One aspect of the 4e Forgotten Realms is that there isn't an evil undead god, there is of course Orcus, but he isn't a god.
Truely I wish they would have killed off Kelemvor and had Myrkul return as the god of the dead.
One aspect of the 4e Forgotten Realms is that there isn't an evil undead god, there is of course Orcus, but he isn't a god.
Agreed, Myrkul was fascinating and mysterious. Evil at times, neutral at other times.
Of course, Myrkul wasn't destroyed but just displaced. It's always possible that the TRUE Lord of the Dead could boot out that pretender Kelemvor and re-take his dark throne.
Truely I wish they would have killed off Kelemvor and had Myrkul return as the god of the dead.
One aspect of the 4e Forgotten Realms is that there isn't an evil undead god, there is of course Orcus, but he isn't a god.
Agreed, Myrkul was fascinating and mysterious. Evil at times, neutral at other times.
Of course, Myrkul wasn't destroyed but just displaced. It's always possible that the TRUE Lord of the Dead could boot out that pretender Kelemvor and re-take his dark throne.
Thanks you just gave me the idea i needed for my paragon tier.
My Kelemvor Paladin player will love this, and it sets very well with my heavy undead campaign theme.
Kelemvor is a breath of fresh air in a game where almost all the deities of death throughout the settings are evil and all "Army of Darkness". Death is a natural state of being, a cosmic constant balancing its opposite. Too often were people afraid of dying and their corpses desecrated, but now Kelemvor's priests work to ease those fears. I like the fact that we have a deity who doesn't take sides and judges all souls equally. I even get the vibe that Jergal is content in that he has a worthy successor.
IMO, Kelemvor is the only thing left in FR that I like anymore. So I say keep him, WOTC!
P.S. Isn't Velsharoon still around and kickin? Evil god of undeath, there you go. Why do you need Myrkul?
Death is a natural state of being, a cosmic constant balancing its opposite. Too often were peple afraid of dying and their corpses desecrated, but now Kelemvor's priests work to ease those fears. I like the fact that we have a deity who doesn't take sides and judges all souls equally.
And EXTREMELY boring.
What is the point of that?? What plot hooks can you get from a neutral Death god!? And what measure does it use? Certainly not morality, which in the end defines good and bad, anyway.
P.S. Isn't Velsharoon still around and kickin? Evil god of undeath, there you go. Why do you need Myrkul?
Not acording to Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide (pg 88), which states that the Simbul killed it.
Evil god of the dead is soooooo played out and cliched, especially murderous ones with the ambition to kill everything in the universe. Nerull, Bhaal, Myrkul, Chemosh, Keeper, etc. There's plenty of evil deities with destruction as their M.O., keep Death where it belongs ... neutral. And Myrkul never looked mysterious to me. His attitude and dogma pretty much screamed "BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA and that's all folks." If he spent half as much time looking after his own "house" instead of wandering Faerun trying to scare kiddies, he would still be alive.
I think this is a very narrow way of looking at Myrkul. He was Neutral Evil, not Chaotic Evil, after all. Myrkul could align himself with Bane, Shar, devils, or demons, whatever he found useful... and Kelemvor can't.
And frankly, death isn't usually nice and pleasant. Monsters, disease, drought, starvation, warfare, barfights, curses, magic that can tear you limb from limb... death is usually not pleasant in the Realms. It is neutral in the sense that it is part of the cosmic balance and grand design, but the things it was often associated with SHOULD be feared by most civilized Faerunians.
But Myrkul wasn't the "booga booga" type of evil, by any means. Myrkul should be played to his full extent. As the death god, his plans were deep and could play out over centuries. He is not the "death to everything" type of god that they made Shar into, either. Myrkul can be the quiet death of a merchant at 85 years old, surrounded by his loving family. But he can also be the god who refuses to allow reincarnation of a fallen hero at a critical moment. And he can also be horrific death in the hundreds, caused by a wasting disease. Myrkul can also be the force that animates a mutilated enemy to -help- the players with an important clue... when the outcome benefits him.
Kelemvor is a breath of fresh air in a game where almost all the deities of death throughout the settings are evil and all "Army of Darkness". Death is a natural state of being, a cosmic constant balancing its opposite. Too often were peple afraid of dying and their corpses desecrated, but now Kelemvor's priests work to ease those fears. I like the fact that we have a deity who doesn't take sides and judges all souls equally. I even get the vibe that Jergal is content in that he has a worthy successor.
IMO, Kelemvor is the only thing left in FR that I like anymore. So I say keep him, WOTC!
Nah, I'm gonna disagree with you on this one, at least the part about Kelemvor. You could have a purely neutral non-evil priest of Myrkul who believed in the "death is a balance, a necessary counterpart to life," and that was probably the kind you'd have seen in civilized towns and villages anyway.
Kelemvor is too matter-of-fact about it, though, and that's what makes him dull and very unlikely to be used as a plot hook in most games. There's no real reason to fear death, as far as Kelemvorites are concerned. Punishment is supposedly "just" so there's no reason to fear it unless you're evil.
You can argue about the fairness of punishments like the Wall of the Faithless when Kelemvor is in charge (because honestly, it makes Kelemvor a hypocrite IMO), but that's about it. Kelemvor almost makes death look nice and pleasant, which isn't necessary (and is dangerous because it's really a lie considering that many forms of death are horrific). No matter how "neutral" Kelemvor supposedly is, he will always be viewed as a good, a former hero who ascended and "took the evil out of death."
Kelemvor also disconnects death (as a concept) from poison, disease, murder, war, and other horrors that often surround death. Bad for the game, IMO, because it puts Kelemvor at odds with those other deities.
Worshipping Myrkul, one could be evil and almost embrace death. Use the undead, or not, wheedle money out of people for "death blessings" or absolutions, all sorts of things. Or you could be neutral, and take the "it's part of the cosmic balance"deal. His evil could be subtle and pervasive, creepy and nauseating, or it could be totally blatant evil. Or, he could show his more neutral, pleasant side. Far more interesting, IMO!
P.S. Isn't Velsharoon still around and kickin? Evil god of undeath, there you go. Why do you need Myrkul?
Because Velsharoon is a minor punk kid compared to Myrkul. ;)
And Kelemvor is just a blank, faceless mask, a pretender to the Throne of the Dead. ;)
And EXTREMELY boring.
What is the point of that?? What plot hooks can you get from a neutral Death god!? And what measure does it use? Certainly not morality, which in the end defines good and bad, anyway.
Death is supposed to be boring. It's the act of killing that has all the action and "excitement". Death is the final destination, the rest of a lifelong journey.
And making plothooks is not that hard, even when trying to involve a "boring" deity. Kelemvor's dogma has a lot of room for moral ambiguity in its followers. You could have some sadistic cleric on a mission of euthanasia. Or some overzealous priest who thinks himself judge and executioner. Or, borrowing from DC's Blackest Night comic arc, Kelemvor and Jergal could initiate a plan of global recall of every resurrected soul on Faerun by using Revenants to hunt down and reclaim the previously dead! THERE's your plothook! It isn't that hard!
I could ask you the same thing, "what is the point of a evil god of death" when the same formula's been used for 3 previous FR deities of death and their own plothooks. What can you think of that other adventures, campaign settings, Real World films haven't done already? Are you only just looking for a tired old Death god that wants to kill everything? He or she can get in line with the rest of the evil gods.
Not acording to Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide (pg 88), which states that the Simbul killed it.
Well, I sit corrected. I guess the closest to a great power of undeath Faerun has now is Szass Tam.
I think this is a very narrow way of looking at Myrkul. He was Neutral Evil, not Chaotic Evil, after all. Myrkul could align himself with Bane, Shar, devils, or demons, whatever he found useful... and Kelemvor can't.
And frankly, death isn't usually nice and pleasant. Monsters, disease, drought, starvation, warfare, barfights, curses, magic that can tear you limb from limb... death is usually not pleasant in the Realms. It is neutral in the sense that it is part of the cosmic balance and grand design, but the things it was often associated with SHOULD be feared by most civilized Faerunians.
But Myrkul wasn't the "booga booga" type of evil, by any means. Myrkul should be played to his full extent. As the death god, his plans were deep and could play out over centuries. He is not the "death to everything" type of god that they made Shar into, either. Myrkul can be the quiet death of a merchant at 85 years old, surrounded by his loving family. But he can also be the god who refuses to allow reincarnation of a fallen hero at a critical moment. And he can also be horrific death in the hundreds, caused by a wasting disease. Myrkul can also be the force that animates a mutilated enemy to -help- the players with an important clue... when the outcome benefits him.Kelemvor is a breath of fresh air in a game where almost all the deities of death throughout the settings are evil and all "Army of Darkness". Death is a natural state of being, a cosmic constant balancing its opposite. Too often were peple afraid of dying and their corpses desecrated, but now Kelemvor's priests work to ease those fears. I like the fact that we have a deity who doesn't take sides and judges all souls equally. I even get the vibe that Jergal is content in that he has a worthy successor.
IMO, Kelemvor is the only thing left in FR that I like anymore. So I say keep him, WOTC!
Nah, I'm gonna disagree with you on this one, at least the part about Kelemvor. You could have a purely neutral non-evil priest of Myrkul who believed in the "death is a balance, a necessary counterpart to life," and that was probably the kind you'd have seen in civilized towns and villages anyway.
Kelemvor is too matter-of-fact about it, though, and that's what makes him dull and very unlikely to be used as a plot hook in most games. There's no real reason to fear death, as far as Kelemvorites are concerned. Punishment is supposedly "just" so there's no reason to fear it unless you're evil.
You can argue about the fairness of punishments like the Wall of the Faithless when Kelemvor is in charge (because honestly, it makes Kelemvor a hypocrite IMO), but that's about it. Kelemvor almost makes death look nice and pleasant, which isn't necessary (and is dangerous because it's really a lie considering that many forms of death are horrific). No matter how "neutral" Kelemvor supposedly is, he will always be viewed as a good, a former hero who ascended and "took the evil out of death."
Kelemvor also disconnects death (as a concept) from poison, disease, murder, war, and other horrors that often surround death. Bad for the game, IMO, because it puts Kelemvor at odds with those other deities.
Worshipping Myrkul, one could be evil and almost embrace death. Use the undead, or not, wheedle money out of people for "death blessings" or absolutions, all sorts of things. Or you could be neutral, and take the "it's part of the cosmic balance"deal. His evil could be subtle and pervasive, creepy and nauseating, or it could be totally blatant evil. Or, he could show his more neutral, pleasant side. Far more interesting, IMO!
...
Because Velsharoon is a minor punk kid compared to Myrkul. ;)
And Kelemvor is just a blank, faceless mask, a pretender to the Throne of the Dead. ;)
But here's the wrench in the argument. Myrkul was but ONE part of a trio of death gods. He represented the judge of the dead, presiding over souls who made their way to his Bone Castle. But what did he do instead or most of the time? He was in the Mortal Plane, actively involved in affairs that he had no business in doing. His mortal ambition should have been left behind when he attained godhood, but he tried to overthrow Ao and got killed in the process. Plus, in life, he was a necromancer with basically no respect shown towards death and the dead.
Thus the "Neutral" part in the Neutral Evil description; he woudnt follow the rules, just would do as he pleased.
