| Author |
 Topic  |
|
silverwolfer
Senior Scribe
789 Posts |
 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.
|
|
|
silverwolfer
Senior Scribe
789 Posts |
Posted - 19 May 2013 : 19:35:15
|
| Sorry done by my phone will edit it when back at home. |
 |
|
|
Chosen of Asmodeus
Master of Realmslore
1221 Posts |
Posted - 20 May 2013 : 12:07:53
|
I think Asmodeus losing his godhood is a terrible idea; even if you were against it in the first place, the only thing removing it does is making one of the most important characters, one of the greatest villains in D&D history look weak. It doesn't accomplish anything, it doesn't solve anything, it's just resetting a status quo that wasn't that great to begin with.
And before someone says that Bane makes him redundant or vise versa, can you please explain to me how that's a bad thing? Conflict between those two is great plot material.
As for the rest of this plan; I think you vastly overestimate the Slug Duke's ambition. He's a bitter creature, but a broken and lethargic one. If nothing else, he certainly wouldn't want to degrade himself further by converting his already grotesque form into the even lower rung on the later, the pustulent, degenerate, blots on the multiverse that are demons.
And as for getting the Blood War started again, sure, why not. Ending it was arguably the biggest change 4e brought to the realms, and it was a realms specific change. It's something that should have had huge consequences for the world. Arguably the fall out from the end of the Blood War should have been the central conflict of the 4e realms, or at least the biggest secondary conflict after the aftermath of Mystra's death. And instead we get this rise of the underdark waste of time.
So, since they've proven they aren't doing anything with it, sure, fire up the over again. Will be a glorious day to have so many demons to kill. |
"Then I saw there was a way to Hell even from the gates of Heaven"
- John Bunyan, Pilgrim's Progress
Fatum Iustum Stultorum. Righteous is the destiny of fools.
The Roleplayer's Gazebo;
http://theroleplayersgazebo.yuku.com/directory#.Ub4hvvlJOAY |
|
|
|
Lord Bane
Senior Scribe
Germany
479 Posts |
Posted - 20 May 2013 : 14:19:07
|
Asmodeus losing his godhood is contrary to CoA´s comment a good idea. It puts him back to equal level with all the other fiendish lords, granted he may be still more powerfull than the other lords of the nine, but it makes him not an untouchable figure and also levels the field for the demonic lords to get at Asmodeus if they choose to.
I stand by the argument, Bane is already the deity of tyranny, Asmodeus has no claim to the title and should never have gotten that big in first place. He was great as astral oppisition to tanar'ri and celestials. Him becoming a god is forcing core DnD into the realms and we saw what the results are when such a thing happens, 4e realms are aside a few exception vastly inferior to 3e realms. |
The driving force in the multiverse is evil, for it forces good to act. |
|
|
|
The Arcanamach
Master of Realmslore
1842 Posts |
Posted - 20 May 2013 : 14:52:08
|
I'm not well versed in 4e Realms but I believe Asmodeus is a major ranking god. It that's is so then I think he should be made into a minor deity instead. I can find a million flaws with how the Realms was handled after 3e and arbitrarily forcing a (retconned) change to the status quo in the Realms was pure garbage. There was no good reason for it IMHO.
Still, he is Asmodeus and Lord of the Nine so he should retain an official status as a deity. On the flip side, one of the demon princes should be given godhood as a counterbalance (if it hasn't already been done, like I said I'm not very well versed in 4e). I would favor Grazzt or Demogorgon for that role although I think Grazzt is the better suited demon.
I don't see any other baatezu being made into a demon as a good thing to do...just doesnt make sense to me. And, as CoA indicated, no self-respecting member of the Nine would choose/consent to do such a thing. Just my opinion, of course.
As to the Blood War. YES bring it back. It was an interesting backstory at the least, a major catalyst at times, and a centerpoint for some campaigns. |
I have a dream that one day, all game worlds will exist as one. |
|
|
|
Mirtek
Senior Scribe
595 Posts |
Posted - 20 May 2013 : 18:25:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Arcanamach
I'm not well versed in 4e Realms but I believe Asmodeus is a major ranking god. It that's is so then I think he should be made into a minor deity instead. I can find a million flaws with how the Realms was handled after 3e and arbitrarily forcing a (retconned) change to the status quo in the Realms was pure garbage.
