The world of the Forgotten Realms has endured one catastrophe after another for the past century or so, from the Time of Troubles through the Spellplague. Time after time, upheaval has reshaped the pantheon, overthrown nations and rulers, and even altered the geography of the world. Now, the world is being shaken and reshaped once again—for the last time.
The gods are thrown into chaos at the promise of a new reckoning of the pantheon, and they scramble and grasp at power in hopes of cementing their positions of authority. Their mortal agents in the world, the Chosen, are charged with carrying out their will in every aspect of life.
The Spellplague, the magical catastrophe that reshaped the world so dramatically, has come to an end. The Weave of magic is rewoven, and many lingering effects of twisted magic fade. The intermingling of worlds brought about by the Spellplague also comes to an end, as what belongs to Abeir returns to Abeir, leaving the Forgotton Realmslooking much as it did before.
Partly driven by the activity of the gods’ Chosen and partly arising from the turbulent political situation at the end of the Era of Upheaval, the nations and factions of Faerûn engage in their own maneuvers, manipulations, and acts of aggression. In particular, the empire of Netheril attempts to conquer the Dalelands, Cormyr, and Myth Drannor, setting off a war that engulfs the eastern Heartlands. The Harpers and the Zhentarim respond to the growing threats in the world by regrouping and refocusing their energies, slowly returning to their former prominence.
Nations, geography, magic, and even the gods are changing forever, in the birth-pangs that herald a new creation. The world needs heroes to ensure that the new age dawns bright and full of hope, where good still shines as a beacon against the darkness.
Here's a video about the Sundering: www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_emb...
There is a beautiful map of Baldur's Gate but i am unable to copy it here in any readable manner
Does anyone buy that? Does anyone think this will really by the last Realms shaking story. Does anyone believe that come 6th Edition there won't suddenly be a new event, or some desire to "fix" the problems that spin out of this event.
Okay, if the Sundering tanks hard and the Realms suffers it might be. Because they won't want to touch it again and risk making it worse. But if the Sundering is a huge finanical success with the novels hitting the top of the charts, the adventures flying off the shelves, and the people reporting being far higher than expected... Won't there be a HUGE pressure for a sequel or follow-up?
I just finished hyperlinking the title
There is a beautiful map of Baldur's Gate but i am unable to copy it here in any readable manner
you mean that it IS in pieces???
yeah I looked, it is in pieces
I am amused by the claim on the site that "Now, the world is being shaken and reshaped once again—for the last time." Does anyone buy that? Does anyone think this will really by the last Realms shaking story. Does anyone believe that come 6th Edition there won't suddenly be a new event, or some desire to "fix" the problems that spin out of this event.
No. Fool me once (4E), shame on WotC. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Same exact thing is happening now that happened with 4E. Everyone on the design team is saying, "it's awesome" and "trust us" and "everything will be amazing" but that's exactly what they did last time.
Okay, if the Sundering tanks hard and the Realms suffers it might be. Because they won't want to touch it again and risk making it worse. But if the Sundering is a huge finanical success with the novels hitting the top of the charts, the adventures flying off the shelves, and the people reporting being far higher than expected... Won't there be a HUGE pressure for a sequel or follow-up?
It will fail. Too many people disliked the massive changes that happened with the 4E Realms. Yet instead of going back to the end of 3.5E or doing a reboot to 1E, they are choosing to retain all the events and weird stuff that made 4E Realms so unpopular. They're just, "toning them down" whatever that means.
They're also putting more lore and effort into things that were unpopular and outright disliked in 2E. Cyric, Midnight, the story surrounding the Time of Troubles, Lord Ao, it's all back and fleshed out to feature more of that. It's all tied into Abeir, the planet that was plopped into the setting for no reason whatsoever, just to validate some things for the 4E Realms.
The complaints about 3E that were valid, such as overpowered Chosen stealing the limelight and too many RSEs happening, guess what? The Sundering will involve the Chosen of Mystra, probably the Chosen of Cyric, and perhaps other new Chosen. It will also have the biggest RSE that the Realms has ever seen.
Just proves to me that the designers vaguely heard that people didn't like something about 4E Realms, but they didn't do any deep research or thinking about the problems that have existed and grown worse in the Realms since the end of 1E. They will continue to have overpowered Chosen all over the place, make ill-considered additions, and pump out RSEs until the cows come home.
still lets see if the 5e realms can draw me in where 4e realms sent me packing to golarion setting.
It will fail. Too many people disliked the massive changes that happened with the 4E Realms. Yet instead of going back to the end of 3.5E or doing a reboot to 1E, they are choosing to retain all the events and weird stuff that made 4E Realms so unpopular. They're just, "toning them down" whatever that means.
They can't retcon that away without alienating the fans of the 4e Realms. They can't outright pick one fanbase and say "you win". Neither do they want to tell people they've been wasting their money buying Realms products for 4e by making that go away. Or having people playing in Realms campaigns completely change their campaigns because the timeline is being rolled back.
So they need to take middle ground approach, moving forward but bringing back what was lost.
Not some hot shot designer that knows little if anything about the Realms.
No. Fool me once (4E), shame on WotC. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Same exact thing is happening now that happened with 4E. Everyone on the design team is saying, "it's awesome" and "trust us" and "everything will be amazing" but that's exactly what they did last time.
It will fail. Too many people disliked the massive changes that happened with the 4E Realms. Yet instead of going back to the end of 3.5E or doing a reboot to 1E, they are choosing to retain all the events and weird stuff that made 4E Realms so unpopular. They're just, "toning them down" whatever that means.
They're also putting more lore and effort into things that were unpopular and outright disliked in 2E. Cyric, Midnight, the story surrounding the Time of Troubles, Lord Ao, it's all back and fleshed out to feature more of that. It's all tied into Abeir, the planet that was plopped into the setting for no reason whatsoever, just to validate some things for the 4E Realms.
The complaints about 3E that were valid, such as overpowered Chosen stealing the limelight and too many RSEs happening, guess what? The Sundering will involve the Chosen of Mystra, probably the Chosen of Cyric, and perhaps other new Chosen. It will also have the biggest RSE that the Realms has ever seen.
Just proves to me that the designers vaguely heard that people didn't like something about 4E Realms, but they didn't do any deep research or thinking about the problems that have existed and grown worse in the Realms since the end of 1E. They will continue to have overpowered Chosen all over the place, make ill-considered additions, and pump out RSEs until the cows come home.
Hater's always gonna hate.
Looks like Wotc is putting some production values behind the Realms this time out and is going for the epic vibe. Last time, with 4E, they went for the snarky, hipster, "this-is-not-your-daddy's-Realms but a zillion times cooler", which has both advantages and disadvantages. This cutting to the actual story and world feels more on the level, stuff will happen, there will be big changes, there will be an attempt at balance (maybe).
Worst comes to worst (and it really has to get grim as the Realms has been dealt a lot of bad hands but still continued on) this will be a glorious hurrah if that Sundering page is anything to go by. Hope it all turns out well.
Hater's always gonna hate.
Simplistic response, dismissive and trollish.
Hate the Realms? No, I love the Realms. But the setting has a lot of serious problems, many of which were caused by prior designers taking a sledgehammer to it.
It won't be fixed by taking another hammer to it.
It will fail. Too many people disliked the massive changes that happened with the 4E Realms. Yet instead of going back to the end of 3.5E or doing a reboot to 1E, they are choosing to retain all the events and weird stuff that made 4E Realms so unpopular. They're just, "toning them down" whatever that means.
They can't retcon that away without alienating the fans of the 4e Realms. They can't outright pick one fanbase and say "you win". Neither do they want to tell people they've been wasting their money buying Realms products for 4e by making that go away. Or having people playing in Realms campaigns completely change their campaigns because the timeline is being rolled back.
So they need to take middle ground approach, moving forward but bringing back what was lost.
And obviously the 4e Realms did bring in new fans and/or keep a good chunk of old fans, or DDI woulnd't have been dominated by Realms articles, and there wouldn't have been two extra FR supliments after they set a hard and fast rule of 2 supliments per setting, etc.
So they're not going to piss all over their fans just to high five their other fans.
I'm optimistic despite liking nearly 90% of the 4E changes to the Realms. I know that Egypt and Mexico are coming back and I'll have to re-ban/block them again but at least I have SOMETHING to put in it's place right now. Whatever they roll out with, I'll probably by for parts and keep on Keepin' On.
This.
Or I'll just delve deeper into Eberron and my own settings.
If they'd leave Egypt and Mexico, and actually just tone down the other stuff, like areas of spell plague deathmonsters, and have Thay move toward what it used to be by the exiled Red Wizards taking control back, etc, I'd be stoked.
I'm afraid we're going to get a Netheril that's two floating cities and little to no external influence (or worse, just gone/made a remnant), crazy rarity of Dragonborn and Genasi in the setting, Imaskar gone, no Feywild or Shadowfel, and not get any of the things I do miss back, like Luiren, Shaundekul, Helm and Lantan.
There is also lots of interviews and announcements on the web released yesterday. Here's a few;
CNBC www.cnbc.com/id/100942206
IGN ca.ign.com/articles/2013/08/06/dungeons-...
IGN talkgeek.net/community/threads/massive-y...
Forbes www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/08/06...
I'm optimistic despite liking nearly 90% of the 4E changes to the Realms. I know that Egypt and Mexico are coming back and I'll have to re-ban/block them again but at least I have SOMETHING to put in it's place right now. Whatever they roll out with, I'll probably by for parts and keep on Keepin' On.
I too am optimistic. As is so often the case, I think there is a potential to be either really awesome or really bad. I feel like there isn't a middle ground. With teh story authors involved, Greenwood, Salvatore, et al. I am leaning toward the awesome side...maybe I will change my mind after reading The Companions, but we will see.
And, if the worst should happen and the Realms takes a turn for the worse again, I will do what I have been doing...run the Realms my way. Keep the last edition I like, 3e, take what I like from the new edition and leave the rest. Either way, I will probably buy the books and see
Here's an Exclusive Interview on D&D: The Sundering by ICv2
TBH, I don't like the ''campaigns single-handedly decide what happens in the published setting'' approach.
What happens if you get 49/51 ratios for the destruction/death of places or characters (or even 30-70)? I can picture many people getting pissed if stuff is removed in this way.
I wouldn't let campaigns results to be the ultimate factor influencing things like this.
Maybe they will do an epic job of it though and it is already better than the last effort. They are more or less doing a reboot by any other name anyway. Hopefully if it tanks again they may get the message and go back to the classic Realms.
Hater's always gonna hate.
Simplistic response, dismissive and trollish.
His response seemed very measured against yours (i.e. you kinda came across poorly, negatively, and hostile in the exchange). We don't really need more complaingrounds.
edited to remove name calling. My apologies.
I am amused by the claim on the site that "Now, the world is being shaken and reshaped once again—for the last time."
Ditto. Besides being unsupportable, the last part just seems out of place (and silly).
Hater's always gonna hate.
Simplistic response, dismissive and trollish.
His response seemed very measured against yours (i.e. you kinda seem like a jerk in the exchange). We don't really need more complaingrounds.
My comments, which were in reply to a question posted here, were about my impressions of the material and the upcoming plan for the Realms.
Your comment here, and his, are personal attacks/insults directed against another poster. You are the problem here, not me. If you cannot stand someone expressing a negative opinion, perhaps you should refrain from using the Internet generally.
Probably not interested as it is not 1375 DR and the realmes ended then and I bought Golarion. I do not see this fix working very well but they seem to be putting a lot of effort into it. That guy in the armor also evokes Game of Thrones for some reason.
Maybe they will do an epic job of it though and it is already better than the last effort. They are more or less doing a reboot by any other name anyway. Hopefully if it tanks again they may get the message and go back to the classic Realms.
My feeling on this is I have nothing to lose. They can't possibly mess it up worst then they did in 2008, when they decided to trim it down for those that do not want to read lore.
