| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Arcanus
Senior Scribe
485 Posts |
 Posted - 09 Jun 2011 : 13:04:13
|
| 15 years to create a spell that lets you take the power of the god of your choice. That strikes me as a remarkably short time for such a spell. |
 |
|
|
Dennis
Great Reader
9933 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2011 : 13:41:12
|
Indeed. Besides, years don't matter to the archwizards. They have a great number of life-extending spells. What's a century to ordinary folks might just be a day to them. Remember, they are already akin to gods in mortal form. |
Every beginning has an end. |
|
|
|
Nicolai Withander
Master of Realmslore
Denmark
1093 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2011 : 14:47:11
|
I would so like to see the real write up of Karsus. Stats and all...
I bet all the other mages on the poll besides Sammaster could take him down... But thats beside the point!
|
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3737 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2011 : 18:27:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis
Why do Torilians call it Karsus's Folly instead of Karsus's Greatest Feat?
-Because, as I mentioned, the Churches of Mystra and Azuth are the primary promulgators of the story. They're not going to want Karsus to look good, and/or his decision to look like a wise one (whether or not you think they were or weren't, personally), because to do so would make Mystra look bad, and could theoretically embolden other mortals to see "past" deities, like Karsus and other Netherese Archmagi did, something the deities of Faerūn would not like. The cult of Karsus that sprung up in the ruins of Karse, they saw what Karsus did as a great thing, one that would lead humanity into a new golden age of magic and such. They don't exist anymore, but it shows that opinions on the matter, in Faerūn, differ.
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolai Withander
So if it took him 15 years to get there, and then he still had made a mistake... how does that make him the most powerful. If he had been SO powerful then i sure he would have accended before hand...
-A mistake, in the sense that Mystrl couldn't divert her attention from the Weave, lest it collapse, and when he cast the spell targeting her, that's exactly what would have happened, so she committed suicide, killing the two of them, rebooting herself into Mystra. That's a mistake from his part like buying a car that doesn't have airbags, and then getting hurt when you're in a car accident where airbags could have prevented or minimized your injury is a mistake.
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolai Withander
I would so like to see the real write up of Karsus. Stats and all...
-Male Human Arcanist 41 (Mentalist), with specific ability scores mentioned in either Netheril: Empire of Magic, or Powers and Pantheons. The first one, I believe. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
Edited by - Lord Karsus on 09 Jun 2011 18:32:10 |
|
|
|
Nicolai Withander
Master of Realmslore
Denmark
1093 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2011 : 18:31:36
|
since this poll is about greatness and not shear power, I simple cant say that killing a god and you selv in the action because you are so sure of yourself that yoou belive yourself better than a god, as anything related to greatness.
Another thing... The fact that Karsus' cult is gone gotta be the ultimate statement that he was crap! |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2011 : 18:37:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis
Why do Torilians call it Karsus's Folly instead of Karsus's Greatest Feat?
-Because, as I mentioned, the Churches of Mystra and Azuth are the primary promulgators of the story. They're not going to want Karsus to look good, and/or his decision to look like a wise one (whether or not you think they were or weren't, personally), because to do so would make Mystra look bad, and could theoretically embolden other mortals to see "past" deities, like Karsus and other Netherese Archmagi did, something the deities of Faerūn would not like. The cult of Karsus that sprung up in the ruins of Karse, they saw what Karsus did as a great thing, one that would lead humanity into a new golden age of magic and such. They don't exist anymore, but it shows that opinions on the matter, in Faerūn, differ.
Or it could have been the fact that because Karsus was a fool for selecting Mystryl, he wound up destroying himself and his entire nation. Not many people make one poor judgement call and wind up changing the entire world, and not for the better...
Rather qualifies as folly, thinks I, without any negative PR needed. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3737 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2011 : 18:39:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolai Withander
Another thing... The fact that Karsus' cult is gone gotta be the ultimate statement that he was crap!
-Ao's cult is also gone. Does that say that Ao is/was crap? Karsus wasn't a fully divine entity, so he couldn't grant his cultists spells. Wulgreth was constantly attacking and manipulating the cult. It's a wonder the cult lasted as long as it did, really.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Or it could have been the fact that because Karsus was a fool for selecting Mystryl, he wound up destroying himself and his entire nation. Not many people make one poor judgement call and wind up changing the entire world, and not for the better...
