&D alignment is not a strick code of forced behaviour. I never had any kind of problem with it. And if I had it my way I would never allow somebody like you to destroy it.
Good and Evil in the real world is based on culture and your personal experiences. It has little to do with objective reality. To some torture may be a perfectly legitimate act. To others it may be morally reprehensible. To me, it is irrelevant what they both believe because in a role-playing game it is their beliefs that are important. It doesn't matter what their alignment happens to say. If your character believes torture is wrong - then he believes it is wrong and you should act in accordance. You do not need an alignment to tell you that you MUST act a certain way.
However, our personal view points on alignment are irrelevant. In D&D Alignment -IS- Black and White, and that is my point. Because it is black and white Mystra therefore cannot be good aligned due to the actions she has taken.
IT IS NOT BLACK AND WHITE, go read Book of Exalted Deeds and Book of Vile Darkness before answering this post, it'll help you to open your mind a little about what the Alignment System of D&D means.
The Book of Exalted Deeds is not something "special" that outlines good outside of the normally defined boundaries. It outlines what it means to be good in the standard D&D alignment system.
No, it outlines what it means to be a character who tries (and that is the most important word) to achieve greater heights of good. Those are the Exalted characters.
And your definition of Good would never allow Chaotic Good characters who are moved to do Good but with unorthodox methods, only obnoxious, over-preaching Paladins could enter YOUR definition of good, nobody else could. You don't need to be a perfect boy-scout to be good, leave that to Solars, Planetars and Devas. There are degrees of good, for example I could never even think of stoping a rapist with a gun because I would get killed before doing anything positive to stop him and it would mean that there is one less good person in the world. A wise good person know he can't solve every single problem, they can only do what they are able to.
Mystra preventing destructive spells from being cast would cause a greater evil than not preventing them, it could mean that a group of adventurers who was about to kill an irredeemable evil character was prevented from doing that and the irredeemable evil character was allowed to escape and spread evil in more ways. It would also mean that orcs would become SO much that not even the combined forces of every city of Faerun would stop them because magic can't kill them and there aren't enough Fighters to counter the orcs.
IT IS NOT BLACK AND WHITE, go read Book of Exalted Deeds and Book of Vile Darkness before answering this post, it'll help you to open your mind a little about what the Alignment System of D&D means.
I've read both. That is why I know I am in the right in this discussion. Read my previous post and the following.
Ends and Means, The Book of Exalted Deeds, page 9:
When do good ends justify evil means to achieve them? Is it morally acceptable, for example, to torture an evil captive in order to extract vital information that can prevent the deaths of thousands of innocents? Any good character shudders at the thought of committing torture, but the goal of preventing thousands of deaths is undeniably a virtuous one, and a neutral character might easily consider the use of torture in such a circumstance. With evil acts on a smaller scale, even the most virtuous characters can find themselves tempted to agree that a very good end justifies a madly evil means. Is it acceptable to tell a small lie in order to prevent a minor catastrophe? A large catastrophe? A world-shattering catastrophe?
In the D&D universe, the fundamental answer is no, an evil act is an evil act no matter what good result it may achieve. A paladin who knowingly commits an evil act in pursuit of any end no matter how good still jeopardizes her paladinhood. Any exalted character risks losing exalted feats or other benefits of celestial favor if he commits any act of evil for any reason. Whether or not good ends can justify evil means, they certainly cannot make evil means any less evil.
Some good characters might view a situation where an evil act is required to avert a catastrophic evil as a form of martyrdom: "I can save a thousand innocent lives by sacrificing my purity." For some, that is a sacrifice worth making, just as they would not hesitate to sacrifice their lives for the same cause. After all, it would simply be selfish to let innocents die so a character can hang on to her exalted feats.
Unfortunately, this view is ultimately misguided. This line of thinking treats the purity of the good character's soul as a commodity (like her exalted feats) that she can just give up or sacrifice like any other possession. In fact, when an otherwise good character decides to commit an evil act, the effects are larger than the individual character. What the character sees as personal sacrifice is actually a shift in the universal balance of power between good and evil, in evil's favor. The consequences of that single evil act, no matter how small, extend far beyond the single act and involve a loss to more than just the character doing the deed. Thus, it is not a personal sacrifice, but a concession to evil, and thus unconscionable.
Good ends might sometimes demand evil means. The means remain evil, however, and so characters who are serious about their good alignment and exalted status cannot resort to them, no matter how great the need."
Unfortunately, this view is ultimately misguided.
-It sure is...
And your definition of Good would never allow Chaotic Good characters who are moved to do Good but with unorthodox methods, only obnoxious, over-preaching Paladins could enter YOUR definition of good, nobody else could.
First of all, this isn't "my" definition. This is the definition put down by WotC. This is the canonical definition.
Second... Page 12 of the Book of Exalted Deeds.
Law, Chaos, and Good
Lawful good characters by no means have a monopoly on goodness. Though all paladins are lawful good, plenty of exalted characters of all character classes are chaotic good or neutral good, and they are exemplify the ideals of good in the D&D universe no less than the paladin. There are differences between the goodness of a lawful good character and that of his chaotic good counterpart, just as there are marked differences been the archons and eladrins that embody those alignments in the celestial realms.
Lawful Good characters possess a sense of discipline, honor, and community that other good characters do not necessarily share. Lawful good characters are members of monastic or knightly orders, church hierarchies, or organizations devoted to righteous causes. They believe that morality can be legislated, and promote the establishment of just societies whose laws and customs inculcate good behavior in their citizens. Lawful good adventurers fight evil knowing that they have the support of legal systems behind them: they are bringing criminals to justice as well as opposing evil.