The fact they are showing the 2nd edition map being reviewed by the authors gives me alot of hope, that it will get back mostly to what it was before the spellplague arbitrarily changed the geography, and just added a new and different campaign world to the setting.
Seriously publish Abeir as its own setting, don't attach it to the realms anymore than planescape is attached to the realms.
I am amused by the claim on the site that "Now, the world is being shaken and reshaped once again—for the last time."
Ditto. Besides being unsupportable, the last part just seems out of place (and silly).
I laughed at that too. How would the narrator know that it was last time? Can he tell us some other things taht are going to occur in the centuries to come?
I hope the sundering does not become such a marketing fiasco that they try to pull it off every five years or so. Seriously I love Marvel comics, but the expense of the Universe crossover titles since civil war, has driven me away from buying them in any form except trade paperback. So the universal problem is solved only to be faced with another one. Years ago these crossover arcs would just be important title milestones in a single comic line.
I hate to not buy the comics, but when every issue of 32 pages is running you $5, well it became my biggest expense. And it
If you cannot stand someone expressing a negative opinion, perhaps you should refrain from using the Internet generally.
OR we could all try and be little more civil, raise the bar of discourse, and try not to rely on knee-jerk snark and name calling. It'd be better for us all with fewer deleted comments and locked threads.
Anywho, my impression of The Sundering is that it all seems like it will cool and fun. The level of buy-in at WOTC has me hopefull and at the very least I've got two published adventures to run with my friends that I've been gaming with since 1992/1993. Never a bad thing.
Hater's always gonna hate.
Simplistic response, dismissive and trollish.
His response seemed very measured against yours (i.e. you kinda seem like a jerk in the exchange). We don't really need more complaingrounds.
My comments, which were in reply to a question posted here, were about my impressions of the material and the upcoming plan for the Realms.
Your comment here, and his, are personal attacks/insults directed against another poster. You are the problem here, not me. If you cannot stand someone expressing a negative opinion, perhaps you should refrain from using the Internet generally.
I think it might be the attitude projected. You apparently disliked the 4e realms, now they are trying to fix it and you still dislike it. Why should your opinion then be addressed by the development team?
I VASTLY prefer a reboot of the realms, and a cancellation of the spellplague. I realize they cannot do that, even if it is what I would do. So in my opinion they are making a very good compromise.
You can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizards.com/conduct
Please remember to keep your posts polite, on topic and refrain from personal attacks. You are free to disagree with one another as long as it is done in a respectful manner.
I am amused by the claim on the site that "Now, the world is being shaken and reshaped once again—for the last time."
Ditto. Besides being unsupportable, the last part just seems out of place (and silly).
I laughed at that too. How would the narrator know that it was last time? Can he tell us some other things taht are going to occur in the centuries to come?
I hope the sundering does not become such a marketing fiasco that they try to pull it off every five years or so. Seriously I love Marvel comics, but the expense of the Universe crossover titles since civil war, has driven me away from buying them in any form except trade paperback. So the universal problem is solved only to be faced with another one. Years ago these crossover arcs would just be important title milestones in a single comic line.
I hate to not buy the comics, but when every issue of 32 pages is running you $5, well it became my biggest expense. And it
I think that's why they're doing the whole Marvel Now thing.
I'm optimistic despite liking nearly 90% of the 4E changes to the Realms. I know that Egypt and Mexico are coming back and I'll have to re-ban/block them again but at least I have SOMETHING to put in it's place right now. Whatever they roll out with, I'll probably by for parts and keep on Keepin' On.
I too am optimistic. As is so often the case, I think there is a potential to be either really awesome or really bad. I feel like there isn't a middle ground. With teh story authors involved, Greenwood, Salvatore, et al. I am leaning toward the awesome side...maybe I will change my mind after reading The Companions, but we will see.
And, if the worst should happen and the Realms takes a turn for the worse again, I will do what I have been doing...run the Realms my way. Keep the last edition I like, 3e, take what I like from the new edition and leave the rest. Either way, I will probably buy the books and see
I'd be more hopeful is salvatore wasn't involved, but otherwise this.
(imo, Salvatore has made the Realms less good. in fact, I think he's had a negative impact on fantasy as a genre.)
Hater's always gonna hate.
Simplistic response, dismissive and trollish.
His response seemed very measured against yours (i.e. you kinda seem like a jerk in the exchange). We don't really need more complaingrounds.
My comments, which were in reply to a question posted here, were about my impressions of the material and the upcoming plan for the Realms.
Your comment here, and his, are personal attacks/insults directed against another poster. You are the problem here, not me. If you cannot stand someone expressing a negative opinion, perhaps you should refrain from using the Internet generally.
I stick by what I said even though the mods felt the need to remove the post. All you do is keep spouting the same feelings you've been stating for a long while. The same thing over and over. There's no point in trying to debate you because you've made it clear that your mind is made up and you won't be swayed. So in my mind, you are the troll coming here spouting all this negative crap just so you can start a fight.
Hater's always gonna hate.
Simplistic response, dismissive and trollish.
His response seemed very measured against yours (i.e. you kinda seem like a jerk in the exchange). We don't really need more complaingrounds.
My comments, which were in reply to a question posted here, were about my impressions of the material and the upcoming plan for the Realms.
Your comment here, and his, are personal attacks/insults directed against another poster. You are the problem here, not me. If you cannot stand someone expressing a negative opinion, perhaps you should refrain from using the Internet generally.
I think it might be the attitude projected. You apparently disliked the 4e realms, now they are trying to fix it and you still dislike it. Why should your opinion then be addressed by the development team?
I VASTLY prefer a reboot of the realms, and a cancellation of the spellplague. I realize they cannot do that, even if it is what I would do. So in my opinion they are making a very good compromise.
Maybe enough people will vote with their wallets again. 1375DR or a 1357 reboot and shunt the spell plague off into Shars alternate rll of years they were hinting at a few years bak. In theory Savras could see it coming and warn someone and dealing with Cyric would circumvent Mystras murder.
Its not like 4th ed followed canon anyway. In 2E Faiths and Avatars Amauntor was dead dead complete with body in the astral plane. Bane was dead as wel but that was a ressurection hard to pose as Lathendar IMHO with your body in the astral plane.
Anyway, I'm just hoping that the more lore-centric stuff will range from novels to a supplement. I'd rather the new Realms book to be ambiguous and modular, like Ed Greenwood's Elminster's Forgotten Realms. That was a purchase I was truly happy with. It could be used for ANY realms campaign and was a great mining resource. So, many I want to use 5e's rulest for Pre-ToT or even Post-SP. Why not have dedicated sourcebooks to flesh out these concepts? Perhaps have a Sundering book at the launch of 5E realms to get people psyched for this new era?
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intellegent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others. Believe us when we say it is possible.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
(imo, Salvatore has made the Realms less good. in fact, I think he's had a negative impact on fantasy as a genre.)
WHy do you think RA Salvatore has made the realms less good? Keep in mind he also created Damara and Vaasa. He wrote the 1st edition supplement for Impiltur, Vaasa and Damara.
Why did he have a negative impact on fantasy?
I thought Salvatore's first two trilogies were awesome, but it's been sliding downhill for quite some time now. As to what happens with 5e/Next, I'm taking the approach of we'll see. It would be nice if they put out a quality product that interested me, but I am done caring about what developers, WotC or otherwise, do to any setting I enjoy. I'm just gonna keep doing my thing, and if someone puts out something I think can add to my enjoyment, cool, if not, I don't buy it. Vote your dollar.
I mostly enjoyed the Icewind Dale Trilogy, liked the prequel a bit better, but the only thing of his I've actually thought was good was the Cleric Quintet.
(imo, Salvatore has made the Realms less good. in fact, I think he's had a negative impact on fantasy as a genre.)
WHy do you think RA Salvatore has made the realms less good? Keep in mind he also created Damara and Vaasa. He wrote the 1st edition supplement for Impiltur, Vaasa and Damara.
Why did he have a negative impact on fantasy?
Bearded scottish dwarf women, for starters.
He may not have invented them, but he sure as heck pushed them into the public consciousness big time.
But mostly by being both popular and not that good, and a lot of other authors writing in a style derivative of his.
Fact is, there is an entire century of 'dead zone' where nothing simingly happend and 90% of NPCs mentioned in previous supplements (from 1st to 3rd) are well, dead.
Unless the 5th Edition Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting is ridiculously huge and gives us our lore back... I just don't see how they can change that huge jump into something positive.
That's my issue ... it won't stop me from running adventures in the Forgotten Realms but it will always bother me, somhow jumping back to the 1st-3rd edition timeline just seems more attractive sometimes, because all the lore is there and ready to be used.
Anyhow, I think they are doing a good thing by choosing Icewind Dale and Baldur's Gate, both are very iconic settings we have come to love and I can't wait to se wht they have in store for us.
As for the Realms at large it seems that everyone here is on pretty much the same page. We all agree that for us, the Realms derailed at some point and it seems that the 'fix' that everyone uses is to take it back to the last acceptable point in Realms history and pretty much run a homebrew Realms using elements from later editions that they like and leaving the rest on the scrap heap.
As for DoctorNecrotic's suggestion (sorry, would quote, but for some reason the 'quote' button is not appearning above any posts) as we were discussing before, I would love a 'Community Realms' and I think that a lot of others would too. Maybe that is something that we could pitch to WotC as third party content, paying the required royalties ofcourse. I might even pitch it myself as I have been thinking of getting into game design myself.
There's a lot not to like about his writing really... but the names he comes up with is the one that drive me nuts the most.
What, you don't like Cordio Muffinhead? Say it ain't so.
Its really cool!
[sblock]
There's a lot not to like about his writing really... but the names he comes up with is the one that drive me nuts the most.
lol yeah. THe names.
His females are kinda weird too, IMO. Not really bad or offensive, just...weird.
I must admit that I am overly excited with the Sundering Event and what it will mean for the Forgotten Realms but even if it is a great story and they successfully, 'right the realms' and all that... we are still stuck with the same problem that ruined the Realms for allot of us — the 100+ year time jump. As Salvatore said it "100 year old humans don't fight very well"
Fact is, there is an entire century of 'dead zone' where nothing simingly happend and 90% of NPCs mentioned in previous supplements (from 1st to 3rd) are well, dead.
Unless the 5th Edition Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting is ridiculously huge and gives us our lore back... I just don't see how they can change that huge jump into something positive.
That's my issue ... it won't stop me from running adventures in the Forgotten Realms but it will always bother me, somhow jumping back to the 1st-3rd edition timeline just seems more attractive sometimes, because all the lore is there and ready to be used.
Anyhow, I think they are doing a good thing by choosing Icewind Dale and Baldur's Gate, both are very iconic settings we have come to love and I can't wait to se wht they have in store for us.
I really want a 4e Realms book that organizes, expands on and ultimately collates and weaves together all the lore from the mountain of Realms DDI articles. It might require several books, actually. A series, perhaps.
If the Next Realms lore builds upon that (well, what they don't zap out of exisistence in their little "not another retconn" event), the lore for post jump FR will be vast.
As for the Realms at large it seems that everyone here is on pretty much the same page. We all agree that for us, the Realms derailed at some point and it seems that the 'fix' that everyone uses is to take it back to the last acceptable point in Realms history and pretty much run a homebrew Realms using elements from later editions that they like and leaving the rest on the scrap heap.
Put me down as the dissenting voice.
While there are things about the SP and time jump I don't like, and some things lost that I want back/miss, overall I love the 4e Realms, and I will not spend a penny on any FR product if the were to retcon it all out of existence. What they are doing has me pissed off enough that 5e Realms will have to be pretty damn good to earn my business.
Which is not to say some authors can't do it, and do it well. Tom Clancy is one who I think really gets women well across many different personality types, as does Ed Greenwood, usually. On the other side of the fence, I'm impressed with Holly Black and Nancy Collins, most of the time anyway.
