| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| silverwolfer |
Posted - 19 May 2013 : 19:30:57
So we don't have the blood war anymore, what do you think of the idea of buzzlebulb gaining divinty and turning into a demon and restarting the war eventually losing and dyeing and the lord of hells loSing his God hood. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| silverwolfer |
Posted - 23 May 2013 : 22:06:56
how much power did he lose by shoving the abyess into the elemental chaos? how much did core d&d affect eberron which has no such pantehon system? |
| Mirtek |
Posted - 23 May 2013 : 19:21:03
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Bane
Elevating demon lords to godhood isnīt solving the issue. It will only cause the spiral to go on, next another arch devil ascends to divnity, then the demons get another try, you see what iīm getting at? If you open the "can of worms" with godhood to the fiends and celestials then they stop to become what makes them interesting, movers and shakers which are not divine yet have more power than mortals with their own agendas and schemes.
Yet in the beginning (1e) all archfiends were lesser deities and during 2e quite a lot archfiends were demi and lesser deities |
| Lord Bane |
Posted - 23 May 2013 : 10:00:54
Elevating demon lords to godhood isnīt solving the issue. It will only cause the spiral to go on, next another arch devil ascends to divnity, then the demons get another try, you see what iīm getting at? If you open the "can of worms" with godhood to the fiends and celestials then they stop to become what makes them interesting, movers and shakers which are not divine yet have more power than mortals with their own agendas and schemes.
The only solution is ridding Asmodeus of his divine status back to equal ground and i state again, Asmodeus got godhood by accident and luck, not that he "worked for it". As Aldrick wonderfully stated, be a god , follow rules and you are open to all sorts of negative feedback by other gods, if you donīt Ao will come your way, hit you on the head and take your divine powers. Asmodeus was perfect as the one who kept law and order in the nether realms and who was a foundation of all that is lawfull in the multiverse against the tides of chaos. Now that was taken away by him gaining divinity, which i simply see as one big sign of Core DnD forcing itīs way into the realms and i do see it as alien, it waters down the realms from being unique to a clone of Core DnD. He has to play the game of gods now, his duties before are second to his duties as a god, that needs to leave change in the Hells and others coming for him to end his reign. He did not become more powerfull, he got more vulnerable because now it does not mean only the devils want his place, but also gods now can target him and they will, while before they were content with him doing his work in the hells.
|
| The Arcanamach |
Posted - 23 May 2013 : 06:38:59
an angel turned archdevil who has played the game of gods and men since time immemorial.
Now this, more than anything, gives him some credibility to be a god...but I still think one or two of the demon lords should be elevated as well. Otherwise, Asmodeus gains too much of an advantage in the Blood War. |
| Xar Zarath |
Posted - 23 May 2013 : 06:30:13
I have to agree with Aldrick in some part to his point. If one deity decrees something to be a sin while the other deity declares it to be not, in some part it is a sin, and perhaps this is what allows Asmodeus to be so powerful. A sin is still a sin, by whoever regards it as a sin, i suppose.
However i do not think Bane could have challenged Asmodeus much if the Lord of Nessus had not gained godhood. To me he would have been untouchable, the go to guy who did all the dirty work necessary to maintain law and order even though evil, in the multiverse and no deity could reproach him for him from doing his job.
As a god, Asmodeus has the power now, but too much on his plate as Aldrick states, but i still would say that he can do it. After all he was not born a mortal then gained his divinity because another god was bored, but an angel turned archdevil who has played the game of gods and men since time immemorial. |
| silverwolfer |
Posted - 23 May 2013 : 06:22:37
Hmm nothing more I can really add, the conversastion sort of turning into a circle, if we can have a god over something as vauge as honor, I think we can have one over sin. |
| Aldrick |
Posted - 23 May 2013 : 02:01:39
quote:
Originally posted by silverwolfer
So what does one of the oldest most evil thing deserve to be?
An Archdevil as he was before. It makes no sense with prior lore for Asmodeus to want to be a deity, and I don't think people who like this idea fully appreciate what it means.
As a deity Asmodeus is not a free agent. He's metaphysically bound by the laws of Ao to serve the needs of his faithful. He also isn't independent any longer, because like all other deities he ultimately answers to Ao. Also, as a deity, he's going to attract the eyes of other deities such as Bane who will see this as an opportunity to usurp him and his place in the Nine Hells.