In an evil culture or one that tolerates evil, lawful good characters are in a difficult situation. On the one hand, they abhor evil and cannot stand to see it institutionalized. On the other hand, they believe in legitimate authority and will not overthrow a kingdom because of evil practices within it. Lawful good characters usually try to work to change flawed social structures from within, using whatever political power is available to them rather than toppling those structures by force.
Chaotic Good characters are strong willed individuals who tolerate no oppression, even in the name of the common good. They usually work alone or in loose bands, rather than as part of some organization or hierarchy. They have no confidence in the ability of laws and social mores to train people in good behavior. Indeed, they have seen all too often how people hide behind rules and laws as an excuse for evil or at least irresponsible acts. While promoting a legal system that places few restrictions on individual freedom, chaotic good individuals look to other forces - religion, philosophy, or community for example - to encourage good behavior and punish evil. Chaotic good adventurers fight evil because it's evil, not because it's illegal.
In societies where evil practices are tolerated, chaotic good characters are the most likely rebels, and they have few hesitations about overthrowing the existing order if it means eliminating those evils.
Neutral Good characters occupy an indistinct middle ground. They espouse the ideals of good and none other. As a rule, they don't care whether good is imposed through laws and customs or encouraged by temples and philosophers; they simply want goodness to flourish. legislation morality sometimes works, and is good as far as it goes. When lawful good societies begin to legalization every detail of their citizens' lives, however, passing laws on subjects that have no bearing on good and evil, the neutral good citizens become impatient. They support law when it promotes good, but not law for its own sake. Similarly, they like the idea of personal freedom, but they're not sure everyone should have it: too much freedom gives evildoers too much room to prosper. Like chaotic good adventurers, neutral ones fight evil because it's evil, but it certainly doesn't hurt to have the backing of legal authority whenever possible.
Neutral good characters in societies that tolerate evil resist evil to the extent they can, without actively working to overthrow the government. They protest injustice, sometimes engaging in civil disobedience since unjust laws are useless and not binding in their view.
There are degrees of good, for example I could never even think of stoping a rapist with a gun because I would get killed before doing anything positive to stop him and it would mean that there is one less good person in the world.
Page 6, Book of Exalted Deeds:
Personal Sacrifice
A good character doesn't just help others or fight evil when it's convenient for him to do so. Even the most generous altruism when it comes without sacrifice or even serves one's own self-interest, is neutral at best. A character committed to the cause of good champions that cause in any circumstance, often at great personal risk or cost.
Forfeiting any claim on reward for one's deeds is a simple form of sacrifice touched upon in the previous section. Voluntarily donating money, goods, or even magic items to a temple, charitable institution (an orphanage or aid society), or other organization is another financial sacrifice often practiced by good characters. Exceptionally virtuous characters might swear sacred vows, forever sacrifice the enjoyment of some worldly pleasure - alcohol or stimulants, sex, material possessions - or of course of action, including violence. True heroes of righteousness, all too often, sacrifice their own lives to save the lives of others.
By D&D Alignment Killing is evil, but if you kill the BBEG then you are commiting a good act. Just like when you kill orc who are attacking a village to destroy it.
There is a big contradiction here. And the most rational way to resolve this is stop thinking about the alignments as hard rules that MUST be followed. Have you even clicked in the link I left you in one of my posts?
And this is straight from the PHB:
A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, and chaotic evil. Choose an alignment for your character, using his or her race and class as a guide. Most player characters are good or neutral rather than evil. In general, evil alignments are for villains and monsters.
Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two lawful good characters can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent. A lawful good character may have a greedy streak that occasionally tempts him to take something or hoard something he has even if that’s not lawful or good behavior. People are also not consistent from day to day. A good character can lose his temper, a neutral character can be inspired to perform a noble act, and so on.
Emphasis mine.
If even the Player's Handbook is telling you that alignment is not BLACK & WHITE then it is NOT.
And those descriptions are perfect for EXALTED characters, they did a very big mistake by using Good instead of EXALTED in those descriptions because that behaviour is something I would expect from EXALTED characters, not simple good characters.
-It sure is...
I take it you meant that as a form of sarcasm. :P
Look, people, you can disagree with the way alignment is structured in D&D all you want. I agree. However, here on the forums we debate what is considered cannon, and so that we are all on the same page we try and talk about things from a shared perspective.
What I have outlined is what it means to be good in D&D as outlined by WotC. It is what is considered "good" in canonical D&D.
By the definition of good as set down by WotC, the canonical definition, Mystra cannot be of a good alignment.
Like I said before, deities are not there to fix the world for us... free will rather precludes that rosy little world view. They are there to help us help ourselves, to aid us in overcoming our struggles, whatever they may be, and by extension, have us aid them in overcoming their struggles by our actions on their behalf. They are not superheroes that swoop down to save the day. Read the Concerns of the Mighty sidebar in the 3e FRCS again, and perhaps consider applying that to deities as well...
Good = Exalted. It was not a mistake.
No, alignment is not a straitjacket. There is a lot of flexibility in alignment archetypes. However, you will always get the greatest amount of flexibility the further you gravitate from the extremes. Neutrality always gives you the greatest flexibility. Neutral good gives you more flexibility than either Lawful or Chaotic Good, for example, while Neutral gives you the most flexibility out of any alignment.
Neutral does not equal indifference to good or evil. A neutral aligned person may still feel strongly about one side or another. He may still strive toward good actions, but because of personal flaws, fails to actually "be" good.
Almost everyone in the real world considers themselves to be good. Even the most morally depraved people consider themselves to be good. Does that actually make it so? No. You cannot think of good and evil in terms of the real world. Good and evil do not exist in the real world because they are subjective - they are created by culture and personal experiences. This is not the case in D&D. You can grow up in a culture that is thoroughly evil, but that does not absolve you of any crimes you may commit while living in that culture.