It was announced that the grand prize at the Night in D&D at Gen Con will be the Paladin Isteval's sword. Jon Schindehette was at The Sword And The Stone when it was forged and posted a couple of pictures on Facebook;
Its really cool!
Sweet prize.
I hope they feature this sword in their making of videos on the Man at Arms YouTube show (by the same smith Tony Swatton).
Ex: Man at Arms: Sword of Omens
I'd follow the links further but again... no facebook.
Thanks.
Like a lot of male authors, he doesn't write women all that well. Just like a lot of female authors don't write men all that well. For whatever reason, they just can't put themselves in the perspective of the opposite gender quite right, so something always just seems a little off about them. Sometimes its the way they phrase things, the actions they take, or a lot of other little things, but whatever it is, it's just not that convincing to the reader.
Which is not to say some authors can't do it, and do it well. Tom Clancy is one who I think really gets women well across many different personality types, as does Ed Greenwood, usually. On the other side of the fence, I'm impressed with Holly Black and Nancy Collins, most of the time anyway.
Sure, but to me RAS writes off key women even taking that into account.
I ma going to humbly disagree about Salvatore. I'm not going to say that he is the best author ever, but I don't find his writings offensive in anyway. But that is just my opinion.
As for the Realms at large it seems that everyone here is on pretty much the same page. We all agree that for us, the Realms derailed at some point and it seems that the 'fix' that everyone uses is to take it back to the last acceptable point in Realms history and pretty much run a homebrew Realms using elements from later editions that they like and leaving the rest on the scrap heap.
As for DoctorNecrotic's suggestion (sorry, would quote, but for some reason the 'quote' button is not appearning above any posts) as we were discussing before, I would love a 'Community Realms' and I think that a lot of others would too. Maybe that is something that we could pitch to WotC as third party content, paying the required royalties ofcourse. I might even pitch it myself as I have been thinking of getting into game design myself.
And here I meant a forum project or something like that, but yes! A compiled effort of community memberes creating an Alternate Realms would be sweet! Here's to hoping Wizards would be cool with that idea (and have the leniency and willingness to allow fans to contribute as Pendleton Ward. Yes, I enjoy Adventure Time a lot.)
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" class="mceContentBody " contenteditable="true" />Bearded scottish dwarf women, for starters.
He may not have invented them, but he sure as heck pushed them into the public consciousness big time.
OK, I have to give you that, as it is my Pet Peeve with Salvatore Dwarves. I really don't like it.
But mostly by being both popular and not that good, and a lot of other authors writing in a style derivative of his.
I find I do not like reading combat that is so involved. So maybe I can agree, but I think he has a good grip on characters. I have not read his Demon Wars saga, so I wonder if they are written in the same style.
Like a lot of male authors, he doesn't write women all that well. Just like a lot of female authors don't write men all that well. For whatever reason, they just can't put themselves in the perspective of the opposite gender quite right, so something always just seems a little off about them. Sometimes its the way they phrase things, the actions they take, or a lot of other little things, but whatever it is, it's just not that convincing to the reader.
Which is not to say some authors can't do it, and do it well. Tom Clancy is one who I think really gets women well across many different personality types, as does Ed Greenwood, usually. On the other side of the fence, I'm impressed with Holly Black and Nancy Collins, most of the time anyway.
I have read every Jane Austen book (Despite being a scientist I minored in British Literature). Jane Austen never writes a conversation between two males when there is no female in the scene, because she does not know what two males will act like when there is no female around.
Shows a lot of Sense and Sensibility there.
So maybe someone can help me. I head over to the Sundering mini-site and click sign up. I assume this is how I can participate in deciding an outcome. It asks me to log in with facebook. I dislike facebook a lot and refuse to have an account. Does that mean I can not participate? Or is that just for a news feed and I can use my wizards account to participate?
I'd follow the links further but again... no facebook.
Thanks.
I use my wife's facebook account. I think it is cheaper for them to use Facebook.
It will fail. Too many people disliked the massive changes that happened with the 4E Realms.
Yet even at die hard pre-4e realms holdouts like candlekeep people are enthusiastic about the Sundering.
Yet instead of going back to the end of 3.5E or doing a reboot to 1E, they are choosing to retain all the events
Because as do a retcon they are forever destroying the basic trust that the Realm is on living and evolving setting and that stuff you paid to read the book in which it happened did happen and stay as have happened.
And retconning to 1e? Really? That's like Mercedes bringing back the Motorwagen 1
That's not like saying "I liked that series, but after season X it jumped the shark", that's like "I liked the trailer to that series, but with episode 1 it jumped the shark"
They can't retcon that away without alienating the fans of the 4e Realms.
No, not just the 4e fans. Also the fans who hated 4e with a passion but hold the integrity of the evolving timeline above even their despite for individual developments
you know what, we're jsut getting ours back and we'll keeping yours too.//////sarcasm
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" class="mceContentBody " contenteditable="true" />Bearded scottish dwarf women, for starters.
He may not have invented them, but he sure as heck pushed them into the public consciousness big time.
OK, I have to give you that, as it is my Pet Peeve with Salvatore Dwarves. I really don't like it.
But mostly by being both popular and not that good, and a lot of other authors writing in a style derivative of his.
I find I do not like reading combat that is so involved. So maybe I can agree, but I think he has a good grip on characters. I have not read his Demon Wars saga, so I wonder if they are written in the same style.
I can agree that some of his characters are interesting, I suppose. He has a habit of...failing to develope them, though. They don't get more interesting, or get interesting in new ways, they just keep being that same thing.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />I can agree that some of his characters are interesting, I suppose. He has a habit of...failing to develope them, though. They don't get more interesting, or get interesting in new ways, they just keep being that same thing.
I like Salvatore alot but I probably willingly overlook things. You give fair criticism.
I can agree that some of his characters are interesting, I suppose. He has a habit of...failing to develope them, though. They don't get more interesting, or get interesting in new ways, they just keep being that same thing.
To each his own, of course.
Some of Salvatore's characters fit your description; or rather, I'm left feeling as you do.
But some, like Entreri--oh man, what a marvelous character!--and Jarlaxle, were great. Every book they got better and better.
I just purchased The Companions, so I hope some of Salvatore's other characters approach the level of detail he managed so well with Entreri and Jarlaxle.
Like a lot of male authors, he doesn't write women all that well. Just like a lot of female authors don't write men all that well. For whatever reason, they just can't put themselves in the perspective of the opposite gender quite right, so something always just seems a little off about them. Sometimes its the way they phrase things, the actions they take, or a lot of other little things, but whatever it is, it's just not that convincing to the reader.
Maybe he should consider taking this advice when it comes to writing women?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=wse_hgca220
and Jarlaxle, were great. Every book they got better and better.
Come on, he's a poster child for a mary sue "everything you can do I can do better and if you ever think you have the advantage and are in controll, it's only because you are too much of a fool to realize that in truth I hold the advantage and are in controll and just want to have you thinking otherwise" character.
And his mercenary band is just as stupid "ha everything you foolish and weak humans can do we can do better. Think you driven us from your city? Ha, we left because there was nothing left to us to take there and we can return anytime and easily smash all your organizations you have formed to oppose us"
If there is a character worse than the chose of Mystra it's Jarlaxe.
Come on, he's a poster child for a mary sue "everything you can do I can do better...
I see where you're coming from here. Both he and his mercenaries are terribly effective, but then they've been around for a long time and have gotten good at being effective.*
I don't see Jarlaxle as a Marry Sue so much as a dangerous, smart, cunning drow.
What's better, he's a character with some depth and he works great for being somethone to play off against Entreri; he's a mystery to Entreri still in many ways and so to us, the readers.
*Who knows, maybe this was what Gygax was getting at all those years ago when he instituted demihuman level limits.
I can agree that some of his characters are interesting, I suppose. He has a habit of...failing to develope them, though. They don't get more interesting, or get interesting in new ways, they just keep being that same thing.
To each his own, of course.
Some of Salvatore's characters fit your description; or rather, I'm left feeling as you do.
But some, like Entreri--oh man, what a marvelous character!--and Jarlaxle, were great. Every book they got better and better.
I just purchased The Companions, so I hope some of Salvatore's other characters approach the level of detail he managed so well with Entreri and Jarlaxle.
They do!
Yeah Entreri, Jarlaxle and that deformed Tiefling, Effron was his name I think? Those were really good. Some of his cahracters unfortunately though are background dressing.
In the companions, he is doing a good job of making the 'dressing' characters well developed I think.
I can agree that some of his characters are interesting, I suppose. He has a habit of...failing to develope them, though. They don't get more interesting, or get interesting in new ways, they just keep being that same thing.
To each his own, of course.
Some of Salvatore's characters fit your description; or rather, I'm left feeling as you do.
But some, like Entreri--oh man, what a marvelous character!--and Jarlaxle, were great. Every book they got better and better.
I just purchased The Companions, so I hope some of Salvatore's other characters approach the level of detail he managed so well with Entreri and Jarlaxle.
Both of them must have gotten more interesting after I stopped reading his work. :P I'll probably pick up the whole sundering set.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />I can agree that some of his characters are interesting, I suppose. He has a habit of...failing to develope them, though. They don't get more interesting, or get interesting in new ways, they just keep being that same thing.
I like Salvatore alot but I probably willingly overlook things. You give fair criticism.
:D I try.
Come on, he's a poster child for a mary sue "everything you can do I can do better...
I see where you're coming from here. Both he and his mercenaries are terribly effective, but then they've been around for a long time and have gotten good at being effective.*
I don't see Jarlaxle as a Marry Sue so much as a dangerous, smart, cunning drow.
What's better, he's a character with some depth and he works great for being somethone to play off against Entreri; he's a mystery to Entreri still in many ways and so to us, the readers.
*Who knows, maybe this was what Gygax was getting at all those years ago when he instituted demihuman level limits.
I agree. I mean, the main charcters of any D&D novel are just Epic Level Player Characters in a book. And the whole point of PC's is that they are the above average inhabitants of the game world. The ones that get to be better than everybody else.
Don't think of Jarlaxle, Entreri, Drizzt, and the dozens of other main characters in D&D novels, as a book character. Think of them as PC's that have had long and successful adventuring/campaign careers and have earned thier skills, knowledge and spoils.
As players, if you were to create a drow rogue for instance, had played him for years, raised him from Lvl 1 to 20+, and focused not only on loot and treasure, but on story rewards like creating a guild, and spent your gold wisely on a selection of powerful magical items would you not be expected to be prepared for a wide range of circumstances?
As DM's would you begrudge a player the full use of the resources such a player has accumulated?
Anyway, thatshow I look at such characters in books...
The Weave of magic is rewoven[...]
The Harpers and the Zhentarim respond to the growing threats in the world by regrouping and refocusing their energies, slowly returning to their former prominence.
[...]what belongs to Abeir returns to Abeir, leaving the Forgotten Realms looking much as it did before.
How is it not a retcon?what belongs to Abeir returns to Abeir, leaving the Forgotten Realms looking much as it did before.
Retcon means "it never happened" (i.e. revising history... rather than new events changing things back to how they once were).
Yes, I know what a retcon is, and they are basically writing a lot of 4e stuff out of the realm. Just not retroactively (as far as we know now), but that is a detail really when we consider how much of 4e they are removing.
I don't care that much about what they remove or why as long as it's not done via retcon.
If I buy a novel and read about some stuff that has happened I want the be sure that it has happened. A following event might undo it, but that they never some time later just tell me "Well, events in novel X didn't happen. Just forget that you ever read that novel"
Now I think it's a good thing that they wrote so little about some events (like the "Talos was really Gruumsh" thing), as that makes it easier to undo (e.g. "Gruumsh slew Talos and masqueraded as him for some time until being discovered." A lot easier to swallow than "Gruumsh was always Talos and fooled all fellow deities for thousands of years even while sitting right next to them during their circle of greater powers meetings")
How is it not a retcon?The Weave of magic is rewoven[...]