Rather qualifies as folly, thinks I, without any negative PR needed.
-Or, you can look at it as the ultimate triumph of mortals over capricious overpowers, as the Athar would see it, as well as plenty of other individuals across the multiverse. Once more, Karsus, upon casting his spell, had no way of knowing that Mystryl was going to kill herself to preserve the Weave's integrity. Saying he's a fool for that is like saying someone's an idiot for buying a car without the safety feature that would have prevented them from getting hurt when they got into an accident sometime after they got the car. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
Edited by - Lord Karsus on 09 Jun 2011 18:44:06 |
|
|
|
Nicolai Withander
Master of Realmslore
Denmark
1093 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2011 : 19:13:06
|
Its like me thinking that any veicle with 4 wheels is a car and by that difinition that I can drive it. And I wouldt be able to drive an F1 car!
Basicly destroying the weave no matter how good your intentions are because you cant make correct assumption or you just dont know. Well to me that just doesnt cu it for the price of The Greatest Mage ever lived.
Powerfull indeed... great... not so much! |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2011 : 19:43:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Or it could have been the fact that because Karsus was a fool for selecting Mystryl, he wound up destroying himself and his entire nation. Not many people make one poor judgement call and wind up changing the entire world, and not for the better...
Rather qualifies as folly, thinks I, without any negative PR needed.
-Or, you can look at it as the ultimate triumph of mortals over capricious overpowers, as the Athar would see it, as well as plenty of other individuals across the multiverse. Once more, Karsus, upon casting his spell, had no way of knowing that Mystryl was going to kill herself to preserve the Weave's integrity. Saying he's a fool for that is like saying someone's an idiot for buying a car without the safety feature that would have prevented them from getting hurt when they got into an accident sometime after they got the car.
Well, if they had the option of getting that safety feature -- as Karsus certainly did -- and then opted not to -- which Karsus also did -- then yeah, they would be a fool. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2011 : 01:32:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolai Withander
since this poll is about greatness and not shear power, I simple cant say that killing a god and you selv in the action because you are so sure of yourself that yoou belive yourself better than a god, as anything related to greatness.
This ties in to what I was saying in the "Who Can" discussion scroll.
I'm in no way defining Karsus as the greatest mage, but focusing specifically on the end result of his work, seems to me at least, to be far too limiting in terms of defining, overall, just what Karsus did manage to accomplish. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
Eldacar
Senior Scribe
438 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2011 : 04:20:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
-Mystra 1.0 passed on that knowledge to Midnight/Mystra when the two bonded, otherwise the same exact scenario would have happened- The Weave, with Midnight/Mystra, unable to constantly make the needed repairs to the Weave (certainly not as prolific as they were when Netheril existed, and the Phaerimm and them were going at it full force, but existent nonetheless, when every spellcaster uses magic), would have collapsed. Midnight did not inherent all of her predecessor's wisdom and expertise, but the ability to maintain the Weave, we've seen it in action, whether it be the Weave not collapsing immediately upon her apotheosis, Mystra having her clergy and Chosen repairing Wild and Dead Magic Zones in the wake of the Time of Troubles and beyond, and so on.
It's important to note that Mystra 2.0 was raised to her position by Ao, and so the Overgod may have helped her along (especially given all the damage she had to get started on repairing once the Time of Troubles ended). She also had Elminster helping her (Shadows of the Avatar book 2) at one point, and even now, Ed has commented that for her as a deity, it is like being alone in a very, very large room filled to the rafters with piles and piles of untidy, stacked books. And each book is a memory of her predecessors. She can grab at them and read them, but it is taking her a long time to get everything sorted and fully amalgamate the memories of Mystra 1.0 and Mystryl into her own consciousness. It likely would have taken centuries for her to fully adapt to her new role. |
"The Wild Mages I have met exhibit a startling disregard for common sense, and are often meddling with powers far beyond their own control." ~Volo
"Not unlike a certain travelogue author with whom I am unfortunately acquainted." ~Elminster |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3737 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2011 : 04:49:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Well, if they had the option of getting that safety feature -- as Karsus certainly did -- and then opted not to -- which Karsus also did -- then yeah, they would be a fool.