When you talk about personal sacrifice, you're generally speaking on a mortal scale, and the number of people who will suffer due to that sacrifice is, by my reckoning anyway, an unacceptable cost.
Again, I will point to this-
Ends and Means, The Book of Exalted Deeds, page 9:
"When do good ends justify evil means to achieve them? Is it morally acceptable, for example, to torture an evil captive in order to extract vital information that can prevent the deaths of thousands of innocents? Any good character shudders at the thought of committing torture, but the goal of preventing thousands of deaths is undeniably a virtuous one, and a neutral character might easily consider the use of torture in such a circumstance. With evil acts on a smaller scale, even the most virtuous characters can find themselves tempted to agree that a very good end justifies a madly evil means. Is it acceptable to tell a small lie in order to prevent a minor catastrophe? A large catastrophe? A world-shattering catastrophe?
In the D&D universe, the fundamental answer is no, an evil act is an evil act no matter what good result it may achieve. A paladin who knowingly commits an evil act in pursuit of any end no matter how good still jeopardizes her paladinhood. Any exalted character risks losing exalted feats or other benefits of celestial favor if he commits any act of evil for any reason. Whether or not good ends can justify evil means, they certainly cannot make evil means any less evil.
Some good characters might view a situation where an evil act is required to avert a catastrophic evil as a form of martyrdom: "I can save a thousand innocent lives by sacrificing my purity." For some, that is a sacrifice worth making, just as they would not hesitate to sacrifice their lives for the same cause. After all, it would simply be selfish to let innocents die so a character can hang on to her exalted feats.
Unfortunately, this view is ultimately misguided. This line of thinking treats the purity of the good character's soul as a commodity (like her exalted feats) that she can just give up or sacrifice like any other possession. In fact, when an otherwise good character decides to commit an evil act, the effects are larger than the individual character. What the character sees as personal sacrifice is actually a shift in the universal balance of power between good and evil, in evil's favor. The consequences of that single evil act, no matter how small, extend far beyond the single act and involve a loss to more than just the character doing the deed. Thus, it is not a personal sacrifice, but a concession to evil, and thus unconscionable.
Good ends might sometimes demand evil means. The means remain evil, however, and so characters who are serious about their good alignment and exalted status cannot resort to them, no matter how great the need."
I bolded the critical points in the text.
Good is about being the best you can.
Evil is like neutrality except you don't have any problem to screw other sentients.
Neutrality is actually the hardest alignment to roleplay because it needs a person who can play a character who cares only about himself but doesn't commits evil acts, something far more difficult to do than acting good or evil.
You aren't going to convince me with your absolutist alignment system because I'm a Relativist/Objectivist/Hermeticist/Buddhist, and what matters are the ends (even those that you can't see or understand when employing your means).
I am perfectly aware of that passage really. I just have a fundamentally different take on a key point that I never actually disputed for some reason. I don't see Mystra's allowing evil spells to exist as aiding and abetting whatever use their put to. I don't see allowing spells to be used for evil ends as aiding and abetting either.
My thoughts exactly.
Being good or evil actually takes work. You actually have to consistently act in a certain way. To be neutral, all you have to do is live. You can care about other people, and do your best to help them - most of the time. Although, you might not like certain types of people. So you might not help them. You might not care if they get screwed over. You might feel bad, and regret your actions afterward, but what is important to understand is that fundamentally you'd be imperfect.
If a good aligned person disliked someone and allowed them to get screwed over, having the power to prevent it, they'd do more than just feel bad - they'd have to make some type of amends otherwise they'd be at risk of sliding away from good and toward neutrality.
Good is undoubtedly the hardest alignment to play. It should never be the default alignment. It is more than just a label - it means something. It is a badge of honor.
Someone who is neutral commits both good and evil actions in varying measures but in the end it ultimately balances itself out. He might be selfish, greedy and violent, but otherwise work toward good ends. Likewise, he might be merciful, altruistic, and generous but otherwise work toward evil ends.
Neutrality is a contradiction. It is where most people find themselves. Good and Evil are not contradictory - they are opposing forces that are clearly outlined.
I am perfectly aware of that passage really. I just have a fundamentally different take on a key point that I never actually disputed for some reason. I don't see Mystra's allowing evil spells to exist as aiding and abetting whatever use their put to. I don't see allowing spells to be used for evil ends as aiding and abetting either. You're free to choose to I suppose, I find it an odd take on things, but that's not the point of view I'm approaching this from. Were I to use that particular viewpoint, I can see your point, but I see it as a strange concept to begin with, and probably not the case given the number of times the office has changed hands.
How is it an odd viewpoint? Even though I generally shun the standard D&D alignment rules I still easily define Mystra 3.0 as neutral largely for the same reasons I outline.
Here is the way I see it personally. The Weave and Mystra are one in the same. The Weave is her literal body. That is why when Mystra dies the Weave dies with her.
So every time the Weave is used for an evil action, Mystra is indirectly participating. Just as in the real world, if I wanted to torture someone, and I asked you to hold them still while I burned them with hot coals, you'd be complicit in the act. Even if you believed morally the act was wrong you still participated. You did so of your own free will, without me threatening you, and with the power to stop me if you so choose.
This is what happens every time someone uses the Weave for an evil act. Mystra is allowing herself to be used in such a way that she is complicit in the act because the Weave is her literal body.
If Mystra were to maintain her Neutral Good Alignment it would require her to step up and say, "You know what - I am not going to allow you to do that. This is my body, and had I the power, I'd ensure that you were brought to justice. I do not. But I will not allow myself to be used in such away as to aid you. Find another source of magic if you must, but I will not participate in this action."