The Harpers and the Zhentarim respond to the growing threats in the world by regrouping and refocusing their energies, slowly returning to their former prominence.
[...]what belongs to Abeir returns to Abeir, leaving the Forgotten Realms looking much as it did before.
By technicality only. Only the obtuse would refuse to admit that it is, in essence and practical function, a retcon.
Yes, I know what a retcon is, and they are basically writing a lot of 4e stuff out of the realm. Just not retroactively (as far as we know now), but that is a detail really when we consider how much of 4e they are removing.
I don't care that much about what they remove or why as long as it's not done via retcon.
If I buy a novel and read about some stuff that has happened I want the be sure that it has happened. A following event might undo it, but that they never some time later just tell me "Well, events in novel X didn't happen. Just forget that you ever read that novel"
Now I think it's a good thing that they wrote so little about some events (like the "Talos was really Gruumsh" thing), as that makes it easier to undo (e.g. "Gruumsh slew Talos and masqueraded as him for some time until being discovered." A lot easier to swallow than "Gruumsh was always Talos and fooled all fellow deities for thousands of years even while sitting right next to them during their circle of greater powers meetings")
Who says the other gods didn't know? Part of the point is that many FR deities take multiple forms when interacting with humans, or when being observed by humans/the reader. They're more complicated, metaphysically, than people.
Yes, I know what a retcon is, and they are basically writing a lot of 4e stuff out of the realm. Just not retroactively (as far as we know now), but that is a detail really when we consider how much of 4e they are removing.
That is good thing. Being blunt to satisfy me they more or less have to retcon everything 4E related out or only leave some tiny bits in and make the best FR product ever made to interest me again.
Yes, I know what a retcon is, and they are basically writing a lot of 4e stuff out of the realm. Just not retroactively (as far as we know now), but that is a detail really when we consider how much of 4e they are removing.
That is good thing. Being blunt to satisfy me they more or less have to retcon everything 4E related out or only leave some tiny bits in and make the best FR product ever made to interest me again.
THen you should be ignored, unless you're a majority.
Judging by these forums, candlekeep and elsewhere, you're not.
Judging by these forums, candlekeep and elsewhere, you're not.
Because the 3 regular posters here, and the 6 regular posters over there are a representative sample?
THen you should be ignored, unless you're a majority.
Judging by these forums, candlekeep and elsewhere, you're not.
You mean judging by these near dead forums where hardly anyone ever posts and, if they do, most of the time it's to talk about how much they dislike the 4E Realms, whereas back during the heyday of the 3E Realms we had three to four separate Realms forums and they were ALL heavily trafficked, with dozens of posts made on each and every day? Is that the evidence of 4E Realms fans being in the majority which you speak of?
How about WotC feeling the need to expunge as much of the 4E Realms as possible, and developers outright admitting they made a mistake? If they gained more fans then they lost with that changeover, then wouldn't they be pushing forward with the 4E Realms changes instead of trying to run away from them as fast as possible? Does that sound to you like Zardnaar is representative of a minority?
Judging by these forums, candlekeep and elsewhere, you're not.
Because the 3 regular posters here, and the 6 regular posters over there are a representative sample?
I just think it's interesting that after almost six years there are still a handful of people who feel it's worth their time to air the same complaints.
But that's just me.
I don't think the people who insist on a complete retcon of 4E represent the thoughts and desires of the "lost fanbase" anymore than the lack of activity on this forum space is somehow proof that that's what all prior Realms fans want.
I think people want a reason to be interested in the Realms again.
It's pretty clear WotC's going to remove much or most of the Abeirian influence in the Realms (though I really wish they'd keep Laerakond around; it's about a billion times better than Mexico...err, Maztica) to try and reignite that interest, but there's also a whole spate of Realms history and events from the 4E era that aren't contingent on Abeir's presence in the Realms that are going to be kept, as well as some holdovers from 4E (like Dragonborn) that will still be in the Realms.
WotC's approach is a good first step, but I think they'll still depend on a lot of the 4E lore, if only to move the setting forward.
Judging by these forums, candlekeep and elsewhere, you're not.
Because the 3 regular posters here, and the 6 regular posters over there are a representative sample?
I just think it's interesting that after almost six years there are still a handful of people who feel it's worth their time to air the same complaints.
But that's just me.
Good thing, too, otherwise the activity on this forum would fall by 90% or so.
Good thing, too, otherwise the activity on this forum would fall by 90% or so.
Hardly.
Though without it, the post count in certain threads would drop some.
Not that I'd mind. ;)
Good thing, too, otherwise the activity on this forum would fall by 90% or so.
Hardly.
Though without it, the post count in certain threads would drop some.
Not that I'd mind. ;)
Yeah right. You'd pretty much be talking to yourself if that were the case.
Judging by these forums, candlekeep and elsewhere, you're not.
Because the 3 regular posters here, and the 6 regular posters over there are a representative sample?
I just think it's interesting that after almost six years there are still a handful of people who feel it's worth their time to air the same complaints.
It's time well-spent. I spend 45 seconds making a post with a strong opinion, and it encourages people to come out of the woodwork.
Even if it's just, "Heyyy! That Jorunhast is SO MEAN, he can't be right!" at least it gets other people to post something.
Anyway, Miscellany, didn't you once publicly take pride in being a troll? I think that's worse. Controversial or not, I always mean what I say.
Though without it, the post count in certain threads would drop some.
Not that I'd mind. ;)
Right back at you. Your incessant positivity is seriously grating.
How is it not a retcon?The Weave of magic is rewoven[...]
The Harpers and the Zhentarim respond to the growing threats in the world by regrouping and refocusing their energies, slowly returning to their former prominence.
[...]what belongs to Abeir returns to Abeir, leaving the Forgotten Realms looking much as it did before.
By technicality only. Only the obtuse would refuse to admit that it is, in essence and practical function, a retcon.
At least one other person gets it.
There is hope for the internet.
Yes, I know what a retcon is, and they are basically writing a lot of 4e stuff out of the realm. Just not retroactively (as far as we know now), but that is a detail really when we consider how much of 4e they are removing.
That is good thing. Being blunt to satisfy me they more or less have to retcon everything 4E related out or only leave some tiny bits in and make the best FR product ever made to interest me again.
I'd prefere they just went back to 1375. Maybe have Ao wake up and it was all a bad dream.
But either way, the FR will not regain its lost splendor. Too much damage to the setting and too many fans were insulted, disappointed or enraged and moved on.
Golarion it the shizz now. Folks at Paizo have a very interesting way of developping it.
1479 DR Year of the Ageless One the Weave flashes back into existance. Arcane Spellcasting is thrown back to the old methods leaving many Arcane Spellcasters confused that there spells are not working. Divine Spells didn't seem affected by this yet Spellscars don't work. The Sundering is here!
Huh. Just :WHAM: the Weave is back, eh?
That's some good writing right there.
By technicality only. Only the obtuse would refuse to admit that it is, in essence and practical function, a retcon.
No, going back to the place quo by taking new steps is not a retcon. Pretenting to have never taken the last steps and still be standing on the old place is a retcon.
The weave being back in 148x DR is not retconning that the weave was gone between 1385 - 148x DR.
It might have made the whole ordeal pointless, but didn't retcon it anymore than the sinking of the Titanic retconned the last cabin steward's act of putting the clothes in the dryer.
Retconning would be saying we're still at 1385 DR and the last X years never happened. Or maybe we are in 148x DR but the last 100 years were just business as usual and the spellplague never happened during this time.
Undoing what happened through new developments is fine. Retconning is not.
Who says the other gods didn't know?
The novels were we had interactions with Talos both from Mystra's and Cyric's point of view.
Also the reactions of the deities of fury immediately upon finding out that Gruumsh tricked them.
By technicality only. Only the obtuse would refuse to admit that it is, in essence and practical function, a retcon.
No, going back to the place quo by taking new steps is not a retcon. Pretenting to have never taken the last steps and still be standing on the old place is a retcon.
The weave being back in 148x DR is not retconning that the weave was gone between 1385 - 148x DR.
It might have made the whole ordeal pointless, but didn't retcon it anymore than the sinking of the Titanic retconned the last cabin steward's act of putting the clothes in the dryer.
Retconning would be saying we're still at 1385 DR and the last X years never happened. Or maybe we are in 148x DR but the last 100 years were just business as usual and the spellplague never happened during this time.
Undoing what happened through new developments is fine. Retconning is not.
Well you sure made the Doctor's point (underline part).
What is complicated about the bolded parts?
What is complicated about the bolded parts?
Because it's not the case. A retcon by definition has to change the past. It's right in the name, that's what the "ret" is shortening off.
Rebuilding a burned down building is not by any stretch a retcon.
The weave being back in 148x DR is not retconning that the weave was gone between 1385 - 148x DR.
4E Realms states clearly, with zero room for interpretation, that the goddess Mystra has been murdered. She's dead, kaput, gone, and the Weave was shattered.
Recently, we discover that... oh, guess what, Mystra didn't actually die. She was just really wounded and powerless. And the Weave wasn't "completely" gone, it was in tatters. And -BOOM- one day the Weave is back and spellscars are depowered with no explanation given whatsoever.
Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck... pretty sure it's a duck.
Retcons in the Marvel universe are less obvious. Seriously...
Judging by these forums, candlekeep and elsewhere, you're not.
Because the 3 regular posters here, and the 6 regular posters over there are a representative sample?
A fair point, but between the two I would say that they are representative of the "Core Readers" demographic of FR fans.
Does that sound to you like Zardnaar is representative of a minority?
Somehow I knew your post would exhibit a lack of ability to track a conversational exchange well enough to react to it appropriately or meaningfully, and yet I went around my block of your posts anyway, out of curiosity and a vain hope that you'd grown into a more useful poster since I blocked you.
It seems you have not.
Zard expressed the view that the only way 5e FR can get his money is to completely retcon the 4e Realms out of exisistence, or reboot to the initial launch of the setting.
Since he's one to two people I've read or heard expressing such an opinion, yes. I'd say he's representative of a minority.
The rest of your little rant is off topic, so I didn't bother with it.
anyway, back to blocking your entirely worthless posts.
The weave being back in 148x DR is not retconning that the weave was gone between 1385 - 148x DR.
4E Realms states clearly, with zero room for interpretation, that the goddess Mystra has been murdered. She's dead, kaput, gone, and the Weave was shattered.
Recently, we discover that... oh, guess what, Mystra didn't actually die. She was just really wounded and powerless. And the Weave wasn't "completely" gone, it was in tatters. And -BOOM- one day the Weave is back and spellscars are depowered with no explanation given whatsoever.
Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck... pretty sure it's a duck.
Retcons in the Marvel universe are less obvious. Seriously...
THis.
Who says the other gods didn't know?
The novels were we had interactions with Talos both from Mystra's and Cyric's point of view.
Also the reactions of the deities of fury immediately upon finding out that Gruumsh tricked them.
The first point is irrelevant. If gods can have multiple aspects, there's no reason that other gods would make note of a god having multiple aspects when interacting with one of their aspects.
The second point is fair.
In which case I instead ask, so what? Gods aren't omniscient. They can be tricked. They can even be tricked by things less powerful than them on occasion, so being tricked by a greater god isn't weird. At all.
What is complicated about the bolded parts?
Because it's not the case. A retcon by definition has to change the past. It's right in the name, that's what the "ret" is shortening off.
Rebuilding a burned down building is not by any stretch a retcon.
Nor is what they're doing, by any stretch, rebuilding a burnt down building.
It's a retcon that they decided couldn't get away with being one, so they preserved just enough to (again) technically make it not one.
Ya know, like I said.
The weave being back in 148x DR is not retconning that the weave was gone between 1385 - 148x DR.
4E Realms states clearly, with zero room for interpretation, that the goddess Mystra has been murdered. She's dead, kaput, gone, and the Weave was shattered.