And regarding "His mortal ambition should have been left behind when he attained godhood", there are tons of (REAL) pantheons where the gods constantly intervene in the human world (pratically almost all of the greek pantheon, from where mosts western stories are born), or (in case of ascension) would intervene in the mortal world and their former environments.
And you can also use the argument that, just because he is in the mortal world, he isnt also in Bone Castle.
I honestly think that you can make Kelemvor into a "villain" if you tried hard enough and imagined bigger. Like my post above this one, have Kelemvor go on a crusade to take back all the resurrected souls on Faerun, using living undead (revenants) to hunt them down and "re-kill" them. Kelemvor would see this as a way to restore what he sees as an imbalance and the revolving door people treat as death. Of course, this would create chaos, and an uproar among the good and bad spectrum of the world and pantheons. FUN TIMES AHEAD!
Its a good plot, true; but limiting as well.
The thing with true neutral beings is that they are much too static, without much of an agenda; that does make them boring.
Evil god of the dead is soooooo played out and cliched, especially murderous ones with the ambition to kill everything in the universe. Nerull, Bhaal, Myrkul, Chemosh, Keeper, etc. There's plenty of evil deities with destruction as their M.O., keep Death where it belongs ... neutral. And Myrkul never looked mysterious to me. His attitude and dogma pretty much screamed "BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA and that's all folks." If he spent half as much time looking after his own "house" instead of wandering Faerun trying to scare kiddies, he would still be alive.
Kelemvor is a breath of fresh air in a game where almost all the deities of death throughout the settings are evil and all "Army of Darkness". Death is a natural state of being, a cosmic constant balancing its opposite. Too often were people afraid of dying and their corpses desecrated, but now Kelemvor's priests work to ease those fears. I like the fact that we have a deity who doesn't take sides and judges all souls equally. I even get the vibe that Jergal is content in that he has a worthy successor.
IMO, Kelemvor is the only thing left in FR that I like anymore. So I say keep him, WOTC!
P.S. Isn't Velsharoon still around and kickin? Evil god of undeath, there you go. Why do you need Myrkul?
Well Myrkul was the God of several things not just the God of the dead. Originally he was the God of the Dead, Wasting, Decay,Corruption, Parasites, Old Age,Dusk, Fall, Exhaustion.
IMO, Kelemvor was originally just a stupid fighter during the time of troubles who didn't really do much. Originally he wasn't neutral he was Lawful neutral with good tendencies.
KELEMVOR LYONSBANE
Human Fighter, Level 5
Str 17
Int 15
Wis 13
Dex 16
Con 18
Cha 14
HP 44
Alignment: Lawful Neutral (good)
Lastly, Myrkul was NEVER the god of death
Bhaal was the Lord of Murder and God of Death
and
Bane
God of Strife, Hatred, Tyranny
They all worked together like a triangle
That's what is missing in the realms now. The pantheon is crap compared to how it was originally written.
But here's the wrench in the argument. Myrkul was but ONE part of a trio of death gods. He represented the judge of the dead, presiding over souls who made their way to his Bone Castle. But what did he do instead or most of the time? He was in the Mortal Plane, actively involved in affairs that he had no business in doing. His mortal ambition should have been left behind when he attained godhood, but he tried to overthrow Ao and got killed in the process. Plus, in life, he was a necromancer with basically no respect shown towards death and the dead.
All of the gods of the Realms meddle in mortal affairs. And just because it seems like they're mucking about in something out of their perview, it doesn't mean you're right.
You say Kelemvor is straightforward in the matter of death, but then say he ignores the harsher aspects of it.
No, I said he is disconnected from harsher forms of death. Where Myrkul was allied with (or directed) the deities associated with poison, murder, war, etc... Kelemvor distances himself and is even at odds with some of them.
So basically Kelemvor acknowledges death by disease, poison, murder, but works to prevent it? That's far from the truth. His clergy merely work to demystify death itself, that it is not an end or something to be afraid of in itself. Kelemvor knows that people die of normal means, and if it is their time, then it is their time.
This sounds a lot like the mortal Kelemvor's beliefs are influencing his approach to death. He is no better or worse that Myrkul in this respect. If you're going to say Myrkul "shouldn't" have a certain philosophy as a deity, then it applies to Kelemvor as well.
Unfortunately, the demystification of death and the belief that there is a "right time" muddies the waters. When death is no longer mysterious, or feared, then people do not want to cling to life. Death isn't so bad, thinks the mortal man, so why shouldn't I just throw my life away on some fool adventuring quest? Maybe if he had avoided death, and chosen life, he could have lived a full life with revelations that elevated his afterlife to one in a LG plane rather than a gray CN plane... who is to say when the time "is right"?
Kelemvor did something right when he rid himself of humanity; gods are not supposed to be human or otherwise, but above everything. Also, Kelemvor took down the Wall of the Faithless, so there's that.
Sorry, but Kelemvor kept the Wall. And because he did, his "fairness" is somewhat hypocritical IMO.
I honestly think that you can make Kelemvor into a "villain" if you tried hard enough and imagined bigger. Like my post above this one, have Kelemvor go on a crusade to take back all the resurrected souls on Faerun, using living undead (revenants) to hunt them down and "re-kill" them. Kelemvor would see this as a way to restore what he sees as an imbalance and the revolving door people treat as death. Of course, this would create chaos, and an uproar among the good and bad spectrum of the world and pantheons. FUN TIMES AHEAD!
Come on, that sort of stuff isn't in Kelemvor's character and you know it. :P
Kelemvor is bad for the game, IMO.
I my games I have toyed alot with the Book of the Dead, the fatalistic bible that codifies all truenames of people that have had their lifetime deemed exhausted. Fate, prophesy, the ultimate end of time, loss of indentity on resurrection, inevitablity, chance deaths, the meaning of life in all this. Those are powerful fantasy concepts I like to explore.
Myrkul to me was nice for his story of ascension, his legacy with experimenting with lots of gruesome deaths, and his undead clergy and their expertise on the forces of negative energy. These elements can all still be harnessed by having them remain active in the Realms where you as a DM see fit, with possible divine sponsors coming from Cyric and Shar, who have had relation to Myrkuls cult or are interested in gaining influence over their power and goals.
Kelemvors view seems to coincide with the Raven Queens, and adding her as a divine angelic-like servant/exarch to Kel could spice up some campaigns aswell. I can see her appearing as a macabre angel of death in the minds-eye of characters on the brink of death, asuaging their faith in reaching the fugue plane safely when travelling the hostile Shadowfel.
As for the raven queen, she is another 4e personality that I find hard to introduce (or substitute for) in the realms.
Lets face it people, Kelemvor is Awesome! He kicked Cyric's ass and claimed godhood and the Fugue Plane for himself, and he did all of this while he was dead!!!! How badass is that!?
Honestly Silvers, you think everything is "awesome."
Like kicking Cyric's ass is difficult, heh.
WotC should have hired him to hype 4E!!
;)
Myrkul was the god of the Dead. He was not the god of Death, this was the province of Bhaal. It was because Bhaal was the god of Death that Talona and Loviatar served him and not Myrkul.
The Dead Three / the Dark Triad divided up Jergal's portfolio's as follows: Bane was given province over the living - as a Tyrant. Bhaal was given province over Death. Myrkul was given province over the Dead.
Kelemvor is both the god of the Dead as well as Death. Bane, Myrkul, and Bhaal served to balance each other out. While one was strong in an area, he depended upon the mercies of another.
Here is how things balanced out after dividing up Jergal's portfolio's:
Bane cried out triumphantly, "As winner, I choose to rule for all eternity as the ultimate tyrant. I can induce hatred and strife at my whim, and all will bow down before me while in my kingdom." Myrkul, who had won second place, declared, "But I choose the dead, and by doing so I truly win, because all you are lord over, Bane, will eventually be mine. All things must die - even gods."
Bhaal, who finished third, demurred, "I choose death, and it is by my hand that all that you rule Lord Bane will eventually pass to Lord Myrkul. Both of you must pay honor to me and obey my wishes, since I can destroy your kingdom Bane, by murdering your subjects, and I can starve your kingdom, Myrkul by staying my hand."
There is some misconceptions here I think.
Bane cried out triumphantly, "As winner, I choose to rule for all eternity as the ultimate tyrant. I can induce hatred and strife at my whim, and all will bow down before me while in my kingdom." Myrkul, who had won second place, declared, "But I choose the dead, and by doing so I truly win, because all you are lord over, Bane, will eventually be mine. All things must die - even gods."Bhaal, who finished third, demurred, "I choose death, and it is by my hand that all that you rule Lord Bane will eventually pass to Lord Myrkul. Both of you must pay honor to me and obey my wishes, since I can destroy your kingdom Bane, by murdering your subjects, and I can starve your kingdom, Myrkul by staying my hand."
I remembered reading that and was going to post it, but I couldn't recal what book it was from.
Too bad they didn't reintroduce the dark three again in 4e.
And EXTREMELY boring.
Our party of undead slaying kelemvorite necrobanes (order described in Warriors & Priests of the Realms) disagrees vehemently. If you think that Kelemvor is boring you've never seen a squad of knights of the eternal order kicking down the door of the evil lich's or good wizard's door because both of them have prolonged their natural live span and are to be punished.
I agree. Myrkul was a boring clichee, Kelemvor is rare in that he's doing what a deity of death and the dead should be doing.
However I also agree that Myrkul was the most competent of the dark three in the avatar trilogy, which made Bane and Bhaal look like even greater idiots
If you think that Kelemvor is boring you've never seen a squad of knights of the eternal order kicking down the door of the evil lich's or good wizard's door because both of them have prolonged their natural live span and are to be punished.
Sounds like a good description of many generic Gods of Death followers for people who try to cheat out of dying. It would fit followers of the Raven Queen in many ways just as easily.
My point really is that as a God, Kelemvor is unexceptional and I honestly cannot think of any particularly interesting way of using him in a plot. Except in a "He's going to die horribly" kind of plot. In fact, I have done precisely this and Kelemvor is firmly dead after my last campaign, replaced by someone far more interesting in the temporary period (Orcus, who himself is going to end up booted off inevitably by a returned Myrkul).
But really I could see a place for both in the Realms. Kelemvor could stay as Judge of the Dead and Mykrul could be the evil god of Necromancy and Undeath or some such. I think he would fill that role better than Shar, how and when did she end up with the Undeath domain anyway?
But really, as far as death gods of the Realms go, my favorite would have to be Jergal. Theres an air of mystery there. I think he gave up being a god just to escape the Dawn Cataclysm, I think that (the Dawn Cataclysm) had something to do with Lathander merging the domains of death and light or something, and Jergal wanted no part of it so he handed it off to someone else, now hes just biding his time. Theres something goin on there I tell you! I dont think hes content just to be an exarch, hes got something planned for sure.
Sounds like a good description of many generic Gods of Death followers for people who try to cheat out of dying
Unfortunately not. Most generic deities of death (like Myrkul) actually have their followers help people cheating dead by creating undead.
It would fit followers of the Raven Queen in many ways just as easily.
She's annother refreshing example of a deity of death acting like she's supposed to do, unlike Nerull, Myrkul and the uncountable host of standard fantasy setting death deities disrespecting their own portfolios.
replaced by someone far more interesting in the temporary period (Orcus,
Yeah, annother "Fear my army of undead who are actually defying me by walking around in a mockery of my portfolio but I am too stupid to notice that" deity of death. Just like in 99% of fantasy settings. How interesting.