-Why do you think Karsus had the option of getting that "safety feature"? What would you define as that "safety option"?
quote:
Originally posted by Eldacar
It's important to note that Mystra 2.0 was raised to her position by Ao, and so the Overgod may have helped her along (especially given all the damage she had to get started on repairing once the Time of Troubles ended). She also had Elminster helping her (Shadows of the Avatar book 2) at one point, and even now, Ed has commented that for her as a deity, it is like being alone in a very, very large room filled to the rafters with piles and piles of untidy, stacked books. And each book is a memory of her predecessors. She can grab at them and read them, but it is taking her a long time to get everything sorted and fully amalgamate the memories of Mystra 1.0 and Mystryl into her own consciousness. It likely would have taken centuries for her to fully adapt to her new role.
-No doubt, the circumstances of their ascensions and such were different. What I am saying is that, upon the moment of her ascension, if Midnight had no working knowledge of how to keep the Weave from fraying into oblivion because of people utilizing it, it would have frayed into oblivion. The fact that it didn't, and magic was restored to normal at the end of the Time of Troubles, shows, to me, that that specific duty was something that was "inherently learned" when she absorbed Mystra's divine essence and fully bonded with it. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
Edited by - Lord Karsus on 10 Jun 2011 04:52:58 |
|
|
|
Eldacar
Senior Scribe
438 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2011 : 08:49:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
The fact that it didn't, and magic was restored to normal at the end of the Time of Troubles, shows, to me, that that specific duty was something that was "inherently learned" when she absorbed Mystra's divine essence and fully bonded with it.
To me it just says that Ao (who also set up the Time of Troubles as a whole, creating that "unique situation" to begin with) taking a personal hand in her ascension was the reason the Weave didn't collapse. Azuth and the Chosen were probably already serving as anchors for the Weave during the Time of Troubles (something else Ed has said that they serve as during a time of great instability, which the Time of Troubles was).
I don't see it as something Karsus could have ever learned in time to prevent the Weave from collapsing. The damage would have been irreparable long before he could have even begun to comprehend what had to be done to hold the Weave together. |
"The Wild Mages I have met exhibit a startling disregard for common sense, and are often meddling with powers far beyond their own control." ~Volo
"Not unlike a certain travelogue author with whom I am unfortunately acquainted." ~Elminster |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2011 : 10:43:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Well, if they had the option of getting that safety feature -- as Karsus certainly did -- and then opted not to -- which Karsus also did -- then yeah, they would be a fool.
-Why do you think Karsus had the option of getting that "safety feature"? What would you define as that "safety option"?
He had the option of not picking Mystryl, or of developing an equally powerful magic to take on the phaerimm. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Eltheron
Senior Scribe
740 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2011 : 16:34:02
|
Can we really be sure what Karsus's spell was intended to do, or that it worked exactly as he intended? Karsus may have assumed something untrue about the nature of the gods in general, and the spell itself faltered.
I'm guessing that the spell itself did not survive, and only a few survivors saw and reported on what they think happened. Karsus's spell may have been something different, and not necessarily focused on Mystryl. But because his theoretical assumptions were off about whatever he tried to do, it siphoned Mystryl's power rather than what it was intended to accomplish.
What if, for instance, his spell was something amazing and dramatic targeted at the phaerimm, perhaps an attempt to suck all of their magical energy away through a single epic spell? But something went wrong, and it drew magic directly from the weave and Mystryl. Which was later interpreted as both hubris and an attempt to assume Mystryl's place?
To me, a wizard of such ability casting a spell to steal Mystryl's power always seemed a little "off" to me. Like a childrens' story more than what actually, really happened.
Just a thought.
|
"The very best possible post-fourteenth-century Realms lets down those who love the specific, detailed social, political and magical situation, with its thousands of characters, developed over forty years, and want to learn more about it; and those who'd be open to a new one with equal depth, which there just isn't time to re-produce; and those repelled, some past the point of no return, by the bad-taste-and-plausibility gap of things done to the world when its guardianship was less careful."