Recently, we discover that... oh, guess what, Mystra didn't actually die. She was just really wounded and powerless. And the Weave wasn't "completely" gone, it was in tatters. And -BOOM- one day the Weave is back and spellscars are depowered with no explanation given whatsoever.
Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck... pretty sure it's a duck.
Retcons in the Marvel universe are less obvious. Seriously...
also this.
4E Realms states clearly, with zero room for interpretation, that the goddess Mystra has been murdered.
And her rebirth from a vestige doesn't change that.
She's dead, kaput, gone
Death and murdered. And what's vestige? A remnant of a death and murdered deity. Or would you say that someone wasn't murdered if he returned as a ghost?
and the Weave was shattered.
Indeed. And if you shatter or tear apart something there are sherds and tatters left.
Recently, we discover that... oh, guess what, Mystra didn't actually die. She was just really wounded and powerless.
She died as completly as any deity can die. Deities laying death and forgotten as corpses on the astral plane for centuries and then still rising again is common for deities.
If Aoskar would rise again, would that mean that the Lady of Pain never murdered him? No, just that deities are hard to keep dead
And the Weave wasn't "completely" gone, it was in tatters.
If you shatter a windows the windos is gone and yet you still have a bunch of sherds
And -BOOM- one day the Weave is back and spellscars are depowered with no explanation given whatsoever.
Actually they explanation is given over two novels.
The first point is irrelevant. If gods can have multiple aspects, there's no reason that other gods would make note of a god having multiple aspects when interacting with one of their aspects.
The heads of the demihuman pantheons also came to watch the trial, since they were not normally invited to the meetings of the faerunian pantheon's greater powers. So Gruumsh arrived to where he already was?
They can be tricked. They can even be tricked by things less powerful than them on occasion, so being tricked by a greater god isn't weird. At all.
If that something less powerfull is especially good at tricking. Let's say a lesser deity of deception tricking some greater deity of something that has nothing today with deception or the uncovery of deceptions.
But Gruumsh was tricking the likes of the actual deities of lies and deceipetion and of truth while he himself was never such a deity
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />The first point is irrelevant. If gods can have multiple aspects, there's no reason that other gods would make note of a god having multiple aspects when interacting with one of their aspects.
The heads of the demihuman pantheons also came to watch the trial, since they were not normally invited to the meetings of the faerunian pantheon's greater powers. So Gruumsh arrived to where he already was?
Sure. Sounds like precisely the sort of thing a god who is pretending to be two gods would do, and the sort of thing just about any god could do.
They can be tricked. They can even be tricked by things less powerful than them on occasion, so being tricked by a greater god isn't weird. At all.
If that something less powerfull is especially good at tricking. Let's say a lesser deity of deception tricking some greater deity of something that has nothing today with deception or the uncovery of deceptions.
But Gruumsh was tricking the likes of the actual deities of lies and deceipetion and of truth while he himself was never such a deity
So what? Gods of lies get tricked and lied to. There's no reason that only a god of lies could pull it off. Also, Talos/Gruumsh is one of the most powerful gods. And, lies from people you don't expect to be good liars don't even get examined as much as lies from gods of deception. When people think you're either stupid or honest, it's very easy to lie to them.
also, you keep pointing out technicalities that make the Sundering not a retcon.
Making my point.
Also, Talos/Gruumsh is one of the most powerful gods
Of brutish crude fields, not one of finesse and treachery.
Gruumsh lying to Tempus is one thing, Gruumsh lying to the likes of Cyric or Mask or Shar or Savras (less powerfull, be specialized in uncovering exactly that) is something else
also, you keep pointing out technicalities that make the Sundering not a retcon.
Since it isn't a retcon.
Making my point.
The point that it's not really a retcon, yes. The point that it's just a disguised retcon, no.
A goose isn't a duck despite both being feathered, flying birds that spend much time swimming on water. They are distantly related, but a goose isn't a duck disguised by mere technicalities.
What is complicated about the bolded parts?
Because it's not the case. A retcon by definition has to change the past. It's right in the name, that's what the "ret" is shortening off.
Rebuilding a burned down building is not by any stretch a retcon.
Way to ignore the optus part, champ.
Also, Talos/Gruumsh is one of the most powerful gods
Of brutish crude fields, not one of finesse and treachery.
Gruumsh lying to Tempus is one thing, Gruumsh lying to the likes of Cyric or Mask or Shar or Savras (less powerfull, be specialized in uncovering exactly that) is something elsealso, you keep pointing out technicalities that make the Sundering not a retcon.
Since it isn't a retcon.Making my point.
The point that it's not really a retcon, yes. The point that it's just a disguised retcon, no.
A goose isn't a duck despite both being feathered, flying birds that spend much time swimming on water. They are distantly related, but a goose isn't a duck disguised by mere technicalities.
This more akin to pointing out that a wolf isn't a dog, when there's no practical difference in the context of the ongoing discussion (as in certain types of cannine behavior, etc).
Sure, technically it's not a retcon. I stated that before you ever started arguing with me. It might as well be, however.
Which is the point.
But arguing like this gets no where and angers everyone.
Now can we get back to the point of this thread which is discussing the storyline behind this transition?
Now can we get back to the point of this thread which is discussing the storyline behind this transition?
No.
The weave being back in 148x DR is not retconning that the weave was gone between 1385 - 148x DR.
4E Realms states clearly, with zero room for interpretation, that the goddess Mystra has been murdered. She's dead, kaput, gone, and the Weave was shattered.
Actually the way it was worded was that the common belief was that Mystra was murdered, it was never presented as fact, not even in the novels, it was all vague visions and what not. So yeah, wasnt clearly stated at all, and was lots of room for interpretation.
Yes, I know what a retcon is, and they are basically writing a lot of 4e stuff out of the realm. Just not retroactively (as far as we know now), but that is a detail really when we consider how much of 4e they are removing.
That is good thing. Being blunt to satisfy me they more or less have to retcon everything 4E related out or only leave some tiny bits in and make the best FR product ever made to interest me again.
I am not interested in the 4e realms at all. They are attempting to fix the realms. I would like a retcon eliminating all of the 4e cahnges, but I honestly beleive the people that worked on the realms AFTER the initial campaign guide have done a good job with things. Because of this I think their work should be respected and stay around.
Yes, I know what a retcon is, and they are basically writing a lot of 4e stuff out of the realm. Just not retroactively (as far as we know now), but that is a detail really when we consider how much of 4e they are removing.
That is good thing. Being blunt to satisfy me they more or less have to retcon everything 4E related out or only leave some tiny bits in and make the best FR product ever made to interest me again.
THen you should be ignored, unless you're a majority.
Judging by these forums, candlekeep and elsewhere, you're not.
Thats because these forums used to be vibrant and now they're dead and we all know why. If I'm not in the majority I am happy to be ignored. I suspect we're not allowed to run a poll over what people want but WoTC is assuming the sundering will fix things while ignoring the impact of the 100 year time jump. RAS and Ed may do a great job though so see what happens and they're falling over themselves to appease the old guard it seems. Funny that.
Going through the 2008 guide they really did just ARBITRARILY change things for no good reason. If I have to keep the spellplague to retcon the 4e realms crap that was placed in the 2008 guide I will take it.
I would prefer a retcon yet I understand they need to compromise, so I will take the fix. It is much better than what the "evening of the playing field" and "culling of NPCS" did to the realms.
I seriously think for the launch of 4e they would have been better making a NEW campaign setting for 4e called ABEIR. They should have made Abeir the new setting for 4e like Eberron was for 3rd edition. Instead they tacked on a new campaign world with new ideas to an established campaign world. I think Abeir would have been well more accepted if left to its own little sphere, instead of polluting the Forgotten Realms with another campaign world.
Dragonborn would have been an easy add. It did not require adding a campaign world to bring them in the realms.
The weave being back in 148x DR is not retconning that the weave was gone between 1385 - 148x DR.
4E Realms states clearly, with zero room for interpretation, that the goddess Mystra has been murdered. She's dead, kaput, gone, and the Weave was shattered.
Actually the way it was worded was that the common belief was that Mystra was murdered, it was never presented as fact, not even in the novels, it was all vague visions and what not. So yeah, wasnt clearly stated at all, and was lots of room for interpretation.
In the 4E FRCG, it states clearly in 5 or six places that Mystra is dead. Want me to quote page numbers?
and yet even in the novels those that depicted mystra being murdered were even stated by the authors that it was not neccessarily so in the way that it was portrayed in the scene.
Mystryl is dead
Mystra is dead
Mystra/ midnight is dead
the essence of mystra/mystryl/misnight aka the deity of magic was left in shambled pieces but from reading Elminster Enraged I do think that Mystra or Mystryl is what we'll see returned.
she did say she was whole again....... which can in and of itself be taken different ways... especially ig one was to take into consideration of the wild magic zones and the dead magic zones left over from the Lord KArsus incident and the Mystra falls down the stairs incident.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Dragonborn would have been an easy add. It did not require adding a campaign world to bring them in the realms.
While I disagree with the rest of your post, this is pretty much inarguably true.
Also, they could have added Abeir, as "part" of the Realms, without dropping parts of it on the landscape. Suddenly there's another planet in a sort of "twin orbit" with Toril, and you can see it in the night sky, all silver and mysterious, and portals on Toril can reach it, and...well, you get the idea.
A much smaller continent could have been added, rather than replacing mexico-land, there was no reason to get rid of the halfling nation or that Gond loving place of artificers (and seriously, if you want warforged to be possible in the setting...)....
I totally dig that the whole Spellplague thing could have been...less cataclysmic. I'm glad it happened, unlike many, but I get that it was pretty epic, and that makes it harder to swallow, especially when the things they seem to have wanted to change didn't require that big a change.
Yes, I know what a retcon is, and they are basically writing a lot of 4e stuff out of the realm. Just not retroactively (as far as we know now), but that is a detail really when we consider how much of 4e they are removing.
That is good thing. Being blunt to satisfy me they more or less have to retcon everything 4E related out or only leave some tiny bits in and make the best FR product ever made to interest me again.
I am not interested in the 4e realms at all. They are attempting to fix the realms. I would like a retcon eliminating all of the 4e cahnges, but I honestly beleive the people that worked on the realms AFTER the initial campaign guide have done a good job with things. Because of this I think their work should be respected and stay around.
This is what I mean. While I prefer the 4e Realms to any previous version, for the most part, there are definate things I don't like about it, and would love to see righted. But the hard work of talented artists over the last 4 years should not be retconned away. Erik Scott de Bie's novels should not be retconned away, nor Richard Bakers. (those are the only 4e realms novels I've read because I've been more into old literature and sci fi since about '06 or so) The great articles, and the fantastic work in the Neverwinter source book should not be retconned away.
Nor, IMO, should the solution be cheap hack writer tricks that might as well be retcons, whether they technically are or not. All the Abier stuff, spellplague (all traces of it...seriously?), etc just disapearing, even though that doesn't really make sense with the established cannon of the 4e Realms...
Bah. I'll buy a couple of the Sundering novels. I like Ed's work recently, like I haven't liked it in years, and I love Kemp's writing pretty universally.
I doubt I'll spend any money on the 5e Realms, though. Not in any sort of protest. I just doubt that I'll like it.
Yes, I know what a retcon is, and they are basically writing a lot of 4e stuff out of the realm. Just not retroactively (as far as we know now), but that is a detail really when we consider how much of 4e they are removing.
That is good thing. Being blunt to satisfy me they more or less have to retcon everything 4E related out or only leave some tiny bits in and make the best FR product ever made to interest me again.
THen you should be ignored, unless you're a majority.
Judging by these forums, candlekeep and elsewhere, you're not.
Thats because these forums used to be vibrant and now they're dead and we all know why. If I'm not in the majority I am happy to be ignored. I suspect we're not allowed to run a poll over what people want but WoTC is assuming the sundering will fix things while ignoring the impact of the 100 year time jump. RAS and Ed may do a great job though so see what happens and they're falling over themselves to appease the old guard it seems. Funny that.
lol you don't get it either.