She then alerts her clergy and Chosen as to what is going on and tries to get them to handle the problem and to bring the perpetrator to justice.
That is what a Neutral Good Mystra -should- do. It may weaken her. It may cause other problems for her, yes, but at the end of the day the ends do not justify the means. Committing, contributing or participating in an evil act, even for just and good ends, is still committing, contributing or participating in an evil act.
IT IS NOT BLACK AND WHITE, go read Book of Exalted Deeds and Book of Vile Darkness before answering this post, it'll help you to open your mind a little about what the Alignment System of D&D means.
I should also point this out.
Author's Note: I like to think I am a good person, and I strongly encourage others to be good people as well. Nevertheless, I feel the need to point out this book attempts to define the morality of goodness in the context of the D&D world, not the real world. While I've tried to explore some shades of gray in this book, the D&D universe is still much more black-and-white than the real world. I don't advocate anyone killing someone they think is evil, just to give one example.
- James Wyatt
Addressing the point of the Weave being destroyed when she dies, I see it more from the point of view that she's the one who maintains it, while being a distinct entity from it. Perhaps in the case of Mystryl I could see it, but that would still be a stretch for me still.
Look, people, you can disagree with the way alignment is structured in D&D all you want. I agree. However, here on the forums we debate what is considered cannon, and so that we are all on the same page we try and talk about things from a shared perspective.
Sorry, but at this point I'm totally lost, and not sure what we're talking about anymore.
Think that part is coming down to a difference between alignment as its described in the PHB versus the BoED, and which is more correct as a guideline.
I'm inclined to view the alignments as described in the sources as guidelines, myself, because I don't always agree with sourcebook authors on matters of good and evil (they may be good at mechanics, but they expert moral philosophers or something?). However, I'm confused about how this all comes back to Mystra.
Whether or not she's being goodly by allowing evil spells to exist, much less be cast. By extension, that applies to spells used towards evil ends as far as I can tell.
Ah, I see, thanks for clarifying.
I'm a bit sleepy-tired right now (I actually wound up taking a nap earlier) and this debate has gone waaaaaay over my head if you get what I mean.
Coffee is your friend... and barring that, sleep, even if it is for the weak. ;)
Sleep is preferred for me. :-p Although, I do enjoy coffee (but it's not an everyday thing for me).
What I am saying is that canonically speaking that what I am saying is correct. I am trying to speak strictly from a canonical perspective, and as far as I am aware Mystra -IS- the Weave. I don't particularly like the concept of Mystra physically being the Weave, but as far as I am aware this is what cannon states.
Therefore, if she is literally and physically the Weave, and she exists in a world where both Good and Evil are tangible forces (not abstract ideas like the real world), and she is said to be of Neutral Good alignment, how could she allow herself to be physically involved in an evil act and maintain her good alignment? To do such a thing would contradict the very morals she is supposed to uphold.
That is my perspective.
I see the canonical Mystra as a very conflicted deity. She earnestly and truly in her heart wants to be good. She yearns for it. She wants to be the bright shining star that brings hope to everyone in the Realms, but yet at the same time, she is saddled with a burden and a responsibility that she feels casts a shadow upon the light she wants to shine. She feels that she is obligated, for all the reasons mentioned by yourself and others, that for the greater good she must allow certain things to be over looked. Each time the Weave (her physical body) is used in a way that is harmful to others, she is conflicted and torn, she is emotionally distraught, and she weeps for those who are hurt and wants to help but is fearful of the consequences.
She is a goddess of contradictions: She wants to use magic to promote freedom and hope, while she herself is chained and hopeless.
In the end, this makes her remarkably human and sympathetic, but in terms of alignment it does not make her good. The reason for this is that it requires more than simple yearning and wishful thinking in order to be good. It requires action. Mystra knows this and is unwilling to take the required actions because she is either fearful or unwilling to accept the consequences, which admittedly, would be disastrous for her. That does not make her a bad person: It makes her human. How many individuals do you know who are willing to truly sacrifice themselves for the greater good? These are people who are willing to lose everything, cause to themselves untold pain and suffering, all in the pursuit of what is right. They inspire, awe and humble others simply through their actions.
This also makes perfect sense for Mystra considering that she was a human who had only recently ascended to divinity.
Even 3e's Magic of Faerun does little to dispel the ambiguity of the matter. Certainly her birth had something to do with the creation of the Weave, but no mention is made of it specifically being 'her body' per se. So, open to interpretation there as far as I'm concerned. Intimately connected isn't quite the same thing as literally being the same thing in my book. I could see how it could be viewed both ways, but I don't recall ever seeing it defined either way.
And I didn't think you were saying that yours was the 'one, true way' of looking at it, I just didn't want to come off as sounding that way myself, so I added that bit in there just to clarify it.
"The nature of the Weave is elusive because it is many things simultaneously. The Weave is the body of Mystra, the goddess of magic. Mystra has domination over magic worked throughout Toril, but she cannot shut off the flow of magic altogether without ceasing to exist herself. The Weave is the conduit spellcasters use to channel magical energy for their spells, both arcane and divine. Finally, the Weave is the fabric of esoteric rules and formulas that comprises the Art (arcane spellcasting) and the Power (divine spellcasting). Everything from the texts of arcane spellbooks to the individual components of spells is part of the Weave. Magic not only flows from source to spellcaster through the Weave, the Weave gives spellcasters the tools they need to shape magic to their purposes."
That in my opinion is definitive. While Mystra lacks the ability to shut off magic both by edicts handed down by Ao and her own threatened existence, she does have the power to change how magic works.
I take it you meant that as a form of sarcasm. :P
-No. Look at those 'official' rules and viewpoints concerning personal sacrifice at what not. Horrible.
