| Author |
 Topic  |
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11696 Posts |
 Posted - 20 Feb 2015 : 01:31:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrHedgehog
I like Leira
Leira, Azuth, Savras, Velsharoon, and Auppenser. Let there be deities of all the subschools of magic in one sort or another. Auppenser could take up enchantment/charm. Having a deity over abjuration magic would be interesting as well, which actually I'd love to see the Red Knight spread her wings to not just be under Tempus. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
 |
|
|
George Krashos
Master of Realmslore
Australia
6646 Posts |
Posted - 20 Feb 2015 : 01:39:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by jordanz
Azuth. I remember a funny scene in an old novel where he is having an idle conversation with Elminister. A hoard of powerful fiends attempt to ambush/kill him from behind. He dismisses them casually , without turning his head or even missing a beat in his conversation with Elminster.
Yeah, the way Ed writes Azuth is brilliant. He does the same thing in "Prayers from the Faithful".
You might want to read Erin Evans' latest novel to see developments re Azuth.
-- George Krashos |
"Because only we, contrary to the barbarians, never count the enemy in battle." -- Aeschylus |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11696 Posts |
Posted - 20 Feb 2015 : 01:40:49
|
| On the Velsharoon / Myrkul thing... I know some people are like "I want Myrkul back, Velsharoon sucks" and others are the exact opposite. Personally, I like both. I actually favor Velsharoon more. An interesting take on this might be that this being becomes a tripartite deity.... Velsharoon, Myrkul, and Mellifleur... and it could be a relatively easy story to build. If Velsharoon's ascension was built upon a ritual involving Mellifleur's phylactery, and then perhaps some Velsharite priests (or a weakened Velsharoon himself) attempting to bring him back get ahold of the crown of horns. He could then be something akin to a god using pact magic. There is one in control, but he allows the other gods to feel the world through him in return for their power. He could thus be a god over pact magic as well. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
JohnLynch
Learned Scribe
Australia
243 Posts |
Posted - 20 Feb 2015 : 02:51:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout
As a fan of the gods--they are one of my favorite elements of the Realms--I would like to know for certain which ones are back. I don't like the uncertainty of "maybe X god has returned, maybe he/she hasn't. Up to you!" That's fine from a gaming perspective, but as far as lore and the novels...not so much, IMO.
I dunno. Saying "god X is dead" means that any writer that wants to use a priest of that god or even the god itself has to either explain why that god isn't dead anymore which could completely put too much emphasis on the god or simply not write that scene with that god. Saying "most of the gods are back" means writers can pick and choose which gods to use without fear of contradicting lore.
From an RPG perspective, imagine who your favourite deity is. Now imagine that deity doesn't really have a big fan base and is instead a rather obscure deity that you've grown attached to. Then Wizards comes out and says "that deity is dead." You now have to contradict lore, or not to get play with that deity alive in your game. Who wins in this scenario?
I dunno. Saying "deity X is dead" simple seems to set people up for disappointment and doesn't really seem to bring anything to the table from a narrative or gaming perspective. |
DM of the Realms: A blog for my Forgotten Realms adventures. |
Edited by - JohnLynch on 20 Feb 2015 02:52:47 |
|
|
|
CorellonsDevout
Great Reader
USA
2708 Posts |
Posted - 20 Feb 2015 : 03:09:27
|
If X god is dead, then the writer could state that, or not write about priests of dead deities. Before the Sundering, there were groups of people who followed dead deities, but they knew that deity was dead. We should be privy to the knowledge of which deities have returned.
Saying "maybe X deity is dead, maybe they aren't" doesn't bring much to the table, either. I think it's just a way to avoid having to write more lore or deal with the issue. |
Sweet water and light laughter |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 20 Feb 2015 : 03:12:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnLynch
quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout
As a fan of the gods--they are one of my favorite elements of the Realms--I would like to know for certain which ones are back. I don't like the uncertainty of "maybe X god has returned, maybe he/she hasn't. Up to you!" That's fine from a gaming perspective, but as far as lore and the novels...not so much, IMO.
I dunno. Saying "god X is dead" means that any writer that wants to use a priest of that god or even the god itself has to either explain why that god isn't dead anymore which could completely put too much emphasis on the god or simply not write that scene with that god. Saying "most of the gods are back" means writers can pick and choose which gods to use without fear of contradicting lore.
From an RPG perspective, imagine who your favourite deity is. Now imagine that deity doesn't really have a big fan base and is instead a rather obscure deity that you've grown attached to. Then Wizards comes out and says "that deity is dead." You now have to contradict lore, or not to get play with that deity alive in your game. Who wins in this scenario?
I dunno. Saying "deity X is dead" simple seems to set people up for disappointment and doesn't really seem to bring anything to the table from a narrative or gaming perspective.
More than reading ''X deity is dead'' I'd like a bit of forefront info on some deities, particularly (save, obviously, the ones I like) for those who had some kind fo storyline attached to their removal, a reassurance that they are back. This is something that has been done for some gods and that -according to what we've been told- is going to happen for some others (even if probably not a huge explanation, but a little something like ''(s)he's back, the Sundering/whatever did it''). |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 20 Feb 2015 03:14:59 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 20 Feb 2015 : 04:32:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
On the Velsharoon / Myrkul thing... I know some people are like "I want Myrkul back, Velsharoon sucks" and others are the exact opposite. Personally, I like both. I actually favor Velsharoon more. An interesting take on this might be that this being becomes a tripartite deity.... Velsharoon, Myrkul, and Mellifleur... and it could be a relatively easy story to build. If Velsharoon's ascension was built upon a ritual involving Mellifleur's phylactery, and then perhaps some Velsharite priests (or a weakened Velsharoon himself) attempting to bring him back get ahold of the crown of horns. He could then be something akin to a god using pact magic. There is one in control, but he allows the other gods to feel the world through him in return for their power. He could thus be a god over pact magic as well.
I have no use for Velsharoon, myself, and I think Myrkul is much more fun as an intelligent artifact happily popping around causing problems.
One of the reason I prefer to see the Dead Three remain dead is because when I came to the Realms, I wanted a setting where things actually happened, where there was change in the setting. And I got it -- as soon as I discovered the setting, there was a huge divine shake-up and multiple deities died.
This very much appealed to me. Not the deaths, as such, but the fact that something that dramatic could happen.
Just having them pop back into existence feels cheap to me, and it takes away from what attracted me to the setting in the first place.
That's why I say I want the deities as they were in 1375ish. We had deities that had been slain, others that had arisen... The divine soap opera hadn't happened yet, the culling of the drow pantheon hadn't happened yet, and we didn't have this ridiculousness about "Racial Deity X is actually Human Deity Y!"
And while I obvious favor it because it's my theory, I also think it's a lot more interesting to have Xvim pretending to be his father, instead of having Bane return. An imposter claiming to be the lost king is a more fun idea than the king returning from far away. |
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!  |
|
|
|
Aldrick
Senior Scribe
909 Posts |
Posted - 20 Feb 2015 : 08:05:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout
If X god is dead, then the writer could state that, or not write about priests of dead deities. Before the Sundering, there were groups of people who followed dead deities, but they knew that deity was dead. We should be privy to the knowledge of which deities have returned.
Saying "maybe X deity is dead, maybe they aren't" doesn't bring much to the table, either. I think it's just a way to avoid having to write more lore or deal with the issue.
I disagree, but not in a direct way. I certainly believe that mortal priests should have firm explanations as to why a previously considered dead deity is back, and have signs and proof that they are alive and well. I simply do not think we should have a definitive statement on what exactly happened and why -- especially from the deities perspective.