First, how many people are active on the forums tells us next to nothing, and I specifically called out candlekeep, and mentioned that I'm not even just looking her and there. THe same thing seems to be the consensus at every gaming forum where it's being discussed.
What little info can be gathered (reading posts here and elsewhere and talking to people IRL), suggests to me that even amongst those who hate the 4e Realms, a continued timelime that "fixes" as much as possible without retconning anything is prefered over a retcon.
I don't care whether you're in the majority regarding your dislike of the 4e Realms. That was, very clearly, not what I was talking about.
Wow...this thread devolved fast. Can we stop arguing over the split hairs of what does or does not constitute 'retcon?' Bottomline: Wizards is going forward with teh Sundering regardless of what anyone here thinks. So does it really matter if is retcon or not? If you decide that it is and it offends you, then abandon the setting for one you still like. If you think that it is not then stay and participate some more.
But arguing like this gets no where and angers everyone.
Now can we get back to the point of this thread which is discussing the storyline behind this transition?
Don't ever suggest that people who don't like a change should just give up and walk away as soon as that change is announced. That's total BS.
The weave being back in 148x DR is not retconning that the weave was gone between 1385 - 148x DR.
4E Realms states clearly, with zero room for interpretation, that the goddess Mystra has been murdered. She's dead, kaput, gone, and the Weave was shattered.
Actually the way it was worded was that the common belief was that Mystra was murdered, it was never presented as fact, not even in the novels, it was all vague visions and what not. So yeah, wasnt clearly stated at all, and was lots of room for interpretation.
In the 4E FRCG, it states clearly in 5 or six places that Mystra is dead. Want me to quote page numbers?
Sure, we can quote page numbers. 4e FRCG page 50.
" Most scholars believe that the Spellplague was the direct result of the murder of the goddess Mystra at the hands of Cyric, which Shar engineered. This popular theory holds that magic was bound so long in Mystra’s Weave that, when the goddess died, it spontaneously and ruinously burst its bonds."
See, tis but a popular theory, and nothing more.
Sure, we can quote page numbers. 4e FRCG page 50.
" Most scholars believe that the Spellplague was the direct result of the murder of the goddess Mystra at the hands of Cyric, which Shar engineered. This popular theory holds that magic was bound so long in Mystra’s Weave that, when the goddess died, it spontaneously and ruinously burst its bonds."
See, tis but a popular theory, and nothing more.
That's a reference about what scholars believe, which is irrelevant when you take the following 3rd-person narrator references into account. It just so happens that the scholars were right, nothing more. Mystra IS dead in 4E, and she was in fact murdered by Cyric and Shar. It's undeniable because of the 3rd-person narrator.
4E FRCG, p. 4-5
"The Spellplague broke out in 1385 DR (the Year of
Blue Fire), the result of unfettered wild magic on the
death of the goddess Mystra."
4E FRCG, p. 40
"Include your players’ characters
in the story somehow, in a way that mirrors (or is
woven directly into) the murder of Mystra by Cyric,
as abetted by Shar."
4E FRCG, p. 46
Glossary entry-
"Spellplague, the: The event in 1385 DR resulting
from Mystra’s death that altered magic and the
world forever."
You can't possibly say that a glossary entry is "just a theory" because it's not.
4E FRCG, p. 48
"The Spellplague: The Weave collapsed in a
moment with the murder of Mystra, unleashing
catastrophe across the world."
4E FRCG, p. 60
Cosmology entry-
"Cyric murdered Mystra, unraveling magic in the cosmos
and destroying her dominion."
Cosmology is a another reference section, which is "truth" for a DM on how things work. Not "theory" at all.
4E FRCG, p. 74
Gods, Cyric entry -
"When he murdered Mystra in the Year of Blue Fire (1385
DR), the entire plane of Dweomerheart exploded,
and the resulting Spellplague ravaged the cosmos."
There are several more. In no way was Mystra's death just a belief or theory. It's a classic type of retcon, there's no arguing against that.
It's a classic type of retcon, there's no arguing against that.
Except it's not. Mystra died that day and then her ghost was eventually re-powered enough for her to life again (at the end of Elminster Enraged). The Mystra who is now back also isn't really the same Mystra that died that day, but an amalgamation of that Mystra and her two predecessors
Or do you want to claim that someone is not murdered because they are now there as a ghost?
Here's Mike Schley's map of Fearun from The Companions by R.A Salvatore;
No Egypt?
Booooo!
It's a classic type of retcon, there's no arguing against that.
Except it's not. Mystra died that day and then her ghost was eventually re-powered enough for her to life again (at the end of Elminster Enraged). The Mystra who is now back also isn't really the same Mystra that died that day, but an amalgamation of that Mystra and her two predecessors
Or do you want to claim that someone is not murdered because they are now there as a ghost?
Whatever. Mystra wasn't a ghost. She just shows up as an entity, still with a good amount of power, who was mentally possessing a bear.Clearly it's vitally important for you to believe that this isn't a retcon, even though it fits the classic definition of a retcon. So you just go ahead believing what you want to believe. It's all make-believe pretendy fun time games anyway.
It's a classic type of retcon, there's no arguing against that.
Except it's not. Mystra died that day and then her ghost was eventually re-powered enough for her to life again (at the end of Elminster Enraged). The Mystra who is now back also isn't really the same Mystra that died that day, but an amalgamation of that Mystra and her two predecessors
Or do you want to claim that someone is not murdered because they are now there as a ghost?
Clearly it's vitally important for you to believe that this isn't a retcon, even though it fits the classic definition of a retcon. So you just go ahead believing what you want to believe. It's all make-believe pretendy fun time games anyway.
lol no, no, see, the immortal, incorporeal but able to take corporeal form being was totally "killed". Of course showing up as...the same being except having to possess dumb animals in order to be corporeal showing up later totes doesn't retcon the very clear statements of fact which declare that being dead.
I'm sorry, but gods aren't people. If you kill one, in it's own realm, with your murdery god powers, it's dead. If it shows up later, that's a retcon. Being a "ghost" doesn't change that, because gods aren't mortals.
Here's Mike Schley's map of Fearun from The Companions by R.A Salvatore;
Pretty much kills the Realms for me again right there. Realms is still borked, time line jump is still there. Not buying a single FR book.
-Peolpe were mad that Mystra was killed. This is why the 4e Realms weren't popular.
-Nothing else?
-No.
-Makes sense to me.
-Just rectifying that will make the Realms popular again!
-Huzza!
It's time well-spent. I spend 45 seconds...
Ha! That's like saying you spent 45 seconds to light a match and set the house on fire so now the sleepy town newspaper will have something meaty to talk about.
God forbid we measure by quality instead of quantity.
Anyway, Miscellany, didn't you once publicly take pride in being a troll? I think that's worse. Controversial or not, I always mean what I say.
People who troll don't mean what they say? That's news to me.
But that's besides the point. It doesn't really matter if you troll to get a rise out of someone or are unrelentingly negative to get a rise out of someone because it's basically the same thing and neither invites quality responses to the discussion.
That said, I'm used to you so I read your initial post as Classic Jorunhast (TM). I liked what you had to say but I thought your conclusion (to wit: "It will fail.") was premature. You were right to point out that WotC's brought out the band before to trumpet "the next great thing" in terms of editions, and the 4E didn't exactly live up to its promise as the next great place to set D&D games in, but WotC also brought the band out for the 2E to 3E transition and gave us a Realms that people gobbled up in droves.
We still have a whole series of Sundering novels and a bunch of new adventures to get through before we can measure the tone of fan reaction. It's too early to declare this latest effort from WotC dead on arrival.
Though the reactions so far expressed in the land of the Realms Über Fan (read: Candlekeep) are surprisingly positive.
Right back at you. Your incessant positivity is seriously grating.
Wow. "Incessant positivity" ...isn't that an oxymoron?
I may have to change my screen name to Lathander. You can be Ebenezer Scrooge. What do you say?
Pretty much kills the Realms for me again right there. Realms is still borked, time line jump is still there. Not buying a single FR book.
:gigglesnort:
This is like watching 3rd graders freak out because someone has cooties.
FWIW: That's the map for the first Sundering novel, which begins at the start of the transition period between 4E (1479 DR--though technically a little before that, for this novel) to 5E (1489 DR).
In a book that's set over a wide swath of the Realms at that point in time of course any map they provide will show the Realms as it currently is.
That, and the map is just cool.
If WotC is on the ball then perhaps the last book in the series will also include a map--this one set ten years in the future and showing a Realms different (i.e. closer to what the pre-Spellplague Realms looked like) than the 4E map.
This is because those same sourcebooks have more often gone and shown all the different ways that deities stick around (never mind the novels).
Flickers of divine power. Vestiges of holy energy...all these things linger.
Sourcebooks are supposed to be definitive sources, of course, but deities in the Realms aren't as concrete a subject as they used to be. To me they're more esoteric and mysterious than before.
So yeah I think Mystra's being dead and then BOOM not so fast here she is! counts as a retcon (given the blunt, practically obdurate language in the 4E FRCG, how can it not be), but in the grand scheme of things it's not really a retcon or even a surprise.
It's a classic type of retcon, there's no arguing against that.
Except it's not. Mystra died that day and then her ghost was eventually re-powered enough for her to life again (at the end of Elminster Enraged). The Mystra who is now back also isn't really the same Mystra that died that day, but an amalgamation of that Mystra and her two predecessors
Or do you want to claim that someone is not murdered because they are now there as a ghost?
Clearly it's vitally important for you to believe that this isn't a retcon, even though it fits the classic definition of a retcon. So you just go ahead believing what you want to believe. It's all make-believe pretendy fun time games anyway.
Yeah, but was that Mystra possesing the bear or Midnight? Besides we all know that a god dying in the Realms is like Superman or somebody dying in comic books.
It's a classic type of retcon, there's no arguing against that.
Except it's not. Mystra died that day and then her ghost was eventually re-powered enough for her to life again (at the end of Elminster Enraged). The Mystra who is now back also isn't really the same Mystra that died that day, but an amalgamation of that Mystra and her two predecessors
Or do you want to claim that someone is not murdered because they are now there as a ghost?
Clearly it's vitally important for you to believe that this isn't a retcon, even though it fits the classic definition of a retcon. So you just go ahead believing what you want to believe. It's all make-believe pretendy fun time games anyway.
Yeah, but was that Mystra possesing the bear or Midnight? Besides we all know that a god dying in the Realms is like Superman or somebody dying in comic books.
SPider-Man's uncle never came back to life.
@Plaguescarred Kickass map in The Companions for a novel add on! Is that the new 5E Realms map?
@schley Thanks! Yup, albeit a bit of a simplified version. Hoping to work on a bigger & more detailed one in color soon.
@Plaguescarred Why is Akanul still in there if Abeir and Toril are seperated again by the Sundering? Im confused.
@schley It's ruins remain.
@Plaguescarred Ha i see thanks! I hope you get to make a bigger one in color too Mike!!
I also look forward to the pantheon reorg.
Artist Mike Schley told confirmed on Twitter that The Companions map was the new 5E Realms map;
@Plaguescarred Kickass map in The Companions for a novel add on! Is that the new 5E Realms map?
@schley Thanks! Yup, albeit a bit of a simplified version. Hoping to work on a bigger & more detailed one in color soon.
@Plaguescarred Why is Akanul still in there if Abeir and Toril are seperated again by the Sundering? Im confused.
@schley It's ruins remain.
@Plaguescarred Ha i see thanks! I hope you get to make a bigger one in color too Mike!!
I'm hoping that he's mistaken. Seems to me the map would represent the area at the beginning of The Companions, but by the end, a single throw away line reveals the reversal of the abeir-toril spellplague snafu. Wouldn't really make sense for the ruins to be there, if the place is no longer there.
It's a classic type of retcon, there's no arguing against that.