One could choose to interpret that quite literally, but if we take into account the descriptions in other sources, MoF in particular, which was written afterwards, then things get a little shakier as far as 'pure canon' goes. Which I tend to think was somewhat intentional to leave DMs free to interpret things as they choose to, something sadly which was largely missed by many in the Anti-Mystra crowd (which is a general observation on my part, and not directed at anyone here).
In this way, similarly, if there is no 'brain' (for whatever reason) in the human body, then the finger lacks the proper direction to move. Similarly, therefore, without Mystra (the brain) the Weave (the finger) ceases to function without its proper direction.
Can we at least find a consensus around this point?
Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, page 54:
"The nature of the Weave is elusive because it is many things simultaneously. The Weave is the body of Mystra, the goddess of magic.
This is an interesting stance in that a whole lotta magic is evil to the point of having it's own [Evil] descriptor. Death Knell is as much made of evil as Fireballs are made of fire, by this reasoning.
Which means that Mystra, despite her good alignment, has veins of pure evil running through her 'body' (the Weave) every moment of every day. Since there are ~four times as many [Evil] spells as there are [Good] spells, meaning that the Weave itself is lopsided a bit towards evil, and with Mystra being good, it's gotta burn through her like rattlesnake venom...
It would be consistent with Mystra's distaste for evil or unethical forms of magic for Shar to have gotten the opportunity to sneak in with her Shadow Weave and poach Necromancy, Illusion and Enchantment from under Mystra's nose because of this alignment issue.
That would make sense except it's been retconned so that Shar has had the Shadow Weave long before the Time of Troubles and Mystra v3, and the previous two incarnations were neutral.
Of course, the whole Shadow Weave thing is up in the air. They've retconned it multiple times. The current canonical version of the Shadow Weave, as stated by Rich is that Shar created it herself. It isn't a part of the Weave.
However, the more I think about it the more I have trouble understanding what you are saying. When a spell with the evil descriptor is cast it can be cast through the Weave. They aren't drawing upon the Shadow Weave (assuming, of course, that you go by the previous version where they are both part of the same construct).
Don't quite follow the logic myself Soltares... I sorta see what you're saying, but have no idea how Shar ties into it at all... or even why she would try, particularly if its inflicting pain on her old foe.
...then I'm not seeing where we disagree on things? If Mystra has the power to act in such a way that benefits the causes of good, and is refusing to do so, then how does she maintain her good alignment according to cannon? Keep in mind I'm not saying that Mystra is bad or anything, I am not saying she might not have regrets... I am simply saying that Mystra, as far as we know, has refused to for example, deny spells with the [Evil] descriptor from being cast by the Weave. (Which, by the way, regardless of the method and intentions they are used for are always evil in D&D. That is why they have the descriptor.)
It would seem to me that Mystra would have, at the very least, acted along these lines. It would not have gone against the edicts laid down by Ao: that she must allow access to the Weave for all. She would continue to allow everyone to use the Weave, but begin seeking ways to limit methods in which the Weave could be used toward evil ends. What good aligned person would not do that? If she didn't do that then she'd be indirectly contributing (and supporting) the evil acts.
Sure, it may have caused problems - rocking the boat always causes problems. However, when has that ever stopped a truly good aligned individual from doing what is right, even though there may be consequences to those actions? Isn't that what being good means, doing what is right even in the face of uncertain or difficult consequences? Canonically speaking, when we are talking about good alignment in D&D as outlined by WotC, Mystra in my point of view simply cannot be good. It's virtually impossible for her to be good and continue on her current path.
What I want to know from others here, those who support Mystra's good alignment, is how they explain - canonically - that Mystra is good. That is really what I am looking to hear and create a discussion about. I want to hear the arguments for a good aligned Mystra dealing only with the canonical facts - not personal interpretations or personal opinions. All of those are subjective.
If Mystra has the power to act in such a way that benefits the causes of good, and is refusing to do so, then how does she maintain her good alignment according to cannon?
Ok, so according to you, she has two choices.
A). Defy Ao, get her divine posterior to her, and be replaced with some one who will tow the line, and may not share her moral fiber. Or....
B). Warp the weave in such a way that it cannot be used to evil ends.
Assuming option B is even possible, there are major consequences for those actions. It is very similar to arguements on gun control. Those who want to use them for illicit means, more than likley won't balk at acquiring them illicitly either. Same thing with Magic. If Mystra neutered magic so that it couldn't be used in a harmfull way, the bad guys would turn to other sources such as the Shadow weave. She would also be depriving the good guys of the tools that could help stop them. So in the long run, she would be doing more harm than good, by weakening mankinds ability to fight evil.
Second, if she did do something like that, it could be argued that she just changed her portfolio. Instead of the goddess of magic, she is now the goddess of Good and beneficial magic. This would make a very good case for other dieties to impinge on her old portfolio. Talos has already been lobbying for a while to acquire the portfolio of destructive magic. If Mystra gave that portion of her portfolio up, he wouldn't hesitate to seize it. Shar would be there as well, and you can bet that Bane and Cyric would try to make a grab for the abandoned Evil magic.
So if Mystra neglects the rest of her portfolio, what choice would Ao have but to give them to those who will represent them? Ironicly, that could be very well why Mystra took on Velarashoon. He handles the "evil" and necromatic magics she finds distaceful (thereby preserving her NG alignment), but at the same time she can keep him in check.
So I guess the question is, would handing over some of her portfolio's to evil dieties, who would be strengthened by it and use them for all kinds of nefarious purposes, make her good aligned? I think not. As it is she may find it distastfull, but if she is fair and impartial on it, she keeps them out of the hands of those who would truly abuse it (the evil dieties themselves). In the mean time she has her chosen and various organizations who keep the evil and abusive spell casters in check, and encourage people to use the power responsibly. To me that justifies a NG alignment.