So cults of Bane, for example, may begin preaching that Asmodeus is merely an alternate and lesser identity of Bane, who is the true ruler of the Nine Hells. His cultists would go after the faithful of Asmodeus and force them to either embrace this heresy or be destroyed, and this could very well lead to Asmodeus being completely absorbed by Bane and making that heresy a reality.
While technically being a deity grants Asmodeus more power outside of the Nine Hells, it comes with TONS AND TONS of strings attached. Myrkul found this out first hand. And of course, becoming embroiled in divine politics distracts him from what the other Archdevils are doing in the Nine Hells, which in turn opens him open to attack on that flank as well.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 23 May 2013 : 01:38:21
quote:
Originally posted by silverwolfer
So what does one of the oldest most evil thing deserve to be?
Killed.  |
| silverwolfer |
Posted - 23 May 2013 : 01:34:26
So what does one of the oldest most evil thing deserve to be? |
| Mirtek |
Posted - 22 May 2013 : 20:29:01
quote:
Originally posted by The Arcanamach
Yes all very true. What I'm getting though is Asmodeus becoming a major deity is a retcon.
No, it isn't. It's a progress. A retcon is retroactively changing past facts.
Just saying that Asmodes always was a greater deity would be a retcon. Having Asmodeus evolve now into a greater deity that he wasn't in the past is not a retcon
quote:
Originally posted by The Arcanamach If that makes any sense. Even in Ed's old articles, Asmodeus wasn't much more than a lesser deity (if that, I can't recall the specifics now...will go look them up in a bit). My point is that Ed never seemed inclined to make Asmodeus anything more than a supreme devil.
Yet Asmodeus at one point in the present becoming and henceforth being one is not a retcon, only if it changes the past.
E.g. the Gruums/Talos thing was skirting the line between a retcon and merely the relevation of new information about past events.
About sin in D&D. There was once a dragon magazine article that talked about that. It also had sin as being defined by your deity and not related to good and evil. E.g. it mentioned a tavern keeper worshipping Fharlanghn all his life (for bringing so many wanders as guests into his tavern) but never travelling far from his home might find himself branded as a sinner in the afterlife. Because Fharlanghn as the deity of travells demands his followers to travel wide and often and a lifetime spend in proximity of his home is a sin to Fharlanghn.
|
| Aldrick |
Posted - 22 May 2013 : 08:15:53
quote:
Originally posted by silverwolfer
Okay only knock on the first one I would have, is that...is to remain in good standing with a church, and we all have seen the book stories in faerun, dealing with some chosen or firebrand being counter to the church yet fully aligned with a diety. So that is how mortals view mortals and maybe less on cosmic diety viewing mortals or whatever on that end of big looking at little.
So unless it requires a spell of atonement, I would not hold serious say on what mortals build as such.
So by putting my thing together with your thing, Sin is something viewed as by mortals a transgression rather then gods, int he realms of faerun. In which case, if you are all that is holy and good, and temptation is your.. ...devil.....then if enough folks blame you for being that ..temptation...you make a concept out of thin air, which in faerun seems to work .
If all of lathanders worshipers suddenly thought he was the god of night, he would change drastically as a god. Worshipers of the devil god, think or behave that tempting souls into contracts that damn them , is well temptation, which I think in a meta way, they are trying to use the word sin here.
Temptation into evil is completely fine as a portfolio for Asmodeus.
The problem is that isn't his portfolio.
Like I said, I think they were trying to be too clever by half. "Yeah, look at Asmodeus the Lord of Hell, he's the Lord of Sin now as well. No copyright infringement involved, wink, wink."
They were intentionally using Sin to mean Evil, or perhaps Lawful Evil. They were just using the word incorrectly.
THE ONLY WAY it could make sense is to have Asmodeus take the individuals that OTHER DEITIES deem sinful for punishment. In other words, if your patron deity is Torm, and when you die you've sinned against your Church to the point Torm doesn't want you - then you get tossed to Asmodeus. However, the same would be true for Bane or Cyric. A tyrant that gave up tyranny and instead embraced liberty, individualism, and democratic rule - and still kept Bane as their patron? Unwanted, he sinned against Bane - he goes to Asmodeus. Hell (no pun intended), you could get rid of the Wall and all that stuff and just throw the Faithless and False to Asmodeus as well.
That's pretty much the only way it makes sense. However, that's not the way they wanted it, I'm sure.