Except it's not. Mystra died that day and then her ghost was eventually re-powered enough for her to life again (at the end of Elminster Enraged). The Mystra who is now back also isn't really the same Mystra that died that day, but an amalgamation of that Mystra and her two predecessors
Or do you want to claim that someone is not murdered because they are now there as a ghost?
Clearly it's vitally important for you to believe that this isn't a retcon, even though it fits the classic definition of a retcon. So you just go ahead believing what you want to believe. It's all make-believe pretendy fun time games anyway.
Yeah, but was that Mystra possesing the bear or Midnight? Besides we all know that a god dying in the Realms is like Superman or somebody dying in comic books.
SPider-Man's uncle never came back to life.
Give it time, didnt they bring Bucky back?
Regarding deities and dying: even if it's printed in a Realms sourcebook, you just can't say that deities well and truly die in the Realms.
This is because those same sourcebooks have more often gone and shown all the different ways that deities stick around (never mind the novels).
Flickers of divine power. Vestiges of holy energy...all these things linger.
Sourcebooks are supposed to be definitive sources, of course, but deities in the Realms aren't as concrete a subject as they used to be. To me they're more esoteric and mysterious than before.
So yeah I think Mystra's being dead and then BOOM not so fast here she is! counts as a retcon (given the blunt, practically obdurate language in the 4E FRCG, how can it not be), but in the grand scheme of things it's not really a retcon or even a surprise.
As a good friend of mine who has written one or two fairly minor retcons for the Star Wars EU put it, there are two kinds of retcons.
First, there's the kind where a thing is established, and then the audience is told to forget that thing, because it's not true anymore.
Second, there's the kind where a new set of information is introduced which asks the audience to view things in a new light. THis is sometimes called a "sneaky retcon" or a "subtle retcon".
In both cases, however, continuity has been retroactively tampered with.
THis is a case of the Second form of retcon.
Although..and I can't easily confirm this because my other DM buddy has the group's FR books right now, didn't the FRCG and/or FRPG state that Abeir and Toril collided, and then separated completely?
So, isn't saying that stuff from Abeir leaves Toril because the two are moving apart a giant blatant retcon?
Whatever. Mystra wasn't a ghost.
She was a vestige. She's specifically called the vestige of Mystra
She just shows up as an entity, still with a good amount of power, who was mentally possessing a bear.
Yeah, who ever heard of a ghost possessing someone?
lol no, no, see, the immortal, incorporeal but able to take corporeal form being was totally "killed".
Going from deity to vestige, yes. Or do you say someone murdered by a wight and then risen as a wight wasn't killed because he's just as corporeal as before?
Of course showing up as...the same being
Actually she's specifically not the same being. The vestige (and through it the newly risen Mystra) is an amalgamation of all three former deities, not just Midght-Mystra as before
I'm sorry, but gods aren't people.
Indeed. Rare is are the people leaving something after being killed. Rare are the deities not leaving something after being killed. Heck, it just takes one fool removing a certain dagger from a certain heart and Borem would come back after being killed centuries ago. The corpse of a dead deity shaking with the first signs of rebirth doesn't even concern Anubis anymore, he is so used to his charges occosionally returning to live.
If you kill one, in it's own realm, with your murdery god powers, it's dead.
Not if it shows up as a dead deity. Primus was not only killed in his own realm, but even by use of the Last Word. Yet his vestige is still around (even while a new Primus has risen to take his place)
because gods aren't mortals.
That's why being murdered has less meaning to them and they are prone to return from dead after mileniums through the barest whisper of their names
time line jump is still there.
They were clear form the beginning that no matter what the sundering does and how it will redraw the map, the timejump stays and the realms will be in the 1480s
Although..and I can't easily confirm this because my other DM buddy has the group's FR books right now, didn't the FRCG and/or FRPG state that Abeir and Toril collided, and then separated completely?
So, isn't saying that stuff from Abeir leaves Toril because the two are moving apart a giant blatant retcon?
The were already seperated before the moved up to each other and collided due to the spellplague only the seperate again after exchanging some land. No reason the sundering can have them moving up to each other and colliding again to take some land back.
Just because two billiard balls seperated after colliding doesn't mean a new shove can't have them collide again
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />I'm hoping that he's mistaken. Seems to me the map would represent the area at the beginning of The Companions, but by the end, a single throw away line reveals the reversal of the abeir-toril spellplague snafu. Wouldn't really make sense for the ruins to be there, if the place is no longer there.
However, there is a precedent...
When Ravenloft 'stole' tracts of land (and people) from various settings, it did leave behind ruins (which means it atcually replicates the site, not steals it... it merely steals the living creatures). The most famous example is Lord Soth's realm (Dragonlance), which existed as a ruin in DL, but an active realm in RL, at the same time. So we are not really seeing the terrain get taken (in either direction), but rather the land gets 're-written' by the magical chaos. The people do indeed get swapped, which is probably a big part of that; its almost as if the universe makes sure the refugees windup somewhere familiar.
Huh. Just :WHAM: the Weave is back, eh?
That's some good writing right there.
It's unbeweavable ;)
Recently, we discover that... oh, guess what, Mystra didn't actually die. She was just really wounded and powerless. And the Weave wasn't "completely" gone, it was in tatters.
I haven't read the books, but I was under the impression that an unwoven weave could be rewoven. This doesn't seem odd to me (especially since Lolth and Shar were cabable of creating whole new weave's from scratch).
As for dead Gods coming back from a vestige... that's not that uncommon in D&D (example: Orcus). Vestiges are impossible to kill. And gods are beings of belief; if you have enough believers, they might just come back (example: Amaunator). Even Kiaransalee nearly returned (in CORE2-12 'The Sschindylryn Heresy'), despite having been erased from everyone's memory. The concept reminds me of Terry Pratchett's Small Gods novel (an excellent read, btw).
Although..and I can't easily confirm this because my other DM buddy has the group's FR books right now, didn't the FRCG and/or FRPG state that Abeir and Toril collided, and then separated completely?
So, isn't saying that stuff from Abeir leaves Toril because the two are moving apart a giant blatant retcon?
Nice catch! Page 200 of the FRCG.
So we have retcon, Mirtek.
@Plaguescarred Kickass map in The Companions for a novel add on! Is that the new 5E Realms map?
@aquelajames it is not the Realms post-Sundering. Not yet.
@schley My mistake. Sorry folks!
Whatever. Mystra wasn't a ghost.
She was a vestige. She's specifically called the vestige of MystraShe just shows up as an entity, still with a good amount of power, who was mentally possessing a bear.
Yeah, who ever heard of a ghost possessing someone?lol no, no, see, the immortal, incorporeal but able to take corporeal form being was totally "killed".
Going from deity to vestige, yes. Or do you say someone murdered by a wight and then risen as a wight wasn't killed because he's just as corporeal as before?Of course showing up as...the same being
Actually she's specifically not the same being. The vestige (and through it the newly risen Mystra) is an amalgamation of all three former deities, not just Midght-Mystra as beforeI'm sorry, but gods aren't people.
Indeed. Rare is are the people leaving something after being killed. Rare are the deities not leaving something after being killed. Heck, it just takes one fool removing a certain dagger from a certain heart and Borem would come back after being killed centuries ago. The corpse of a dead deity shaking with the first signs of rebirth doesn't even concern Anubis anymore, he is so used to his charges occosionally returning to live.If you kill one, in it's own realm, with your murdery god powers, it's dead.
Not if it shows up as a dead deity. Primus was not only killed in his own realm, but even by use of the Last Word. Yet his vestige is still around (even while a new Primus has risen to take his place)because gods aren't mortals.
That's why being murdered has less meaning to them and they are prone to return from dead after mileniums through the barest whisper of their namestime line jump is still there.
They were clear form the beginning that no matter what the sundering does and how it will redraw the map, the timejump stays and the realms will be in the 1480sAlthough..and I can't easily confirm this because my other DM buddy has the group's FR books right now, didn't the FRCG and/or FRPG state that Abeir and Toril collided, and then separated completely?
So, isn't saying that stuff from Abeir leaves Toril because the two are moving apart a giant blatant retcon?
The were already seperated before the moved up to each other and collided due to the spellplague only the seperate again after exchanging some land. No reason the sundering can have them moving up to each other and colliding again to take some land back.
Just because two billiard balls seperated after colliding doesn't mean a new shove can't have them collide again
Lots of logical stretches and retcon apologetics.
Although..and I can't easily confirm this because my other DM buddy has the group's FR books right now, didn't the FRCG and/or FRPG state that Abeir and Toril collided, and then separated completely?
So, isn't saying that stuff from Abeir leaves Toril because the two are moving apart a giant blatant retcon?
Nice catch! Page 200 of the FRCG.
Thanks for the page number! Glad I wasn't just being crazy.
Since part of the premise of the Sundering is that Abeir and Toril have been creeping closer for a while, and then they crashed, and now they're pulling apart, we have two contradictory pieces of cannon, one replacing the other. That is, by definition, a retcon.
As to the actuality of 5e bringing retcons into existence, they've already stated there won't be any retcons, no timeline resets, and that 4e still happened. So any changes that occur to the Realms are simply that, changes. Having said that, I'm sure there will be a retcon or two, 3e certainly had its share, but most will probably only be noticeable by those of us who are intimately familiar with the lore, and I doubt I'll notice any from 4e considering I know next to nothing about it, comparatively.
4e fans like fluff? Pffft. If dice weren't involved they didn't care.
Youre the one who didnt like 'Elminster's Forgotten Realms', that was all fluff!!!
4e fans like fluff? Pffft. If dice weren't involved they didn't care.
Youre the one who didnt like 'Elminster's Forgotten Realms', that was all fluff!!!
Dwarf cuisine doesn't add much to a game. I mean seriously, with three meals a day, how much time cna you spend on food when you play one every two weekends for a bout 6 hours?
4e fans like fluff? Pffft. If dice weren't involved they didn't care.
Youre the one who didnt like 'Elminster's Forgotten Realms', that was all fluff!!!
Dwarf cuisine doesn't add much to a game. I mean seriously, with three meals a day, how much time cna you spend on food when you play one every two weekends for a bout 6 hours?
That was only a small part of one chapter, there was a lot more to it than that. And any way I think little tid bits about what various races enjoy eating can add alot of detail to a game.
It can make a whole lot of trouble for the PCs in the hands of the right DM too...
Can and has... at an ambassadorial banquet in Waterdeep. A chance for the party to annoy pretty much every sentient race in the region. The results were glorious.
And it likely wouldn't have been half as much fun (or realistic and easy to compose) without the details made available in various flavour-heavy products.
Artist Mike Schley confirmed on Twitter that The Companions map was the new 5E Realms map;
@Plaguescarred Why is Akanul still in there if Abeir and Toril are seperated again by the Sundering? Im confused.
@schley It's ruins remain.
Whoa, did he say "ruins" right there? Ruins of Akanul?
All those Genasi gonna die horribly and their city gets decimated? NICE.
LET NONE ESCAPE THE HAND OF AO!
So, some Genasi dying horribly? Sure, that's a distinct possibility. All the Abeiran genasi dying? Not so much.
Since part of the premise of the Sundering is that Abeir and Toril have been creeping closer for a while, and then they crashed, and now they're pulling apart, we have two contradictory pieces of cannon, one replacing the other. That is, by definition, a retcon.
Not at all. They have to be seperated to be creeping closer to each other until the bump. If they were not seperated there would be no creeping close and no crashing, since the would already be together
The weave being back in 148x DR is not retconning that the weave was gone between 1385 - 148x DR.
4E Realms states clearly, with zero room for interpretation, that the goddess Mystra has been murdered. She's dead, kaput, gone, and the Weave was shattered.
Actually the way it was worded was that the common belief was that Mystra was murdered, it was never presented as fact, not even in the novels, it was all vague visions and what not. So yeah, wasnt clearly stated at all, and was lots of room for interpretation.
In the 4E FRCG, it states clearly in 5 or six places that Mystra is dead. Want me to quote page numbers?