I like the way they handled Bane. It allows there to be heresies, and conjecture like Wooly brings up with Xvim really pretending to be Bane. Wooly makes good arguments for why this could be the case, and it is a clear possibility. However, those arguments only work so long as we don't know EXACTLY what happened. All we pretty much know about Bane's return is that the clerics of Xvim saw a vision of Bane erupting from inside the deity. People took this as a sign that Bane had returned, and that Xvim was dead.
That's enough of an explanation, and the beauty of it is that it leaves the mystery there. Explaining everything around the deities--especially their deaths and resurrections--is bad. It is good to leave things open for interpretation. It allows for diversity within the cults themselves, flexibility to DM's, and provides interesting discussions here at Candlekeep. |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11696 Posts |
Posted - 20 Feb 2015 : 13:25:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Aldrick
quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout
If X god is dead, then the writer could state that, or not write about priests of dead deities. Before the Sundering, there were groups of people who followed dead deities, but they knew that deity was dead. We should be privy to the knowledge of which deities have returned.
Saying "maybe X deity is dead, maybe they aren't" doesn't bring much to the table, either. I think it's just a way to avoid having to write more lore or deal with the issue.
I disagree, but not in a direct way. I certainly believe that mortal priests should have firm explanations as to why a previously considered dead deity is back, and have signs and proof that they are alive and well. I simply do not think we should have a definitive statement on what exactly happened and why -- especially from the deities perspective.
I like the way they handled Bane. It allows there to be heresies, and conjecture like Wooly brings up with Xvim really pretending to be Bane. Wooly makes good arguments for why this could be the case, and it is a clear possibility. However, those arguments only work so long as we don't know EXACTLY what happened. All we pretty much know about Bane's return is that the clerics of Xvim saw a vision of Bane erupting from inside the deity. People took this as a sign that Bane had returned, and that Xvim was dead.
That's enough of an explanation, and the beauty of it is that it leaves the mystery there. Explaining everything around the deities--especially their deaths and resurrections--is bad. It is good to leave things open for interpretation. It allows for diversity within the cults themselves, flexibility to DM's, and provides interesting discussions here at Candlekeep.
Agreed. That's where having something like I described above with Velsharoon, Myrkul, and Mellifleur comes into play. You don't know who truly is driving the bus.... and it may be all three. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Delwa
Master of Realmslore
USA
1268 Posts |
Posted - 20 Feb 2015 : 13:27:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Aldrick
quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout
If X god is dead, then the writer could state that, or not write about priests of dead deities. Before the Sundering, there were groups of people who followed dead deities, but they knew that deity was dead. We should be privy to the knowledge of which deities have returned.
Saying "maybe X deity is dead, maybe they aren't" doesn't bring much to the table, either. I think it's just a way to avoid having to write more lore or deal with the issue.
I disagree, but not in a direct way. I certainly believe that mortal priests should have firm explanations as to why a previously considered dead deity is back, and have signs and proof that they are alive and well. I simply do not think we should have a definitive statement on what exactly happened and why -- especially from the deities perspective.
I like the way they handled Bane. It allows there to be heresies, and conjecture like Wooly brings up with Xvim really pretending to be Bane. Wooly makes good arguments for why this could be the case, and it is a clear possibility. However, those arguments only work so long as we don't know EXACTLY what happened. All we pretty much know about Bane's return is that the clerics of Xvim saw a vision of Bane erupting from inside the deity. People took this as a sign that Bane had returned, and that Xvim was dead.
That's enough of an explanation, and the beauty of it is that it leaves the mystery there. Explaining everything around the deities--especially their deaths and resurrections--is bad. It is good to leave things open for interpretation. It allows for diversity within the cults themselves, flexibility to DM's, and provides interesting discussions here at Candlekeep.
And it leaves great potential for novels that don't feature a RSE level event. Take the current Cult of the Dragon schism for example, the undead dragons believers vs the Tiamat followers. Some awesome potential there. I'd love to see a novel that follows a priest of Bane who hunts priests of Xvim. It doesn't need to resolve the conflict, just give it depth and flavor. |
- Delwa Aunglor
I am off to slay yon refrigerator and spoil it's horde. Go for the cheese, Boo!
"The Realms change; seldom at the speed desired of those who strive, but far too quickly for those who resist." - The Simbul, taken from the Forgotten Realms Campaign Conspectus |
|
|
|
CorellonsDevout
Great Reader
USA
2708 Posts |
Posted - 20 Feb 2015 : 13:54:28
|
| I disgree, but that's mostly because I was angry when so many gods kicked the bucket during or around the time of the Spellplague, and would welcome them back, without the "maybe, maybe not". It just seems a cheap way to avoid having to explain things. |
Sweet water and light laughter |
|
|
|
Delwa
Master of Realmslore
USA
1268 Posts |
Posted - 20 Feb 2015 : 14:06:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout
I disgree, but that's mostly because I was angry when so many gods kicked the bucket during or around the time of the Spellplague, and would welcome them back, without the "maybe, maybe not". It just seems a cheap way to avoid having to explain things.
I get that. I also see providing an "official" answer as a no-win scenario for WotC. Someone's not going to like it.
I think a good idea would be to provide several "answers" that priests and planar travelers have, and let the DM decide which one is true, or if the truth is a blend. Right now, it's a blank slate. I'm fine with that, but I'd like some in-game theories and explanations beyond the two or three my own imagination conjures. |
- Delwa Aunglor
I am off to slay yon refrigerator and spoil it's horde. Go for the cheese, Boo!
"The Realms change; seldom at the speed desired of those who strive, but far too quickly for those who resist." - The Simbul, taken from the Forgotten Realms Campaign Conspectus |
|
|
|
Aldrick
Senior Scribe
909 Posts |
Posted - 20 Feb 2015 : 17:55:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout
I disgree, but that's mostly because I was angry when so many gods kicked the bucket during or around the time of the Spellplague, and would welcome them back, without the "maybe, maybe not". It just seems a cheap way to avoid having to explain things.
I understand that. It is why I have always been opposed to using the deities in direct ways. When it comes to the deities in the Realms, I like the fact that they clearly manifest their power in various ways. However, I think it only works well when that power is very subtle through dream visions and minor manifestations (such as a holy glow around a sword or some such). In order for the Realms to function well there needs to be a lot of mystery surrounding the divine. There are lots of things that mortals don't know, and there is even more stuff that mortals can't know or understand.
I have consistently argued for years and years, that the deities should never be treated as characters. The focus, when it comes to the deities, should be 100% on their faiths and followers. The only individuals who should have any sort of direct line to the gods are their highest ranking clergy, and even then that direct line does not provide them with clear answers. It simply means that they get lots of dream visions, and have the deities personal attention. Avatar's don't show up. There is no direct, "Go do X, Y, and when you're done with that go do Z." Communication is done through symbolic dream visions, which can (and frequently are) misinterpreted.
I know some people don't like that, they like the deities running around the Realms. However, when we let that happen we get RSE's, and inevitably, we get situations where the deities kill each other. If a deity is treated like a character, then it will die like a character. Regardless whether or not a deity comes back now, it will never be "safe" -- there will always be a possibility of some RSE taking them out again.
The more mystery and distance we have from the deities that serve only indirectly in the overall story, the more possibilities exist for everyone, and the more insulation and protection we have from RSE's among the deities.
Something like the belief that Sehanine Moonbow is really Selune is an easy problem to solve. All we need is to show that there are some clerics of Sehanine who still receive spells, and have them proclaim such things by the clergy of Selune as heresy. This is essentially what I did in my Realms. In the aftermath of the Spellplague, the cult of Selune and some other cults started to proclaim that their deity was really the 'new face' of their Elven deity counterparts. There were certain things going on that were unique to the Elven Pantheon at the time, there was great uncertainty and fear, and the clergy of Sehanine were no longer receiving spells. The Elven gods had gone silent, and well--the clergy of Selune were capitalizing on this uncertainty. Some Elves converted. Others did not.