I think he would fill that role better than Shar, how and when did she end up with the Undeath domain anyway?
It's only a domain, that doesn't have anything to do with her portfolios
For those harping about Kelemvor's "biased" treatment of souls, let me remind you that Kelemvor was CHOSEN by the dead themselves, both good and bad. Also, you think Myrkul wasn't biased? * Beep*es please! Like every god in the FR pantheon, Myrkul favors his mortal servants, even after death; necromancers, "defilers", bogeymen, etc.
Finally, if Kelemvor is boring, then that is your fault. You're not being creative enough or thinking big enough to make a seemingly dull god into an awesome plot hook and central "villain". The thing about being true neutral and unaligned is you can make enemies of both the good and bad sides of a conflict.
~I meant no offense with the *BEEP*es remark, it was for dramatics. :D
I'm glad to see some folks defending Kelemvor. It sucked being alone in that regard.
For those harping about Kelemvor's "biased" treatment of souls, let me remind you that Kelemvor was CHOSEN by the dead themselves, both good and bad. Also, you think Myrkul wasn't biased? * Beep*es please! Like every god in the FR pantheon, Myrkul favors his mortal servants, even after death; necromancers, "defilers", bogeymen, etc.
Let's be honest, Kelemvor was shoe-horned in because the designers at the time wanted less "evil" in D&D (at least in part). There was zero pre-existing lore (prior to the super-cheesy Avatar novels) suggesting that Myrkul wasn't doing what he was supposed to do. The whole addition of Ao and that being's choices in allowing Kelemvor to ascend, were much more about taking the bite out of evil in D&D.
So in reality, Kelemvor's a remnant of a prior design team that candy-coated D&D for more mass sales appeal with family-friendly toy and hobby stores.
Thankfully, the 3E design team undid the candy coating and put a lot of the teeth back into the game. Some was good, some not so good.
In any case, the dead souls in the Fugue plane at the time had only two choices: Kelemvor or Cyric. And Cyric was insane and chaotic evil. Given only those two choices...
Finally, if Kelemvor is boring, then that is your fault. You're not being creative enough or thinking big enough to make a seemingly dull god into an awesome plot hook and central "villain". The thing about being true neutral and unaligned is you can make enemies of both the good and bad sides of a conflict.
~I meant no offense with the *BEEP*es remark, it was for dramatics. :D
Sorry, but the question wasn't whether or not people couldn't do something with Kelemvor. Any DM could change him up and actually make him interesting. But as he stands on his own, you pretty much have to invent additional things to tack on to him. And because of that, he inherently has fewer "ready to use" plot hooks when you compare him with a complex deity like Myrkul. There's just no comparison, game-wise. Myrkul is so much better, so much more interesting.
Finally, if Kelemvor is boring, then that is your fault. You're not being creative enough or thinking big enough to make a seemingly dull god into an awesome plot hook and central "villain". The thing about being true neutral and unaligned is you can make enemies of both the good and bad sides of a conflict.
Neutral evil does this far better and in a more interesting manner. Neutral evil characters have just as much reason to completely screw over equally as evil compeition, as they do neutral, good and everyone else. This also requires complete "manufacturing" when applied to Kelemvor to justify, while you do not need special consideration or similar when having the NE Myrkul do whatever the hell would be in his best interests. Also Myrkul shows a degree of forethought that other gods in the realms have showed very little of: Such as ensuring even after his destruction he could return through artifacts imbued with some of his divine energy.
I mean I could write anything I wanted about Kelemvor that is true. Then I am no longer using Kelemvor as a character, I am now using Kelemvor as something entirely different than what he was originally. At this point I could do that or I could kill him off, put the god I want there in the first place and I've written just as much justification as I would have making Kelemvor non-boring. I've also not changed Kelemvor into something else in the process.
Such as ensuring even after his destruction he could return through artifacts imbued with some of his divine energy.
Given how many deities in the realms have done this, it's rather that the few who didn't do this are especially careless, while the others are simply doing the mainstream insurance (and even to half of the careless ones, it somehow happens to happen to them through lucky accidents).
What they should have done is completely drop all the deities, create new ones, and make sure they all relate to each other in a meaningful way.
Take a look at the Dragonlance pantheon. It is much more contained and balanced.
As for Kelemvor, he is still that 5th level fighter from the avatar trilogy. He was given a role that never suited his personality.
Returning the the Dark three to the realms would go along way to fix the problems with its pantheon.
Anyone running the realms would do well to pick up the 1st edition FR campaign book and use the original pantheon. It made a lot more sense then it does now.
Lets face it, the FR pantheon is completely screwed up. In addition, it is also cross contaminated with the generic d&d setting (i.e. Asmodeous, Orcus, raven queen, Bane, etc). I don't know how many players get confused with the FR deities.
While I am all for removing Bane from the FR pantheon, Bane was a FR deity first. His name was taken from the FR pantheon for the core pantheon deity, not the other way round.
Lets face it, the FR pantheon is completely screwed up. In addition, it is also cross contaminated with the generic d&d setting (i.e. Asmodeous, Orcus, raven queen, Bane, etc). I don't know how many players get confused with the FR deities.
While I am all for removing Bane from the FR pantheon, Bane was a FR deity first. His name was taken from the FR pantheon for the core pantheon deity, not the other way round.
I think Bane has always been a big part of the Forgotten Realms. What I don't like is how the generic setting has ripped him off. Having two version of Asmodeous is also quite ridiculous.
I also think the FR does a poor job of providing deities for other races.
I think Bane has always been a big part of the Forgotten Realms. What I don't like is how the generic setting has ripped him off. Having two version of Asmodeous is also quite ridiculous.
Definitely agree with you on both points. Bane was such a cool, evil deity, but he was really badly handled in novels.
With Asmodeus, I just don't like the idea of a devil "crossing over" and becoming a deity. It's just too Christian-like, having Asmodeus like this. Granted, most ordinary citizens of the Realms might not know the difference between a devil prince and a god, but the fact that players and DMs know this is what makes it bad. You can't help but think that they're re-framing the pantheon so that eventually they'll have a good god and an evil god, and everything else are angels and minor demons/devils.
That said, I think the reason they did it is because the "main" evil deity, Cyric, has really been little more than a buffoon. He has no teeth as an evil deity. Even though he supposedly killed Mystra, it was clear that he was manipulated and used like a stooge (as usual for Cyric). So he's not really all that evil in the way he's been written. They've handled deities badly in general throughout most novels, IMO. Many FR deities are written like they have an INT of 3 or 4, and a WIS of 2, and were often more canny prior to their ascension.
I also think the FR does a poor job of providing deities for other races.
It definitely does a poor job of this now. Before 4E and the reduction-elimination-simplification agenda, there were many deities for other races. Now, you're lucky to see a single deity and an exarch or two as gods for a given race (if that). The seldarine made out a little bit better than many other races; but there were cutbacks and "revelations" about many of their deities as well, unfortunately.
That said, the changes have freed me from having to do anything with this current "canon" (which is really nice, actually), although I did enjoy buying FR products in the past. It's a strange thing to go from buying almost everything in a semi-religious manner to buying almost nothing, though.
And I still say Kelemvor is better. His judge of the dead thing hes got goin on is pretty interesting, whereas Myrkul just seems to me to be a Skeletor clone. I imagine him having that same cackle as well.
I personally like the more unified pantheon.
Agreed.
And I still say Kelemvor is better. His judge of the dead thing hes got goin on is pretty interesting, whereas Myrkul just seems to me to be a Skeletor clone. I imagine him having that same cackle as well.
Not agreed. And what is wrong with Skeletor?
I personally like the more unified pantheon. It never made much sense to me that there would be a human god of the moon and an elven one and a gnome one and a halfling one and a kobold one, or what have you. It makes perfect sense to me that these would all just be different aspects of the same god, like ofcourse the halflings are going to view their gods as being halflings. But different strokes for different folks you know? If you personally prefer to have racial pantheons, theres plenty of info on the subject that you could easily incorporate that into your own FR games.
It's not really just a personal preference, though. The concept that "all war gods are one being" or that "all fertility gods are one being" is actually a bad one for the game. It limits the DM in terms of what they can do, and has an enormous philosophical impact on social meanings of divinity for Faerun.
Suppose you have two warring cultures, and they each have a respective War God. One might say that the two war gods are clashing as well, and there would be bardic stories and legends around that. If they're two separate beings with their own personality, DMs can do all sorts of creative things with the two deities and have them promote different values for each side of the conflict.
But if they're the same being with two "aspects" then it means one of two things: either the deity has multiple personalities and can't exactly control each aspect, or the deity is lying to followers on both sides just to gain worship. And all those bardic stories? Turns out they were being misled and it's all just wrong and lies.
Someone might say, "well, truthfully we don't know what the gods motives are, and we don't really know what their reality is anyway." But that argument holds no water in a game system where the gods are literally real and actually talk to (and sometimes visit) their worshippers. If the faithful haven't learned the actual truth of their deities, after millenia of mortals planewalking, communing, and whatnot, then the deities are covering things up and lying to their worshippers.
In real life, sure, you can speculate from linguistic and archaeological evidence that the gods of many cultures were "the same" (e.g. Western deities often derive both linguistically and thematically from earlier proto-indo-European deities). But is it culturally accurate to say that Odin = Zeus = Yahweh, except on the most surface level? The legends and stories from each of those cultures have a deep meaning specific to each culture. Imagine if the gods were demonstrably real, as in Faerun, then you find out that... well, haha... turns out that Odin really is Yahweh who is also pretending to be Zeus. That being really just wanted your worship energy, that's all.
In a game system, I understand the desire for simplicity, but the idea that "all gods are merely aspects of a single handful of planetary deities" really reduces and limits what you can do with them on both a historical and thematic level. With diverse cultural pantheons, you can have three gods of thieves stealing things from each other (yet if they're all the same deity, it's just a lie). When two war gods clash, it's a real clash (though if they're the same deity, it's a lie). When two gods of agriculture share seedlings and planting techniques with each other, it means something different than if those were simply two aspects of the same god.
Sure, commoners might never know. But you do, as the player or DM. In the process of "simplifying" deities by reducing them to a handful, you're actually cheapening cultural diversity and making the legends and bardic stories about those individual deities truly empty of real meaning. Were those stories of our War God protecting us for millenia against the neighboring war god... were they just completely false, since they are both the same being? How can you trust anything said in the deity-legends of your people? And if a people cannot trust that their deities aren't wholly for them and on their side, why have faith in them?
And I still say Kelemvor is better. His judge of the dead thing hes got goin on is pretty interesting, whereas Myrkul just seems to me to be a Skeletor clone. I imagine him having that same cackle as well.
All Kelemvor really does is sort souls according to a simplistic set of rules, do you honestly consider that interesting? He doesn't go out, he sits at home with his mask on, sorting nickels from dimes.
And Myrkul's laugh was deep, with some reverb. Plus, he did whatever the heck he wanted, allied with whomever was convenient and assisted in the completion in his goals. That's classic villain stuff. Don't be hating on Myrkul just because you prefer a bland Jesus knock-off... I mean Kelemvor. ;)
I would understand and support the all-in-one deity concept if it was a Faerunian native god. It would make sense then as a Faerunian god would be called many things by the native races of Toril (like Silvanus, etc). But a Seldarine god like Sehanine being Sune is just utter nonsense.
