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

 All Forums
 Forgotten Realms Journals
 General Forgotten Realms Chat
 The future of RSEs?
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Previous Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 4

xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore

USA
1853 Posts

Posted - 19 Sep 2014 :  06:37:34  Show Profile  Visit xaeyruudh's Homepage Send xaeyruudh a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

Other than removing a couple of deities, I don't see that doors were shut. And with new deities, the followers of fallen deities, changes to magic, and the lesser effects of the ToT, I think it created a lot more doors than we had closed by not having a couple deities.


I can agree that new doors were opened. I think the door labeled Cyric was mishandled. Wild-magic and magic-dead zones, which you mention further down, were in fact spiffy ideas, and I like them enough to divorce them from the TOT and use them. We could have gotten the positive changes without the TOT. The negative ones are part of canon until WotC either admits they made a mistake and rectifies it (something they're not in the habit of doing) or finds a way to revert history without pissing off the fans of later settings. Hopefully the Sundering will accomplish the latter. No bitterness intended toward the fans of the 4e setting. I can't comprehend those of you who like both 4e and the earlier editions, but you're represented by some people I respect, so I'm still working on it.


quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

You could say similar things about every single change that's ever been made in the Realms.


Quite so. Probably the majority of them, anyway.


quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

But if it's all optional, then nothing is changing in the setting. And if nothing is changing, you're not selling anything.


Here we reach an impasse. You and I have fundamental disagreements on how to manage a setting, and neither one of us has convinced each other in the past. I have no interest in rehashing it or making either of us hot under the collar. We just have different wants and/or perspectives on that.


quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh

By leaving the door open for who returns to the outer planes after the TOT, they would have made more money and failed nobody.


Except they would have failed everyone who wanted to see -- or enjoyed seeing -- things change in the setting.


I'm not advocating a lack of change. Just a different set of priorities. I don't think it would have to reduce their revenue (which obviously they wouldn't be willing to do) but I'm no expert. It would, however, mean more original work and more creativity, and maybe they're just not interested in expending that either. Or perhaps we the fans have not yet clamored effectively enough for the rest of Toril to be illuminated. Whatever the case, 5e is the dawn of a new era and I'm cautiously optimistic.


quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh

I'm left with the feeling that the whole purpose of the TOT was to introduce Cyric and make him unalterably a part of the Realms


No, the entire point of the ToT was to provide an in-game explanation for the changes caused by changing from 1E to 2E. This has been stated many times in the past; it is the official statement from TSR. You may not like it, you may disagree with its necessity, but it is what TSR chose to do.


My problem with WotC's stated intent for the TOT is that it's not rational. So I guess if that really was their intent with the TOT then I can avoid accusing anyone of lying by calling them irrational.

What heralded the dawn of 3e? I mean other than huge jumps in a lot of population numbers. The 3e changes in the ruleset were just as dramatic as those in 2e. If changes in the rules require changes in the settings, then how did we get 3e?

If assassins were killed due to the rules change rather than the death of Bhaal --and assuming that Bhaal didn't get axed simply because assassins were already on the executioner's block, because that wouldn't have made any sense at all-- then why didn't all the cavaliers die off? They weren't a class in the 2e PH either. Yay for whoever liked Azoun IV enough to put his foot down and say "you're not killing off all the cavaliers." It's too bad that this didn't save assassins, because the logic behind their fate is a mystery. I'll get back to this below.


quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

The overwhelming majority of us lost absolutely nothing, because this event happened far enough back that most of us were not Realms fans when it happened.


Should we stop teaching pre-1995 history, because nobody who's in K-12 schools today was alive when that stuff happened? If there's a sliding scale by which we judge Realmslore to be more or less valid/important based on when it happens, then I have even more to get pissy about.


quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

So if Bhaal, Leira, and Myrkul "weren't really there", then why complain about their removal?


The illustration I can think of has the potential to be inflammatory, and I'm guessing some might object that it's not at all the same thing. The logic of it is the same even if the emotional volatility isn't.

If you have a dog, who gives birth to a litter of several puppies, and one of them dies shortly after birth... does it not matter, because they were barely born anyway? Even if you're pragmatic about it, I'm guessing your dog has a bad day over it. And gods help the parents who lose newborn children.

