Candlekeep Forum
Candlekeep Forum
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Members | Private Messages | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Forgotten Realms Journals
 General Forgotten Realms Chat
 Who Greatest Mage who ever lived
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 5

Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
Moderator

USA
30338 Posts

Posted - 10 Jun 2011 :  17:27:52  Show Profile Send Wooly Rupert a Private Message
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

Editor and scribe for The Candlekeep Compendium

I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!
Go to Top of Page

Eltheron
Senior Scribe

738 Posts

Posted - 10 Jun 2011 :  17:35:59  Show Profile Send Eltheron a Private Message
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
Go to Top of Page

Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
Moderator

USA
30338 Posts

Posted - 10 Jun 2011 :  18:15:12  Show Profile Send Wooly Rupert a Private Message
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

Editor and scribe for The Candlekeep Compendium

I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!
Go to Top of Page

Lord Karsus
Great Reader

USA
2902 Posts

Posted - 10 Jun 2011 :  18:35:48  Show Profile  Send Lord Karsus an AOL message Send Lord Karsus a Private Message
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
Go to Top of Page

Eltheron
Senior Scribe

738 Posts

Posted - 10 Jun 2011 :  18:36:34  Show Profile Send Eltheron a Private Message
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
Go to Top of Page

Lord Karsus
Great Reader

USA
2902 Posts

Posted - 10 Jun 2011 :  18:48:54  Show Profile  Send Lord Karsus an AOL message Send Lord Karsus a Private Message
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
Go to Top of Page

Eltheron
Senior Scribe

738 Posts

Posted - 10 Jun 2011 :  19:37:51  Show Profile Send Eltheron a Private Message
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
Go to Top of Page

Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
Moderator

USA
30338 Posts

Posted - 10 Jun 2011 :  21:34:59  Show Profile Send Wooly Rupert a Private Message
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

Editor and scribe for The Candlekeep Compendium

I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!
Go to Top of Page

Eltheron
Senior Scribe

738 Posts

Posted - 11 Jun 2011 :  02:51:03  Show Profile Send Eltheron a Private Message
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
Go to Top of Page

Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
Moderator

USA
30338 Posts

Posted - 11 Jun 2011 :  03:07:37  Show Profile Send Wooly Rupert a Private Message
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

Editor and scribe for The Candlekeep Compendium

I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!
Go to Top of Page

Eltheron
Senior Scribe

738 Posts

Posted - 11 Jun 2011 :  03:27:11  Show Profile Send Eltheron a Private Message
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
Go to Top of Page

Eldacar
Learned Scribe

254 Posts

Posted - 11 Jun 2011 :  05:25:56  Show Profile  Visit Eldacar's Homepage  Click to see Eldacar's MSN Messenger address Send Eldacar a Private Message
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.

"It always ends. That's what gives it value." ~Death of the Endless
Go to Top of Page

Firestorm
Senior Scribe

Canada
801 Posts

Posted - 11 Jun 2011 :  05:42:22  Show Profile Send Firestorm a Private Message
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.
Go to Top of Page

Lord Karsus
Great Reader

USA
2902 Posts

Posted - 11 Jun 2011 :  06:15:12  Show Profile  Send Lord Karsus an AOL message Send Lord Karsus a Private Message
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
Go to Top of Page

Eltheron
Senior Scribe

738 Posts

Posted - 11 Jun 2011 :  16:17:59  Show Profile Send Eltheron a Private Message
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
Go to Top of Page

Lord Karsus
Great Reader

USA
2902 Posts

Posted - 11 Jun 2011 :  17:20:44  Show Profile  Send Lord Karsus an AOL message Send Lord Karsus a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron

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.


-That said, if we're to believe it a real world somewhere out there in the universe, like Earth, a singular event cannot happen at the same moment in two different ways. Either I just typed this, or I didn't. Either I just got elected President of the United States, or I didn't. On events happening, and their outcomes, we can be told blatant lies, exaggerations, and whatever else, but outside all of the different versions of the truth, there exists the actual truth, what actually happened. The prosecutor is saying that there is evidence that shows that Criminal X killed someone, and provides his/her version of the facts in relation to events that took place to back this claim up. The defense attorney is saying that there is evidence that Criminal X did not kill someone, and provides his/her version of the facts in relation to events that took place to back this claim up. Both cannot be correct- Criminal X cannot have killed someone and not killed someone at the same time. The objective truth, the actual replay of events uncluttered by biases if watched on a magical television set that could rewind and replay history, is either that he did, or did not.