Asmodeus' divinity wasn retconned, he gained it from events during the spellplague |
|
|
|
silverwolfer
Senior Scribe
789 Posts |
Posted - 20 May 2013 : 20:27:06
|
| Azuth died, devil lord got it all, although the old ruler of the devils also is a lesser god rank, so I wonder if that would be a better plot point. |
|
|
|
The Arcanamach
Master of Realmslore
1842 Posts |
Posted - 21 May 2013 : 03:20:01
|
| True Mirtek, but then the Spellplague was the catalyst for 4e (i.e. excuse for the retconn). |
I have a dream that one day, all game worlds will exist as one. |
|
|
|
Chosen of Asmodeus
Master of Realmslore
1221 Posts |
Posted - 21 May 2013 : 03:28:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Bane
Asmodeus losing his godhood is contrary to CoA´s comment a good idea. It puts him back to equal level with all the other fiendish lords, granted he may be still more powerfull than the other lords of the nine, but it makes him not an untouchable figure and also levels the field for the demonic lords to get at Asmodeus if they choose to.
I stand by the argument, Bane is already the deity of tyranny, Asmodeus has no claim to the title and should never have gotten that big in first place. He was great as astral oppisition to tanar'ri and celestials. Him becoming a god is forcing core DnD into the realms and we saw what the results are when such a thing happens, 4e realms are aside a few exception vastly inferior to 3e realms.
Bane is a joke. He doesn't know the first thing about tyranny or fear. He got his godhood handed to him because Jergal was bored with it. His entire villainous career is one tired cliche and embarrassment after another. He couldn't clean Asmodeus' boots when Asmodeus was only an archdevil. It's time he steps aside and let Asmodeus show him how it's done. |
"Then I saw there was a way to Hell even from the gates of Heaven"
- John Bunyan, Pilgrim's Progress
Fatum Iustum Stultorum. Righteous is the destiny of fools.
The Roleplayer's Gazebo;
http://theroleplayersgazebo.yuku.com/directory#.Ub4hvvlJOAY |
|
|
|
Aldrick
Senior Scribe
909 Posts |
Posted - 21 May 2013 : 03:54:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chosen of Asmodeus
Bane is a joke. He doesn't know the first thing about tyranny or fear. He got his godhood handed to him because Jergal was bored with it.
Ouch. Burn.  |
|
|
|
Shemmy
Senior Scribe
USA
492 Posts |
Posted - 21 May 2013 : 04:55:44
|
Asmodeus doesn't need divinity, he was already more powerful within the Hells than a deity without the liability of having to worry about mortal worship. Having Azuth, a minor power on one world, matter enough that Asmodeus would need to steal his divinity versus a thousand other gods... it meshes poorly with prior lore.
Ending the Blood War was also a very, very poor idea, and again it meshes in an extraordinarily poor manner with prior lore. It ending or going on pause only really works within the 4e World Axis cosmology and that cosmology's history, not the planar history that the Realms has been part of since 1e.
How to attempt to reconcile some irreconcilable histories is going to be difficult since 4e pushed so many elements of cosmology and implied history into the Realms. It's not impossible -honestly it's something I'd have fun with- but God it's awkward. |
Shemeska the Marauder, King of the Crosstrade; voted #1 best Arcanaloth in Sigil two hundred years running by the people who know what's best for them; chant broker; prospective Sigil council member next election; and official travel agent for Chamada Holiday specials LLC.
|
|
|
|
silverwolfer
Senior Scribe
789 Posts |
Posted - 21 May 2013 : 06:08:00
|
| which god is it akward for :P |
|
|
|
Marc
Senior Scribe
657 Posts |
Posted - 21 May 2013 : 09:15:12
|
| The most unbelievable and ridiculous part to me is when Asmodeus pushed Abyss. |
. |
|
|
|
Lord Bane
Senior Scribe
Germany
479 Posts |
Posted - 21 May 2013 : 10:40:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chosen of Asmodeus
Bane is a joke. He doesn't know the first thing about tyranny or fear. He got his godhood handed to him because Jergal was bored with it. His entire villainous career is one tired cliche and embarrassment after another. He couldn't clean Asmodeus' boots when Asmodeus was only an archdevil. It's time he steps aside and let Asmodeus show him how it's done.