I'm not going to call Leira, Bhaal, or Myrkul a puppy or a baby. I will say that they were part of the Realms as Ed presented it to TSR and subsequently to us, and it bugs me that (a) they were summarily executed, (b) the story used to remove them was poorly constructed, (c) we're not allowed to move past it because it's continually brought up in subsequent products, (d) we never even learned about them before they were taken away, and (e) the dolt who took their places is a dolt.

Now, in your mind, part D might mean that we lost nothing. I get that. To me, though, the pantheon and in fact the Realms took shape the way it did due in part to them, and that makes them relevant. Ed was almost undoubtedly thinking of Leira when he created Nimral... so it would be a different place if Leira didn't exist; she's part of the history and social structure of that land and its colonies. She's part of playing an illusionist. Bhaal wasn't just the god of murder, he was the god of assassins. Assassins exist in every world, but in Faerun they had a divine patron who actively watched them and pushed them, and they were skilled because they had to be... failure meant a hideous death and becoming a warning to other slackers. That affects the lives of every merchant and ruler who fears death, which means all of them. Nobody wants to meet Myrkul, of course, but that's a pretty abstract fear. The hands of Bhaal are a far more tangible and immediate threat. Myrkul wasn't a cold god of death like those in other worlds... he was a genius, perpetually calm and collected, and he actively terrorized the people of the Realms... not because it was his "job" but because he enjoyed it. I'm reading into the few sources we have a bit, sure, but Ed and THO are more than welcome to correct me if I'm wrong... that would mean more lore.


quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

Without something affecting the gods, how would you explain every single member of a particular class losing all of their special abilities?

And when there is something wholly new in the rules, especially something that was not possible before, how do you implement this in the setting without changing things? And/or if something that previously worked one way now works another way, how can this be explained without changes?


Simply put, no explanation is needed. And they didn't just lose their special abilities; that would have been okay. They freakin died, and that introduces a huge inconsistency... which is in the next quote.

Regarding explanation of rules changes: DMs and players are divided into two groups with each new ruleset: those who will use the new rules, and those who will not. If you're going to use the new ruleset, you may translate a few favorite PCs into the new rules but for the most part you're going to be creating new characters with the new rules. If you're going to stick with an old ruleset, no translation is necessary and you make new characters using the old rules as the need arises. Neither group needs an explanation as to why X-edition characters of a particular class have a certain set of abilities and Y-edition characters have a different list of abilities, or why infravision suddenly changed to darkvision. If you're using the new rules, it's always been that way because you're translating everybody into the new rules. If you're using the old rules, then nothing changes in your world.

That being the case, an RSE to herald the new ruleset is at best wholly unnecessary, and it's worse for everyone using an old ruleset. Not that WotC has historically given any regard to players of old rulesets, but the point stands because they should have.

The question of whether or not you like a particular RSE is completely separate. I can understand your approval of the outcome of the TOT; I'm sure some others approved too. I get the impression some even like Cyric. Crazytalk! But that's fine; it changes nothing regarding the necessity of the RSE (none, zero, zilch) or the primary purpose of the RSE being to explain the rules changes (a bit of spin-doctoring).


quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh

Also, removing the assassin class does not remove assassins from the game and it doesn't make a god of assassins useless. There's no blacksmith class, but obviously blacksmiths exist.


Assassin was a separate, playable class in 1E, and it was not a playable class in 2E. You can't say the same about blacksmiths; they were never a class.


This was my response to this, from earlier:

quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

The point of the event was to have an in-game explanation for changing the rules. Two deities were a necessary casualty of this (no assassins means a god of assassins is superfluous, etc)


I should probably have picked a better example. In spite of the fact that WotC killed off Leira, illusionists didn't drop dead in their tracks. Furthermore, wizards didn't die when Mystra blew herself up trying to get past Helm. Therefore, killing Bhaal didn't necessitate killing all the assassins.

If you're going to argue that the reverse was true --that Bhaal was killed because assassins were being removed from the PC class list-- then all barbarians, cavaliers, monks, and thief-acrobats, and their gods, would need to be killed as well since they were also removed from the PC class list. I conclude, from the fact that none of those classes keeled over en masse and none of their gods died, that there was no connection between getting rid of assassins and getting rid of Bhaal.


quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

Again, TSR said that the point of the Time of Troubles was to explain changes to the setting. You may disagree with that, but doing so is calling everyone at TSR a liar.