Keep in mind I'm not saying your interpretation of Asmodeus is wrong. You're interpreting it exactly the way the designers wanted you to; it just doesn't make sense... which in turn brings us back to where we started. You were disagreeing with Wooly who said "sin" is too broad a concept for Asmodeus. I then jumped in to agree with Wooly and point to the definition of Sin - which shows why it is too broad of a concept and makes no sense for Asmodeus. |
| silverwolfer |
Posted - 22 May 2013 : 07:41:19
Okay only knock on the first one I would have, is that...is to remain in good standing with a church, and we all have seen the book stories in faerun, dealing with some chosen or firebrand being counter to the church yet fully aligned with a diety. So that is how mortals view mortals and maybe less on cosmic diety viewing mortals or whatever on that end of big looking at little.
So unless it requires a spell of atonement, I would not hold serious say on what mortals build as such.
So by putting my thing together with your thing, Sin is something viewed as by mortals a transgression rather then gods, int he realms of faerun. In which case, if you are all that is holy and good, and temptation is your.. ...devil.....then if enough folks blame you for being that ..temptation...you make a concept out of thin air, which in faerun seems to work .
If all of lathanders worshipers suddenly thought he was the god of night, he would change drastically as a god. Worshipers of the devil god, think or behave that tempting souls into contracts that damn them , is well temptation, which I think in a meta way, they are trying to use the word sin here. |
| Aldrick |
Posted - 22 May 2013 : 07:31:46
quote:
Originally posted by silverwolfer
Also to sort of put a screw in your previous argument, torm is an agent of good, cyric is an agent of evil. By doing acts of sin, your alignment goes from good, to neutral, to evil , eventually depending on the severity of the sin.
gods are more then just viewpoints, they are embodiment of the alignment they represent within the cosmic balance.
Sin is not EVIL!!!! Sin is what the good do to fall into evil, henceforth making the devil's temptation , making the head devil , the God of sin ((use to be called lord of sin, but he get a pay raise because of azuth))
Okay, flip open 3E FRCS, pg. 232:
quote:
Sins and Penance
Some members of the clergy believe their deities watch over every act, thought, and consequence of the deeds of every mortal worshiper. Most priests, however, see their deities as judging mortals only on deeds or on acts plus obvious intent rather than ultimate consequences.
A cleric or druid who commits a minor offense against her deity or ignores portions of the deity's dogma is guilty of a sin. He has to do some penance appropriate to the seriousness of the sin in order to remain in good standing with the church, other clerics or druids, and the deity. Paladins, rangers, and other divine spellcasters are held to this standard (to a less exacting degree) also.
It is also discussed in Power of Faerun, pg. 51:
quote:
Moreover, the penance required for even minor sins (as detailed in the FORGOTTEN REALMS Campaign Setting, pages 232233) is greater for religious leaders because they are held to a higher standard. What might be a lesser infraction for an acolyte is a moderate infraction for a religious leader. Likewise, what might be a moderate infraction for an acolyte is a major infraction for a religious leader. A major infraction by a religious leader might require the individual to retreat into the wilderness as a hermit for a year or more in addition to the normal penalties.
As you can see from the above quotes they clearly outline what is considered sin in the Realms, and it is defined exactly as I outlined it. This shouldn't be shocking, because it also matches the definition in the Merriam Webster dictionary.
|
| Aldrick |
Posted - 22 May 2013 : 07:11:57
quote:
Originally posted by silverwolfer
....sinful? but that is not a creation of the realms I thought....
I have no idea how to explain it to you more clearly than I already have. So once again I will repeat the definitions of sin.
quote:
1. an offense against religious or moral law
2. an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible
3. an often serious shortcoming
4. transgression of the law of God
5. a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God
Here is the link to the definition for you to read it yourself.
You are defining sin as evil. Evil is not sin. They are completely different things. Each deity in the Realms - as I noted in the example with Torm and Cyric above - can and do define what they deem as sinful.
I am fully aware, as I said in my initial response to this, that the designers were using Sin to mean Evil. This is why I mocked them, and said it does not have a place in the Realms when used like that. They are using sin in a monotheistic sense, and more specifically an Abrahamic religion sense. Neither of those ways make sense in the Realms.
Hence why I mocked them by implying that they were trying to make Asmodeus look like Satan from the Christian Bible. Hmmm... the Ruler of Hell? A Lord of Sin? Where have I heard that before - oh yeah, that's right.
Oh, and by the way - it doesn't even make sense in that context either. As sin in the Christian sense STILL means defying the law or will of God. If the Christian God ordered you to commit an act of genocide it would still be a sin to refuse. Why? Because like the deities in the Realms the Christian God defines what sin is - not mortals.