--Faraer |
Edited by - Eltheron on 10 Jun 2011 16:39:07 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2011 : 17:27:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
Can we really be sure what Karsus's spell was intended to do, or that it worked exactly as he intended? Karsus may have assumed something untrue about the nature of the gods in general, and the spell itself faltered.
I'm guessing that the spell itself did not survive, and only a few survivors saw and reported on what they think happened. Karsus's spell may have been something different, and not necessarily focused on Mystryl. But because his theoretical assumptions were off about whatever he tried to do, it siphoned Mystryl's power rather than what it was intended to accomplish.
What if, for instance, his spell was something amazing and dramatic targeted at the phaerimm, perhaps an attempt to suck all of their magical energy away through a single epic spell? But something went wrong, and it drew magic directly from the weave and Mystryl. Which was later interpreted as both hubris and an attempt to assume Mystryl's place?
To me, a wizard of such ability casting a spell to steal Mystryl's power always seemed a little "off" to me. Like a childrens' story more than what actually, really happened.
Just a thought.
We have numerous statements in canon that his spell was intended to steal a deity's divinity, and that he selected Mystryl as the target. We also have a write-up of the spell.
Given all that, I find it unlikely that the information we have is flawed. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Eltheron
Senior Scribe
740 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2011 : 17:35:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
Can we really be sure what Karsus's spell was intended to do, or that it worked exactly as he intended? Karsus may have assumed something untrue about the nature of the gods in general, and the spell itself faltered.
I'm guessing that the spell itself did not survive, and only a few survivors saw and reported on what they think happened. Karsus's spell may have been something different, and not necessarily focused on Mystryl. But because his theoretical assumptions were off about whatever he tried to do, it siphoned Mystryl's power rather than what it was intended to accomplish.
What if, for instance, his spell was something amazing and dramatic targeted at the phaerimm, perhaps an attempt to suck all of their magical energy away through a single epic spell? But something went wrong, and it drew magic directly from the weave and Mystryl. Which was later interpreted as both hubris and an attempt to assume Mystryl's place?
To me, a wizard of such ability casting a spell to steal Mystryl's power always seemed a little "off" to me. Like a childrens' story more than what actually, really happened.
Just a thought.
We have numerous statements in canon that his spell was intended to steal a deity's divinity, and that he selected Mystryl as the target. We also have a write-up of the spell.
Given all that, I find it unlikely that the information we have is flawed.
Given that:
a) Ed always says we shouldn't take things at face value, particularly about the gods or what certain sages say about historical events.
b) "Facts" are known to change in the Realms, even when sourcebooks write in an omniscient 3rd person.
-and-
c) The "Karsus' Folly" story sounds like a folk tale, and is in fact used as a folk tale in the Realms, both as a warning against hubris and as a "don't try to screw with the gods" story.
Then I think it's indeed quite possible that we don't know the complete story, and the entire folk tale may be wrong in major ways.
|
"The very best possible post-fourteenth-century Realms lets down those who love the specific, detailed social, political and magical situation, with its thousands of characters, developed over forty years, and want to learn more about it; and those who'd be open to a new one with equal depth, which there just isn't time to re-produce; and those repelled, some past the point of no return, by the bad-taste-and-plausibility gap of things done to the world when its guardianship was less careful."
--Faraer |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2011 : 18:15:12
|
So you are saying that a spell write-up and multiple accounts of the same thing, all of which mesh with each other perfectly, might still be wrong?
If that's the case, then we know absolutely nothing about the Realms, because every single aspect -- including names and such -- could be wrong. Elminster might really be a dwarven bard named Fred!
I can't buy that. Until I see something that says a particular story may not be right, I assume it is.
Don't forget, some of the info would have come from survivors of the event, some of which are still around!
|
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3737 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2011 : 18:35:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Eldacar
To me it just says that Ao (who also set up the Time of Troubles as a whole, creating that "unique situation" to begin with) taking a personal hand in her ascension was the reason the Weave didn't collapse. Azuth and the Chosen were probably already serving as anchors for the Weave during the Time of Troubles (something else Ed has said that they serve as during a time of great instability, which the Time of Troubles was).
-It's certainly possible. To counter, though, Mystryl could have had Chosen, herself (Ed has hinted at this, I believe) to serve the same function, to "anchor" the Weave during a time of great instability, which the Weave possible tearing apart would, I think, qualify. Certainly not indefinitely, but for a limited time, sure.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
He had the option of not picking Mystryl, or of developing an equally powerful magic to take on the phaerimm.