Nah. Lying is an assertive, deliberate thing. I don't have the ESP or cc'd emails to prove that anyone was lying. I'm just saying that this stated reason doesn't work. If I were accusing anyone of lying, it would just be the one person telling everyone what to say. Nobody else would be lying... just doing their jobs.


quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

How could TSR have sold anything that was built around "yeah, so everything in this product may or may not have happened in the setting?" How could they have sold any future products, when they didn't have a definite baseline for what had changed before?


One interesting possibility is writing about characters in the Realms instead of writing about gods. A short story about gods here and there, or even a novel here and there, is great. Making it into a godswar is excessive; that's the kind of thing that should stay in individual home campaigns, much like my sarrukh takeover.

Also, many adventures are created around the idea that you can run them in your campaign, and the official material won't contradict whatever outcome your PCs reach. This is true for (I think) the majority of adventures. Certainly true for recent "core" non-specific adventures since they don't take place in an actual setting anymore. Also true for Dungeon magazine adventures, even those set specifically in the Realms, at least back in the day. So the idea that things won't sell unless they change things doesn't hold water (for me) either.


quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

Changes to the settings are NOT written to force us to buy new setting material. They are made to advance the timeline, and/or accommodate changes to the rules, and/or to sell novels.


This makes no sense. The 4e jump in the timeline seems to be universally hated, the changes to the rules generally get a very mixed response in every edition, and novels will sell or not sell based entirely on how fans feel about the author. Changes in the setting should have either a negative effect or no effect at all on novel sales.

For example, I purchased every novel I could get my hands on during 2e; I haven't purchased a single novel produced during 4e. Jeremy has already encouraged me to check them out, and I'm sure others will too. And I want to support the authors. I want to be able to enjoy their work and have questions to ask them, because I think their presence here on Candlekeep is awesome and I want to encourage that. I just don't like any of the changes that were made in the world; my avoidance of the novels is a direct consequence of rejecting the 4e changes in the Realms.

Maybe a few people buy a novel based on its dramatic cover or the jacket's promise to really shake things up in a place that these fans want to see shaken up. In general, though, I'm guessing that an insignificant number of Realms fans buy novels without any regard at all to their feelings about the most recent changes in the world. This would mean that changes in the setting can only have a negative or negligible effect on novel sales. But I admit I'm making a couple of assumptions/guesses in there, and maybe I'm wrong.


quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh

How do you know how active the churches of Bane, Bhaal, Myrkul, and Leira were prior to the TOT? They were never written about.


So why is it such a big issue? Ibrandul was never written about before his demise; ditto for Murdane or Valigan Thirdborn. I don't see anyone complaining about any of them.


There's a big difference between Bane and Ibrandul. The church of Bane is pretty active, at least in northern and western Faerun. We can assume that the churches of Leira and Bhaal were small and didn't really affect anything... but it would be an assumption. What about Myrkul? He was a bigger name, and there's every reason to think his church was just as active as Bane's. We just hadn't heard about it yet... the TOT came a whole whopping 2 years after the gray box.

It's a big deal in the same way that removing Shar would have been a big deal... look at what we know about her now versus what we knew about her when the TOT happened. Again, regardless of whether you like her or all of the material. She's a force to be reckoned with. At least equal to Cyric in terms of campaign usefulness. It's reasonable to think that Bhaal, Myrkul, and Leira would each have been developed to an equal extent, making the judgment easy even on a simple numbers level. Four is better than one.


quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

The stories that could have been told were replaced with others -- others that had more material to support them.


Are you saying that Cyric had more material to support him than Myrkul did, from the moment of Cyric's creation? If so... how so?


quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

I don't think any amount of feedback would have influenced the Spellplague. They were not listening to fans of the Realms when they did that.


Woohoo, something we agree about! And Cyric being pathetic; two things!


quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer

For the record this isn't true. The feelings of frustration people felt with WotC were very real, certainly, but it's not as though WotC turned a deaf ear to fans of the setting.