Anyways, back to this Myrkul vs Kelemvor debacle. While I do not hate Myrkul, I thought the whole splitting of the Death domain among 3 deities to be total BS. Death is death, it has no personality and takes no sides, that's why it's scary. Both good and evil people die. It should be the same with Life (I'm looking at you Chauntea). I think that the big, cosmic abstracts such as Life and Death should remain separate and neutral in petty affairs. Kelemvor is a welcome change in FR, finally bringing BALANCE to the "Underworld". I have nothing against Myrkul and other necrophiliac figures (aka undead) but the domain was thoroughly abused to such that Death and Undeath were synonymous in FR. I did not like that at all.
Stop making Kelemvor out to be some Messianic figure, because he is not. He changed his mortal ways way before 4e came around, and really embraced his role as Death. Myrkul remained the same greedy punk-@$$ fool who thought he could overthrow Ao and got a well deserved smite-down. Myrkul should've moved against Bane and Bhaal instead to get the rest of the Death portfolios, while those two were focused on Ao. I would've respected him then and mourned his loss.
I think Kelemvor is closer to what Jergal used to be, or he's getting there. As a mortal, his curse and fate was such that only death would bring sweet release and an end to such a life. He would understand more about the benefits of death than some necromancer who thinks Death is a joke and should be a revolving door for undead (Myrkul). Finally, Myrkul is a BIG drama queen. He appears during funerals waving his scythe and cackling like a maniac? I would LAUGH if that happened in the presence of my PC. What would be more scary is if the manifestation of Death appears as a hooded, skeletal figure who just stands there quietly staring, especially at events where death is due.
And I think Shar is the perfect replacement for Myrkul/Velsharoon in gaining the Undeath domain. Her core portfolio/domain is Entropy. She is the Darkness/Void before creation filled it with life and light. It makes sense for her to use animated corpses filled with her necrotic will to bring about an end to all things, even Death (which cannot exist without Life, which defines it).
I personally like the more unified pantheon. It never made much sense to me that there would be a human god of the moon and an elven one and a gnome one and a halfling one and a kobold one, or what have you. It makes perfect sense to me that these would all just be different aspects of the same god, like ofcourse the halflings are going to view their gods as being halflings. But different strokes for different folks you know? If you personally prefer to have racial pantheons, theres plenty of info on the subject that you could easily incorporate that into your own FR games.
This is exactly why I hated how gods were treated in previous editions before 4E. Gods = Superhuman Immortal Mortals. They treated the deities as if they'd be motivated by mortal ambitions rather than divine ambitions. With all the mortals who became a deity, especially after the Time of Troubles, it made it seem like being a deity was something -any- adventurer could achieve.
What is the motivation to worship something that is effectively your next epic kill?
Keep in mind that after the Time of Troubles and the introduction of Ao things got much worse. The following was made clear:
1. Deities got their power from worship.
2. Deities had geographical 'spheres of influence'.
3. No deity above demigod could hold the same (or extremely similar) portfolio as another deity within the same Pantheon.
In my mind, this all but ensured a Highlander effect among the deities in which there could only be one - and this directly resulted in what we got in 4E with the deities.
I prefer the deities to be beyond mortal understanding - they're gods. They can't be your buddy or your pal. They don't show up to have a chat. They most certainly aren't going to show up for a quicky in the bedroom *cough*Mystra*cough*. Sure, they -MAY- get power from worship and it's absolutely clear that the gods are real... but they are beyond any hope of mortal understanding or conquest.
In my mind, a deity shouldn't even be able to communicate that effectively with mortals - it is similar to a human having a conversation with a dog. Sure, the dog might learn the meaning of some words: sit, play dead, roll over, play dead, fetch, play dead... okay, maybe just mostly play dead. ...but beyond that the dog is just going to sit there and look at you funny. Thus, a deity communicates through dream visions which end up extremely vague and open to personal interpretation. This can lead to any number of misunderstandings and problems.
This immediately shifts the focus away from the deities to their mortal faithful and their churches.
I accomplished this in my 4E Realms by using the Spellplague. Since the deities were using the Weave to allow their clergy to use their divine power, when the Spellplague happened the deities immediately shut off the divine power to every cleric in the Realms. It is 3E cannon that the deities used the Weave for divine magic, but I extended it to say that the Weave also allowed the deities to have a close interaction with their mortal faithful (like creating avatars and such).
After the Spellplague, in my Realms, there was a massive panic - many people believed that the gods had all simply died or abandoned mortals completely. Now, over 100 years later divine magic is rare. Being a cleric is similar to being a 'Chosen' - a deity has to directly invest a fraction of their divine energy within a mortal. Most priests of a deity have no divine magic at all. Finally, if a deity wants to make an avatar they have to do so through a mortal servant. The problem with that is it causes them to expend a portion of their divine energy, and they won't have direct control over the Avatar. The Avatar will effectively be a third individual - basically the equivalent of an Exarch who is shaped by the mortals interpretation of the deity and the deities desires. As a result, most deities wouldn't do something like that except in extreme circumstances. They simply send dream visions, exactly as mentioned above, to their mortal followers - typically their clergy.
This has resulted in an even greater amount of freedom for me as a DM. I have cults of Myrkul who believe that he returned to divinity by slaying Kelemvor. I have cults of Talona who believe her to be the goddess of death, having slain Kelemvor. I have multiple brands of Kelemvorite worship.
My favorite is the belief that Hoar and Kelemvor somehow merged their divine power (or one killed or betrayed the other - it depends on who you ask). This makes Kelemvor the deity of Poetic Justice, Judgment, Vengeance, the Dead, and Death. His faithful believe that he not only passes judgment on the faithless and false, as old Kelemvor did, but on ALL who have died. Thus, it makes this line of the Hoaran dogma quite literal: "Fitting recompense will always accrue for one's actions. Violence will meet violence and evil pay back evil, but good will also come to those who do good."
The warrior-like priests of this faith, known as Doombringers, wander from town to town Avenging injustice and handing out punishments according to the crime. They're typically found in the more lawless regions where they can act with near impunity, but those who believe in the teachings of the cult typically pray to Kelemvor for vengeance.
The Doombringers are both feared and sought after by those who have been wronged, especially common folk who've been wronged by people in positions of authority and power. They cultivate an image to match the name, grim and imposing - they aren't folks who hang around and feed the hungry. They're the crusading type - particularly against the undead and criminals that harm the innocent. This makes them an awesome cult to get adventurers involved with - as they can be either friends, foes, and sometimes both at the same time.
For a mental image of this cult picture the Doombringers and Kelemvor as the Punisher.
Anyway, I'm starting to ramble. My point is that the way previous editions handled the gods made the above - multiple cults of Kelemvor, a cult of Myrkul, as well as other death deities - difficult if not impossible. Jorunhast more or less summed up all the reasons why in his post.
This is exactly why I hated how gods were treated in previous editions before 4E. Gods = Superhuman Immortal Mortals. They treated the deities as if they'd be motivated by mortal ambitions rather than divine ambitions. With all the mortals who became a deity, especially after the Time of Troubles, it made it seem like being a deity was something -any- adventurer could achieve.What is the motivation to worship something that is effectively your next epic kill?
Rebelion against the gods is prevalant throughout ALL human REAL mythology.
And mostly, you dont kill your patron deity, you kill others; nothing stops you from kill him either, you may have a pact with someone else.
I prefer the deities to be beyond mortal understanding - they're gods. They can't be your buddy or your pal. They don't show up to have a chat. They most certainly aren't going to show up for a quicky in the bedroom *cough*Mystra*cough*. Sure, they -MAY- get power from worship and it's absolutely clear that the gods are real... but they are beyond any hope of mortal understanding or conquest.In my mind, a deity shouldn't even be able to communicate that effectively with mortals - it is similar to a human having a conversation with a dog. Sure, the dog might learn the meaning of some words: sit, play dead, roll over, play dead, fetch, play dead... okay, maybe just mostly play dead. ...but beyond that the dog is just going to sit there and look at you funny. Thus, a deity communicates through dream visions which end up extremely vague and open to personal interpretation. This can lead to any number of misunderstandings and problems.
You havent read much of the greek, roman or nordic legends, have you?
I urge you to, they have all this and more, and are quite entertaining.
Then again, if its a personal opinion, you can shape your FR any way you like; just pointing some of the most probable influences for the current state of things.
This immediately shifts the focus away from the deities to their mortal faithful and their churches.
One does not exclude the other in any way.
...the greek, roman or nordic legends, have you?I urge you to, they have all this and more, and are quite entertaining.
Then again, if its a personal opinion, you can shape your FR any way you like; just pointing some of the most probable influences for the current state of things.
Sorry to jump back in here, but Meldread strikes me as someone who has definitely read all of those and probably reflected on them a great deal.
But what you're saying brings up some interesting points that some of us really haven't addressed.
I'm definitely in Meldread's camp when it comes to wanting FR gods that act like gods and not silly/stupid mortals. Truthfully, I think our reaction, and the hope for such a trend in the future, stems more from what we feel are really poor characterization of the deities so far.
One can certainly say that the gods of the greeks, romans, and norse had their "derrr, I'm an idiot" moments. They're right there in the myths. Thor dressing up as a woman or getting misled by Loki, the petty jealousies of the greek gods, it's all there.
Isn't that kind of thing comparable, or even worse, than the silliness of some of the FR gods?
Sure, yes. But there's a gigantic difference: with real mythology, there's no demonstrable proof, and even people living back then could claim a certain siilly story was just apocryphal or outright poetic license.
This is not really possible with the gods of FR, because they are real beings in the FR multiverse. On the one hand, they state flatly that divine intelligence and wisdom are beyond the scope of mortals. But they still act, in novels, like they are mentally deficient. Only rarely have they been presented and shown as truly canny, with clever and intricate plans unfolding over eons.
Furthermore, while real world myths are organic from a literary standpoint (the stories make sense and evolve to reflect morals and beliefs), the FR gods are not. More often than not, FR gods don't take the route of completing heroic epic deeds prior to their apotheosis, they're just slapped with a quickie deity-making event. Although Cyric was involved in Time of Troubles, what truly epic deeds did he complete on his own that warranted him becoming a Greater God?
Frankly, beyond how dumb he is, I think I hate Cyric the most for the fact that he's a bumbling low-level stooge that got INSTO GOD POWER, suddenly inheriting millions of worshippers who didn't know him at all the day before. It made no sense, and still makes no sense, why people would start or continue to worship him.
What made Midnight the appropriate vessel for the powers and portfolios of Mystra? Midnight was no epic hero either. Granted, the original rebirth of Mystryl into the first Mystra involved a mentally damaged human vessel, but even that story was presented better than what we saw of Midnight's apotheosis into Mystra.
Largely, I don't think anyone is against the idea of having gods make little visitations, send omens, or meddle around a little with worldly affairs. Those things, as you said, are well within the realm of real world mythology. But it has a lot more to do with how they're presented, not necessarily what they're technically doing. And so far, the gods have largely been presented as bumbling fools rather than seeing any "godly" behavior.
In a world that felt alive because of the quality of its stories, the original Realms deserved better plotting and presentation than what people got with the Time of Troubles. And unfortunately, it set the stage for further quickie RSEs and shoddy plot elements down the line.
Rebelion against the gods is prevalant throughout ALL human REAL mythology.And mostly, you dont kill your patron deity, you kill others; nothing stops you from kill him either, you may have a pact with someone else.