Don't get me wrong. I was never in love with Mystra to begin with. The thing that chaffed me was that she had control over divine magic as well as arcane. To me these should always be seperate sources of power. Nothing should be able to come between a diety and it's followers. However in Faerun, dieties have to have Mystra's ok to grant their followers spells. I never liked that. Did I want to get rid of her and the weave? Not at all. I just didn't like certain aspects of it.
As to how she can maintain her good alignment in the face of canon definitions of Goodness... well, its not really that difficult. A lot of it comes down to intent of the spellcaster. Just imagine a situation where a good-aligned outsider becomes ensnared by an enchantment spell that makes it act against its alignment without actually changing the alignment of the creature. Say that an arcane devotee who worships the deity that the outsider serves is faced with stopping the outsider without undue harm to the outsider, and casts a protection from good spell to give himself a defensive edge in the confrontation... an evil spell by its descriptor, but not even remotely evil in its intent... so theres at least one exception to that idea, and others could be come up with I'm sure.
Certainly Vile and Corrupted spells occupy a different place than a spell that just has the evil descriptor, but by stopping those she starts down a slippery slope. Part of her job is to encourage new magic being formulated, and when she starts stopping one line of research and development, she starts acting against her portfolios best interests by limiting where that development can go. Certainly she has done so in the past, with the limitations she put on magic post-Karsus, but I see that as a case of self-preservation, and preserving the sovereignity of the gods, so its a bit different to my mind.
Beyond that, consider that most of those Vile and Corrupt spells are going to eventually have Consecrated and other goodly magics to counter them, so by foiling them, she's also putting a damper on magic she probably does want to see created. Nothing spurs creation and innovation quite like adversity... certainly that seems fairly neutral, but its not if she encourages goodly spellcasters to pool their resources and gives them access to more lore than their evil counterparts, which is generally the case as far as I'm aware.
Certainly she has to maintain a balancing act that does tend towards neutrality in a lot of respects, but its the small edges that she gives to goodly spellcaster that accumulate enough to justify the good alignment. I wouldn't say it was in the same league of 'Good' that someone like Torm or Ilmater would be in, but its still good.
Could be this tends more towards interpretation and opinion, but I'm firmly of the opinion that there's no one thing that points towards her having a good alignment, but that the small things taken cumulatively do.
In cannon D&D good and evil are real and tangible things. They are not philosophical concepts. They are not debatable. You are either good... or you're not. You are either evil... or you're not. You then have neutrality as some middle ground between the two extremes. The cannon D&D Alignment System is not something you can say, "Well, you know - it's good if you look at it from THIS perspective." No. It simply doesn't work that way. Seriously, pick up the Book of Exalted Deeds and flip through the first chapter. It outlines in no uncertain terms what good is and what is expected of good aligned individuals.
Certainly, I'm not going to sit here and say Mystra is the only deity who falls woefully short of their alignment description. There are many who fall short and there are many NPC's that likewise don't follow the rules as they've been laid down.
In our home games, sure - we all have different takes. I have a different take than the canonical take. I think it's too rigid and really I think the whole alignment thing is bunk. I'd toss it out the window if it wasn't for the fact that some beings - such as demons and devils - are so closely linked to the system as to be practically inseparable.
However, in order to have a discussion here - one that does not devolve into personal opinion and the like - we all have to approach things from a similar perspective. It only makes sense that we approach it from a canonical perspective. In D&D the good alignment is clearly outlined by the BoED. Does Mystra qualify for a good alignment based on those standards?
As I pointed out previously, she does not.
With evil acts on a smaller scale, even the most virtuous characters can find themselves tempted to agree that a very good end justifies a moderately evil means. Is it acceptable to tell a small lie in order to prevent a minor catastrophe? A large catastrophe? A world-shattering catastrophe?
In the D&D universe, the fundamental answer is no, an evil act is an evil act no matter what good result it may achieve.
Unfortunately, this view is ultimately misguided. This line of thinking treats the purity of the good character's soul as a commodity (like her exalted feats) that she can just give up or sacrifice like any other possession. In fact, when an otherwise good character decides to commit an evil act, the effects are larger than the individual character. What the character sees as personal sacrifice is actually a shift in the universal balance of power between good and evil, in evil's favor. The consequences of that single evil act, no matter how small, extend far beyond the single act and involve a loss to more than just the character doing the deed. Thus, it is not a personal sacrifice, but a concession to evil, and thus unconscionable.
Good ends might sometimes demand evil means. The means remain evil, however, and so characters who are serious about their good alignment and exalted status cannot resort to them, no matter how great the need.
I do not know how it can be spelled out any more clearly. I am not saying Mystra would not end up screwing herself over as a result, because I think if she were truly good aligned and acted as a good aligned individual is expected to act by cannon she would be. She'd be horribly screwed over. At worst she'd be stripped of her divinity by Ao, and at best she'll lose aspects of her portfolio and diminish her hold over magic.
However, the consequences to that are utterly irrelevant when it comes to the canonical take on the good alignment. It is more important for Mystra to remain good than it is to remain in power. If power means sacrificing her morality Mystra must always side with her morality.
Therefore, that is my argument: By cannon Mystra 3.0 cannot be good aligned, because by cannon she is not acting according to her alignment. Her actions would place her squarely in the neutral column. A neutral individual can commit many small good aligned acts, but still not be good, because it only takes one giant act of evil to counter every single one of those good acts.
Mystra has literally sacrificed her morality for the sake of keeping her power, to avoid rocking the boat, and for what she perceives as the greater good. However, when you begin to talk in terms of the "greater good" it typically means you're committing or overlooking an evil act in hopes of a larger pay off for good in the end. It does not work that way in D&D by cannon.