-A different spell could have been developed, sure. I don't think that really qualifies as getting a safety option on a certain car as much as it does buying a boat instead of a car. But, that's whatever. Didn't you say earlier that you didn't think Karsus would have been able to "handle" taking the portfolio of another deity, other than Mystryl, either?
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
If that's the case, then we know absolutely nothing about the Realms, because every single aspect -- including names and such -- could be wrong. Elminster might really be a dwarven bard named Fred!
-The main reason I don't like the whole "This information was passed on to Ed Greenwood from Elminster" schpiel. Taking as a fact that Abeir-Toril might exist in the infinite cosmos of the universe, it might be nothing like what we've been told it is, because Elminster could have been making everything up, and/or Ed Greenwood/WotC has been printing things that are inaccurate, intentionally or unintentionally. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
Edited by - Lord Karsus on 10 Jun 2011 18:41:16 |
|
|
|
Eltheron
Senior Scribe
740 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2011 : 18:36:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
So you are saying that a spell write-up and multiple accounts of the same thing, all of which mesh with each other perfectly, might still be wrong?
Yep, just like in real life the "facts" fervently described by witnesses can be conflicting and fraught with incorrect assumptions and conclusions. It's well known that "facts" reported by direct observers can be wrong. What people see is always colored by the lenses of their own perception. Especially in a crisis situation.
quote:
If that's the case, then we know absolutely nothing about the Realms, because every single aspect -- including names and such -- could be wrong. Elminster might really be a dwarven bard named Fred!
Why jump to these conclusions? Just because one thing in ancient Netheril history might be completely different than the prevailing view of modern Faerunian sages, it does not logically follow that everything in the whole world including Alassra's panties should be called into question. That's just silly.
quote:
I can't buy that. Until I see something that says a particular story may not be right, I assume it is.
Don't forget, some of the info would have come from survivors of the event, some of which are still around!
Assumptions are fine as a working hypothesis, but they're rarely the same as fact.
Were any of the survivors privy to Karsus's innermost thoughts, his detailed plans, directly in observance of the casting, or did they have omniscient knowledge from the gods' perspective of what truly happened? Nope.
In the Realms, there's always room for speculation.
|
"The very best possible post-fourteenth-century Realms lets down those who love the specific, detailed social, political and magical situation, with its thousands of characters, developed over forty years, and want to learn more about it; and those who'd be open to a new one with equal depth, which there just isn't time to re-produce; and those repelled, some past the point of no return, by the bad-taste-and-plausibility gap of things done to the world when its guardianship was less careful."
--Faraer |
Edited by - Eltheron on 10 Jun 2011 18:43:31 |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3737 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2011 : 18:48:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
Why jump to these conclusions? Just because one thing in ancient Netheril history might be completely different than the prevailing view of modern Faerunian sages, it does not logically follow that everything in the whole world including Alassra's panties should be called into question. That's just silly.
-It kinda does, though. If we have a singular instance where the source is incorrect, lying, exaggerating, or whatever else, we can't assume that the source isn't incorrect, lying, exaggerating, or whatever else, in other instances. If WotC/Ed Greenwood/Elminster isn't getting information about Karsus' Foley correct, who's to say they're getting their information about...the Crown Wars correct? The Throne Wars of Calimshan? The founding of the Harpers? And so on, down to every factoid we have available.
-That said, though, I do like what you're proposing as something to be mindful of, even though, like Wooley, I do think we have enough source material to establish a basic frame of what happened, following the various sources that describe the event, where the "truth" doesn't stray too far from that narrative. As I have mentioned, though, the Churches of Mystra and Azuth are the primary ones who promulgate the story, to "scare off" others who might not see Mystra/Azuth as too powerful, or whatever, or might similar ideas about challenging the gods. So, there is definitley basis for suspecting that, perhaps, what they're telling us is not all there is to things, or perhaps just a simplistic, "tall-tale" version of what happened, as you say. The Netheril Box Set was "narrated" by Larloch, who, also serves Mystra in his own way.