I would like to emphasize one word of your statement: mythology. There is a difference between myth and reality. Canonically speaking, the gods are undeniably real in the Realms. Sure, you can rebel against them... but generally this rebellion is with the aid of another deity - either knowingly or unknowingly. Case in point: Cyric and Mask (as Godsbane) during the Time of Troubles.
You havent read much of the greek, roman or nordic legends, have you?I urge you to, they have all this and more, and are quite entertaining.
Then again, if its a personal opinion, you can shape your FR any way you like; just pointing some of the most probable influences for the current state of things.
I'm well aware of Greek, Roman, and Norse legends. Again I emphasize a word: legends. My FR is shaped according to my personal opinion, yes. At least after 4E anyway. I've fixed many "problems" I've seen with the Realms. The Gods being one of them.
One does not exclude the other in any way.
This is where my point is being made, and it is how I formed my opinion of the gods. I disagree here, because I do believe the two viewpoints are in opposition to each other. In D&D you basically have three paths for the gods. You can go the Eberron route, where it is debatable whether or not the gods are even real. There is no tangible proof one way or another, everything is based entirely on belief and faith - just like in the real world. You can go the Forgotten Realms route, where the Gods are not only real, they're active in mortal affairs. This could basically be classified as the "living" Greek / Roman / Norse deities model. Or you can take a middle road. You can have the deities be clearly real, but distant beings that are difficult to understand and deliberately left vague for the interpretation of the DM and players. The deities do not interact directly in mortal affairs except through their faithful.
The third, the middle road, is the path I've chosen. Why did I choose this path and believe it superior to the other two?
For all the reasons Jorunhast opposes a unified pantheon, which is a direct result of having deities active in the day-to-day affairs of mortals. Jorunhast may not agree with my solution or my conclusion but his argument against a unified pantheon is clear. If you have deities that gain their power through worship, then you are inevitably going to put them into conflict with each other. Conflict between the gods is fine - it is even desired. Yet, with the deities being used as if they were player characters it inevitably results in a continuous gods war.
If you've played the board game Diplomacy it is more-or-less exactly like that. You may have short term and long term allies, but ultimately everyone backstabs each other because the objective is to win more supply centers. This results in fewer and fewer deities, until they are either at a stalemate or there is only one left. View the history of the Forgotten Realms. How many pantheons have been wiped out and merged? There are probably more dead gods in the Forgotten Realms than there are living gods. ...and the number of corpses will inevitably continue to grow because it is unavoidable. Play the board game of Diplomacy and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about. Even your closest allies can become your most bitter enemy within the blink of an eye. Just replace supply centers with worshiper centers and you have how the conflict between the Gods is set up.
Now, you could strip away a deities need for worshipers... but then you introduce a whole host of new problems. For example, how do you define a deities power? What makes a deity greater, intermediate, lesser or demi? What happens if a deity has all their worshipers slain? (Case in point: The death of most of the faithful of Bhaal during the Time of Troubles. Also see Auppenser, the Jhaamdathian deity of Psionics.)
There is ONE way to control it... and that was the creation of Ao. The problem with Ao is that he exists solely to put some measure of "breaks" or "control" on the conflict between the deities. Ao exists outside the normal rules and setting. He is a forced creation because he is necessary to make the system work. He limits potential conflict between the deities... of course, if you look at 4E you can pretty much say he failed at that. Also, it is clear that WotC wants to downplay and minimize the existence of Ao now in 4E.
Taking the third path allows for conflict between the deities, for interaction between the gods and their faithful - effectively everything from Norse, Greek, and Roman mythology (to a degree) - but without the negative consequences involved. From a DM perspective and a player perspective it gives you more freedom. It allows a player to easily create a heretical worshiper or servant of a given deity, and a DM to create endless amounts of conflict both within a faith and outside of it... and not have to worry about coming up with some silly reason as to why the deities haven't just told their priests / faithful the truth. This is one of the problems presented with the inter-faith conflict among the faithful of Oghma and Lathander.
...the greek, roman or nordic legends, have you?I urge you to, they have all this and more, and are quite entertaining.
Then again, if its a personal opinion, you can shape your FR any way you like; just pointing some of the most probable influences for the current state of things.
Sorry to jump back in here, but Meldread strikes me as someone who has definitely read all of those and probably reflected on them a great deal.
But what you're saying brings up some interesting points that some of us really haven't addressed.
I'm definitely in Meldread's camp when it comes to wanting FR gods that act like gods and not silly/stupid mortals. Truthfully, I think our reaction, and the hope for such a trend in the future, stems more from what we feel are really poor characterization of the deities so far.
One can certainly say that the gods of the greeks, romans, and norse had their "derrr, I'm an idiot" moments. They're right there in the myths. Thor dressing up as a woman or getting misled by Loki, the petty jealousies of the greek gods, it's all there.
Isn't that kind of thing comparable, or even worse, than the silliness of some of the FR gods?
Sure, yes. But there's a gigantic difference: with real mythology, there's no demonstrable proof, and even people living back then could claim a certain siilly story was just apocryphal or outright poetic license.
This is not really possible with the gods of FR, because they are real beings in the FR multiverse. On the one hand, they state flatly that divine intelligence and wisdom are beyond the scope of mortals. But they still act, in novels, like they are mentally deficient. Only rarely have they been presented and shown as truly canny, with clever and intricate plans unfolding over eons.
Furthermore, while real world myths are organic from a literary standpoint (the stories make sense and evolve to reflect morals and beliefs), the FR gods are not. More often than not, FR gods don't take the route of completing heroic epic deeds prior to their apotheosis, they're just slapped with a quickie deity-making event. Although Cyric was involved in Time of Troubles, what truly epic deeds did he complete on his own that warranted him becoming a Greater God?
Frankly, beyond how dumb he is, I think I hate Cyric the most for the fact that he's a bumbling low-level stooge that got INSTO GOD POWER, suddenly inheriting millions of worshippers who didn't know him at all the day before. It made no sense, and still makes no sense, why people would start or continue to worship him.
What made Midnight the appropriate vessel for the powers and portfolios of Mystra? Midnight was no epic hero either. Granted, the original rebirth of Mystryl into the first Mystra involved a mentally damaged human vessel, but even that story was presented better than what we saw of Midnight's apotheosis into Mystra.
Largely, I don't think anyone is against the idea of having gods make little visitations, send omens, or meddle around a little with worldly affairs. Those things, as you said, are well within the realm of real world mythology. But it has a lot more to do with how they're presented, not necessarily what they're technically doing. And so far, the gods have largely been presented as bumbling fools rather than seeing any "godly" behavior.In a world that felt alive because of the quality of its stories, the original Realms deserved better plotting and presentation than what people got with the Time of Troubles. And unfortunately, it set the stage for further quickie RSEs and shoddy plot elements down the line.
I'm in total agreement with everything Jorunhast posted there.
Rebelion against the gods is prevalant throughout ALL human REAL mythology.And mostly, you dont kill your patron deity, you kill others; nothing stops you from kill him either, you may have a pact with someone else.
I would like to emphasize one word of your statement: mythology. There is a difference between myth and reality. Canonically speaking, the gods are undeniably real in the Realms. Sure, you can rebel against them... but generally this rebellion is with the aid of another deity - either knowingly or unknowingly. Case in point: Cyric and Mask (as Godsbane) during the Time of Troubles.
Read the last part of my statement.
You havent read much of the greek, roman or nordic legends, have you?I urge you to, they have all this and more, and are quite entertaining.
Then again, if its a personal opinion, you can shape your FR any way you like; just pointing some of the most probable influences for the current state of things.
I'm well aware of Greek, Roman, and Norse legends. Again I emphasize a word: legends. My FR is shaped according to my personal opinion, yes. At least after 4E anyway. I've fixed many "problems" I've seen with the Realms. The Gods being one of them.
Again, read the the last statement of what you quoted from me; its up to you how you make your patheon, i was justifying the FR one with references from REAL ones.
And for the ancient Greeks, Romans and Norse, those gods WERE REAL, as much as they are in FR.
They just became mythology when their worship faded.
To go perhaps a little TOO far, who says that Christ wasnt a fable, a myth; however, billions worship him everyday.
One does not exclude the other in any way.This is where my point is being made, and it is how I formed my opinion of the gods. I disagree here, because I do believe the two viewpoints are in opposition to each other.
Hardly. In Greece, the oracles were quite venerated by the followers, even if they believed Gods could walk among them.
Today, the Christian church is a very big institution, even though Christ walked on this earth, and is expected again.
In neither, were the followers, sects and churches relegated to second place.
One does not exclude the other in any way.You can have the deities be clearly real, but distant beings that are difficult to understand and deliberately left vague for the interpretation of the DM and players. The deities do not interact directly in mortal affairs except through their faithful.
The third, the middle road, is the path I've chosen. Why did I choose this path and believe it superior to the other two?
For all the reasons Jorunhast opposes a unified pantheon, which is a direct result of having deities active in the day-to-day affairs of mortals. Jorunhast may not agree with my solution or my conclusion but his argument against a unified pantheon is clear. If you have deities that gain their power through worship, then you are inevitably going to put them into conflict with each other. Conflict between the gods is fine - it is even desired. Yet, with the deities being used as if they were player characters it inevitably results in a continuous gods war.
If you've played the board game Diplomacy it is more-or-less exactly like that. You may have short term and long term allies, but ultimately everyone backstabs each other because the objective is to win more supply centers. This results in fewer and fewer deities, until they are either at a stalemate or there is only one left. View the history of the Forgotten Realms. How many pantheons have been wiped out and merged? There are probably more dead gods in the Forgotten Realms than there are living gods. ...and the number of corpses will inevitably continue to grow because it is unavoidable. Play the board game of Diplomacy and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about. Even your closest allies can become your most bitter enemy within the blink of an eye. Just replace supply centers with worshiper centers and you have how the conflict between the Gods is set up.
Now, you could strip away a deities need for worshipers... but then you introduce a whole host of new problems. For example, how do you define a deities power? What makes a deity greater, intermediate, lesser or demi? What happens if a deity has all their worshipers slain? (Case in point: The death of most of the faithful of Bhaal during the Time of Troubles. Also see Auppenser, the Jhaamdathian deity of Psionics.)
There is ONE way to control it... and that was the creation of Ao. The problem with Ao is that he exists solely to put some measure of "breaks" or "control" on the conflict between the deities. Ao exists outside the normal rules and setting. He is a forced creation because he is necessary to make the system work. He limits potential conflict between the deities... of course, if you look at 4E you can pretty much say he failed at that. Also, it is clear that WotC wants to downplay and minimize the existence of Ao now in 4E.
Taking the third path allows for conflict between the deities, for interaction between the gods and their faithful - effectively everything from Norse, Greek, and Roman mythology (to a degree) - but without the negative consequences involved. From a DM perspective and a player perspective it gives you more freedom. It allows a player to easily create a heretical worshiper or servant of a given deity, and a DM to create endless amounts of conflict both within a faith and outside of it... and not have to worry about coming up with some silly reason as to why the deities haven't just told their priests / faithful the truth. This is one of the problems presented with the inter-faith conflict among the faithful of Oghma and Lathander.
And i say that such grey matters is what makes the second choice more interesting, because it gives the DMs more to work with.
The gods lie? So be it.