In fact, this caused major divides within Silverymoon. There were accusations that the humans there were trying to destroy Elven culture, by trying to replace their gods with their own. ...to say that Elves really lost their cool over this little event as the news spread would be an understatement. Groups like the Eldreth Veluuthra capitalized on this big time. There are minor terrorist groups of non-Humans throughout the Silver Marches that actively seek to undermine the political establishment and drive out the humans over these issues. Though they wouldn't use these words, they see it as cultural genocide. They believe that the humans are doing this and spreading lies in order to wipe out their peoples history, and bring them under the rule and control of human lords. This is sort of the consequence of having all these different cultures and races living together side-by-side.
However, from the human perspective, there really is not that much malice. The aftermath of the Spellplague was chaotic--people did not really know what was happening. They were afraid. This was true for everyone, human, elf, and dwarf alike. Selune sent some dream visions to her clerics in Silverymoon as well as the clergy of Sehanine Moonbow. They got together, attempted to interpret what the goddess was trying to tell them, and well--they screwed up. Things ended with them creating a heresy that united some of the clergy of Sehanine (some rejected it) and Selune. This ended up creating a ripple effect, with other human clergy proclaiming similar things about their deities in Silverymoon. The heresies eventually spread beyond Silverymoon, primarily throughout most of the North and the Sword Coast.
The overwhelming majority of the Elves absolutely 100% reject and repudiate this belief. It is really only Elves that have been living, likely for the bulk of their lives, among Humans that embrace these heresies. The Elves from primarily Elven Settlements think that they are nuts and are traitors to both their gods as well as their race. As I said, this has created a problem for Silverymoon and the Silver Marches.
There are good and honest people on both sides of the divide. The simple truth is that people were afraid, people were confused, and they acted accordingly. There was no real malice intended, and they were acting in good faith efforts to simply share what they believed had happened. Then politics happened, and everything turned upside down. Now people are entrenched on both sides of the divide, holding deeply held and sincere beliefs that put them in direct opposition to one another.
There is no reason that similar explanations can't be given for the canon Realms. The 'Selune Moonbow' heresy is easy to solve by having clerics of Sehanine declare it a heresy, and having them clearly have access to divine magic. We don't have to choose or pick which side is "right" canonically, because the Realms is enriched by the conflict. It is also clearly an inevitable conflict, as clearly evidenced by the break down of all the human proto-Faerunian Pantheons into one uber Faerunian Pantheon. As Elves and Humans live side by side, these types of heresies were bound to eventually pop up and happen--it was always inevitable. |
Edited by - Aldrick on 20 Feb 2015 18:02:19 |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 20 Feb 2015 : 18:31:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Aldrick
quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout
I disgree, but that's mostly because I was angry when so many gods kicked the bucket during or around the time of the Spellplague, and would welcome them back, without the "maybe, maybe not". It just seems a cheap way to avoid having to explain things.
I understand that. It is why I have always been opposed to using the deities in direct ways. When it comes to the deities in the Realms, I like the fact that they clearly manifest their power in various ways. However, I think it only works well when that power is very subtle through dream visions and minor manifestations (such as a holy glow around a sword or some such). In order for the Realms to function well there needs to be a lot of mystery surrounding the divine. There are lots of things that mortals don't know, and there is even more stuff that mortals can't know or understand.
I have consistently argued for years and years, that the deities should never be treated as characters. The focus, when it comes to the deities, should be 100% on their faiths and followers. The only individuals who should have any sort of direct line to the gods are their highest ranking clergy, and even then that direct line does not provide them with clear answers. It simply means that they get lots of dream visions, and have the deities personal attention. Avatar's don't show up. There is no direct, "Go do X, Y, and when you're done with that go do Z." Communication is done through symbolic dream visions, which can (and frequently are) misinterpreted.
I know some people don't like that, they like the deities running around the Realms. However, when we let that happen we get RSE's, and inevitably, we get situations where the deities kill each other. If a deity is treated like a character, then it will die like a character. Regardless whether or not a deity comes back now, it will never be "safe" -- there will always be a possibility of some RSE taking them out again.
The more mystery and distance we have from the deities that serve only indirectly in the overall story, the more possibilities exist for everyone, and the more insulation and protection we have from RSE's among the deities.
I don't want deities to be completely like characters, but they should have elements of that. I want them to have personalities and not just be ''distant beings''. I want to know about the clergy AND the deities themselves, their motivations, their story and so on.
Some gods are related to concepts that lend themselves to the ''distant'' or cosmic entity archetype (big things, like magic, war, time and so on). Others however have goals and ideals that make them close to their people. That's one of the reasons why I like Eilistraee so much: not only because of her ideals, but because of who she is. In her story she chooses to be with the drow no matter what, she sacrifices her own happines for them, she share their exile, their suffering, but also their dreams and wishes, the desire for a better life that many of them feel deep inside. Eilistraee shares a deep bond with the drow, she tries to be a mother to them, she ''fights for them'', to make them flourish as a people in a hostile world. It is cool to see her perspective on this matter, things like how she feels a burning anger and is prone to wild action to protect her people when they are harmed, or how she enjoys to ''silently'' help her creatures in their everyday life, or even how she sometimes joins her followers in their dance.
I would like to see this kind of stuff being kept (i.e. info on the deity's story, personality and their view), especially since it makes deities themselves actually interesting from a narrative PoV and doesn't imply that they should start running around Toril.
Gods shaking the world and engaging in endless soap opera are boring, but so are ever-distant gods- the reason I like deities in the FR is that they feel alive. WotC needs to find a medium between the two opposites, it's not like only extremes exist. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 20 Feb 2015 19:12:07 |
|
|
|
Aldrick
Senior Scribe
909 Posts |
Posted - 20 Feb 2015 : 19:41:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
I don't want deities to be completely like characters, but they should have elements of that. I want them to have personalities and not just be ''distant beings''. I want to know about the clergy AND the deities themselves, their motivations, their story and so on.
When you ask to know about a deities motivations, personality, their story, etc. -- these are the qualities of a character. When you bring a character into a story, they are fair game. Eilistraee as a character is fair game to be whacked by Lolth. It is impossible to have a character who is simultaneously directly part of the story and yet somehow apart from it and immune to its consequences. At least not without it seeming 100% contrived. At best we end up with Eilistraee being labeled a Mary Sue character due to the vast amounts of plot armor that would be attached to her to shelter her from any bad and horrible things that might happen to her.
I completely understand that people like some of the deities as personalities and characters. This is not somehow wrong, or anything like that. I am just saying there are consequences of bringing a deity into the Realms as a character, and one of those consequences is that they are fair game and another is the inevitable RSE's they bring with them (due to their reach, influence, and power).
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
Gods shaking the world and engaging in endless soap opera are boring, but so are ever-distant gods- the reason I like deities in the FR is that they feel alive. WotC needs to find a medium between the two opposites, it's not like only extremes exist.
What I put forward is the balance between the two extremes. On one extreme we have how the deities have been treated in the Realms since the Time of Troubles. They are characters who are real and directly active in the events of mortals. On the other extreme we have how the deities of Eberron have been treated--as beings so remote and distant that people don't even know if they really exist. Aside from clerics who manifest divine power, there is no other sign that the deities are real. That's how Eberron handles it.
I am proposing the middle path between the two extremes. People know the deities of the Realms are real, because there are obvious signs and manifestations. The deities attempt to communicate with mortals through visions. Yet, at the same time they are mysterious. We don't know everything there is to know about them, because there is some distance from mortals.