What they wanted to say, is that Asmodeus is the deity of evil, and more specifically lawful evil. The only reason I assume they chose sin over evil as his portfolio is because of the Hell / Satan connection in the minds of those who see it. Hence why I mocked them by saying they were trying to play it off as "grimdark" as if to say, "Oooo, look. We have SATAN in our books! (But not really, we call him by a different name to avoid crazy religious zealots getting mad at us.)" |
| silverwolfer |
Posted - 22 May 2013 : 06:57:18
....sinful? but that is not a creation of the realms I thought....
Also to sort of put a screw in your previous argument, torm is an agent of good, cyric is an agent of evil. By doing acts of sin, your alignment goes from good, to neutral, to evil , eventually depending on the severity of the sin.
gods are more then just viewpoints, they are embodiment of the alignment they represent within the cosmic balance.
Sin is not EVIL!!!! Sin is what the good do to fall into evil, henceforth making the devil's temptation , making the head devil , the God of sin ((use to be called lord of sin, but he get a pay raise because of azuth)) |
| Aldrick |
Posted - 22 May 2013 : 06:55:10
quote:
Originally posted by silverwolfer
Okay , then why is it, that those that choose no god, get put on a giant wall and turned into green mold when they die?
Because the Gods collectively, Kelemvor, or Ao decreed that it is sinful to not worship the Gods. |
| silverwolfer |
Posted - 22 May 2013 : 06:48:10
Okay , then why is it, that those that choose no god, get put on a giant wall and turned into green mold when they die? |
| Aldrick |
Posted - 22 May 2013 : 06:27:19
quote:
Originally posted by silverwolfer
Hmm,I think your confusing on which side that gets labeled ... sin is the opposition of good.
Sin is not the opposition of good. Evil is the opposition of good. Sin has no opposition.
This is why I posted the definition. You will notice that evil is not even a synonym for sin. This is because evil and sin are not the same thing.
Sin in the context we're talking about is this: "an offense against religious or moral law".
Now, this might make more sense if you're a monotheist because religious or moral law is generally defined by your religion. However, we're entering a world with multiple deities, and each of them gets to define what is sinful for them.
So imagine this situation. Cyric shows up and tosses a baby into your arms. He hands you a dagger and tells you to cut out the babies eyes, it gazed upon him and he is offended. To disobey Cyric is a sin. Why? Because as a deity Cyric defines his religion and the morality he ascribes to says, if you don't cut out this babies eyes with that dagger - then you've "transgressed against the law of a God" and will find yourself "estranged" from him. (Notice that these are also definitions of sin.)
But wait! Torm shows up and orders you to stop. He tells you to not harm the child, and to safely give the child to him. Well, Torm is also a deity, and as such he gets to define his religion and the morality he ascribes to says, if you harm the child and don't give it to him safely you've committed a sin. To not obey Torm is to commit a "transgression against" him and as a result you'll find yourself "estranged" from him.
So now you find yourself in a pickle. If you cut out the eyes of the baby, you sin against Torm. If you don't do it you sin against Cyric, and if you choose to do nothing you sin against both. There is no action that you can take in this situation that will allow you to avoid sinning against one of the deities.
Sin is not synonymous with evil, this is why in the definition it does not say, "Sinning means to do evil things."
This has nothing to do with perception, or opinion, this is a literary fact. Attempting to say sin = evil is an improper use of the word. |
| silverwolfer |
Posted - 22 May 2013 : 05:54:52
Hmm,I think your confusing on which side that gets labeled, d&d freely toss around the word good/virtuous/righteous/moral/meritorious act/deed , yet really why are these things. That is a designation that something has to be what others view it, which is wrong, sin is the opposition of good.
eldath wants peace, bel wants war
illimater wants charity, mammon wants greed
Torm wants loyalty levistus wants betrayal
These are not qualities as such, but things as defined as being "good" by the alignment system of the chasmos. moral law is different from ethical law, your mixing the lawful and chaotic alignments with good and evil.
Domains make the god, gods do not the domains make, Asmodeus in ultimate reality is temptation of sinful deeds, not the deeds them self. He is the seducer of such acts , while other beings are the embodiment of the acts themselves.
Perception does not equal alignment, your aura does. ;)
|
| Aldrick |
Posted - 22 May 2013 : 05:18:28
That's all well and good, but the problem is that's not what sin is...
Sin is entirely meaningless without an agreed upon definition of what is sinful.