Why is it that, even if someone follows every command from its god, it ends up with the house destroyed by orcs? "Why did you forsaken me, my god?!"
You assume that Gods are perfect beings, of inarguable wisdom, inteligence and power; sure, that is your pantheon (and you then need to explain why they havent come to a concensus, and bring peace on Faerun), but it makes it a lot less interesting, if you just leave the imperfections to us mortals; the Greeks knew this, which is one of the reasons those stories lasted for as long as they did.
Again, read the the last statement of what you quoted from me; its up to you how you make your patheon, i was justifying the FR one with references from REAL ones.
No offense, but I think you're glossing over the point we're both trying to make, and in the process you aren't quite getting what we're saying.
In the FR, the gods are demonstrably real, they come visit and have coffee with you and your friends. They grant very real spells and magical items. The Realms "faiths" aren't so much about faith as they are about adherence to particular dogmas. When you die in the Realms, if you're moderately educated, you know exactly what will happen to your soul after death and where you'll spend your afterlife.
In the real world, ancient religions (and modern religions for that matter) have zero objective proof regarding the existence of deities. That means they really are about faith, and the existence or not of any deity is about the strength of one's belief. They don't phone you up and come over for coffee. When you die in the real world, there may or may not be an afterlife, there's zero proof either way.
There are of course stories of Aphrodite and Odin literally coming to visit people and interacting with them in various ways. But those are, and were, stories. Whether or not you believed those stories is a matter of faith.
In the Realms, they aren't just stories, they happen again and again and thereby regularly prove their own existence with objective evidence. Every time a Realms priest casts a spell, it is objective evidence of the gods' existence.
And for the ancient Greeks, Romans and Norse, those gods WERE REAL, as much as they are in FR.They just became mythology when their worship faded.
Again, any evidence that one might have about the "reality" of real world deities, ancient or modern, is completely subjective. It's written in a book, or passed on through oral tradition, but none of it is objective. Additionally, when you talk of ancient cultural beliefs, almost everything we know to be "true" about a pantheon like the Norse is from poetry written by someone from another religion (and therefore likely filtered to improve the poetic quality of the story) and at a time when the religion had largely died out.
An interesting and somewhat tangential example is the reconstructed religion of Norse Heathen Asatru. Modern Asatruar base their beliefs on a mixture of the Poetic Eddas, linguistic reconstructions, and archaeological finds. For the most part, an Asatruar's religion follows the customs and practices as related by the Edda, which was written by a Christian nearly 100 years after the old ways were gone. What did the actual worshippers of Odin and Thor really believe and practice centuries ago? Well, it might be similar to what's in the Edda, but I'd bet good money that it's not "100% authentic" practice.
In any case, the point we're making is that in the Realms, those gods are as real as the NPCs that worship them. There is zero room for questioning their existence because they are demonstrably real with objective evidence on many fronts.
You assume that Gods are perfect beings, of inarguable wisdom, inteligence and power; sure, that is your pantheon (and you then need to explain why they havent come to a concensus, and bring peace on Faerun), but it makes it a lot less interesting, if you just leave the imperfections to us mortals; the Greeks knew this, which is one of the reasons those stories lasted for as long as they did.
Erm, I don't think Meldread or I are making the assumption that the Realms gods are infallible or all powerful. In fact, it's just the opposite. Although immensely powerful, they are limited beings. They engage in conflict, and sometimes die or get subsumed /eaten.
The very fact that they are fallible, often in philosophical or moral opposition to each other, and yet usually want to increase their power, are THE reasons why there isn't world peace on Faerun. The FR deities know that they're not all-knowing, and they certainly recognize that they can die. Open, constant war would be detrimental both to themselves and the world, no matter where they are on the alignment chart. So their plans and schemes for snatching more power and influence play out over centuries rather than weeks.
Again, read the the last statement of what you quoted from me; its up to you how you make your patheon, i was justifying the FR one with references from REAL ones.
And for the ancient Greeks, Romans and Norse, those gods WERE REAL, as much as they are in FR.
They just became mythology when their worship faded.
To go perhaps a little TOO far, who says that Christ wasnt a fable, a myth; however, billions worship him everyday.
I understand what you're saying, but I do not think you understand what I'm trying to tell you. I'm telling you that there is no comparison. Yes, the Greeks, Romans, and Norse may have believed their deities were real. That's irrelevant. Likewise, it is irrelevant as to whether Jesus was real or a myth.
The reason it is irrelevant is because 'faith' and 'belief' do not exist in the FR as they do in the real world. You do not have to have faith or believe because there is actual proof. To put it in perspective, if Zeus were real it wouldn't be a matter of having 'faith' or 'belief' in his existence. He would not be a myth or legend. You'd be able to send journalists to interview him. He'd be on TV. He'd be doing whatever Zeus would do, likely sleeping with tons of mortal women and knocking them up.
If Christ were also real, then he'd claim that he was the one true god and Zeus was a lesser being. That would place Christ and Zeus at odds. This is not-so-different from what Cyric attempted during the whole Cyrinishad ordeal. The end result would be a religious conflict between Zeus and Christ... likely with the Buddha in the middle trying to play referee and don't even get me started on what the Aztec deities would be doing...
The world would, in effect, be a giant game of Diplomacy between the deities until just one or a small handful are left. And the wars would be endless until that happens. Thus you either end up with a monotheistic world or a unified pantheon.
And if you doubt that this is happening in the FR I encourage you to look over the history of the setting and its current cannon. You'll quickly come to the realization that there were once many different pantheons throughout Faerûn. It was not until relatively recently (after the Fall of Netheril and Jhaamdath especially) that these pantheons began to merge into what we now call the Faerûnian pantheon.
What do you think would have happened in Maztica had they not been whisked away to Abier and interaction with Faerûn increased? Some Maztican deities -MAY- have crossed over into the Faerunian pantheon, but in all likelihood the Maztican pantheon would have been wiped out.
And i say that such grey matters is what makes the second choice more interesting, because it gives the DMs more to work with.
I disagree that the canonical way of approaching the FR deities provides more shades of gray and flexibility to DMs. That just seems silly. For Eberron, there is NOTHING but gray - there isn't even 100% certainty that the gods exist. It's possible to be an atheist, deist, and any number of other ists and isms in Eberron - just like in the real world. In my method, the middle road between cannon FR and Eberron, there are varying shades of gray. You know the gods exist, but their actions are limited and highly open to personal interpretation. Are the Maztican deities real or just the Maztican interpretation of Faerûnian deities? No one knows for certain.
The gods lie? So be it.
You'd have to justify why gods would tell a lie that would cause them harm and divide their followers. It can be justified sometimes, yes, but only in specific or highly contrived circumstances.
You'd also have to explain why the deities of truth and honesty (whether that be their actual portfolios or what they advocate to their followers as correct behavior) like to tell little white lies on occasion. You've effectively created a 'Do as I say, not as I do' or a 'Do as I say, not as I am' situation... assuming that a deity who actually held the portfolios of truth and honesty could tell a lie in the first place.
Why is it that, even if someone follows every command from its god, it ends up with the house destroyed by orcs? "Why did you forsaken me, my god?!"
That works in all three approaches equally, but is still the most difficult for the canonical FR approach. If the god had previously made clear that they would personally come to aid you, and did not, then it would not appear as being forsaken, but rather your deity stabbing you in the back.
You seem to be ignoring that people can feel forsaken by their god(s) in real life as well - when real life is effectively the Eberron approach, which is completely antithetical to the FR approach to deities. Also, in both real life and in Eberron, feelings of being forsaken can lead to having doubt in your faith. Maybe your god -doesn't- exist after all. This cannot happen in the FR without contrived circumstances or characters because the gods are 100% real and interactive. You may feel abandoned and betrayed, but you'll never find yourself doubting their existence.
You assume that Gods are perfect beings, of inarguable wisdom, inteligence and power; sure, that is your pantheon (and you then need to explain why they havent come to a concensus, and bring peace on Faerun), but it makes it a lot less interesting, if you just leave the imperfections to us mortals; the Greeks knew this, which is one of the reasons those stories lasted for as long as they did.
No, I don't assume the deities are perfect. I also do not consider the cannon FR deities to have any amount of wisdom, intelligence, or power - as Jorunhast pointed out, they are fairly naive, stupid, and ineffective on a good day.
My desire is not to create a consensus among my deities or their faithful. I want conflict in my Realms both within the faiths and outside of them. To give an example, in my Realms there are -SOME- people who believe that Selûne and Sehanine Moonbow are really the same deity. This is a heresy that has developed in Silverymoon where elves and humans live side by side and where the faith of both were strong. The two faiths have merged into a single unified church. Outside of Silverymoon, however, particularly in Myth Drannor this is viewed as an abhorrent heresy. Does this mean if someone who believes this heresy and shows up in Myth Drannor is going to be killed on site? No, but it likely does mean that they're going to be treated rudely if not with a great deal of hostility. You'd also have the faithful of Sehanine Moonbow working against you for fear that you'd spread your deceitful heresy to other Elves.
Now, in the cannon Realms the problem with this heresy is that there is no discernible reason why Sehanine Moonbow and Selûne would permit it to exist UNLESS it were true. Otherwise it is a clear hostile action toward the other deity - they're attempting to steal worshipers, cross pantheons, and steal portfolios. The deities would inevitably be at each others throats and would be able to manifest themselves physically to handle the situation... of course, once they've manifested themselves physically and made clear the false nature of the heresy it falls apart. It then has to be a ploy by a third party to bring them into conflict with each other. However, again - it is easy to prove this ploy as false.
The Eberron method is most similar to the 'real world' Greek, Roman, and Norse pantheons - not the Realms method. Why? Because in Eberron, like in the real world, the Greek, Roman, and Norse deities never actually interacted with their mortal followers. Certainly, there were tales of such happening, and there are likely tales of such in Eberron - tales that are equally dubious if not out right false. There can be extreme differences in opinion among the faithful of a deity, to the point of leading to an outright schism... and you're never going to once have a deity step in and at least TRY to set things right. Just like in the real world.
----
All the above being said, there is nothing wrong with liking the way the FR uses deities. I simply dislike it for the reasons Jorunhast has made clear in his posts, but also because I feel it 'degrades' the deities and makes them more 'mundane'.
It's hard to take Selûne seriously, for example, when you know she was more-or-less living as a tavern wench in the Docks Ward of Waterdeep. I don't generally consider people serving and waiting tables to be divine material. They may be good people, but they're only that: people.
I like my deities to be special and set apart from the other aspects of the world. If you're having a spiritual encounter with a deity, you're going to remember it for the rest of your life. It isn't going to be a situation where I say: "You've already met Selûne, you just didn't realize it! She was your waitress named Luna. Remember? She was the one you slapped on the butt and offered ten gold for a roll in the hay upstairs and she accepted for fifteen because she really needed the cash... and... dude, you realize what this means? You totally had sex with a god. You're like Elminster now, but better."
Sorry, that was really snarky, but I really hate that part of the FR deities.
With Asmodeus, I just don't like the idea of a devil "crossing over" and becoming a deity. It's just too Christian-like, having Asmodeus like this. Granted, most ordinary citizens of the Realms might not know the difference between a devil prince and a god, but the fact that players and DMs know this is what makes it bad. You can't help but think that they're re-framing the pantheon so that eventually they'll have a good god and an evil god, and everything else are angels and minor demons/devils.