One of the fundamental problems with introducing deities as active characters who can directly and clearly communicate with mortals is that sense of mystery is immediately threatened if not shattered. It leaves us with strange situations where the deities of the Realms are supposed to be both directly involved and yet strangely distant. So, we have schisms and heresies within the various cults of the deities, and the deities themselves have no comment. Yet, we know that they can directly communicate to the faithful. So, we are left with the question of why they would let such things happen. The only explanation that we have is that the deities have long ranging plans that no mortal can comprehend... AKA the work of the divine is mysterious. Yet, the problem with that explanation is that when we know the motivations of the deity and we see their faithful acting against those motivations it causes problems.
This does not even touch upon some of the issues that arise when different authors use the same deity. Do we really need to discuss the whole issue over Mielikki encouraging Drizzt to go out and massacre all Goblinkin and Orcs? This is what we get when deities are directly involved: Mielikki the Goddess of Genocide. All of this happens because WotC wants Goblins and Orcs to be reduced to little XP packets, despite the fact that it goes counter to already established lore. I want to try and shield the Realms from this type of nonsense.
With the balance I proposed, the events could have largely remained the same, except Drizzt would have received a symbolic dream vision. It would have been open for debate whether or not he interpreted it correctly or not. However, instead we are stuck with the direct words from the Goddess herself, which will forever taint and color her character. |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 20 Feb 2015 : 20:30:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Aldrick
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
I don't want deities to be completely like characters, but they should have elements of that. I want them to have personalities and not just be ''distant beings''. I want to know about the clergy AND the deities themselves, their motivations, their story and so on.
When you ask to know about a deities motivations, personality, their story, etc. -- these are the qualities of a character. When you bring a character into a story, they are fair game. Eilistraee as a character is fair game to be whacked by Lolth. It is impossible to have a character who is simultaneously directly part of the story and yet somehow apart from it and immune to its consequences. At least not without it seeming 100% contrived. At best we end up with Eilistraee being labeled a Mary Sue character due to the vast amounts of plot armor that would be attached to her to shelter her from any bad and horrible things that might happen to her.
I completely understand that people like some of the deities as personalities and characters. This is not somehow wrong, or anything like that. I am just saying there are consequences of bringing a deity into the Realms as a character, and one of those consequences is that they are fair game and another is the inevitable RSE's they bring with them (due to their reach, influence, and power).
I don't see why just giving Eilistraee character traits, like Ed did with her and others, would make her RSE or Mary Sue matter. We can have deities be charaterized by personality and goals, like they currently are, but make it so that they are FORCED to act through their followers (they made Ao resurface, well they can use him as a limitation now, and this is just an example). They can help their people, be at their side and so on, but they can't directly war between each other. IMO it's simple, really (unless WotC truly wants god related RSE, in which case nothing will realistically stop them). Eilistraee's personality and story are what make me like her, and personalities, stories and goals are what catches my attention when it comes to FR gods (and normally I tend to not even care about gods in a given setting). If deities didn't have character elements, Eilistraee herself would have never seen the light, since all of that is such a big part of who she is. That doesn't mean that I want to see godly soap operas, just that when I read the entry of a deity, I also want to see some stuff regarding their person, otherwise things turn flat and dry (to me).
And, as I said, lets face it: even making deities distant, if at some point WotC decide that they want a god-RSE, it won't stop them from doing it. They will introduce something that will make the gods suddenly be all involved and call it a day while proceeding with their story (or will completely ignore what they previously established, saying that it was a temporary thing and so on). It has already happened, because (to my understanding) in Ed's FR deities have personalities, but they don't randomly wander or shake the Realms, and yet this take on them was heavily modified shortly after their publishing.
quote:
One of the fundamental problems with introducing deities as active characters who can directly and clearly communicate with mortals is that sense of mystery is immediately threatened if not shattered.
Why? Deities can be mysterious entities because of their nature, of how they see the reality, of how they act, know and think. However mortals feeling their deities, forming bonds with them adds depth to the picture if anything and is a very cool element IMO. For some gods, it even makes sense to be close to their people because of their goal (like in Eilistraee's case). This doesn't mean that they should show up or act directly, but they should definitely interact with their followers (if we keep looking at Eilistraee, she's subtle in her actions, but definitely helps her drow, tries to make them feel her and even often manifests in some way when a drow joins her. That's because of her motherly role in their regards and it just makes sense).
A little lore on who the deity is and their past/goals doesn't break the mystery at all to me, on the other hand having a god just as a placeholder for a concept creates none (IMO), since there would be nothing about the being itself to actually grab my attention.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
Gods shaking the world and engaging in endless soap opera are boring, but so are ever-distant gods- the reason I like deities in the FR is that they feel alive. WotC needs to find a medium between the two opposites, it's not like only extremes exist.
What I put forward is the balance between the two extremes. On one extreme we have how the deities have been treated in the Realms since the Time of Troubles. They are characters who are real and directly active in the events of mortals. On the other extreme we have how the deities of Eberron have been treated--as beings so remote and distant that people don't even know if they really exist. Aside from clerics who manifest divine power, there is no other sign that the deities are real. That's how Eberron handles it.
I am proposing the middle path between the two extremes. People know the deities of the Realms are real, because there are obvious signs and manifestations. The deities attempt to communicate with mortals through visions. Yet, at the same time they are mysterious. We don't know everything there is to know about them, because there is some distance from mortals.
Personally, I don't see it as a good balance, but more shifted towards the concept of a distant God (like some religions have in RL, minus its existence actually being certain). A good balance IMO would be presenting deities as beings with a personality, but making it clear that their involvement in the world happens through the mortals. I just don't want their personality element to fade away.
quote:
It leaves us with strange situations where the deities of the Realms are supposed to be both directly involved and yet strangely distant. So, we have schisms and heresies within the various cults of the deities, and the deities themselves have no comment. Yet, we know that they can directly communicate to the faithful. So, we are left with the question of why they would let such things happen. The only explanation that we have is that the deities have long ranging plans that no mortal can comprehend... AKA the work of the divine is mysterious. Yet, the problem with that explanation is that when we know the motivations of the deity and we see their faithful acting against those motivations it causes problems.
This is something that puzzles me as well (I hope that Ed answers your questions soon), but I have some suggestions. Heresies that go against a god's motivation usually aren't led by actual belief, rather other kind of thinking. Even if the god said ''they're wrong'', I doubt that those who took part in it would listen, simply because they likely have other goals in mind. If the heresy is something that doesn't go against a deity's dogma, but brings a variation in its interpretation, then maybe the god is fine with it and lets it go --keep in mind that deities shouldn't be able control mortals' lives, after all. Variety is just natural and most deities would have little reason to shut it down, as long as it is not a threat to their ideals-- (and maybe in most cases heresies which are actually seen as a pressing issue get shut down by the deity). In some cases heresies might even bring advantages to some deities, and they may purposefully do nothing about them. Or in other situations they don't care. Or a deity may be mudding the waters for their rival's followers, trying to hamper their faith, confuse them and so on.
quote:
This does not even touch upon some of the issues that arise when different authors use the same deity. Do we really need to discuss the whole issue over Mielikki encouraging Drizzt to go out and massacre all Goblinkin and Orcs? This is what we get when deities are directly involved: Mielikki the Goddess of Genocide. All of this happens because WotC wants Goblins and Orcs to be reduced to little XP packets, despite the fact that it goes counter to already established lore. I want to try and shield the Realms from this type of nonsense.
With the balance I proposed, the events could have largely remained the same, except Drizzt would have received a symbolic dream vision. It would have been open for debate whether or not he interpreted it correctly or not. However, instead we are stuck with the direct words from the Goddess herself, which will forever taint and color her character.
IMO, this would have happened even if deities were portrayed as mostly distant. If WotC want to impose some kind of view on the setting and see the use of an all-knowing PoV (like that of a deity or something similar) as the way to do it, they will do that no matter what. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 20 Feb 2015 20:53:15 |
|
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6353 Posts |
Posted - 20 Feb 2015 : 20:37:30
|
I'm with Aldrick.
As far as I understand it the gods are metaphysical beings that can manifest in a number of bodies and have to deal with the demands of many millions of faithful (how many times do people on this planet pray for forgiveness or help or anything else everyday) and many more millions of events transpiring across the planet that involve their portfolio.
Anything that thought even vaguely like a humanoid would go instantly and terrifically insane. In order to stay vaguely coherent maybe the deities have to remain apart from the world and its events and communicate through other mediums.
Gods wandering around like super brats is not only unlikely it also completely breaks the immersion of the setting which is why it simply does not happen in my game. If someone claims that Tyr spoke to him and asked him to kill a man then he is probably crazy for starter, lying for second, and just plain wrong for third. I treat the gods like Hector in Troy "You want to plan a battle strategy on bird sign?", "How many legions does the god command?".
Its nonsense to have a super powered immortal being occupying multiple bodies in multiple planes, behave as anything other than mysterious. Why would they bother lusting after other deities, they have no body, they have no organs, they have no hormones. Why would they seek the death of an individual when that being will probably die anyway. Why cause a war when they happen anyway. Why do anything when the idiot worshippers of the planet will cause the events you crave without you even trying.
I'm all for details on motivations, church information, important figures, relics, holy days, holy sites. The various churches have a very important historical role in the realms. The church of Bane has greatly influenced historical events in the Moonsea, the Vilhon Reach, the North, and Sembia (that's before the ToT nonsense), none of those events mentioned because a god told them to do it, it was down to a High Imperceptor and his followers. I like knowing what the clerics where, what the ranks of priest are, that the really powerful temples have a floating throne called the High Hand of Bane.
What I don't want is X god turning up for breakfast and chopping my head off for worshipping X god when in all likelihood my own brother or sister will probably stick a knife in my back by the end of the day. Its petty, its unrealistic, and it has no place in my realms. The players are supposed to take centre stage in a roleplaying game, how can anyone compete with gods running round acting like petty, drunk teenagers. |
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions Candlekeep Archive
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 1
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 2
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 3
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 4
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 5
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 6
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 7
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 8
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 9
Alternate Realms Site |
|
|
|
Aldrick
Senior Scribe
909 Posts |
Posted - 20 Feb 2015 : 21:53:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
I don't see why just giving Eilistraee character traits, like Ed did with her and others, would make her RSE or Mary Sue matter. We can have deities be charaterized by personality and goals...If deities didn't have character elements, Eilistraee herself would have never seen the light, since all of that is such a big part of who she is. That doesn't mean that I want to see godly soap operas, just that when I read the entry of a deity, I also want to see some stuff regarding their person, otherwise things turn flat and dry (to me).
...
Why? Deities can be mysterious entities because of their nature, of how they see the reality, of how they act, know and think. However mortals feeling their deities, forming bonds with them adds depth to the picture if anything and is a very cool element IMO. For some gods, it even makes sense to be close to their people because of their goal (like in Eilistraee's case). This doesn't mean that they should show up or act directly, but they should definitely interact with their followers (if we keep looking at Eilistraee, she's subtle in her actions, but definitely helps her drow, tries to make them feel her and even often manifests in some way when a drow joins her. That's because of her motherly role in their regards and it just makes sense).
I'm not sure if we are speaking past each other. I am not opposed to any of that. I certainly believe the faithful of a deity should believe that their god(dess) has a personality, goals, motivations, etc. That is what makes the deities interesting, as you say yourself.
For me, it's the difference between a high priestess of Eilistraee sharing the stories and beliefs around her goddess vs the goddess herself articulating them to her faithful in person.
What I am advocating that we try to create as a result of the 5E changes is an element of mystery and uncertainty. This creates flexibility.
I am not advocating for deities to be strange, alien, distant, non-anthropomorphic beings. The faithful should see and embrace their deities as very human (or dwarven or elven) beings. They should see and view them as outlined in source books.
What they should not have is direct interaction via avatars or clear and specific communication. The deities should definitely communicate with mortals, but it should be in such a way that is left open to some interpretation. The deities may manifest their power and presence directly in some fashion. Hell, I'm not even necessarily opposed to the idea of deities "possessing" mortals and using them as avatars, so long as it is clear that the mortals in question are not 100% the mind and vessel of the deity. As a result, that gives us the ability to say that such possessed mortals are "tainting" or "corrupting" or "misinterpreting" a deities divine will.
What I want is a clear barrier that prevents being absolutely certain about something because it came directly from the deities mouth. This leaves room for personal interpretation, misgivings, even out and out tainting and corrupting the message for a personal agenda. We want to leave enough grey area and enough mystery there that we have a lot of flexibility in which to work.
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
This is something that puzzles me as well (I hope that Ed answers your questions soon), but I have some suggestions. Heresies that go against a god's motivation usually aren't led by actual belief, rather other kind of thinking. Even if the god said ''they're wrong'', I doubt that those who took part in it would listen, simply because they likely have other goals in mind. If the heresy is something that doesn't go against a deity's dogma, but brings a variation in its interpretation, then maybe the god is fine with it and lets it go --keep in mind that deities shouldn't be able control mortals' lives, after all. Variety is just natural and most deities would have little reason to shut it down, as long as it is not a threat to their ideals-- (and maybe in most cases heresies which are actually seen as a pressing issue get shut down by the deity). In some cases heresies might even bring advantages to some deities, and they may purposefully do nothing about them. Or in other situations they don't care. Or a deity may be mudding the waters for their rival's followers, trying to hamper their faith, confuse them and so on.
The problem with this is that we end up with situations like the Risen Sun Heresy. Now, let me be clear -- I love heresies. I love for there to be complexity in the Realms, and for different interpretations for divine will and intention. Complexity is a good thing.
However, we know for a fact--due to previously established lore--that Amaunator cannot be Lathander. Not unless he was both alive and dead simultaneously at the same time. This means that either some of Lathander's followers decided to begin perverting his faith, leading the faithful in a radically different direction against his will, or that he was actively lying and misguiding the faithful on purpose. Now, there is nothing necessarily wrong with that--deities can lie and misguide the faithful. However, we also know Lathander's personal motivations, and becoming Amaunator takes them in a radically new direction.
We can certainly come up with explanations, and there were hooks built into the lore that we can easily latch onto... but when his faithful turned to him for guidance regarding the heresy why was he silent? All he had to do was say, "Yep. He's totally right. I'm Amaunator."
Once again, we can come up with explanations, but in a world where the deities can clearly communicate their aims and wishes heresies of any stripe shouldn't exist.
Things get even more complicated if we start looking into heresies that were also introduced the same time the Risen Sun Heresy was introduced. Heresies such as the Dark Moon heresy, which states that Selune and Shar are really two faces of the same deity. It is reasonably clear that both Selune and Shar would almost certainly be opposed to it outright, and would likely even kill members of such a cult.
I'm not opposed to these things. I think they are fine. However, they only really work when there is some degree of mystery involved surrounding the deity and their wishes. If the deity can directly manifest avatars and directly communicate what they want, these types of things seem... unreasonable to happen. Or at least contradictory to what we know about the deities.
I think 5th Edition has the ability to fix that, by going the route I outlined. |
|
|
|
MrHedgehog
Senior Scribe
688 Posts |
Posted - 20 Feb 2015 : 22:14:18
|
| I absolutely do not want racial deities to come back. Why would race matter to a divine being? If, for example, Berronar exists in the realms she should be a goddess of marriage universally not just to a certain species of being. Deities being specific to a race is a bad idea that I am glad was done away with. |
|
|
|
Aldrick
Senior Scribe
909 Posts |
Posted - 20 Feb 2015 : 22:26:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrHedgehog
I absolutely do not want racial deities to come back. Why would race matter to a divine being? If, for example, Berronar exists in the realms she should be a goddess of marriage universally not just to a certain species of being. Deities being specific to a race is a bad idea that I am glad was done away with.
Racial deities make sense to the extent that they are cultural deities. The problem with the racial deities was that they were treated separately from how things worked for the human deities. It is abundantly clear that as human cultures intermingle that the various deities start to cross pollinate into each others pantheon. This is how we ended up with the Faerunian Pantheon, it is a mass of numerous different human cultural pantheons.
As Elves, Humans, Dwarves, Halflings, and other races live together, trade together, share the same lands, and especially occupy the same cities together... we should start to see the same thing happen to the racial pantheons.
This is why I am not 100% opposed to things like the 'Selune Moonbow' heresy. It makes sense if you look at it from that perspective, and the events that were taking place at the time. |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 20 Feb 2015 : 22:27:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Aldrick
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
I don't see why just giving Eilistraee character traits, like Ed did with her and others, would make her RSE or Mary Sue matter. We can have deities be charaterized by personality and goals...If deities didn't have character elements, Eilistraee herself would have never seen the light, since all of that is such a big part of who she is. That doesn't mean that I want to see godly soap operas, just that when I read the entry of a deity, I also want to see some stuff regarding their person, otherwise things turn flat and dry (to me).
...
Why? Deities can be mysterious entities because of their nature, of how they see the reality, of how they act, know and think. However mortals feeling their deities, forming bonds with them adds depth to the picture if anything and is a very cool element IMO. For some gods, it even makes sense to be close to their people because of their goal (like in Eilistraee's case). This doesn't mean that they should show up or act directly, but they should definitely interact with their followers (if we keep looking at Eilistraee, she's subtle in her actions, but definitely helps her drow, tries to make them feel her and even often manifests in some way when a drow joins her. That's because of her motherly role in their regards and it just makes sense).
I'm not sure if we are speaking past each other. I am not opposed to any of that. I certainly believe the faithful of a deity should believe that their god(dess) has a personality, goals, motivations, etc. That is what makes the deities interesting, as you say yourself.
For me, it's the difference between a high priestess of Eilistraee sharing the stories and beliefs around her goddess vs the goddess herself articulating them to her faithful in person.
What I am advocating that we try to create as a result of the 5E changes is an element of mystery and uncertainty. This creates flexibility.
I am not advocating for deities to be strange, alien, distant, non-anthropomorphic beings. The faithful should see and embrace their deities as very human (or dwarven or elven) beings. They should see and view them as outlined in source books.
What they should not have is direct interaction via avatars or clear and specific communication. The deities should definitely communicate with mortals, but it should be in such a way that is left open to some interpretation. The deities may manifest their power and presence directly in some fashion. Hell, I'm not even necessarily opposed to the idea of deities "possessing" mortals and using them as avatars, so long as it is clear that the mortals in question are not 100% the mind and vessel of the deity. As a result, that gives us the ability to say that such possessed mortals are "tainting" or "corrupting" or "misinterpreting" a deities divine will.
What I want is a clear barrier that prevents being absolutely certain about something because it came directly from the deities mouth. This leaves room for personal interpretation, misgivings, even out and out tainting and corrupting the message for a personal agenda. We want to leave enough grey area and enough mystery there that we have a lot of flexibility in which to work.
Oh, in this case we can agree on most of it. I like the idea of deities speaking through visions, emotions or other forms of messages (as long as their followers can ''feel'' the deity). I -however- don't want 100% of the focus to be on mortals, in the books I want a little focus on the deities themselves, totally not like it happened in the past, but something that let us peek a bit through the perspective of those beings, while however keeping the mystery around (like those bits about Eilistraee from Demihuman Deities that I wrote in my first reply to you). I don't think that deities should be completely deprived of the chance to speak to mortals in words, but the model of ''avatar'' (i.e. a mortal partially possessed by a god) that you suggest is something I like.
After all, how could the first high priestesses of Eilistraee know who she is and what she did if not by somehow interacting with her (as I don't like the idea of those being myths mostly coming out from someone's head).
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
This is something that puzzles me as well (I hope that Ed answers your questions soon), but I have some suggestions. Heresies that go against a god's motivation usually aren't led by actual belief, rather other kind of thinking. Even if the god said ''they're wrong'', I doubt that those who took part in it would listen, simply because they likely have other goals in mind. If the heresy is something that doesn't go against a deity's dogma, but brings a variation in its interpretation, then maybe the god is fine with it and lets it go --keep in mind that deities shouldn't be able control mortals' lives, after all. Variety is just natural and most deities would have little reason to shut it down, as long as it is not a threat to their ideals-- (and maybe in most cases heresies which are actually seen as a pressing issue get shut down by the deity). In some cases heresies might even bring advantages to some deities, and they may purposefully do nothing about them. Or in other situations they don't care. Or a deity may be mudding the waters for their rival's followers, trying to hamper their faith, confuse them and so on.
The problem with this is that we end up with situations like the Risen Sun Heresy. Now, let me be clear -- I love heresies. I love for there to be complexity in the Realms, and for different interpretations for divine will and intention. Complexity is a good thing.
However, we know for a fact--due to previously established lore--that Amaunator cannot be Lathander. Not unless he was both alive and dead simultaneously at the same time. This means that either some of Lathander's followers decided to begin perverting his faith, leading the faithful in a radically different direction against his will, or that he was actively lying and misguiding the faithful on purpose. Now, there is nothing necessarily wrong with that--deities can lie and misguide the faithful. However, we also know Lathander's personal motivations, and becoming Amaunator takes them in a radically new direction.
We can certainly come up with explanations, and there were hooks built into the lore that we can easily latch onto... but when his faithful turned to him for guidance regarding the heresy why was he silent? All he had to do was say, "Yep. He's totally right. I'm Amaunator."
Once again, we can come up with explanations, but in a world where the deities can clearly communicate their aims and wishes heresies of any stripe shouldn't exist.
Things get even more complicated if we start looking into heresies that were also introduced the same time the Risen Sun Heresy was introduced. Heresies such as the Dark Moon heresy, which states that Selune and Shar are really two faces of the same deity. It is reasonably clear that both Selune and Shar would almost certainly be opposed to it outright, and would likely even kill members of such a cult.
I'm not opposed to these things. I think they are fine. However, they only really work when there is some degree of mystery involved surrounding the deity and their wishes. If the deity can directly manifest avatars and directly communicate what they want, these types of things seem... unreasonable to happen. Or at least contradictory to what we know about the deities.
I think 5th Edition has the ability to fix that, by going the route I outlined.
Well, as I said sometimes deities don't want/care or don't feel the need to suppress some heresies, while others actually get shut down, or it can be rival gods who promote such heresies. So, some kind of heresies should still exist (those driven by goals not actually related to different interpretation of a belief are an example, as in those cases not even the god speak. Heresies that consist of an interpretation of the motivation of the deity that don't actually oppose their goal could also exist, as the deity could feel that there's no need to shut it down).
In the case of the Risen Sun heresy, in canon it was explained in one of the Sundering novels, with Lathander actually being Amaunator, but wanting to assume a different roles and identity according to what the world needs (therefore not saying ''yup, I'm Amaunator/Lathander'' because he wanted people to rely only on one of his faces).
In the case of the Dark Moon heresy, I could see Selune trying to clarify on it, but Shar muddying the waters (she could gain something from some people out of the two churces growing doubt about Selune, with chances, as slim as they may be, of damaging her reputation).
@MrHedgehog. As I see it, racial deities make sense because they also embody the concept of the race, besides whatever other thing they are deities of. In the cases of gods like Eilistraee or Vhaeraun, with very race-related goals and story, it would make no sense to change them. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 20 Feb 2015 22:34:02 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 20 Feb 2015 : 22:46:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrHedgehog
I absolutely do not want racial deities to come back. Why would race matter to a divine being? If, for example, Berronar exists in the realms she should be a goddess of marriage universally not just to a certain species of being. Deities being specific to a race is a bad idea that I am glad was done away with.
Ah, but a lot of the other races don't originate in the Realms. They came to Toril from other worlds. So it absolutely makes sense for them to have their own deities -- the deities followed the races.
And a lot of other races don't mingle very much with humans. Yes, halflings (for example) often mix with humans -- but there is still an entirely halfling nation, and separate halfling communities, and even within human communities, halflings often cluster together. So it again makes sense that while some would follow human deities, others would follow halfling-specific ones.
Orcs and goblins also interact with humans a lot -- but it's not often for peacably cultural discussions.
Look at it this way: racial pantheons are just another version of regional/cultural pantheons.
The only ways it makes sense not to have racial pantheons is if you either have one monolithic culture, encompassing all known lands and peoples, or if all of the races of the world originated on that world. |
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! |
|
|
|
Aldrick
Senior Scribe
909 Posts |
Posted - 20 Feb 2015 : 23:09:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
After all, how could the first high priestesses of Eilistraee know who she is and what she did if not by somehow interacting with her (as I don't like the idea of those being myths mostly coming out from someone's head).
Everything that happened in the past would remain true. The water is so muddied at this point I think it works best if we say that Ao slaps this limitation onto the deities. In other words, Ao once allowed the deities to forge avatars that could walk around the mortal world. However, post-Sundering Ao has stripped deities of this ability. The maximum they can do now is physically interact with the world through mortal possession as I outlined previously.
So, this means that a mortal follower would become possessed with the essence of the deity, and would speak with the "authority" of that deity. We would be able to crawl inside said mortals head. However, that mortal would not know where their own desires and wishes begins and where the deities desires and wishes begin. They lose a sense of who they are, and they become a sort of hybrid individual influenced presumably directly by the deities divine will. However, that does not mean that said divine will can't be distorted as it filters through the mortals mind.
So, in essence, a faithful follower of Eilistraee could come into contact with a powerful servant of the goddess possessed in such a way. The "avatar" could out stretch her hand to her follower, and said follower can feel the love and the warmth of the goddess radiating from her mortal vessel. The follower can have a very real and intimate experience with said vessel, and believe fully that they are standing within the presence of the goddess herself.
However, as I said, this would be imperfect. There is always the possibility that such a mortal being could cause the will of the goddess to be distorted. This gives us enough distance from the goddess herself, where we can actually debate whether such-and-such action is really the TRUE will of the goddess, or if it is being distorted by the mortal vessels own perceptions of the goddess will, the mortal vessels own personal biases, or the mortal vessels own personal agenda.
...and of course, there could be multiple said vessels roaming the world at any one time (though likely in different regions for obvious reasons). This opens up the very real possibility that they could end up directly contradicting one another. This could lead to heresies and schisms within the faith--all of them perfectly explainable and understandable within the context of how the deities interact with the world.
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
Well, as I said sometimes deities don't want/care or don't feel the need to suppress some heresies, while others actually get shut down, or it can be rival gods who promote such heresies. So, some kind of heresies should still exist (those driven by goals not actually related to different interpretation of a belief are an example, as in those cases not even the god speak. Heresies that consist of an interpretation of the motivation of the deity that don't actually oppose their goal could also exist, as the deity could feel that there's no need to shut it down).
Those are not heresies or even necessarily schisms though. Those are just normal disagreements.
A heresy is when an individual departs widely from the accepted orthodox belief. Having a few differences of opinion, or even some odd beliefs but still largely remaining orthodox might lead to an interesting debate--however, most of the time, it shouldn't be a problem. And radically different political agendas, so long as they do not run counter to the understood dogma and tenants of the faith, is not a big issue either for a deity.
Schisms happen when there are radical differences of opinion. For example, the schism in Oghma's cult happened after the Time of Troubles in relation to what happened to the Grand Patriarch. The Grand Patriarch went missing, and the cult became divided on what to do. The orthodox sect appointed a regent, while the Sembian sect appointed a new Grand Patriarch. This led to a full out schism within the cult. It's not that they disagreed over matters of faith, per-say, it had more to do with having the correct way forward and internal politics. |
Edited by - Aldrick on 20 Feb 2015 23:12:19 |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7970 Posts |
Posted - 20 Feb 2015 : 23:17:59
|
Nobody talks about Cyric, eh?
An utterly incompetent schmuck with a preening self-destructive ambition, beneath the regard of most Candlekeep scribes.
But ... I think it would actually be interesting to see Cyric return to some prominence. Played by the sneeringly awesome Alan Rickman if at all possible! For all of his spectacular failings, for all the contempt in which he has been held, Cyric has devised a few astonishingly successful changes to the Realms and to the way the people of the Realms look upon their gods. And inspired a few of the better novels, along with some sophisticated insights into the symbiosis of the gods and their faithful. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Aldrick
Senior Scribe
909 Posts |
Posted - 20 Feb 2015 : 23:19:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Look at it this way: racial pantheons are just another version of regional/cultural pantheons.
The only ways it makes sense not to have racial pantheons is if you either have one monolithic culture, encompassing all known lands and peoples, or if all of the races of the world originated on that world.
That's the way I see it. The racial pantheons are essentially another version of the regional/cultural pantheons. It has less to do with race, and more to do with culture.
However, I do have a question for you Wooly: What do you think happens when individuals of these various cultures start to cohabitant in the same spaces? Take, for example, Silverymoon and Waterdeep. Do you suspect that there will be some humans who start to worship Elven deities, and some Elves who start to worship Human deities?
After all, the Realms is steeped in polytheism. If there is no (or limited) racial / cultural prejudice then there is no reason why an Elf wouldn't acknowledge and pray to a human deity and vise versa.
At least, that's how it makes sense to me.
This is what opens up the door to things like the 'Selune Moonbow' heresy. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 20 Feb 2015 : 23:48:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by Aldrick
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Look at it this way: racial pantheons are just another version of regional/cultural pantheons.
The only ways it makes sense not to have racial pantheons is if you either have one monolithic culture, encompassing all known lands and peoples, or if all of the races of the world originated on that world.
That's the way I see it. The racial pantheons are essentially another version of the regional/cultural pantheons. It has less to do with race, and more to do with culture.
However, I do have a question for you Wooly: What do you think happens when individuals of these various cultures start to cohabitant in the same spaces? Take, for example, Silverymoon and Waterdeep. Do you suspect that there will be some humans who start to worship Elven deities, and some Elves who start to worship Human deities?
After all, the Realms is steeped in polytheism. If there is no (or limited) racial / cultural prejudice then there is no reason why an Elf wouldn't acknowledge and pray to a human deity and vise versa.
At least, that's how it makes sense to me.
This is what opens up the door to things like the 'Selune Moonbow' heresy.
It would depend on a lot of things... Why would humans, for example, decide to worship Sehanine instead of Selūne? Why would elves, who are generally quite proud of their culture and unlikely to deviate overmuch from their cultural norms, turn to Selūne instead of Sehanine? And would Sehanine, who has been an elven deity for millennia, welcome non-elven followers?
Or, to put it more simply, are the individuals in question likely to drop one aspect of their culture to embrace an aspect in a different culture? |
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! |
|
|
|
Aldrick
Senior Scribe
909 Posts |
Posted - 21 Feb 2015 : 00:27:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
It would depend on a lot of things... Why would humans, for example, decide to worship Sehanine instead of Selūne? Why would elves, who are generally quite proud of their culture and unlikely to deviate overmuch from their cultural norms, turn to Selūne instead of Sehanine? And would Sehanine, who has been an elven deity for millennia, welcome non-elven followers?
Or, to put it more simply, are the individuals in question likely to drop one aspect of their culture to embrace an aspect in a different culture?
Simply examine real world polytheistic cultures. You frequently encounter religious syncretism, and this is why you find Romans actively worshiping deities like Isis, Mithras, and Serapis.
Ed has also stated repeatedly that everyone in the Realms believes in all of the deities. So, it wouldn't be odd to find individuals praying to all the locally known deities. After all, why would an Elf of Silverymoon refuse to acknowledge Mystra or Tymora?
Are you saying that you believe that there is some form of racial segregation in Silverymoon? In other words, Elves would not allow humans to worship at the shrines / temples to Elven deities, or would cast out / disown Elves who attempted to worship human deities?
Don't you think that literally living side-by-side as neighbors will influence how the Elves and Humans of Silverymoon worship as compared to say... Elves on Evermeet or Humans in Tethyr? |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 21 Feb 2015 : 00:57:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Aldrick
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
It would depend on a lot of things... Why would humans, for example, decide to worship Sehanine instead of Selūne? Why would elves, who are generally quite proud of their culture and unlikely to deviate overmuch from their cultural norms, turn to Selūne instead of Sehanine? And would Sehanine, who has been an elven deity for millennia, welcome non-elven followers?
Or, to put it more simply, are the individuals in question likely to drop one aspect of their culture to embrace an aspect in a different culture?
Simply examine real world polytheistic cultures. You frequently encounter religious syncretism, and this is why you find Romans actively worshiping deities like Isis, Mithras, and Serapis.
Ed has also stated repeatedly that everyone in the Realms believes in all of the deities. So, it wouldn't be odd to find individuals praying to all the locally known deities. After all, why would an Elf of Silverymoon refuse to acknowledge Mystra or Tymora?
Are you saying that you believe that there is some form of racial segregation in Silverymoon? In other words, Elves would not allow humans to worship at the shrines / temples to Elven deities, or would cast out / disown Elves who attempted to worship human deities?
Don't you think that literally living side-by-side as neighbors will influence how the Elves and Humans of Silverymoon worship as compared to say... Elves on Evermeet or Humans in Tethyr?
No, what I'm saying is that humans raised to believe that Selūne was the goddess of the moon aren't going to arbitrarily decide to worship Sehanine, and vice-versa for elves converting to Selūne.
You don't replace something from your culture with something from another culture without a compelling reason. And when both deities can be proven to exist, there's not a compelling reason to switch from the one you're familiar with to another one.
People are naturally biased towards their own culture, in large part. |
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! |
|
|
|
Aldrick
Senior Scribe
909 Posts |
Posted - 21 Feb 2015 : 01:38:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
No, what I'm saying is that humans raised to believe that Selūne was the goddess of the moon aren't going to arbitrarily decide to worship Sehanine, and vice-versa for elves converting to Selūne.
You don't replace something from your culture with something from another culture without a compelling reason. And when both deities can be proven to exist, there's not a compelling reason to switch from the one you're familiar with to another one.
People are naturally biased towards their own culture, in large part.
That is what religious syncretism is all about, though. (And this is why the 'Selune Moonbow' heresy makes sense in Silverymoon.) Take the deity Serapis, as an example. A number of different deities were all fused together to create Serapis: the Egyptian Gods of Osiris and Apis the Bull and the Greek Gods of Zeus, Helios, Dionysos, Hades and Aesculapius. He was seen as the deity of the sun, rulership, nature, healing, death, and the afterlife.
I am using Serapis as a clear real world example where things like this happened in polytheistic cultures. We also know that similar things have happened canonically, throughout the history of the Realms--at least among the human deities.
If this happens among the various human deities of different cultures, why would it be any different for racial deities--which you stated should also be viewed as cultural deities?
That is sort of what I am getting at. I am somewhere between where you stand and where MrHedgehog stands. I agree with you that the racial deities should be seen as cultural deities. However, I also believe that they should be treated like cultural deities--not given some special significance.
Take Corellon for example. He is the Elven God of War. The faith of Tempus is very active in the Silver Marches, where the faith of Corellon is also very active. Why are they not in conflict? We know what the faithful of Tempus did with the faithful of Garagos, and we know what the faithful of Tempus were planning to do with the faithful of Anhur. Why would he treat Corellon any differently? Why would the faithful of Tempus not grow offended that the local Elves pray to Corellon before going into battle instead of Tempus?
Why would the Elves not adopt some of the human deities that do not have any analogous counterparts in their pantheon, such as Tymora, Ilmater, Lurue, and Waukeen? What about some evil human deities, since the Elven Pantheon lacks those: Cyric, Talos, Malar, Talona, and particularly Auril--considering where the Silver Marches is located.
Even if you make the argument against religious syncretism in the Realms, Ed has been very clear that everyone knows the deities are real. The Elves living in Silverymoon would not doubt the power or existence of the aforementioned deities. Why would they not offer regular prayers to them alongside humans? |
Edited by - Aldrick on 21 Feb 2015 01:39:23 |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 21 Feb 2015 : 01:57:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Aldrick
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
After all, how could the first high priestesses of Eilistraee know who she is and what she did if not by somehow interacting with her (as I don't like the idea of those being myths mostly coming out from someone's head).
Everything that happened in the past would remain true. The water is so muddied at this point I think it works best if we say that Ao slaps this limitation onto the deities. In other words, Ao once allowed the deities to forge avatars that could walk around the mortal world. However, post-Sundering Ao has stripped deities of this ability. The maximum they can do now is physically interact with the world through mortal possession as I outlined previously.
So, this means that a mortal follower would become possessed with the essence of the deity, and would speak with the "authority" of that deity. We would be able to crawl inside said mortals head. However, that mortal would not know where their own desires and wishes begins and where the deities desires and wishes begin. They lose a sense of who they are, and they become a sort of hybrid individual influenced presumably directly by the deities divine will. However, that does not mean that said divine will can't be distorted as it filters through the mortals mind.
So, in essence, a faithful follower of Eilistraee could come into contact with a powerful servant of the goddess possessed in such a way. The "avatar" could out stretch her hand to her follower, and said follower can feel the love and the warmth of the goddess radiating from her mortal vessel. The follower can have a very real and intimate experience with said vessel, and believe fully that they are standing within the presence of the goddess herself.
However, as I said, this would be imperfect. There is always the possibility that such a mortal being could cause the will of the goddess to be distorted. This gives us enough distance from the goddess herself, where we can actually debate whether such-and-such action is really the TRUE will of the goddess, or if it is being distorted by the mortal vessels own perceptions of the goddess will, the mortal vessels own personal biases, or the mortal vessels own personal agenda.
...and of course, there could be multiple said vessels roaming the world at any one time (though likely in different regions for obvious reasons). This opens up the very real possibility that they could end up directly contradicting one another. This could lead to heresies and schisms within the faith--all of them perfectly explainable and understandable within the context of how the deities interact with the world.
Yeah, this is pretty much how I imagined things would be after the Sundering. gods would retain the traits that make them the individuals that they are, but would be limited in action and communication on the material plane. Yet, from a reader perspective, I'd still like to have peeks at the deities' themselves, like those that we had in the past books (like the 2e gods sources).
As for the heresies, I see your point. I tried to give my take on why heresies bringing radically different interpretation of a deity's dogma are allowed to exist. In such a case, even the deity's coming down and saying ''that is wrong'' may not be enough, as the motivation behind such a heresy -that is so radical to go against the god's dogma- would likely be related to some kind of interest, rather than a religious/philosophical matter, or they could be supported by a rival deity. But -as I said- I'm puzzled by this too, and hope that Ed will soon answer to your questions in his scroll. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 21 Feb 2015 02:00:19 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Fallen deities you would like to see restored.