-Definite food for thought, and ripe for speculation. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
Edited by - Lord Karsus on 10 Jun 2011 18:50:07 |
|
|
|
Eltheron
Senior Scribe
740 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2011 : 19:37:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
Why jump to these conclusions? Just because one thing in ancient Netheril history might be completely different than the prevailing view of modern Faerunian sages, it does not logically follow that everything in the whole world including Alassra's panties should be called into question. That's just silly.
-It kinda does, though. If we have a singular instance where the source is incorrect, lying, exaggerating, or whatever else, we can't assume that the source isn't incorrect, lying, exaggerating, or whatever else, in other instances. If WotC/Ed Greenwood/Elminster isn't getting information about Karsus' Foley correct, who's to say they're getting their information about...the Crown Wars correct? The Throne Wars of Calimshan? The founding of the Harpers? And so on, down to every factoid we have available.
-That said, though, I do like what you're proposing as something to be mindful of, even though, like Wooley, I do think we have enough source material to establish a basic frame of what happened, following the various sources that describe the event, where the "truth" doesn't stray too far from that narrative. As I have mentioned, though, the Churches of Mystra and Azuth are the primary ones who promulgate the story, to "scare off" others who might not see Mystra/Azuth as too powerful, or whatever, or might similar ideas about challenging the gods. So, there is definitley basis for suspecting that, perhaps, what they're telling us is not all there is to things, or perhaps just a simplistic, "tall-tale" version of what happened, as you say. The Netheril Box Set was "narrated" by Larloch, who, also serves Mystra in his own way.
-Definite food for thought, and ripe for speculation.
Perhaps that's why Ed liked to put his famous caveat at the beginning of each supplement he wrote. It's a reminder to remain slightly (or fully) skeptical about "facts" when they're presented.
I always liked that for two reasons:
First, because it's true. Even the best-intentioned people can get things wrong. The research of sages, historians, mages, it all deserves a little healthy skepticism.
Second, because it's important for the game. Speculation and different perspectives can be just as enriching for play as the facts themselves. Alternate viewpoints, entirely alternate "true" histories, can give DMs and players a whole new adventure hook. It makes forums better, rather than slavishly following canon as absolute fact. The latter tends to stifle creative thought and interaction, because there's only one way to view something.
And at the end of the day, it's all pretendy make-believe fun time games anyway. A little shake-up with skepticism regarding "well-established facts" is healthy and positive for adventuring in the Realms, and for plotting the unexpected and surprising.
|
"The very best possible post-fourteenth-century Realms lets down those who love the specific, detailed social, political and magical situation, with its thousands of characters, developed over forty years, and want to learn more about it; and those who'd be open to a new one with equal depth, which there just isn't time to re-produce; and those repelled, some past the point of no return, by the bad-taste-and-plausibility gap of things done to the world when its guardianship was less careful."
--Faraer |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jun 2011 : 21:34:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
[quote]If that's the case, then we know absolutely nothing about the Realms, because every single aspect -- including names and such -- could be wrong. Elminster might really be a dwarven bard named Fred!
Why jump to these conclusions? Just because one thing in ancient Netheril history might be completely different than the prevailing view of modern Faerunian sages, it does not logically follow that everything in the whole world including Alassra's panties should be called into question. That's just silly.
No, but what you're saying is that multiple corroborating sources, all of which sync perfectly with each other, might still be wrong. And if that is the case about any one aspect of Realmslore -- especially such a prominent one -- then it is the case with all Realmslore.
You're saying we can't trust one known and established fact, and if that's the case, then we can't trust any known and established facts. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Eltheron
Senior Scribe
740 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jun 2011 : 02:51:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
No, but what you're saying is that multiple corroborating sources, all of which sync perfectly with each other, might still be wrong. And if that is the case about any one aspect of Realmslore -- especially such a prominent one -- then it is the case with all Realmslore.
You're saying we can't trust one known and established fact, and if that's the case, then we can't trust any known and established facts.
Sometimes it's the case that multiple sources all draw from the same original and incorrect source. It happens in real life, so it can easily happen in fiction.
And good grief - I am absolutely NOT saying that you "can't trust any established facts". For you, this is a black and white issue; but it does not logically follow that if there's one error you have to distrust everything.