That said, I think the reason they did it is because the "main" evil deity, Cyric, has really been little more than a buffoon. He has no teeth as an evil deity. Even though he supposedly killed Mystra, it was clear that he was manipulated and used like a stooge (as usual for Cyric). So he's not really all that evil in the way he's been written. They've handled deities badly in general throughout most novels, IMO. Many FR deities are written like they have an INT of 3 or 4, and a WIS of 2, and were often more canny prior to their ascension.
Actually, Asmodeus originally took control of hell after defeating Satan. I don't recal which dragon magazine it was detailed in but it was an old one. They even had the stats for Satan.
I wanted to point out that Zeus had a number of different cults devoted to him, some of which held conflicting views. Most deities were like that - even today with our more organized religions, there tend to be subtle and extreme variations.
Just look at the numerous Christian sects and interpretations of the Bible. Some view it as a literal historical text, some view it as allegory, some view it as something in-between, some view it as infallible, and others view it as fallible. There are even some Christians who dismiss the fact that Marry was a virgin (and thus dismiss the virgin birth mythology), as well as all miracles he performed including the resurrection, and instead view him more as a prophet or teacher.
The divinity of Christ wasn't even officially considered cannon until after the First Council of Nicaea where a consensus was achieved. That is also when the concept of the Trinity (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) officially entered the Christian cannon.
Virtually every faith goes through similar evolution over time. People discuss theological mythologies, holy scripture, modern problems need religious solutions, heresies develop and spread, etc. Religion is constantly being refined, retooled, and redesigned by the faithful – sometimes gradually, and other times radically through schisms and heresies.
These things CAN happen in the Realms, but they're much more difficult to explain... as it is not normally advantageous to a deity to set their faithful at each others throats when its in their power to easily set the record straight.
kev777-
I'm pretty sure that was retconned in 4E, but it's unclear if it is still cannon within the Realms.
Actually, Asmodeus originally took control of hell after defeating Satan. I don't recal which dragon magazine it was detailed in but it was an old one. They even had the stats for Satan.
You must be another old-schooler AD&Der, very nice. That was way back in Dragon #28, August of 1979. "The Politics of Hell" it was called.
It wasn't canon for either AD&D or the Realms, though. In the article itself, it has a nice disclaimer that it's not canon, and "isn't even the dogma of the Roman Catholic Church" but possibly useful for campaigns going into the nine hells.
... it also has a Fineous Fingers cartoon. Ah, nostalgia! After school we'd go to the gaming store in town, where they'd set up play tables for us in the back. Good times, good times.
"You've already met Selûne, you just didn't realize it! She was your waitress named Luna. Remember? She was the one you slapped on the butt and offered ten gold for a roll in the hay upstairs and she accepted for fifteen because she really needed the cash... and... dude, you realize what this means? You totally had sex with a god. You're like Elminster now, but better."Sorry, that was really snarky, but I really hate that part of the FR deities.
Equal parts comedy gold and epic facepalm... because it's true FR canon. LOL!
No offense, but I think you're glossing over the point we're both trying to make, and in the process you aren't quite getting what we're saying.
In the FR, the gods are demonstrably real, they come visit and have coffee with you and your friends. They grant very real spells and magical items.
I do understand, but i still maintain that that is the view for 99.9% of the population which hasnt met any god personally (gods arent exactly like the common parish priest, which comes to confort each and every one of their followers), just heard info from tales, and legends (some actually based on real events but rarely exact, some arent), and from the churches; which even them may not have personal contact with them (how many gods have taken the portfolios of others, dead or demoted, and still the church for that god exists?), only that SOME divine force grants them magic powers.
Actually, those representatives, either members of the church or even their exarchs, would have more face recognition than the gods themselves, which by the way may appear in practically any form they so choose).
Adventures of Epic level, or whatever you want to call them, are the equivalents of the great heroes of the Greek mythos, the demi-gods, tha argonauts, which KNOW how actually frivulous, petty and not-so-wise the gods are; the gods follow the maxim "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely"; at that level, gods are no more that grand rock stars.
The fact that we play those adventurers and read bout said adventurers makes us forget what IS like for the COMMON folk.
You prefer the "Ascension" path of godhood, shedding all mortal concerns and at the same time gain such perspective that mere mortals and entire nations, no, civilizations, are just pawns in their games of chess of eternal schemes, for which no mortal man can compreend; they are in the 11th dimension.
That distance from the gods removes some of the creativity for me as a DM.
Heroic Tier heroes are distant from the gods, Paragon have a glimpse, or a brush with one, Epic they are drinking partners (which STILL can kick yout butt if pissed) ;)
The Realms "faiths" aren't so much about faith as they are about adherence to particular dogmas. When you die in the Realms, if you're moderately educated, you know exactly what will happen to your soul after death and where you'll spend your afterlife.
Not true.
Almost every article and novel says that ppl pray to the gods to give them the magical power; pray, not ask, that is faith.
And actually, with the possibility of raising the dead, the fear of death would actually be more a concern for the poor (thus leaning on faith, as always been even on the real world). "Shadows Witness" by Paul S. Kemp, says it better than i can:
"After the attack, the families of the slain had been notified immediately. All of the corpses and the pieces of corpses had been removed hours ago. No doubt some fortunate few already had been raised from the dead. Cale knew that with enough coin foor the temples´s coffers and a powerful enough priest, not even death was insurmountable for the richest of the Old Chauncel nobility" (pg120,121).
I think this represents the same situation for both nobility AND adventurers.
Knowing there is an after-life certainly does not make one want to go there any sooner, i think that is implied (except perhaps for the fanatical, and even those feel they have "work to do here" before their "just reward").
I do understand, but i still maintain that that is the view for 99.9% of the population which hasnt met any god personally (gods arent exactly like the common parish priest, which comes to confort each and every one of their followers), just heard info from tales, and legends (some actually based on real events but rarely exact, some arent), and from the churches; which even them may not have personal contact with them (how many gods have taken the portfolios of others, dead or demoted, and still the church for that god exists?), only that SOME divine force grants them magic powers.
No, you really don't understand.
Objective evidence does not necessarily mean personal experience. Objective evidence means that out in the world, something real and tangible exists that proves whatever you're trying to prove. Gods in FR grant spells, sometimes magic items, to priests and others of their faithful. During the ToT, the gods quite literally walked Faerun and talked with multiple people. They send avatars to do things in Faerun. Evidence of various godly battles still exist. Hundreds if not thousands of people have directly interacted with various deities.
Personal direct experience, like a vision or a dream, or even a visitation by an avatar without anyone else seeing it happen, those things do not qualify as objective evidence. Those are subjective.
Think of it this way. I have never been to Paris, France and I have never met the French president. But there is plenty of real, objective evidence that both Paris and the French president exist. I do not have to have personal experience when I know that multiple others have seen the evidence.
The Realms "faiths" aren't so much about faith as they are about adherence to particular dogmas. When you die in the Realms, if you're moderately educated, you know exactly what will happen to your soul after death and where you'll spend your afterlife.
Not true.
Almost every article and novel says that ppl pray to the gods to give them the magical power; pray, not ask, that is faith.
Again, faith and prayer in the real world are vastly different than faith and prayer in the Realms.
Religious Faith, in the real world, means that you believe in something strongly without having or needing any objective evidence. The very act of belief without evidence literally defines real world religious faith. When one prays to a deity in the real world, it is an act based purely on belief. Furthermore, that faith extends into adpoting other beliefs, those in line with a church's dogma.
Religious Faith doesn't mean the same thing in the Realms. Priests know that their deity exists, there is no question of it. There is objective evidence that they exist. When a person or priest chooses to follow a particular deity, the faith that they are placing in their deity is more like when we say, "I put my faith in the President." This kind of faith is more like "troth" or trust, which is immensely different.
When a priest in the Realms "prays" they are in fact asking their very real deity to give them the spells they want. That's troth, or trust. The priest has troth in the god, the god has troth in the priest.
Gah! I had a long post typed out, then I had to leave. When I came back Jorunhast had already responded saying virtually everything I wanted to say - and in less words to boot. *Shakes fist at Jorunhast*
Let me try and fill in some other things I wanted to say, anyway.
You prefer the "Ascension" path of godhood, shedding all mortal concerns and at the same time gain such perspective that mere mortals and entire nations, no, civilizations, are just pawns in their games of chess of eternal schemes, for which no mortal man can compreend; they are in the 11th dimension.
That distance from the gods removes some of the creativity for me as a DM.
I think you're having trouble understanding my previous point about the inevitable result of the gods.
I'm saying it is that way currently within cannon. Mortals, their nations, their entire civilizations are nothing more than fuel / food for deities - their worship is required to sustain and power them. This has been proven again and again. A deity without worshipers ceases to exist. A deity with more worshipers grows more powerful. As a direct result the nations and civilizations of mortals become nothing more than pawns in the games of the gods. This is the direct and inevitable result of worship being connected to divine power.
I have chosen to make the gods beyond mortal comprehension so that I can obscure the facts and truth - to make them mysterious. This way whether the gods are fueled by worship or not becomes irrelevant, the focus shifts away from the gods and onto their churches and mortal servants. Maybe worship is still required, maybe it isn't. Maybe the gods are shaped by the belief of mortals, or maybe the gods shape the beliefs of mortals themselves. Maybe the god you worship is false and the divine power held by your clergy comes from another deity. Maybe the gods care nothing for their faithful and simply seek to use them to advance their own agenda, or maybe they care deeply for their faithful. Maybe all the gods are false and are really different aspects / faces of an all powerful deity called the Adama. The truth of the matter is unknown - it is deliberately left vague and mysterious, so that all mortals - both NPC and PC - can come to their own conclusion and act accordingly.
I do not see this as limiting my creativity as a DM. I see this as giving me an extreme amount of flexibility to shape my creativity. Sure, I may not be able to use the gods in a direct way - they're not going to stop by and have a beer - but when it comes to religion and theology I have FAR more freedom than you to do what I want with religion in my Realms. At least in terms of believability, because my deities are not - they cannot - show up and tell their mortal servants with 100% clarity that they're wrong about this or that aspect of the religion.
*Shakes fist at Jorunhast*
I agree with absolutely everything that Jorunhast and Meldread have been writing. I personally hate the FR Gods with an immense passion, because of their ridiculous mary-sue factor and the fact they act like complete idiots. I didn't regret having the numbers cut down immensely one bit and was more than pleased with making the gods far more distant in my FR campaigns. The most important reason being complete paranoia about being killed in their own domains if caught unaware: After all Mystra was dumb enough to be killed by someone who is literally the three stooges in the form of a god.
As I understand it the gods of the realms are bit insane from our standards. You can't actually apply your own brand of rational thought to them because they perceive things through their portfolios. It could be said that they have Kaleidoscope eyes. If you read Prince of Lies (avatar book 4) you will get an idea of what I mean.
I think with Kelemvor's symbol as my Avatar I should weigh in on the subject.
It was mentioned a little bit ago on this thread that Kelmevor isn't really inspiring or all that unique but I beg to differ. Myrkul, IMO, seemed so much more the iconic, standard genre Deity of the Dead than Kelemvor does. The whole whispy strands of a dark tattered robe, skeletal visage, thirst for the souls of the living, embodiment of all that is death and undead that Myrkul seemed to be..........boring. Seems WAY to much like Hades, really. Or wait...was it Vecna? Yep, pretty much either/or the way I see it.