By cannon Mystra's soul has been tainted and her acts are shifting the balance of power in the favor of evil. It might seem illogical on the surface. After all, wouldn't it cause an even GREATER harm to the cause of good if Mystra's power is diminished and evil deities gain aspects of her portfolio? Maybe. Maybe not. By freeing herself from the constraints of evil and allowing herself to become focused upon the good aspects of magic Mystra may be able to not only counter, but expand the use of magic for the purposes of good. It might result in a temporary victory for evil, but in the end, which side comes out on top would depend on much more than a single action.
What is certain however, is that every time Mystra allows an evil arcanist to cast an evil spell in her name, her soul becomes tainted ever so slightly, and the balance of power begins to shift toward evil. Canonically, if Mystra wants to maintain her good alignment she cannot allow this to happen.
Again, this has nothing to do with personal views on good and evil. I'm basing my posts strictly on good and evil as they are defined canonically in the D&D Universe. I am using the BoED as the definitive guide for the good alignment.
There's also the issue of deities even having souls as mortals understand them. I'd say no, personally, but I'm not aware of anything in canon to say one way or another what the case is.
Something to remember is that the Realms deities seem very much focussed by and almost chained to a perspective that is largely filtered through their own portfolios, which seem to define them more than the sum of their experiences, as is the case with mortals. From that view alone I'd say that questions of morality and ethics aren't easily definable for them on a mortal level, less free in some respects to paraphrase Ao.
Certainly that gets us away from canon interpretations, and into very much personal interpretations, but that the deities are more limited in their ability to perceive the world is something I would consider canonical, so it should be taken into account. I'm not going to continue that line of reasoning just now though, to see what you make of it first.
I also, likewise, dislike the rigidity of the BoED, but it clearly states for example, in it's introduction:
"The Book of Exalted Deeds is for players who aren't satisfied by slapping a good alignment label on their character and then acting no different from the neutral characters in the party. This book is all about how to make a good alignment mean something, and how to live up to the ideals implied in that alignment."
I think if we step back and look at things from a cosmic perspective it makes sense. You have the outer planes which are quite literally based on alignment. You have the devils and the demons, representing lawful evil and chaotic evil respectively, then you have the celestial forces and the like - you don't tend to see much of that on the Prime Material Plane. Yet, there is a very real "war" going on between good and evil in the background. Every action committed by a mortal strengthens or weakens a side in that war. That is what I feel the BoED is trying to demonstrate.
Good and Evil -are- radical forces. They are opposing forces. Deities in particular, as far as I can see, would understand the importance of good and evil even more so than mortals. It's essentially like picking a side in a war. You are either loyal to your side in the war or you are not - Lawful Good will find itself in just as much conflict with Chaotic Good as Lawful Evil finds itself in conflict with Chaotic Evil.
I suppose it's somewhat ironic in a way. The most important people in the war aren't necessarily those who are on your side, but those in the middle - the neutral guys. The way they tilt and shift has the potential to change the dynamic of the entire battlefield.
All of this might be taking place in the background of the Realms, but it still takes place. Mystra would acutely be aware of it. Good and Evil are not philosophical abstract ideas. They are physical manifesting forces. They are as real as gravity - as real as you and I. In a world where good and evil are so real you can literally touch it, would it not result in radical individuals who take good and evil to the extremes to avoid aiding the enemy?
That is how D&D is setup - that is the over arching theme. It is also one of the reasons I have to give a slight nod to 4th Edition because they seem to have highlighted this problem and attempted to move away from these extremes.
However, as of right now, in canonical D&D and largely by extension, the Realms is involved in this war between good and evil, law and chaos, where those things are literally physical things you can see and touch, I think the BoED makes sense in that regard.
I agree that FR has never put a large emphasis on that aspect. We see good and evil tossed around as if they were fleeting concepts - despite the fact, and counter to the fact, that there are devils, demons and other such beings in existence.
IMHO Midnight is the facet of Mystra that we Torilians see. A facet that at this point twinkles neutral good. It might be that We Jas is the facet that twinkles lawful evil upon other worlds. But the Goddess is the whole gem, glowing with all alignments and refracting them for the use of magic. And magic has no alignment. Magic is bigger and older than alignment.
Just my
One of the things with Mystra 3.0 though is that she's still got tons of older memories to deal with. Despite the unreliable narrator bit, Elminster's Daughter I thought showed some of that during Mystra's conversation with El and the Simbul. Her instincts say that she should be good, but the weight of history says she needs to act much more impartially, so she is indeed conflicted in terms of her alignment, I'll agree with that heartily. However, I think had she been given time, the good may very well have won out. Or been subsumed into a more impartial take on magic, depending on how the Shadow Weave thing had been resolved had the whole Shar/Cyric plotline not been dropped on our heads. A very debatable point I know... and one open to tons of interpretation. Guess we'll never know though, at least not 'officially'. Though having thought a moment, I do seem to recall a comment somewhere that she was willing to sacrifice her mortal 'morality' if it meant she could wrest the Shadow Weave from Shar's grasp... don't recall where that was though.
Still got a bit of the unreliable narrator going on in novels as far as I'm concerned... one of the reasons I don't really like using them as reference points.
-Novels use the 3rd party omniscient point-of-view in most cases, unless a passage is being narrated by a character, like Drizzt's journals, or those parts being narrated by Malik in Crucible: The Trial of Cyric the Mad.
However, that 3rd party omniscience is subject to a particular authors point of view as well, so is somewhat unreliable in my book, at least as far as the details of Realms minutae are concerned.