There is alot of awful things in the 4e FRCG. I am happy they choose to change alot of it for the sundering.
Sure, we can quote page numbers. 4e FRCG page 50.
" Most scholars believe that the Spellplague was the direct result of the murder of the goddess Mystra at the hands of Cyric, which Shar engineered. This popular theory holds that magic was bound so long in Mystra’s Weave that, when the goddess died, it spontaneously and ruinously burst its bonds."
See, tis but a popular theory, and nothing more.
That's a reference about what scholars believe, which is irrelevant when you take the following 3rd-person narrator references into account. It just so happens that the scholars were right, nothing more. Mystra IS dead in 4E, and she was in fact murdered by Cyric and Shar. It's undeniable because of the 3rd-person narrator.
4E FRCG, p. 4-5
"The Spellplague broke out in 1385 DR (the Year of
Blue Fire), the result of unfettered wild magic on the
death of the goddess Mystra."
4E FRCG, p. 40
"Include your players’ characters
in the story somehow, in a way that mirrors (or is
woven directly into) the murder of Mystra by Cyric,
as abetted by Shar."
4E FRCG, p. 46
Glossary entry-
"Spellplague, the: The event in 1385 DR resulting
from Mystra’s death that altered magic and the
world forever."
You can't possibly say that a glossary entry is "just a theory" because it's not.
4E FRCG, p. 48
"The Spellplague: The Weave collapsed in a
moment with the murder of Mystra, unleashing
catastrophe across the world."
4E FRCG, p. 60
Cosmology entry-
"Cyric murdered Mystra, unraveling magic in the cosmos
and destroying her dominion."
Cosmology is a another reference section, which is "truth" for a DM on how things work. Not "theory" at all.
4E FRCG, p. 74
Gods, Cyric entry -
"When he murdered Mystra in the Year of Blue Fire (1385
DR), the entire plane of Dweomerheart exploded,
and the resulting Spellplague ravaged the cosmos."
There are several more. In no way was Mystra's death just a belief or theory. It's a classic type of retcon, there's no arguing against that.
Fair Enough. I'll still take it though over what we were given in 2008.
It's a classic type of retcon, there's no arguing against that.
Except it's not. Mystra died that day and then her ghost was eventually re-powered enough for her to life again (at the end of Elminster Enraged). The Mystra who is now back also isn't really the same Mystra that died that day, but an amalgamation of that Mystra and her two predecessors
Or do you want to claim that someone is not murdered because they are now there as a ghost?
Clearly it's vitally important for you to believe that this isn't a retcon, even though it fits the classic definition of a retcon. So you just go ahead believing what you want to believe. It's all make-believe pretendy fun time games anyway.
lol no, no, see, the immortal, incorporeal but able to take corporeal form being was totally "killed". Of course showing up as...the same being except having to possess dumb animals in order to be corporeal showing up later totes doesn't retcon the very clear statements of fact which declare that being dead.
I'm sorry, but gods aren't people. If you kill one, in it's own realm, with your murdery god powers, it's dead. If it shows up later, that's a retcon. Being a "ghost" doesn't change that, because gods aren't mortals.
They are doing the same thing with Bhaal, and I guess they did it with Bane as well. I am not sure what the back and forth is here. They are not doing a RETCON because the timeline is preserved, but they are doing a RETCON in spirit because they are changing alot of things. Those things they are changing are still in the history though, so it is not a technical retcon.
I don't think the realms has ever gone through a retcon, but if it has this would be the closest thing.
Here's Mike Schley's map of Fearun from The Companions by R.A Salvatore;
Pretty much kills the Realms for me again right there. Realms is still borked, time line jump is still there. Not buying a single FR book.
ZARD, they have to include THAT map in the NOVEL because that is the state of the realms During the Companions. They did not make it as a spoiler, they did it for the book. It is like having a map of XANTH in Piers anthony.
Since part of the premise of the Sundering is that Abeir and Toril have been creeping closer for a while, and then they crashed, and now they're pulling apart, we have two contradictory pieces of cannon, one replacing the other. That is, by definition, a retcon.
Not at all. They have to be seperated to be creeping closer to each other until the bump. If they were not seperated there would be no creeping close and no crashing, since the would already be together
Yeah, the dev commentary which involved planets creeper closer together, involved that happening before the spellplague, while the 4e fluff has them going back to where they belong after the spellplague, leaving parts of eachother behind.
4e fans like fluff? Pffft. If dice weren't involved they didn't care.
Bull. We cared just as much as anyone else, and just as much as when we were fans of 2e or 3.5 or any other game.
They are doing the same thing with Bhaal, and I guess they did it with Bane as well. I am not sure what the back and forth is here. They are not doing a RETCON because the timeline is preserved, but they are doing a RETCON in spirit because they are changing alot of things. Those things they are changing are still in the history though, so it is not a technical retcon.
I don't think the realms has ever gone through a retcon, but if it has this would be the closest thing.
What irritates me is that some people I've seen claim this isn't a retcon also claim that half of the 4e changes were retcons.
They are doing the same thing with Bhaal, and I guess they did it with Bane as well. I am not sure what the back and forth is here. They are not doing a RETCON because the timeline is preserved, but they are doing a RETCON in spirit because they are changing alot of things. Those things they are changing are still in the history though, so it is not a technical retcon.
I don't think the realms has ever gone through a retcon, but if it has this would be the closest thing.
What irritates me is that some people I've seen claim this isn't a retcon also claim that half of the 4e changes were retcons.
Simply then, they need to understand what a retcon is. There was no RETRO CONVERSION done with 4e. Just as I do not think there is technically any Retcon being done now. I am not willing to get hung up on the yes and no's of it. What ever they are doing, they are accomplishing what a retcon would do without being a retcon.
Hell marvel pulls it off everymonth. Especially with trying to make Wolverine as an active mutant in the 60's, thanks to Neil Adams. Not into the Wolverine Retcons. And they are pretty rampant.
Simply then, they need to understand what a retcon is. There was no RETRO CONVERSION done with 4e. Just as I do not think there is technically any Retcon being done now. I am not willing to get hung up on the yes and no's of it. What ever they are doing, they are accomplishing what a retcon would do without being a retcon.
Hell marvel pulls it off everymonth. Especially with trying to make Wolverine as an active mutant in the 60's, thanks to Neil Adams. Not into the Wolverine Retcons. And they are pretty rampant.
...time for a comment (and not the only one on this subject) from one of the authors/designers of 4E, Rich Baker:
We'll probably retcon the divine rank of minor deities (folks like the Red Knight or Clangeddin). Something like the Selune-Sehanine situation I mentioned earlier would not be handled through a retcon per se. More than that I can't say right now.This proposed melding of Selune and Sehanine is essentially a retcon. I thought the whole point of the Spellplague was to avoid retcons, but yet we seem to be getting retcons anyway. I would rather the changes didn't have to reach so hard. If the Spellplague solves all your transition needs, they it's partly forgivable, but it doesn't seem to, so why bother with it at all?
Some of the transitions for 4E were retcons. Some were not-quote-a-retcon. Specified in black and white by one of the people who actually created those transitions. Any chance we could lay at least that section of this debate to rest at this point? The rest of the discussion was far more interesting.
There was no RETRO CONVERSION done with 4e.
- Retcon is short for Retroactive continuity
- 4e had lots of non-FR Retcons (so I assume you are referring only to FR Retcons).
- From the Abeir-Toril wiki page: "In a significant retcon of the setting's history, Forgotten Realms material for the fourth edition of Dungeons & Dragons "reveals" that the world was split in two in prehistory, divided between the primordials (Abeir) and the gods (Toril)."
I do not think there is technically any Retcon being done now.
I agree. Those that feel that the current Sundering is effectively like a Retcon should probably use a different term to avoid semantic confusion (and unneeded debates).
- From the Abeir-Toril wiki page: "In a significant retcon of the setting's history, Forgotten Realms material for the fourth edition of Dungeons & Dragons "reveals" that the world was split in two in prehistory, divided between the primordials (Abeir) and the gods (Toril)."
Wiki is written by lay persons in their spare time. The reveal didn't retcon any previous lore, it just added something new to the beginning of it all that didn't touch/invalidate/change anything already there
The reveal didn't retcon any previous lore, it just added something new to the beginning of it all
From dictionary.com:
retcon: The common situation in pulp fiction (esp. comics or soap operas) where a new story `reveals' things about events in previous stories, usually leaving the `facts' the same (thus preserving continuity) while completely changing their interpretation. For example, revealing that a whole season of "Dallas" was a dream was a retcon.
As to retcons in the Realms, 3e was certainly riddled with them, especially if you compare cities from their 2e incarnation to their 3e version. Like Elversult... having a population between 69,000 and 72,000 in 2e, and dropping to a population of only 9,000 in 3e, with nothing to even attempt to explain the discrepencies. Or certain Silverymoon residents going from being goodly sorts with faerie dragon familiars to evildoers with imp familiars, when the mythal of the city should prevent the imp from even entering the city.
At least 4e had the excuse of a 100 year gap to explain any changes the designers felt like making. 3e didn't have that excuse, but that certainly didn't stop a whole slew of retcons showing up and making hash of some of my favorite places and people from 2e. Anyway, my point is that retcons are nothing new to the Realms, so I'm feelings its a bit late for anyone to cry foul over any perceived 5e retcons when there's such a precedence for them in the Realms.
The Sundering:
To Rule Two Worlds
By Ed Greenwood
As Abeir and Toril move apart, there are a few
fell entities who seek to rule parts of both worlds,
and maintain (or create anew) linkages between
the two worlds so they can move back and
forth between them. A handful of heroes have
discovered these ambitious evils and seek to thwart
them, but they need help—and fast.
Next month in Dragon 427 will be an article on the Sundering by Ed Greenwood;The Sundering:
To Rule Two Worlds
By Ed Greenwood
As Abeir and Toril move apart, there are a few
fell entities who seek to rule parts of both worlds,
and maintain (or create anew) linkages between
the two worlds so they can move back and
forth between them. A handful of heroes have
discovered these ambitious evils and seek to thwart
them, but they need help—and fast.
This cannot come quickly enough for my liking.
This cannot come quickly enough for my liking.
Ditto. I just hope they don't omit Ed's regular Eye on the Realms column to make space for this.
It is one of the reasons I subscribe. I just can't get enough of the Realms!
I haven't really used any 4e rule sets for our weekly games but I have used maps, art, and some ideas from other articles for filler when the game sessions goes where I didn't expect. We are using a mixture of playtest (5e) and 3rd edition rules. I've also used some of the classic modules for excerpt areas in our games. But Ed's article input kept me coming back this year though I was cautious about renewing as the bills have had more bite this year. Luckly I preordered everything
I could before Tax Time came...
Ed Greenwood has given me my moneys worth thus far.
Btw. who is that (half?-) elf with the swollen face, ridiculous haircut and the "Green Lantern"-ish mask on that Sundering Portrait?
This is a total aesthetic failure on an otherwise very nice picture..
that is Coran.
he is one of the Bhaalspawn's companions from Baldur's gate.
where in the novel it was that Adbel person was the official Bhaalspawn.
in his write up in the murder in Baldur's gate it stated that he got fat.....
I found it familiar when I first saw it, couldnt picture it until I saw the name with it and looked it up later...... was suprised to see that it was him especially since I did not expect him to settle down in Baldur's gate when Silverymoon and Everska might have suite the elven rogue better
SPOILER ALERT
From second book in the Sundering, The Godborn, by the end of the book, Mask is back.
Keith
And this is how it should be. The idea that Mystra was killed by Shar and Cyric was bad to begin with
Yes, I am one of those FR Fans who were ticked off by the 4E changes and left for greener pastures. The Sundering has caught my interest. Why? Because it is undoing all the stupid stuff from 4E from Mystra's murder to Abeir. I am curious to see what becomes of things, though, a 100 year skip is a bit, WTF for me
Keith53 wrote: