| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
 Posted - 23 Jul 2013 : 20:17:00
|
One thing that I think could help the Realms immensely, for any edition, would be a series of articles (preferably from Ed himself) that call into question (or outright seriously undermine) the "truth narrator" and explanations for the underpinnings of Realms reality.
The Realms needs to be open to diversity, for the good of the players and DMs out there - it doesn't need "this is the way things work" when it comes to explanations about:
- death and the afterlife
- how the gods "work" and what they are
- the cosmic underpinnings of historical events
- how Mystra manages/controls magic
- whether AO exists or not
So I'd like to see something written in the vein of late 1E and early 2E "unreliable narration" where several sages explain their theories and "proof" of how things work.
You could have three different sages, all highly respected for their wisdom and knowledge, with impeccable research skills - but these sages would come from different cultures and have radically different theories and interpretations of "how X really works" in Realms reality.
Take something as simple as "The Wall of the Faithless" as an example topic. One sage, perhaps from Waterdeep, could describe the position already presented. The second sage, from Kara-Tur, could present an entirely different theory on what happens to faithless and false souls when they arrive in the afterlife. Our third sage, perhaps a wise old dark elf from the far southern Underdark, could present a completely and totally different theory.
Each "set" of theories could tackle a different topic. A later topic might be the Spellplague, which also could be explained in radically different ways, two of which don't even involve AO and Mystra but other things entirely. Yet another topic might explore different theories about the Shadowfel (which one sage could say is the negative energy plane... another could say it's a parallel or submerged reality).
Other sets of these "Sage Articles" could explore specific historical events, and how three immensely gifted historian-researchers have three entirely different perspectives on that historical event. One might even say that it didn't exist as such, that it's a complex metaphor made popular by a given faith yet didn't literally happen.
Finally we would have material in canon that supports diversity of interpretation when it comes to explaining reality, spirituality, history, magic, and so on. I think something like this would greatly benefit everyone, and we could finally do away with the idea that there's only one way to explain mysterious things in the Realms.
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
Edited by - Therise on 23 Jul 2013 20:21:33
|
|
|
silverwolfer
Senior Scribe
789 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jul 2013 : 20:53:00
|
That is a lovelly idea for source books, but an awful idea for written novels.
When I read a book, especcily if it deals with gods or AO. I want to know from the point of view of the character if it is the god of death, that says, THIS is the wall of the faithless, not well I think we have a wall of the faithless.
I don't want a game of clue in my books, that gives half assumptions of what am interacting with, am fine with cliff hangers or things not being resolved or just outright lies that question the point of living for a character, but if we have someone like Finder who channels his holy power into a star and his power levels go down, and we clearly see when he walks into the planescape city, that while it takes a week or so for the city to relize what he really is, the rules are clear. It hates gods, and was about to expel or devour him near the point where he actually leaves the city.
DM's and Pen and paper do fine with abstracts, the books need a clear reason of how or why something works, as we often leave the scope of eyes through fallible mortals, and have many stories that give insights through folks who are hundreds of years old, gifted with knowledge from the gods, or from the view points of the very gods themselves.
I like my history iffy, but I want my mechanics of the afterlife to be spot on, due to the simple fact that this is not some small scale setting. The realm is filled with powerful folks, who explore and experience things, can travel between realms and hold conversations with gods. If a wizard is powerful and he wonders if a wall of the faithless exists, then with his powers and abilities, he has the ability to go visit and confirm with such things.
The local pub in waterdeep can question the afterlife and if such things exists (which is for your players ), but if the subject comes up from the perspective of me reading through the eyes of the arch cleric of kelmavor , he better damn well know if such things exist, and have a thought bubble of him thinking of such. |
 |
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jul 2013 : 20:53:30
|
This idea isn’t without precedent.
The long-running Eye on the Realms article series in Dragon and Dungeon magazines have reintroduced the unreliable narrator in the form of not just Elminster, but numerous NPCs of the Realms (many of whom are sages) that all weigh in on the given topic discussed in each article.
While the articles don’t have a default in-Realms voice, they always have multiple in-Realms points of view do a good job of walking the line between material that’s known and what’s not.
One of the larger Realms issues the article series has worked on fixing is the supposed omnipotency of Elminster, by indicating that Elminster hasn’t the time to look in to this or that topic, and in one case flatly stating there would need to be several “stupendously wealthy” Elminsters before he could have a hope of discerning all the doings of a fellowship of secretive beholders active in Sembia.
Back to the OP: I don’t quite agree that it’s necessary to obfuscate the underpinnings of the Realms, but if WotC were to follow the format they’ve published with the Eye on the Realms articles, some of what the OP is looking to see happen could be done. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
Mirtek
Senior Scribe
595 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jul 2013 : 21:35:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by TheriseTake something as simple as "The Wall of the Faithless" as an example topic. One sage, perhaps from Waterdeep, could describe the position already presented. The second sage, from Kara-Tur, could present an entirely different theory on what happens to faithless and false souls when they arrive in the afterlife. Our third sage, perhaps a wise old dark elf from the far southern Underdark, could present a completely and totally different theory.
Yet once the characters are able to cast gate or planeshift and stands before the wall, I wan't to know which truth to tell them.
And no, if I wanted to just make everything up myself I wouldn't play or DM the Forgotten Realms.
This comes also down to the reason why I read FR novels, because they advance the setting and tell me stuff that has happened.
I don't read Eberron novels and never will spare the time to read one of them, because for me in the end they are just glorified fanfiction due to being non-canon.
|
Edited by - Mirtek on 23 Jul 2013 21:41:40 |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jul 2013 : 21:42:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by silverwolfer
When I read a book, especcily if it deals with gods or AO. I want to know from the point of view of the character if it is the god of death, that says, THIS is the wall of the faithless, not well I think we have a wall of the faithless.
Why is it necessary to know the "truth" - especially in a novel?
Who is to say that what is "seen" is actual reality, or if it's a perspective that is filtered through that character's faith and belief?
The actual cosmic reality shouldn't matter, because that's not of key importance to the story. How the character feels, how they react to what they believe and see, that's important. What they're seeing in the spiritual realm may, in fact, be entirely a constructed reality.
quote:
The realm is filled with powerful folks, who explore and experience things, can travel between realms and hold conversations with gods. If a wizard is powerful and he wonders if a wall of the faithless exists, then with his powers and abilities, he has the ability to go visit and confirm with such things.
Once again, I have to question why it's necessarily the case that what is "seen" is necessarily 100% real? What if the archmage or high priest is "translating" what they've seen, or if they might be filling their story with partial truths in order to simplify what they've said? Or in the case of evil priests/mages, why not tell lies to generate fear and terror, to support their personal goals?
What if the person is from an entirely different culture, such as Kara-Tur, and they've had no exposure to Western spiritual beliefs or gods their entire lives? What they perceive and "see" during their visit could be the Celestial Court, entirely framed by their personal teachings and faith, and they wouldn't see or have any need for a Wall of the Faithless or even Kelemvor?
Thing is, presenting things - particularly Astral or Extraplanar things - should be unreliable precisely because DMs and players need options. By saying that all souls go to the Fugue Plain, and are judged by Kelemvor, how does that make any sense whatsoever for a Kara-Turan PC? Are DMs forced to say that because certain Kara-Turans never choose a Patron Deity of the Western Pantheon that those souls will be plastered into the Wall of the Faithless?
The "one true way", "one single pantheon", 100% reliable narrator needs to be slain.
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
Edited by - Therise on 23 Jul 2013 22:01:22 |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jul 2013 : 21:59:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mirtek
Yet once the characters are able to cast gate or planeshift and stands before the wall, I wan't to know which truth to tell them.
And no, if I wanted to just make everything up myself I wouldn't play or DM the Forgotten Realms.
And yet Ed Greenwood himself understood the necessity of retaining mystery and uncertainty in the Realms. It's more than possible to tell a story, even an epic one, where players (or readers) are never explicitly told the true underpinnings of a setting's cosmic reality.
Mystery and uncertainty are, I'd argue, essential to the survival or a setting. And I think Ed would agree with me on this one.
With things like astral projection, gates, and plane-shifting, I think it's essential to keep in mind that traveling to other realities means that one's own senses and perceptions cannot (and should not) be trusted completely. Particularly with outer planes, where spirits, souls, and otherworldly entities reside, how much of it needs to be 100% real and how much of it needs to be mysterious and uncertain - and filtered through the magic/transition to the other reality?
Give away the actual cosmic rules and truths of the outer planes or the lower planes, and they become common and "just another place" to visit on a weekday. How special are they after that? Quite frankly, a major reason (other than some peoples' love of Cthulhu) for introducing the "Far Realms" was precisely because the outer and lower planes have become far too detailed with a reliable narrator.
In describing the "Great Wheel", the "Celestial Courts" or the "Cosmic Tree", isn't it possible that -under certain circumstances, magical transitions, or viewing methods- they're all correct to some degree? Why the necessity for "one truth", "one way", and "one pantheon"?
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
Edited by - Therise on 23 Jul 2013 22:04:14 |
|
|
|
silverwolfer
Senior Scribe
789 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jul 2013 : 22:01:56
|
the kara tur system was also explained, in the book I referenced dealing with finder. That is also an entirely different pantheon , but that shows a hole right there, that is your vague who knows what type thing.
Why can't the realms have a few pillars of , this is how it is. Gods would obviously promote the idea of a wall of the faithless, becuase over all, among the gods, it is a good thing for mortals to know. You don't worship one of us? Fine then get eaten by mold.
A:Gods want more power
B: Gods get power through worship
C: Those that don't worship turn into a wall of mold
D: Obviously that is lost potential of power of not getting a worshiper, so gods take the effort to tell folks, look this isn't just a myth , this is the real deal, chose me to save you from it.
E: Gods get power and start the cycle once more making sure something just isn't myth but a known fact.
Am fine with obfuscation, in the view of those that have no reason to think beyond farm life, or local matters. Joe the farm hand, should not know why beholders have 7 eyes besides rumors and theory. Wooly Rubert the wise godly sage of candle keep who studies aberrations, should know that a beholder has 7 eyes and long teeth. and can be found in certain areas if you need the spell supplies.
Another example
The city of brass , we will do this the old Bard DC knowledge check way
1d20 + knowledge skill level= result
5DC- Farmhand Knowledge: Some sort of horrible tales that they may have heard from some bard, no real facts or even vauge idea wher eit might be
10DC - Local Wizard or cleric : A city full of a bunch of folks , good place to get rare supplies and make deals with folks along the plane of fire
15DC - Bard: Ran by Dijinn sultans , what goes on about the street level , maybe some knowlede on mid level folks , and a commonly portal to reach it in their part of the world
20DC Well traveled person or plane hopper : Who runs what, where to buy things that work or reliable, who scams what , cheap place to sleep , and the dangers of travling to the location
25 DC: Established high level npc character: Knows fundamental bits as well on contacts that can help someone out
DC -5 if find locals that live around or about a portal or on the plane
DC +5 no where close to a place that would have knowledge on such thing
|
|
|
|
silverwolfer
Senior Scribe
789 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jul 2013 : 22:06:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
Mystery and uncertainty are, I'd argue, essential to the survival or a setting. And I think Ed would agree with me on this one.
Give away the actual cosmic rules and truths of the outer planes or the lower planes, and they become common and "just another place" to visit on a weekday. How special are they after that?
In describing the "Great Wheel", the "Celestial Courts" or the "Cosmic Tree", isn't it possible that -under certain circumstances or viewing methods- they're all correct to some degree? Why the necessity for "one truth", "one way", and "one pantheon"?
I think you really are trying to down play the level of reailty of the setting. We get told the story as the view point of mighty spellcasters and kings, not farm hands and stable boys.
If someone is playing FR D&D and have worked up to a character level of being able to travel the planes and explore more then the average dungeon, and has the power to slay armies. Then they sort of earned the right to know certain facts about the world they live in are true.
You need to lose this need that reality is an ever changing thing, we can't even argue if gods are a thing or not anymore. Folks know where they go when they die, because they can FRIGGEN RAISE THE DEAD!
|
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jul 2013 : 22:16:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
quote:
Originally posted by Mirtek
Yet once the characters are able to cast gate or planeshift and stands before the wall, I wan't to know which truth to tell them.
And no, if I wanted to just make everything up myself I wouldn't play or DM the Forgotten Realms.
And yet Ed Greenwood himself understood the necessity of retaining mystery and uncertainty in the Realms. It's more than possible to tell a story, even an epic one, where players (or readers) are never explicitly told the true underpinnings of a setting's cosmic reality.
Mystery and uncertainty are, I'd argue, essential to the survival or a setting. And I think Ed would agree with me on this one.
With things like astral projection, gates, and plane-shifting, I think it's essential to keep in mind that traveling to other realities means that one's own senses and perceptions cannot (and should not) be trusted completely. Particularly with outer planes, where spirits, souls, and otherworldly entities reside, how much of it needs to be 100% real and how much of it needs to be mysterious and uncertain - and filtered through the magic/transition to the other reality?
Give away the actual cosmic rules and truths of the outer planes or the lower planes, and they become common and "just another place" to visit on a weekday. How special are they after that? Quite frankly, a major reason (other than some peoples' love of Cthulhu) for introducing the "Far Realms" was precisely because the outer and lower planes have become far too detailed with a reliable narrator.
In describing the "Great Wheel", the "Celestial Courts" or the "Cosmic Tree", isn't it possible that -under certain circumstances, magical transitions, or viewing methods- they're all correct to some degree? Why the necessity for "one truth", "one way", and "one pantheon"?
I think there is only so much that can be uncertain, and that the need or desire for certainty doesn't necessarily apply to all things. It's pretty unreasonable to assume that when multiple people travel to the planes, see the same things and hear the same information from the locals, that there is a perception issue at play.
On the other hand, uncertainty surrounding the mysterious disappearance of Bahb the Fighter is an entirely different story. The exact powers of the legendary ring of niftiness, last seen a thousand years on the finger of Morty the Semi-Lich, can be left undefined and/or have conflicting legends.
Some things have to definite, but not all of them 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!  |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jul 2013 : 22:18:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by silverwolfer
Why can't the realms have a few pillars of , this is how it is. Gods would obviously promote the idea of a wall of the faithless, becuase over all, among the gods, it is a good thing for mortals to know. You don't worship one of us? Fine then get eaten by mold.
You're suggesting that every faith, every priest, knows about and teaches their flock about the Wall of the Faithless.
This is problematic for several reasons.
1. It makes every god, even the lawful good ones, into a deity that demands faith or receive the consequence of torture followed by eternal oblivion. "Worship Sune, or have your soul be painfully and slowly destroyed." This is enforced worship under threat.
2. IIRC, Ed himself has said that most commoners don't know complex details about the afterlife, such as knowledge of the Wall. Why should most commoners know or try to learn such details?
3. In foreign cultures, again let's take Kara-Tur, their priesthoods and temples may never, ever teach anything about the Western gods, the Wall, or other such details. Threat of torture and soul destruction is actually incompatible with many of their teachings... but if it's "true" then what's going on?
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jul 2013 : 22:30:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by silverwolfer
I think you really are trying to down play the level of reailty of the setting. We get told the story as the view point of mighty spellcasters and kings, not farm hands and stable boys.
Mighty spellcasters, high priests, and even Kings, can be just as wrong (or right) as the farm hand or stable boy.
quote:
If someone is playing FR D&D and have worked up to a character level of being able to travel the planes and explore more then the average dungeon, and has the power to slay armies. Then they sort of earned the right to know certain facts about the world they live in are true.
Earned the "right"? Heh! I disagree. Mystery and uncertainty are what keep stories -and campaigns- going. Once you learn all the truths and mechanisms, particularly with a fantasy setting, the magic and fun really start to disappear.
Bear in mind that I am -not- arguing for DMs taking a completely arbitrary and "change the rules whenever I want" kind of approach. Stories do require internal consistency in order to work well. But start removing the mystery and giving detailed charts and plans to your PCs and they will start getting bored.
quote:
You need to lose this need that reality is an ever changing thing,
This is -not- what I'm suggesting. Just because something remains mysterious and uncertain doesn't mean that it's constantly changing.
quote:
... we can't even argue if gods are a thing or not anymore. Folks know where they go when they die, because they can FRIGGEN RAISE THE DEAD!
Ah, no. People -believe- they know where they go when they die. Raising the dead is a bestowed power, and it doesn't always work. 
When players keep speculating, you have them "hooked" and ready for more. But once you give up the details of the true inner workings, they drop it like a hot rock and ask to move on toward the next uncertain, mysterious thing.
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
|
|
|
idilippy
Senior Scribe
USA
417 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jul 2013 : 22:32:10
|
The dead being raised does not require that the one coming back has a 100% accurate picture of where they were when they were dead. I had issues with the Last Mythal series of books, but one thing that I liked was when the elf hero Fflar was resurrected/miracle-ed back to Faerun. He didn't have some perfect encyclopedic knowledge of the beyond, just impressions and (fading) memories of the place he was after he died.
I don't know if I'd be on board with multiple explanations for everything in the Realms, but having at least some "unreliable narrator" type of information in articles or novels would be something I'd embrace. I can (and do) use unreliable narration when DMing when what I do with a particular location, being, or object in the Forgotten Realms doesn't match the canon my players know. I also like having mysteries, uncertain information, or even utter contradictions come up when reading something from an in universe character's point of view. At the same time though, I like some things to be made clear. I loved the three 2e god books, listing out the different deities and their churches along with common manifestations, and would much rather have that than have no idea what gods there really are and have to just wing it. I would like to see more local and racial deities that aren't clearly identified as just aspects of a more mainstream god. I also like things such as the Rising Sun heresy when it was an uncertain option, I don't like when it turns into just "yeah, Lathander is just an aspect of Amaunator after all". Heresies, along with regional and racial deities with similarities to mainstream deities, are aspects of mystery in the Realms that I think can be presented in novels or articles by unreliable and biased narrators in a way that makes them fascinating to read about while also making them interesting and adaptable for individual DMs and campaigns on the gaming side. |
|
|
|
silverwolfer
Senior Scribe
789 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jul 2013 : 22:32:14
|
okay so am going to use some logic on it
The wall is not evil or good, it is a simple contract of the universe. You believe you get this, if you don't believe you go to the wall. And a good aligned god would want to tell folks this sort of thing, because without a patron, you have a good chance of being forced to become a demon .
2. Ed himself, while the main creator, and bless his heart for having a contract that says, if I say so , therefore it is. Unless he comes out and says, Screw all the books that wrote about it, it is not a thing; it is therefore a thing. This is not the far realms , realityis not an illusion or at whim of desire. You throw a rock, and it will hit something, most the time, on most planes.
3. Not all pantheons are the same, that is not the consequence of obfuscation, but rather not considering how how systems work, when such things were written about. |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jul 2013 : 22:44:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by silverwolfer
okay so am going to use some logic on it
The wall is not evil or good, it is a simple contract of the universe.
Torture and soul destruction are classically evil. The Wall vaguely made sense for Myrkul back when he was in power, because he was evil -and- delighted in tormenting people. At that time, it was also the case that it wasn't necessarily true (i.e. one of only three available options for all souls) for everyone on the planet, because the reveals about "one true pantheon" had not been put into place. It was only a part of that one Western pantheon's beliefs, and clearly described as having been created by Myrkul... not existing just as a "feature of the universe".
Kelemvor had the option to dismantle the Wall. For a non-evil god devoted to removing the fear of death, it's strange to keep such an evil thing around to enforce and frighten people into worship. It was even more disturbing that Kelemvor put Adon's soul into the Wall for being "faithless" despite the fact that Adon had been tricked into madness -and- Mystra specifically came for his soul anyway.
And if indeed there really is only one true pantheon, then all the gods -even the good ones- are complicit in retaining a massively evil torture/destruction device around to frighten and enforce worship. It makes them all evil, or complicit in evil, on a grand scale.
Furthermore, the "one true pantheon" gods are not just complicit in promoting this evil thing, but they're incredibly deficient in correcting foreign worship/beliefs where it's not even taught... yet it remains a "fact" for everyone who doesn't worship, because there's only "one true way". |
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
Edited by - Therise on 23 Jul 2013 23:06:07 |
|
|
|
silverwolfer
Senior Scribe
789 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jul 2013 : 23:24:11
|
Maybe in your point of view, remember you are an unreliable narrative, you are just one of many points of view on what something exists. For all we the reader being told these things , by an unreliable person, that it is a necessary evil to promote worship, otherwise have gods is mortals can just ignore them.
In all honesty, I think it is because when big K stopped acting so human and turned stone cold, he looked at the faithless wall not as an evil act, but rather as just the cycle of life. If no one is around to claim your soul, then we put you on the wall, so it is a counter balance to all that good he did when him and mystra were still making goo goo eyes. |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jul 2013 : 23:41:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by silverwolfer
Maybe in your point of view, remember you are an unreliable narrative, you are just one of many points of view on what something exists. For all we the reader being told these things , by an unreliable person, that it is a necessary evil to promote worship, otherwise have gods is mortals can just ignore them.
Uhm... my "point of view" has nothing to do with events as they were actually described in novels. Kelemvor's actions, and his intentions, were made perfectly clear and they became a part of accepted canon as actual events.
You can't have it both ways, sorry.
quote:
In all honesty, I think it is because when big K stopped acting so human and turned stone cold, he looked at the faithless wall not as an evil act, but rather as just the cycle of life. If no one is around to claim your soul, then we put you on the wall, so it is a counter balance to all that good he did when him and mystra were still making goo goo eyes.
Myrkul created the Wall. It did not exist beforehand. Myrkul created the Wall specifically to torture souls that would have otherwise escaped all the gods, and also to use them as an additional means of generating fear of death (because his priests could tell horror stories of the afterlife). This is all pretty clear. It was never intended to reflect any "cycle of life" concept.
Additionally, Kelemvor could have dismantled the Wall. Not only did he choose not to dismantle it, he put his former friend into the Wall when it was patently clear that Adon had been tricked by Cyric. Mystra even came to collect Adon's soul anyway, because she understood how blatantly unfair it was to torture/destroy someone when they had been tricked into madness. But Kelemvor chose the evil act of ignoring those extenuating circumstances and decided to put Adon's soul into the Wall. How, by any definition, is that a "cycle of life" thing?
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
Edited by - Therise on 23 Jul 2013 23:43:15 |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jul 2013 : 23:48:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by silverwolfer
In all honesty, I think it is because when big K stopped acting so human and turned stone cold, he looked at the faithless wall not as an evil act, but rather as just the cycle of life. If no one is around to claim your soul, then we put you on the wall, so it is a counter balance to all that good he did when him and mystra were still making goo goo eyes.
 Evil and good are non absolutes and ''human''-defined concepts. There's nothing to balance there -because there are multiple ideas of them- and a god of death shouldn't care about this at all.
Also the Wall is not part of the natural cycle of anything, it is not an intrinsic part of the Multiverse. It was erected by Myrkul (who's a mortal ascended to godhood, AFAIK) for his own purposes.
Mortals will worship gods if they truly believe in what the latter stand for, and I don't think that lipservice (the only thing the Wall can force) would be enough to empower a deity: you'd need actual belief for that.
-Sorry for the OT-
EDIT: uh, posted too late. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 23 Jul 2013 23:56:48 |
|
|
|
BEAST
Master of Realmslore
USA
1714 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jul 2013 : 01:28:02
|
Great idea, Therise. I have long advocated greater expression of the agnostic viewpoint within the Realms. Not everybody is going to have direct access to the mindsets and actions of the gods like we readers do. There has got to be a lot of hearsay, and therefore room for doubt and uncertainty. Drizzt's indecisiveness on--and even withdrawal from--the issue of the gods cannot be that much of a rarity.
Some observers are quick to point out that in a place like the Realms where magic practically abounds and is all around, there could not realistically be any room for doubt on the existence of the gods.
But even if magic did abound (which is seriously subject to question, itself, when you get down to the local farmer or scribe level, versus that of the epic PCs [EDIT: NPCs]), how is the average Joe/Jane really supposed to know which god is involved? How is your regular, everyday, run-of-the-mill Realmsian supposed to know not only the difference between arcanely-sourced magic and divinely-sourced magic, and arcane magic from one school versus another, or clerical magic from one deity versus another?
The fact that we have all of this spelled out for us in convenient codices does not automatically mean that the average Realmsian would.
And even for those Realmsians with a little bit of education, I would think that there would still be room for some doubt as to the details. Unless they were right there to serve as eyewitnesses to the events themselves, how would they really, really know? |
"'You don't know my history,' he said dryly."
--Drizzt Do'Urden (The Pirate King, Part 1: Chapter 2)
<"Comprehensive Chronology of R.A. Salvatore Forgotten Realms Works"> |
Edited by - BEAST on 25 Jul 2013 11:59:06 |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7969 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jul 2013 : 02:20:21
|
quote:
Therise
Why is it necessary to know the "truth" - especially in a novel?
I'll take this argument one step further.
Why is it necessary for only one "truth" to exist, exclusive of all other (mutually contradictory?) "truths"?
Arguments aside, my opinion is that clearly defining the exact parameters of fantasy (worlds and planes, gods and demons, magic and mages) serves to erode the very essence of what makes it fantastic. It becomes ordinary, explanable, reproducible, consistent, predictable ... in short, it sounds less like magic and more like science. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jul 2013 : 18:29:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
Great idea, Therise. I have long advocated greater expression of the agnostic viewpoint within the Realms. Not everybody is going to have direct access to the mindsets and actions of the gods like we readers do. There has got to be a lot of hearsay, and therefore room for doubt and uncertainty. Drizzt's indecisiveness on--and even withdrawal from--the issue of the gods cannot be that much of a rarity.
Some observers are quick to point out that in a place like the Realms where magic practically abounds and is all around, there could not realistically be any room for doubt on the existence of the gods.
But even if magic did abound (which is seriously subject to question, itself, when you get down to the local farmer or scribe level, versus that of the epic PCs), how is the average Joe/Jane really supposed to know which god is involved? How is your regular, everyday, run-of-the-mill Realmsian supposed to know not only the difference between arcanely-sourced magic and divinely-sourced magic, and arcane magic from one school versus another, or clerical magic from one deity versus another?
The fact that we have all of this spelled out for us in convenient codices does not automatically mean that the average Realmsian would.
And even for those Realmsians with a little bit of education, I would think that there would still be room for some doubt as to the details. Unless they were right there to serve as eyewitnesses to the events themselves, how would they really, really know?
Thanks! And I totally agree. It's very difficult to separate oneself from one's meta-game knowledge. Knowing too much about the nitty-gritty can lessen the feeling of wonder and fun, I think.
With commoners, and even with many educated nobles and rich merchants, they couldn't possibly have the meta-knowledge of the cosmic rules that we do from reading sourcebooks - so for them, even with "certainties" like seeing magic every day, it might not be so easy to say that gods actually exist... and even more difficult to say that everything priests say is true. It does still come down to a matter of faith for most people in the Realms, I think.
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
I'll take this argument one step further.
Why is it necessary for only one "truth" to exist, exclusive of all other (mutually contradictory?) "truths"?
Arguments aside, my opinion is that clearly defining the exact parameters of fantasy (worlds and planes, gods and demons, magic and mages) serves to erode the very essence of what makes it fantastic. It becomes ordinary, explanable, reproducible, consistent, predictable ... in short, it sounds less like magic and more like science.
Very well said, I agree!
Truly, I think a -lot- more unreliable narration, outright uncertainty and "multiple possible interpretations" would greatly benefit DMs, players, even people who solely read the novels. It'd bring back the mystery and excitement, the wonder of the unknown.
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
Edited by - Therise on 24 Jul 2013 18:32:31 |
|
|
|
silverwolfer
Senior Scribe
789 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jul 2013 : 19:09:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
It becomes ordinary, explanable, reproducible, consistent, predictable ... in short, it sounds less like magic and more like science.
“Magic's just science that we don't understand yet.”
#8213; Arthur C. Clarke
To a wizard, magic is science.
I think the argument on this ultimate breaks down on point of view , of who is doing the writing. Should published lore be written from the point of view certainty of something that others can confirm, or be written from the point of view of a peasent who knows nothing but rumors.
I think the basic backdrop of things is that, I want to know what the 9 lords of hell are doing, who they are, and what sort of capacity they have if my party gets strong enough to challenge one.
Everything else past that is all about fluff, and you can have plenty of that, this is about roleplay, just because the player and I know that the king of hell is not little bobby , does not mean that his level 1 character can assume that the king of hell is in little bobby and needs to be burned at the steak.
Edit Two: Also, I see a fundamental flaw in your logic, you and me both know this is roleplay and fantasy. The way you speak in the logic, that we should have no enjoyment then, as we clearly see that everything is false therefore no fun to experience.
We both know cyric is male, but does not mean, that he could not shift himself to being female, and throw the adventuring party for a loop trying to figure out what just happened.
Just because we know folks live on the moon, does not mean, that it has any affect on the gameplay as it is such a far away concept for a level 1 adventurer. |
Edited by - silverwolfer on 24 Jul 2013 19:21:21 |
|
|
|
Mirtek
Senior Scribe
595 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jul 2013 : 20:41:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
By saying that all souls go to the Fugue Plain, and are judged by Kelemvor, how does that make any sense whatsoever for a Kara-Turan PC? Are DMs forced to say that because certain Kara-Turans never choose a Patron Deity of the Western Pantheon that those souls will be plastered into the Wall of the Faithless?
The "one true way", "one single pantheon", 100% reliable narrator needs to be slain.
No one is saying "all souls" and "one single/true pantheon"
The rules set by the faerunian pantheon only are in play for souls over which the faerunian pantheons holds sway. Souls of Kara-Turans go wherever the celestial bureaucracy sends them.
The faerunian pantheon would certainly like to extend their influence over all of Kara-Tur too, but they have to go step by step. Before the spellplague ended it all of sudden, they were just slowly swallowing the pantheon of Mulhorand |
Edited by - Mirtek on 24 Jul 2013 20:43:44 |
|
|
|
Aldrick
Senior Scribe
909 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jul 2013 : 23:27:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by silverwolfer
To a wizard, magic is science.
Actually, no. In the Realms magic is considered an art. That's why it's called "the Art" as in "The Art of Magic".
-----
I have to agree with Therise on this, and I've been arguing for this literally for years and years now. Especially, when it comes to the deities - one of the worst things that has ever happened to the Realms was turning the deities into characters with actual viewpoints. Nothing strips away their mystery more than that, and ultimately it turns them into idiots and buffoons.
Of course, this doesn't mean that numerous facts about the Realms couldn't be known. For example, when writing about the King of Cormyr, we'll obviously know his name, and he'll obviously be recognized. Unless, of course, there is some type of dispute over the throne... in which case we'd know factually about the dispute.
What I'd want would be a few snippets from various people in the Realms discussing their opinion on the king. I want to hear a nobles opinion on Azoun V - how they despise him as he works to elevate the common folk, for example. I want to hear about a commoners opinion on Azoun V - how they love him for the same reason nobles despise him. I want to hear a merchants opinion on Azoun V - how they are fearful he could cause a civil war through his commoner loving policies, etc. etc. These little insights make Azoun V a more three-dimensional character, but also give an insight into Cormyr that is useful and even critical to a DM. It's what helps provide the flavor and context.
When it comes to the deities, the focus should not be on the gods themselves, but on their cults. Their cults should be diverse, they should not be monolithic in nature. Not all Banites agree with other Banites, not all worshipers of Oghma agree with other worshipers of Oghma. Not all Sharran's like the idea of Netheril, and may actively oppose them - seeing them as heretics. The same is true with Banites and the Zhents. The list goes on and on.
When it comes to personalities, those personalities should not be the deities themselves, but their clergy. The deities themselves should be mysterious, and yet ever present.
This means dream visions and strange manifestations that highlight that yes - the gods are real and they're watching - but also those signs, visions, and manifestations could be completely misinterpreted and two people who had the same experience could walk away with radically different opinions. And even if they agreed on the substance, they may not agree on how to act on that knowledge.
When it comes to displays of divine power - let Umberlee curse the ships that openly spurn her - let them sink and their crews die. Let fear spread to all who oppose the Bitch Queen... and let the clergy of Valkur and Selune show up to oppose her actions, blessing ships and giving them safe passage despite the violent seas - dealing a defeat to the angry goddess. Show things as an actual spiritual war being fought for control of not only the very elements of the world, but for the hearts, minds, and souls of the people who live in it.
This is how these things should be handled. The way that it has been done in the past has been utterly wrong, and ultimately corrosive and destructive to the setting as a whole. |
|
|
|
George Krashos
Master of Realmslore
Australia
6646 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jul 2013 : 01:13:26
|
I've always thought that there are many things about the Realms, I must say mostly to do with the gods, that should not be detailed or dated. I've long been a proponent of not dating things like the Dawn Cataclysm, the Ascension of the Three and the Sundering. Eric and I got our way on the DC for the 3E Realms, lost that battle on the Sundering when LEoF was in development and the Three are "still out there" (although the wide field has narrowed and narrowed on that topic). The unreliable narrator is always the best. When I do FR work on my Impiltur stuff I always leave things dangling, undetailed, and put in caveats like "sages say", "loremasters believe" etc. That way individuals can take that information and tailor it to their own work, campaigns or conception of the setting. It's always better that way. You shouldn't have a requirement for 'absolutes' in a fantastical world of magic and gods unless it just simply cannot be avoided. IMHO those occasions are and should be rare.