-If we have a case where, via the line of transmission, the objective truth- how the event actually went down in actuality, viewed through that magic television set that rewinds and replays history- has been twisted into something that is not the actual truth, there's no reason to believe that the same thing couldn't, or even hasn't already happened, elsewhere in Realmslore, since it all comes through the same basic line of transmission (if we're to believe the hokey story). If the story of that we believe to be how Karsus' Foley went down, in actuality, is really something of a tall-tale based on the actual facts of the event, what is to stop us from doubting the veracity of any other event we've told has happened? Did the Crown Wars actually happen, or is the general narrative that we have actually a manifestation of underlying resentment and bias by Wood Elves towards their "more magically inclined" Sun and Moon Elf cousins in physical print form? Did the Dragon Baronies actually exist, or are the myths of Humans mythologizing and romanticizing Dragons? Did Myth Drannor actually exist as an open society, or is anything concerning the Opening of Myth Drannor simply idealistic fantasy taken life through repetitive retelling?

(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
Go to Top of Page

Eltheron
Senior Scribe

738 Posts

Posted - 11 Jun 2011 :  17:50:35  Show Profile Send Eltheron a Private Message
Let me offer my humblest and deepest apologies. Canon lore is all perfect and totally incontrovertible, there is no questioning it because it's all fact and the truest of true truth. Creativity be damned, alternate ideas for gaming hooks be damned, the holy canon is my only truth.

How could I have ever been so wrong? I have seen the light and the error of my ways, and I repent a thousand times!


"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
Go to Top of Page

Arcanus
Senior Scribe

485 Posts

Posted - 11 Jun 2011 :  18:30:06  Show Profile  Visit Arcanus's Homepage Send Arcanus a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron

Let me offer my humblest and deepest apologies. Canon lore is all perfect and totally incontrovertible, there is no questioning it because it's all fact and the truest of true truth. Creativity be damned, alternate ideas for gaming hooks be damned, the holy canon is my only truth.

How could I have ever been so wrong? I have seen the light and the error of my ways, and I repent a thousand times!





You are forgiven.
On a serious note, some things should not be subject to unexplained change. Some facts/rules should be fundamental to any world setting, else all is chaos. And as for Ed saying his info comes from Elminster, that's just a cop-out, allowing wotc to explain away mistakes and contradictions to canon.
Go to Top of Page

Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
Moderator

USA
30338 Posts

Posted - 11 Jun 2011 :  18:56:08  Show Profile Send Wooly Rupert a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron

Let me offer my humblest and deepest apologies. Canon lore is all perfect and totally incontrovertible, there is no questioning it because it's all fact and the truest of true truth. Creativity be damned, alternate ideas for gaming hooks be damned, the holy canon is my only truth.

How could I have ever been so wrong? I have seen the light and the error of my ways, and I repent a thousand times!





That's not what the argument was and you know it. I am happy to play in any areas where there is wiggle room, like my theory that Bane 2.0 is really Xvim in disguise. Where I draw the line, however, is trying to introduce wiggle room into a spot where it does not exist.

If every bit of published material says that Bahb the fighter is a human, then it's certain that he's a human. There's no wiggle room. If half of the sources say he's a human, half say he's a half-elf, and one lone source indicates he's some sort of shapeshifter, then we've got wiggle room to play with.

Candlekeep Forums Moderator

Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com
-- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct

Editor and scribe for The Candlekeep Compendium

I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!

Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 11 Jun 2011 18:57:03
Go to Top of Page

Lord Karsus
Great Reader

USA
2902 Posts

Posted - 11 Jun 2011 :  19:34:33  Show Profile  Send Lord Karsus an AOL message Send Lord Karsus a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron

Let me offer my humblest and deepest apologies. Canon lore is all perfect and totally incontrovertible, there is no questioning it because it's all fact and the truest of true truth. Creativity be damned, alternate ideas for gaming hooks be damned, the holy canon is my only truth.

How could I have ever been so wrong? I have seen the light and the error of my ways, and I repent a thousand times!





-Instead of addressing a separate strawman, in a passive-aggressive manner, why not address the specific matter-at-hand? The question is, if we have a singular instance where the information we have been told is the truth is somehow "proven" to be wrong (however that happens), then any information that we have can be discounted as possibly not being the truth- Yes or no?

(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 11 Jun 2011 19:37:17
Go to Top of Page

Eltheron
Senior Scribe

738 Posts

Posted - 11 Jun 2011 :  19:37:53  Show Profile Send Eltheron a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
That's not what the argument was and you know it. I am happy to play in any areas where there is wiggle room, like my theory that Bane 2.0 is really Xvim in disguise. Where I draw the line, however, is trying to introduce wiggle room into a spot where it does not exist.

If every bit of published material says that Bahb the fighter is a human, then it's certain that he's a human. There's no wiggle room. If half of the sources say he's a human, half say he's a half-elf, and one lone source indicates he's some sort of shapeshifter, then we've got wiggle room to play with.


Again let me offer my deepest apologies. Clearly, my musings have all been utterly faulty, valueless and clearly without any merit whatsoever. In future, I will humbly defer to your personal wisdom as to whether something has "wiggle room" or not, and I will not presume to question your authority on such matters.


"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
Go to Top of Page

Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
Moderator

USA
30338 Posts

Posted - 11 Jun 2011 :  19:43:34  Show Profile Send Wooly Rupert a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron

quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
That's not what the argument was and you know it. I am happy to play in any areas where there is wiggle room, like my theory that Bane 2.0 is really Xvim in disguise. Where I draw the line, however, is trying to introduce wiggle room into a spot where it does not exist.

If every bit of published material says that Bahb the fighter is a human, then it's certain that he's a human. There's no wiggle room. If half of the sources say he's a human, half say he's a half-elf, and one lone source indicates he's some sort of shapeshifter, then we've got wiggle room to play with.


Again let me offer my deepest apologies. Clearly, my musings have all been utterly faulty, valueless and clearly without any merit whatsoever. In future, I will humbly defer to your personal wisdom as to whether something has "wiggle room" or not, and I will not presume to question your authority on such matters.





How about this -- why don't you tell me where the wiggle room in this instance is, and then explain how this wiggle room does not exist in all other cases where there is zero indication that event X did not proceed as described?


Candlekeep Forums Moderator

Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com
-- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct

Editor and scribe for The Candlekeep Compendium

I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!
Go to Top of Page

Eltheron
Senior Scribe

738 Posts

Posted - 11 Jun 2011 :  20:03:52  Show Profile Send Eltheron a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
How about this -- why don't you tell me where the wiggle room in this instance is, and then explain how this wiggle room does not exist in all other cases where there is zero indication that event X did not proceed as described?


Because you've already flatly stated that there is no wiggle room with respect to the Karsus myth, that it's all perfectly clear in canon and cannot be questioned. And really, who am I to question canon?


"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
Go to Top of Page

Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
Moderator

USA
30338 Posts

Posted - 11 Jun 2011 :  20:17:30  Show Profile Send Wooly Rupert a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron

quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
How about this -- why don't you tell me where the wiggle room in this instance is, and then explain how this wiggle room does not exist in all other cases where there is zero indication that event X did not proceed as described?


Because you've already flatly stated that there is no wiggle room with respect to the Karsus myth, that it's all perfectly clear in canon and cannot be questioned. And really, who am I to question canon?





Again, tell me where this wiggle room is. You're so insistent that there is reason to doubt the story. Prove it.

Candlekeep Forums Moderator

Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com
-- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct

Editor and scribe for The Candlekeep Compendium

I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!
Go to Top of Page

Eltheron
Senior Scribe

738 Posts

Posted - 11 Jun 2011 :  20:22:11  Show Profile Send Eltheron a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Again, tell me where this wiggle room is. You're so insistent that there is reason to doubt the story. Prove it.


Nope, you were perfectly right and I was utterly wrong.


"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
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 5 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Candlekeep Forum © 1999-2017 Candlekeep.com Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000