-I've always taken the stance that the authors' perspectives are granted canonicity, for the purposes of illustrating the events in their novels. But, I see your point.
As far as chronological events, sure, canon as can be. Not much else I'd be willing to consider canon in them though, especially if they don't really fit with established themes and flavors (in my view of them anyway).
-Well, what works for you. :: Shrugs ::
And magic has no alignment.
"Mystra was made lawful neutral on the premise that magic is inherently neutral, and exhibits internal order and laws."
Umberlee? Not so much.
If magic was innately 'orderly' and 'lawful,' then the goddess of magic would be better served to be just a little bit *wild.* Fey, dark, dangerous, prone to leaping before she looks, the sort of personage who can kick it up and *not* limit magic to being all 'orderly.' The kind of person who can be as much goddess to sorcerers and wild mages as the learned wizards in their ivory towers.
IMO, the Simbul is pretty much *made* for this job.
"Mystra was made lawful neutral on the premise that magic is inherently neutral, and exhibits internal order and laws."
Pardon my quoting myself. I was just wondering, based on the many supportive references to Ed of the Greenwood as well as Mystra as a neutral good deity, whether anyone would notice that the reason there were quotation marks around that sentence in the original post was because I'm quoting it from Down to Earth Divinity, by one Ed Greenwood, Dragon #54, 12/81.
Obviously, Midnight's ascension wasn't Ed's idea, and his development of the post-Godswar Mystra is one of many cases where he's worked to smooth over and make something positive out of things like Doug Niles's Moonshaes, Dale Henson's Netheril, Caladnei and the Shadow Weave.
Not to mention its in reference to a different incarnation of Mystra... circumstances can, and often do, change.
I'm not disagreeing with your point, so much as the relentless usage, in this thread, of what I might call the Greenwood imprimatur. I, too, tend to lean towards the Greenwood interpretation of the Realms. He came up with it - he knows what he intended.
But a NG Mystra was not in there. As far as I recall, Ed Greenwood's never bothered to use the ToT in his campaign. This was something that, particularly in view of his comments about how he came up with the character of the goddess Mystra, seems somewhat out of place in the canon.
One point is, as Ed made clear in his statement, is that a non-neutral deity of magic can be problematic for a setting. As we've seen from the numerous complaints and objections lodged in this thread. Something that TSR ignored during their development of 2E FRCS.
Ultimately, my point is this: it's one thing to support the idea of an alignment change for Midnight/Mystra. It's quite another to suggest that that would have been supported by Mr. Greenwood if he had the real opportunity to object.
"Mystra was made lawful neutral on the premise that magic is inherently neutral, and exhibits internal order and laws."
Yes, though I wouldn't read too much into such a short comment on such a complex matter, and I think it partly indicates the difficulty of fitting Mystra into a D&D alignment. The LNity of the previous Mystra was also much unlike that of a mortal, and less central than the alignment of a morally oriented god like Tymora or Bane. Compare this in the Cyclopedia: "The goddess of magic is a manifestation of the Cosmic Balance. which appears to right great inequalities or going-awry in the magical balance of things."
I'm sorry. I'm at a loss to explain how your quote has anything at all to do with suggesting that the goddess of magic should be anything but LN. Of course, it is a short comment; nonetheless, that's his reasoning right there. I'm not seeing anything in your comment that challenges that, and yet, you seem opposed to it.
"Mystra was made lawful neutral on the premise that magic is inherently neutral, and exhibits internal order and laws."
Mystra was lawful neutral. True. Mystryl was CN. Hmmm. So thats out.
Then came 3rd edition, where some 'magic-users' might not even be literate, never cracked a book or studied at all, just flung magic around as their birthright, and the Metamagic feats allowed any spellcaster to completely ignore once-sacrosanct requirements of components (via Silent Spell, Still Spell or Eschew Materials).
Suddenly, magic wasn't *just* a matter of rote and ritual, all followed slavishly. It developed a bit of a wild side, and the Simbul, always a bit headstrong, was re-envisioned as a Sorceress.
It fits the state of the 1E and 2E game for Mystra to have been LN (although Wild Magic was the first nail in the coffin of the 'all magic must be orderly, precise and static' notion), and it would equally work for the 3E Mystra to be 're-imagined' as having always been Neutral (or possibly even CN, with a LN Azuth being a balancing force behind Wizards and rote-memorization and stuff, although I don't care for Azuth being that prominent or touted as some sort of 'balancing factor' vs. Mystra, and would rather that she be pure Neutral, a goddess of abjurations, and of necromancy, a goddess of the erudite wizard with his guild codes and precise rites, and also a goddess of the fey sorceress who revels in thunderstorms and rains curses down upon those who displease her).
Limiting the services and teachings of the clergy of the 'goddess of magic' to only arcanists of compatible alignments just guarantees that other dieties, who might be less fussy about such things, will start encroaching on her portfolio, as Talos did when he started moving in on 'wild magic' and as Shar has done with her Shadow Weave, trying to 'poach' the 'not so good' schools of magic from under Mystra 3.0s upturned nose. And Ao seems to be just fine with that. It's her power to lose, after all.
Mystra was lawful neutral. True. Mystryl was CN. Hmmm. So thats out.
Well, in fairness to my original point, which was that Ed Greenwood envisioned Mystra as LN, he's not even credited with any part of the design of Netheril. It's by slade, with Jim Butler, and he's not credited except as a special thanks.
My point was simply that a lot of posters had been defending Midnight/Mystra's NG alignment as akin to the original intentions of M. Greenwood, and by that alone, "valid." But neither M/M's alignment change, nor the original Mystryl's CN alignment, came from his pen.
I'm not going to presume to tell anyone what alignment the goddess of magic ought to be. I do think his initial focus on LN makes sense, to me.