And Kelemvor was thrust into that role, it wasn't like he said that morning "Ya know, I think with all these Deities walking the land I could be one. And not just any ol' deity, the one who's sole responsibility is to take the souls of the damned and un-faithful to my house for tea and crumpets. That sounds pretty damn sweet." I think it was more of a "Hey, this is your responsibiltiy now or Sh!t is going down. Understand?!"
I feel Kelmvor has a pretty unique insight to how death should be. It's a natural cycle that happens to everyone and those that prolong their by Nercomantic means is an abomination. Myrkul was nothing like this, nor are many other Death Deities around (maybe save the Raven Queen, but she's in my Realms too as Kelemvor's consort ).
Anyways, the DM can make Kel' as much fun or as much of a boring bloat as he/she sees fit. It's not what's totally written about him that makes him good, it's how he's used in ones specific campaign.
BTW, I was excited to see FR's pantheon be cut down a bit too.
And EXTREMELY boring.
What is the point of that?? What plot hooks can you get from a neutral Death god!? And what measure does it use? Certainly not morality, which in the end defines good and bad, anyway.
Death is supposed to be boring. It's the act of killing that has all the action and "excitement". Death is the final destination, the rest of a lifelong journey.
And making plothooks is not that hard, even when trying to involve a "boring" deity. Kelemvor's dogma has a lot of room for moral ambiguity in its followers. You could have some sadistic cleric on a mission of euthanasia. Or some overzealous priest who thinks himself judge and executioner. Or, borrowing from DC's Blackest Night comic arc, Kelemvor and Jergal could initiate a plan of global recall of every resurrected soul on Faerun by using Revenants to hunt down and reclaim the previously dead! THERE's your plothook! It isn't that hard!
I could ask you the same thing, "what is the point of a evil god of death" when the same formula's been used for 3 previous FR deities of death and their own plothooks. What can you think of that other adventures, campaign settings, Real World films haven't done already? Are you only just looking for a tired old Death god that wants to kill everything? He or she can get in line with the rest of the evil gods.Not acording to Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide (pg 88), which states that the Simbul killed it.
Well, I sit corrected. I guess the closest to a great power of undeath Faerun has now is Szass Tam.
Let me correct you again, my dear. The great power of undeath is Orcus, and 'Demon Prince of the Undead' trumps a lich everytime.
Let me correct you again, my dear. The great power of undeath is Orcus, and 'Demon Prince of the Undead' trumps a lich everytime.
Thought it was Shar.
Well, in MY campaign, Mirkull will be pulling all the strings (with help of Bane), and kick Orcus and Kelemvor butt (and best yet, with the help of the PCs), while all the time remaining in the shadows and just cackle at the end of the Epic adventure (what better way to give a sweet/sour flavour to the end of a campaign); this assuming the party gets that far (currently being L2) and i dont change my mind.
Just havent figure out what Shar position will be; probably just stay on the side, the living are more interesting to her anyway.
And THIS is why i like that the PCs can get up and personal with the Gods. :P
Orcus has been around for every edition, is far more interesting, and deserves more respect in my opinion.
He should not become the Rodney Dangerfield of Demon Princes, because that would just be wrong.
He should not become the Rodney Dangerfield of Demon Princes, because that would just be wrong.
Well, he is the ultimate villain of the published adventures of WotC and has a big bad statue of himself.
Someone at WotC must agree with you.
He should not become the Rodney Dangerfield of Demon Princes, because that would just be wrong.
Well, he is the ultimate villain of the published adventures of WotC and has a big bad statue of himself.
Someone at WotC must agree with you.
Oh, yessss Orcus is on my wishlist!
What can I say, I was always drawn to the darkside while perusing my older brother's Monster Manuals and the Deities and Demigods edition that included the H.P. Lovecraft and Moorcock pantheons. The big baddies were always sooooo much more interesting to me. I was a strange little girl, and remain strange to this day.
From what i read, they have a lot of striking similarities.... but my knowledge of the Abyss is practically nill.
Risking going off topic, what is the current relation between Asmodeus and Orcus?
From what i read, they have a lot of striking similarities.... but my knowledge of the Abyss is practically nill.
Going only on what is known in 4E canon so far, Asmodeus is now a god in the primary pantheon of the western Realms. For a time, and after a circuitous and complex series of events*, Orcus had been killed, brought back as the semi-divine being "Tenebrous," then found and used the "Last Word" to kill several godly beings including Bwimb, Primus, and Maanzecorian.
Adventurers and a group of deities halted his use of the "Last Word" and defeated Tenebrous. Resurrected in the Abyss (as a demon prince, not as semi-divine Tenebrous) by one of his high priests, he reclaimed the name Orcus and the title of "Prince of the Undead." In theory, for 4E, Orcus should just be his regular old demon prince self.
In his own way, Orcus has more survivability through being killed and brought back than even Mystra. And that's saying something, LOL.
* see THIS for the very lengthy "historical" details on Orcus.
Orcus was also the code word for 4E, when WotC was creating it.
;)
There might be youtube videos of someone recording their encounters with both gods if you want to compare them.
Shar grants the undead domain to divine classes, she doesn't have the portfolio of undead
Has the domain, but not the portfolio? Weird. Can you give references?
Also, who DOES have the portfolio of Undead?
Has the domain, but not the portfolio?
Domains are nothing but a game mechanic introduced in Divine Power. There's a limited list of domains which then have been distributed to the deities, with many domains being offered by multiple deities. These have nothing to do with portfolios (however the offered domains should at least thematically fit the deity's portfolio - however game balance was certainly also a factor, e.g. that Tempus doesn't offer "skill" domain is likely due to already having the best channel divinity feat, getting one of the best domains on top of that would be overkill).
Also, who DOES have the portfolio of Undead?
At the moment it seems that there is no deity of undead. Although the list in the FRCG is currently summarizing each deity's spheres with a single word.
Also, who DOES have the portfolio of Undead?
At the moment it seems that there is no deity of undead. Although the list in the FRCG is currently summarizing each deity's spheres with a single word.
This is/was kinda thing that leads to slight issues for me due there is some portfolios that dont have exactly named deity behind and is covered loosely making storytelling bit ackward say the least. But this does leave Alot of "loose ends" for DM's to start making their own "divine movements" in the Spheres and so forth. Like Eilistraee. Damn I hated to see her go down since there was so much material there to make hooks from her activies and possible deeper more long lasting effects, but as said 4E is about worshipping not just rude divine power so it leaves options even her "comeback" in some way.
Side track.. hopefully not too much:
1379 DR
- During Flamerule[2] Eilistraee, while inhabiting the body of Qilué Veladorn, was killed by Halisstra Melarn using the Crescent Blade. This last act of sacrifice was not in vain however, as it redeemed those drow not tainted by Wendonai's blood, and Corellon Larethian thus permitted the souls of Eilistraee's faithful and the newly transformed dark elves to enter Arvandor.[3]
Does this mean that Corellon took her portfolio ? ... since Im bit of loss here
To OP Kel vs Myr thing.
The dead trio was easy to toss storyhooks into them since they were pretty obvious and easy to fiddle with and Kel is like marble that needs more "fine tuning" to get a good plot out of him.
In my story I added little megalomania into Kel since I see Kel as personality that suffers from "bleeding heart syndrome and still is cold blooded as ever" thus leading into slight madness resulting this megalomania of him "being the only god to be always right" "the only Judge".. further more leading into meddling with other gods areas or making statements that they are doing their things wrong leading into more hatred's among em. This is all on though level still, but looks like a decent way to get more out of him.
Im merely a apprentice on FR things that has been poking around about a year and been longer a quite fan of these forums as reader =) never a speaker, but these changes on 4E and spellplaque are something that I thought I might be able to add little more "salt in the soup" =)
If you are looking for Necromancy look to Szass Tam and his failed Ritual to become a God. Also there is Bane's new hidden influence on many other Deities after Spellplague. But I would not rule out Bane, Szass Tam owes him some debt.
With the numerous Devil Cults, Primordials, Shadowfell and the Abyssal Plague under current there could arise any number of shifts of power.
Does anyone remember who Zhengyi, the Witch-King was working to aid? Orcus. So Orcus is a most likely Necromantic influence trying to arise in the Realms. This would alarm Kelemvor followers for sure.
I can't remember all my sources. I just constantly research these things for our weekly games and I do remember Orcus' Silver Skeletons and Cultist in some of our 1st or 2nd Edition games trying to invade Faerun. Not sure how long his Banishment was to last after Dragonbane's Adventure. With the death of Dragonbane's Heir who knows. Ask a Warlock Knight of Vaasa if they know anything about it? They are getting power from some substance called Ironfell, from a primordial in Vaasa.
Who is this Eminence of Araunt? How might they affect things like the Twister Rune and the Cult of the Dragon with their deathways and secret kingdom?
But yes Zhengyi had the entire Cult of Orcus under his thumb as well as the Citadel of assassins (which Jarlaxle is most likely now in control )
Sometimes I wonder if Jarlaxle and Artemis are not behind Telos and the Warlock knights. Jarlaxle was collecting Zhengyian artifacts before he was banished from Damara by Gareth Dragonsbane and friends.
As I understand it Dragonsbane banished Orcus from the realms for 100 years (the typical banishment period for any demon slain ) and the Tree Gem prevented any demons from entering the bloodstone lands. All that has changed now.
If you are looking for Necromancy look to Szass Tam and his failed Ritual to become a God. Also there is Bane's new hidden influence on many other Deities after Spellplague. But I would not rule out Bane, Szass Tam owes him some debt.
Lets not forget Larloch, which may also be behind Szass Tam; while not interested in Godhood, he would certainly be a force to recon with.
Is there any references to contacts between Larloch and Bane or Orcus?
The only link Larloch might have with Bane is in the death of Mystra, Cyric has being imprisoned. Bane would like this in his securing the Zhentarim from Cyric's faithful. Bane is the primarily worship in Thay now.
The Netherese also seek the crashed enclave. Which makes for an intriguing tangle of shades and cultist indirectly battling it out in their search. Zhent mercenaries could find this profitable.
I think Devil cultist are involved not Demon cultist, which might mean Szass Tam is also using his indirect influence. I'm not sure can't remember what those cultist were called. That would open up that old war between devils and demons if Orcus is involved. I can't remember if Asmodeus has a link to Szass Tam. The cultist may be just tools in his search.
So that is why Szass Tam seeks the Fallen Netherese enclave. He hopes to secure the knowledge of Larloch, who has the Crown of Horns and the Scepter of Sorcerer Kings. The Crown of Horns having Myrkul's enchantment. Tam is also using cultist (devil or demon?) in this search.
The only link Larloch might have with Bane is in the death of Mystra, Cyric has being imprisoned. Bane would like this in his securing the Zhentarim from Cyric's faithful. Bane is the primarily worship in Thay now.
The Netherese also seek the crashed enclave. Which makes for an intriguing tangle of shades and cultist indirectly battling it out in their search. Zhent mercenaries could find this profitable.
I think Devil cultist are involved not Demon cultist, which might mean Szass Tam is also using his indirect influence. I'm not sure can't remember what those cultist were called. That would open up that old war between devils and demons if Orcus is involved. I can't remember if Asmodeus has a link to Szass Tam. The cultist may be just tools in his search.
If you read the novel Gauntlgrym you'll find information on Szass Tam's link to Asmodeus.