What I'm saying is that every historical "fact" (even those that are well accepted by Realms sages) needs to be given a little scrutiny and that any source can have errors. I'm not saying anything different than Greenwood, so I'm not sure why this is so difficult to understand.
|
"The very best possible post-fourteenth-century Realms lets down those who love the specific, detailed social, political and magical situation, with its thousands of characters, developed over forty years, and want to learn more about it; and those who'd be open to a new one with equal depth, which there just isn't time to re-produce; and those repelled, some past the point of no return, by the bad-taste-and-plausibility gap of things done to the world when its guardianship was less careful."
--Faraer |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jun 2011 : 03:07:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
No, but what you're saying is that multiple corroborating sources, all of which sync perfectly with each other, might still be wrong. And if that is the case about any one aspect of Realmslore -- especially such a prominent one -- then it is the case with all Realmslore.
You're saying we can't trust one known and established fact, and if that's the case, then we can't trust any known and established facts.
Sometimes it's the case that multiple sources all draw from the same original and incorrect source. It happens in real life, so it can easily happen in fiction.
And good grief - I am absolutely NOT saying that you "can't trust any established facts". For you, this is a black and white issue; but it does not logically follow that if there's one error you have to distrust everything.
What I'm saying is that every historical "fact" (even those that are well accepted by Realms sages) needs to be given a little scrutiny and that any source can have errors. I'm not saying anything different than Greenwood, so I'm not sure why this is so difficult to understand.
But it is not the case that everything is drawing from the same source. We have surviving witnesses (some of which are still alive!), deities, learned individuals from other parts of the Realms... We have multiple sources, from multiple locations, with multiple perspectives, all saying the exact same thing. And you're saying we can't trust that.
So if we can't trust one of the basic premises of the setting, then we can't trust anything about it. It's either that or accept that the basic premises are indeed true. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Eltheron
Senior Scribe
740 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jun 2011 : 03:27:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
No, but what you're saying is that multiple corroborating sources, all of which sync perfectly with each other, might still be wrong. And if that is the case about any one aspect of Realmslore -- especially such a prominent one -- then it is the case with all Realmslore.
You're saying we can't trust one known and established fact, and if that's the case, then we can't trust any known and established facts.
Sometimes it's the case that multiple sources all draw from the same original and incorrect source. It happens in real life, so it can easily happen in fiction.
And good grief - I am absolutely NOT saying that you "can't trust any established facts". For you, this is a black and white issue; but it does not logically follow that if there's one error you have to distrust everything.
What I'm saying is that every historical "fact" (even those that are well accepted by Realms sages) needs to be given a little scrutiny and that any source can have errors. I'm not saying anything different than Greenwood, so I'm not sure why this is so difficult to understand.
But it is not the case that everything is drawing from the same source. We have surviving witnesses (some of which are still alive!), deities, learned individuals from other parts of the Realms... We have multiple sources, from multiple locations, with multiple perspectives, all saying the exact same thing. And you're saying we can't trust that.
So if we can't trust one of the basic premises of the setting, then we can't trust anything about it. It's either that or accept that the basic premises are indeed true.
You're welcome to stick to such a black and white view. It really makes no difference to me.
|
"The very best possible post-fourteenth-century Realms lets down those who love the specific, detailed social, political and magical situation, with its thousands of characters, developed over forty years, and want to learn more about it; and those who'd be open to a new one with equal depth, which there just isn't time to re-produce; and those repelled, some past the point of no return, by the bad-taste-and-plausibility gap of things done to the world when its guardianship was less careful."
--Faraer |
|
|
|
Eldacar
Senior Scribe
438 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jun 2011 : 05:25:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
-It's certainly possible. To counter, though, Mystryl could have had Chosen, herself (Ed has hinted at this, I believe) to serve the same function, to "anchor" the Weave during a time of great instability, which the Weave possible tearing apart would, I think, qualify. Certainly not indefinitely, but for a limited time, sure.
It's certainly possible, but I don't think we have any hard evidence about Chosen of Mystryl, and IIRC any and all mentions of Chosen came about when Ao first instructed Mystra to split up her power, not Mystryl. Fully half of it is spread around through her various Chosen (of which I think there are a dozen or perhaps a bit more), including Azuth (who has the lions' share of that leftover power). Elminster is referred to as even being one of her first successful early attempts (most of them failed because the energy of the Weave burned Chosen up from the inside, which is why she went and used Dornal Silverhand to give birth to the Seven Sisters).