I strongly disagree with you about Bane not knowing things about tyranny and fear. The only joke is Asmodeus who can´t even keep his archdevils in line without them seeking to ursup him, quite a tyrant....
Bane did not care to "clean the boots of Asmodeus" because he was a archdevil. A god is higher than an archdevil and therefore if it didn´t suit Bane or effect him,it was BELOW his care for notice.
Asmodeus got how his divinity again? An accident where by pure chance a lesser god fell into the hells and he simply ate it? He lucked out without any real work while Bane went with Bhaal and Myrkul on a quest for godhood and worked for it.
Asmodeus does not belong into the realms as a deity, he belongs to the hells and the astral plane and him becoming a god in 4e IS forcing CORE DND into the realms.
Like it or not, I do not want to see Asmodeus as a god and i rather seem him lose it sooner than later. |
The driving force in the multiverse is evil, for it forces good to act. |
|
|
|
Arcanus
Senior Scribe
485 Posts |
Posted - 21 May 2013 : 13:06:24
|
| Why did Asmodeus become a Greater God? Azuth was only a minor or lesser god when Asmodeus killed him and stole his divinity. Is it because Asmodeus was already THAT powerful that he could jump the massive gap between Lesser and Greater Godhood? |
|
|
|
The Arcanamach
Master of Realmslore
1842 Posts |
Posted - 21 May 2013 : 17:03:46
|
Why did Asmodeus become a Greater God? Azuth was only a minor or lesser god when Asmodeus killed him and stole his divinity. Is it because Asmodeus was already THAT powerful that he could jump the massive gap between Lesser and Greater Godhood?
He became a god b/c WotC retconned him into the cosmology (and did a poor job of it at that). And, as Shemmy stated, it forced core DnD into the Realms which, IMHO, is just plain garbage on the part of the company. Gets my blood boiling just thinking about it tbh.
However, as I mentioned earlier, Asmodeus deserves divinity (I would say as a lesser deity) with devils as his primary sphere of influence. They would be his primary worshipers with the caveat that many (all?) of the archdevils work toward his downfall in the hopes of claiming his throne.
|
I have a dream that one day, all game worlds will exist as one. |
Edited by - The Arcanamach on 21 May 2013 17:05:39 |
|
|
|
Bladewind
Master of Realmslore
Netherlands
1280 Posts |
Posted - 21 May 2013 : 17:54:45
|
Asmodeus eating a divine snack and attaining godhood I have no problems with. His portfolio of Sin doesn't work for me though. There is no universal law amongst the creatures of Abeir-Toril that can lead to a proper defination of what Sin is, the wide variety of religions each fill in what it is for their own.
I think with Asmodeus ascension the tension between the Lords of Nine is even more pronounced, and I look forward to following the machinations of Mephistopheles (especially in the next Godborn novel), Dispater, Bel and Mammon and co in the near future. |
My campaign sketches
Druidic Groves
Creature Feature: Giant Spiders |
|
|
|
silverwolfer
Senior Scribe
789 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
The Arcanamach
Master of Realmslore
1842 Posts |
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! |
I have a dream that one day, all game worlds will exist as one. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
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. |
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!  |
|
|
|
Bladewind
Master of Realmslore
Netherlands
1280 Posts |
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? |
My campaign sketches
Druidic Groves
Creature Feature: Giant Spiders |
Edited by - Bladewind on 21 May 2013 19:51:08 |
|
|
|
Mirtek
Senior Scribe
595 Posts |
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. |
Edited by - Mirtek on 21 May 2013 21:07:18 |
|
|
|
The Arcanamach
Master of Realmslore
1842 Posts |
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. |
I have a dream that one day, all game worlds will exist as one. |
|
|
|
The Arcanamach
Master of Realmslore
1842 Posts |
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. |
I have a dream that one day, all game worlds will exist as one. |
|
|
|
silverwolfer
Senior Scribe
789 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
Aldrick
Senior Scribe
909 Posts |
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. |
Edited by - Aldrick on 22 May 2013 04:35:25 |
|
|
|
silverwolfer
Senior Scribe
789 Posts |
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
Senior Scribe
909 Posts |
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
Senior Scribe
789 Posts |
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
Senior Scribe
909 Posts |
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. |
Edited by - Aldrick on 22 May 2013 06:28:23 |
|
|
|
silverwolfer
Senior Scribe
789 Posts |
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? |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
what would happen if the lord of flies got divine