-- George Krashos |
"Because only we, contrary to the barbarians, never count the enemy in battle." -- Aeschylus |
Edited by - George Krashos on 25 Jul 2013 01:32:37 |
|
|
|
Dark Wizard
Senior Scribe
USA
830 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jul 2013 : 03:44:44
|
Not only the gods and divine workings, but also the ancient fallen empires and even the formerly mysterious Creator Races. While one can always argue the last decades of material were unreliable, I feel it's stated too matter-of-factly. Much of the material has been presented too much in the style of dry encyclopedic dictation. The tone of writing presents little room for opinion, or incomplete scholarly research based on scattered and long lost records, or skewed recollection after the event, or clerical consensus, or arcane theorem.
After seeing it in action with some of the lore that sparked my imagination, the unreliable narrator concept is a vital tool I use in my own materials. Revealing less (and hinting at possibilities) can often result in more evocative and useful ideas. |
Edited by - Dark Wizard on 25 Jul 2013 03:47:53 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jul 2013 : 04:57:41
|
The 'unreliable narrator', IMHO, is what made the Realms the Realms - its what drew us in from the beginning. It wasn't just another dry, generic fantasy setting; it was a living, breathing world with people and things happening all the time.
Before FR, RPG setings felt static. Nothing happened on the other side of the door until your PCs opened it. The whole world stands still waiting for one party of adventurers to do something. FR was never like that - life went on whether the PCs opened the damn door or not.
I am a big fan of timelines, though, so I have to ever-so-slightly disagree with Krash on that one. Perhaps not so much for the fans, but I think there should definitely be a solid timeline of events in-house for designers to reference, if for no other reason then to avoid inconsistencies and anachronisms. Its not such a bad thing to let slip a secret or two every once in awhile, but as Ed has said, "for every loose-end you tie-off, create three new mysteries" (or something fairly close to that). |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
silverwolfer
Senior Scribe
789 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jul 2013 : 06:16:28
|
| Yet the number one thing it seems folks want to know, is how the dawn cataclysm works, yet I have not heard one person say, wait NO don't tell us keep it vague. |
|
|
|
George Krashos
Master of Realmslore
Australia
6646 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jul 2013 : 12:13:00
|
Don't you think that if it was that easy, it would have been done by now?
-- George Krashos
|
"Because only we, contrary to the barbarians, never count the enemy in battle." -- Aeschylus |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jul 2013 : 12:23:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by silverwolfer
Yet the number one thing it seems folks want to know, is how the dawn cataclysm works, yet I have not heard one person say, wait NO don't tell us keep it vague.
Ok. Please don't tell us, keep it vague. And do the same thing with everything concerning gods and metaphysics.
Now there is at least one.
|
No Canon, more stories, more Realms. |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jul 2013 : 13:07:25
|
Personally, I'd like a sort of compromise between objectivity and unreliability. I'm fine with the info about ancient events, how gods think, how extraplanar stuff works and so on being kept vague. However, considering that the Sundering is going to bring many (?) deities back, I'd like to know who actually is and who isn't, what they and their followers are going to do and some details about their return (not asking for whole novels like it was done for Mystra, but at least some lines of lore...).
Not giving any info about that and saying ''sort it by yourself, the priest(esse)s can receive spells from any gods etc...'' won't cut it (for me, at least). |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 25 Jul 2013 13:09:09 |
|
|
|
The Arcanamach
Master of Realmslore
1842 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jul 2013 : 15:04:17
|
As a DM, I don't mind certainties/absolutes in the lore as I can always discard what I don't like anyway and to some degree it is helpful to have a canon framework to build from. But, as a player I prefer uncertain 3rd person by far. As already stated, the wonder and mystery provides more enjoyment.
This debate (and let me say it's debates such as these that keep me at the Keep!) reminds me of a discussion I once had with some fellow players. I prefer a modified 'Great Wheel' cosmology (and use it as 'the truth' for the most part) but...different cultures have different views on this cosmology. Nordic culture views the cosmology differently than Celtic culture. Egyptian differs from ancient Greek, etc.
Perhaps one PC 'remembers' the Great Tree while another experienced something very different. In my campaign, I would describe the experience differently based on the PCs beliefs. And all of them would be true and false because the gods somehow filter the experience based on what is expected upon death. That's just me though. |
I have a dream that one day, all game worlds will exist as one. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Article(s) idea: restore the unreliable narrator