The problem is you're saying: war, strife, greed, betrayal, ambition, etc. etc. You're saying these things are sinful. Okay, that's fine.
The issue arises when:
Peace is sinful because Bel wants war.
Charity is sinful because Mammon wants greed.
Loyalty and indifference is sinful because Levistus wants betrayal and ambition.
Etc. Etc.
The problem is all of those things: Peace, Charity, and Loyalty are all as equally sinful as War, Greed, and Betrayal.
Why is this the case? Because as beings who get to define moral law ALL that opposes that moral law immediately becomes sinful.
So, when Asmodeus stands there and says, "I'm the God of Sin!" The things he defines as sin are everything chaotic and good in D&D alignment because he's the embodiment of lawful evil. He -WANTS- you to be greedy, ambitious, promote war, seek dark and evil knowledge, etc. Therefore, in the eyes of Asmodeus you're not being sinful - you're doing EXACTLY what he wants you to do.
This is the reason why it makes no sense to have a deity of sin in the Realms, because sin is defined ENTIRELY by what is declared as sinful. Evil does not equal sinful. |
| silverwolfer |
Posted - 22 May 2013 : 04:55:01
Here are ALL the definitions of sin from the Merriam Webster dictionary:
1. an offense against moral law
2. an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible
3. an often serious shortcoming
5. a vitiated state of primal nature in which the self is estranged from civilized behavior.
Here are the Synonyms for sin: fall, offend, stray, transgress, trespass, wander
I modified some of the post above,rather then make a full argument.
Those concepts can be very d&d. Remember, we do have gods or devil with lust, gluttony , and other various aspects. Also if the devil lords represent various aspects .
Bel = war
Dispater = strife
Mammon = greed
Belial & Fierna= I want to say ..incest maybe but most lust
Levistus= betrayal or ambition
Baalzebul= sloth or rot or lies
Mephistopheles = I don't know.. I want to say dark knowledge...
anyways, they are all usually called Lord of something, and they are all under Lord of Hells god hood now, as his vassles, so saying he is something as vague as the lord of sin, instead of specific, lets it overlap without actually claiming the older gods profiles.
|
| Aldrick |
Posted - 22 May 2013 : 04:34:29
quote:
Originally posted by silverwolfer
Wish image pictures would work here haha.
Okay to put it simply, wrong, sin is sin , and mostly due to the fact that Law& Chaos , Good&Evil are real powers in faerun/game , not just abstract ideals. You can smite someone for being evil, not just who you view as being evil.
You have evil domains, and good domains and all that stuff. Just as someone can be rightious or saints, or beings of pure standing, their can be sin and debachary. Forgotten realms not have judeo christan values, but it does have values as set from a comso power northpole and southpole points.
While it's true that Law, Chaos, Good, Evil, and even Neutrality are tangible forces in the Realms - what you wrote makes no sense.
Sin does not equal evil.
Here are ALL the definitions of sin from the Merriam Webster dictionary:
1. an offense against religious or moral law
2. an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible
3. an often serious shortcoming
4. transgression of the law of God
5. a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God
Here are the Synonyms for sin: err, fall, offend, stray, transgress, trespass, wander
It is SINFUL to liberate the slaves. Why? Because Bane has decreed that the weak shall serve the strong. It is SINFUL to let the blasphemer live. Why? Because Cyric has decreed that any who mock his name should be murdered.
Had they made him the deity of Law and Evil, then I guess it'd make more sense. Either way, Wooly is correct when he says that sin is too broad of a concept.
Even if you take an insanely broad view - keeping in mind that the forces of alignment are tangible things - and say that, "Well, everyone knows an agrees that murder is highly reprehensible and therefore it is sinful!" While that may be true, as indicated by the Cyric example above, choosing NOT to murder someone can ALSO be sinful.
Thus, this would mean no matter what action you take you're sinning. If you choose to murder you sin against good, if you choose not to murder you sin against evil. Either way, in this context you're aiding / empowering Asmodeus. This clearly was not the intention of the authors.
In my opinion they strayed too close to Abrahamic religious dogma with Asmodeus. They effectively attempted to say, "Hey look Asmodeus is the Lord of Sin... and he rules over Hell.. guess who HE is supposed to be! Kewl, huh? Isn't he awesome and evil?! We're going grimdark, grimdark, grimdark, and are totally not trying to lose our teen rating while doing it!"