And even if Mystryl did have Chosen who could have anchored the Weave for a time (which is speculation, after all, and by no means a certainty), Karsus still didn't have the benefits that account for the Overgod Ao personally raising you to full divinity in order to replace your predecessor. Honestly, I just don't think he could have possibly learned to comprehend or control the power flowing into him before the Weave was irreparably damaged. And at that point, it would have rendered his entire attempt useless anyway. |
"The Wild Mages I have met exhibit a startling disregard for common sense, and are often meddling with powers far beyond their own control." ~Volo
"Not unlike a certain travelogue author with whom I am unfortunately acquainted." ~Elminster |
|
|
|
Firestorm
Senior Scribe
Canada
826 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jun 2011 : 05:42:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
No, but what you're saying is that multiple corroborating sources, all of which sync perfectly with each other, might still be wrong. And if that is the case about any one aspect of Realmslore -- especially such a prominent one -- then it is the case with all Realmslore.
You're saying we can't trust one known and established fact, and if that's the case, then we can't trust any known and established facts.
Sometimes it's the case that multiple sources all draw from the same original and incorrect source. It happens in real life, so it can easily happen in fiction.
And good grief - I am absolutely NOT saying that you "can't trust any established facts". For you, this is a black and white issue; but it does not logically follow that if there's one error you have to distrust everything.
What I'm saying is that every historical "fact" (even those that are well accepted by Realms sages) needs to be given a little scrutiny and that any source can have errors. I'm not saying anything different than Greenwood, so I'm not sure why this is so difficult to understand.
Well, since they have a book series detailing all of this, I think that needs to be taken as canon. |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3737 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jun 2011 : 06:15:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
You're welcome to stick to such a black and white view. It really makes no difference to me.
-Again, dude, I like what you're saying, as an exercise of plausibility and epistemology whatnot, but to cast doubt on the factual basis of this one event does then raise the question of whether or not any and other events that took place in the setting are equally flawed, and thus, untrue to one degree or another. To use a semi-sociopolitical analogy, since I've been arguing with my dad about something similar over the last couple of days, if political newscaster/commentator/television host/radio host X misinterpreted- intentionally or unintentionally- one set of facts, to come to a conclusion that is incorrect on that particular topic, who is to say that he didn't misinterpret- intentionally or unintentionally- the facts in some other topic, and come to a conclusion that incorrect once again? If TSR/WotC printed information about the Forgotten Realms that was incorrect, they got their source material from Ed Greenwood, who got his source material from Elminster (still hate that whole hokey thing), who got his source material from wherever (Mystra, personal experiences, other people). If we determine that, somewhere along the line, the public information we have was twisted from the actual, objective truth in this one situation, what's to prevent some other factoid from having been twisted from the actual, objective truth somewhere along the way? |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
|
|
|
Eltheron
Senior Scribe
740 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jun 2011 : 16:17:59
|
No offense, but "actual, objective truth" is often difficult to determine in the real world. Not only is this a fictional setting, it's a setting where the lead creator has specifically said not to trust anything printed as unquestionable truth.
Sometimes, in the effort to follow novel canon, which authors must try to abide by, I think we all forget that canon means something different for gamers. For the vast majority of us, those who are not designers or authors, canon is what you make of it: all of it is optional, any of it can be re-framed or changed, or even when unchanged it can be interpreted in vastly different ways.
And even in the real world, long-established facts accepted by multiple authorities can be called into question.
Having said all that, I'm really quite done on this topic and won't be commenting further or offering suggestions for alternative ways of interpreting events.
|
"The very best possible post-fourteenth-century Realms lets down those who love the specific, detailed social, political and magical situation, with its thousands of characters, developed over forty years, and want to learn more about it; and those who'd be open to a new one with equal depth, which there just isn't time to re-produce; and those repelled, some past the point of no return, by the bad-taste-and-plausibility gap of things done to the world when its guardianship was less careful."
--Faraer |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Who Greatest Mage who ever lived
Topic Locked