Sorry, it just doesn't fit in the Realms, at least not in that context. |
| silverwolfer |
Posted - 22 May 2013 : 02:57:38
Wish image pictures would work here haha.
Okay to put it simply, wrong, sin is sin , and mostly due to the fact that Law& Chaos , Good&Evil are real powers in faerun/game , not just abstract ideals. You can smite someone for being evil, not just who you view as being evil.
You have evil domains, and good domains and all that stuff. Just as someone can be rightious or saints, or beings of pure standing, their can be sin and debachary. Forgotten realms not have judeo christan values, but it does have values as set from a comso power northpole and southpole points. |
| The Arcanamach |
Posted - 22 May 2013 : 01:44:19
Nope, can't agree there, considering we're talking about a polytheistic religious system. Redemption and sin are all considered by each deity on a case by case basis.
And how would one write a (lawful evil) religious dogma based on sin if you can't define what sinful behaviour is whitout including very specific parts of other deities' religious dogmas?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not referring to sin in the context of a mono v. polytheistic system, only in the sense of what is generally considered good and evil by moral beings. In that context the portfolio's of sin and redemption are viable in the Realms. Anyway that is just my opinion and how I approach it in my homebrew. Cheers. |
| The Arcanamach |
Posted - 22 May 2013 : 01:41:13
He wasn't retconned into the cosmology, he was part of the cosmology from the beginning.
Even during Ed's really early dragon articles about the nine hells he already mentioned that he placed Bane not in the hells so that he and Asmo wouldn't come into conflict.
As the realms connected to Planescape Asmodeus was part of FR cosmology and even appeared in an FR novel in 2001, when work in 4e hadn't even started yet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes all very true. What I'm getting though is Asmodeus becoming a major deity is a retcon. If that makes any sense. Even in Ed's old articles, Asmodeus wasn't much more than a lesser deity (if that, I can't recall the specifics now...will go look them up in a bit). My point is that Ed never seemed inclined to make Asmodeus anything more than a supreme devil. |
| Mirtek |
Posted - 21 May 2013 : 20:54:25
quote:
Originally posted by The Arcanamach
True Mirtek, but then the Spellplague was the catalyst for 4e (i.e. excuse for the retconn).
But it wasn't a retcon. There were relevations and new events, but not retcons
quote:
Originally posted by The Arcanamach
He became a god b/c WotC retconned him into the cosmology (and did a poor job of it at that).
He wasn't retconned into the cosmology, he was part of the cosmology from the beginning.
Even during Ed's really early dragon articles about the nine hells he already mentioned that he placed Bane not in the hells so that he and Asmo wouldn't come into conflict.
As the realms connected to Planescape Asmodeus was part of FR cosmology and even appeared in an FR novel in 2001, when work in 4e hadn't even started yet. |
| Bladewind |
Posted - 21 May 2013 : 19:49:26
@ Arcanamach
Nope, can't agree there, considering we're talking about a polytheistic religious system. Redemption and sin are all considered by each deity on a case by case basis.
And how would one write a (lawful evil) religious dogma based on sin if you can't define what sinful behaviour is whitout including very specific parts of other deities' religious dogmas? |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 21 May 2013 : 19:47:15
I would agree that "sin" is too broad a concept... What is a sin to one deity may be perfectly acceptable to another deity -- it might even be supported by another deity. Shar, for example, prefers keeping secrets, so for her the revelation of secret knowledge would be a sin. For a deity like Oghma, dedicated to sharing knowledge, that would be good to do. |
| The Arcanamach |
Posted - 21 May 2013 : 18:42:56
@Bladewind: I see where you're going with the lack of 'universal law' in the Realms (Judeo-Christian beliefs not existing in the 'official' Realms and all). But that doesn't mean that there can't be/isn't reasonable consensus on what constitutes sin among most races (especially those considered reasonably 'good' races such as humans, dwarves, elves, and the hin). I'm sure that most intelligent beings in the Realms consider slaying an innocent to be wrong (sinful) as well as rape, theft, cavorting with fiends, and drinking milk on Tuesdays. 
In that context I think a portfolio on sin (and redemption) are viable spheres of influence. Just my opinion. Cheers! |
| silverwolfer |
Posted - 21 May 2013 : 17:59:40
I would rebuttal, that Devil lord has tyranny, because it is the will of the beast, so to speak to uprise against your betters when your a devil, but at the same time, at a simple whim, he can put you in a block of ice, or change you into a slug; or to really insult you, let a hag be one of your betters or equal of ranks. |
|
|