There is probably some truth to this. I know that WotC has at least received feedback on pretty much everything they've done. Probably mostly negative, because that's human nature; we're far more inclined to bash what we don't like than to promote what we like. Going the opposite way is a conscious effort, and many of us are too flippin lazy to do it most of the time. Myself included, obviously.

I guess my response to this would be that I really wish they had ignored the feedback they listened to, and listened to the feedback they ignored while crafting 4e. It will never be the case that they see every fan complaint or every bit of positive feedback, and it will never be the case that they do exactly what I want them to with everything and somehow work it out so that everyone else is happy too. First world problems, right?


quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

Okay, I'm utterly confused, now... How did we go from whether or not there was a purpose for the Time of Troubles to one for the Spellplague?


I think I had a running tangent regarding the Spellplague for most of my recent posts in this thread. Talking about Cyric tends to bring up both events for me. My apologies for the confusion.


quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

Leira's demise was only connected to the ToT in that it happened at the hands of Cyric. It is otherwise utterly unrelated.


I guess we just disagree. To me, legitimizing Cyric rested on killing Leira, and this makes her extremely relevant to the TOT even though it was a footnote which didn't even see the light of day until after the TOT was over.

If Leira's death was not a foregone conclusion while the TOT trilogy was being written, then my nominal faith in the intelligence of the plotline's original author goes poof. (Note: not talking about the authors of the books. I had no objections to the writing itself; only the story.)


quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh

Cyric (the mortal) can't fully metamorphose into Cyric (the god) without Leira. She's 80% of his portfolio. And since Cyric is the heart of the TOT, Leira is the real heart of the story.


Incorrect. Cyric became a deity without anything happening to Leira. And Cyric was more about strife, which he stole from Bane -- he showed this in Crucible. And it's a stretch to say that lies and deception are 80% of his portfolio -- he got most of his strength from Murder, Death (until he lost it), and Strife. Lies and deception were just the icing on the cake; they certainly were not the entire cake.


A fair objection, since I was looking at the 3e deities list instead of the 2e list. I'll cite his blurb in FR Adventures instead. His portfolio in 2e was "death, murder, the dead, strife, tyranny, and lies." So in 1367, you're right that Leira's contribution was outweighed by those of Bane and Myrkul.

5 years later... not so much. 80% of his portfolio is derived from Leira. And I won't say you're overthinking my math, but I'm just looking at the number of entries in his portfolio. 4/5 are related to Leira, and he has nothing from Bane or Myrkul. He has the portfolios of two demipowers.


quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

Since Cyric became a deity without Leira's portfolios, since he pursued his other portfolios a lot more vigorously, and since she wasn't slain until after the Time of Troubles was over and done with, Leira is not the heart of the story. She's not even the spleen of the story; at best, she's the appendix.


Your sense of humor is appreciated. I disagree about where he spent his vigor, though, and the thing about timing is mostly irrelevant. He was all about the strife and stuff immediately after the TOT, sure. But it had to be after offing Leira that he became the Prince of Lies. And his acquisition of deception and illusion expanded his repertoire with regard to strife. Strife without deception relies on brute strength and fear. With deception, much more flavorful mayhem is possible. That's why I said "Cyric (the mortal) can't fully metamorphose into Cyric (the god) without Leira." He got the strength from Bane and Myrkul. Fine, but at that point he was basically just Bane 2.0, with an annoying responsibility for the realm of the dead. Certainly no better than Bane was, and actually a lot worse because he lacked Bane's experience. He matured into something useful when he acquired illusion and deception, but he was still inept and ultimately unable to handle the brainstrain. Catastrophic failure. Meltdown. Destruction of Zhentil Keep. Unable to hold onto death when Kelemvor surfaced as a god. Unable to hold onto strife when Bane returned. Reduced to washed-up has-been status. Insanity. Oblivion. (Inexplicably assassinate Mystra and become relevant again.)

Opening doors for new stories? Sure, whatever. Bane, Bhaal, Myrkul, and Leira, please.


quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

Honestly, the impression that I'm getting here is that this isn't as much about Leira, Cyric, or even the Time of Troubles -- I get the impression that this is more about objecting to change in general.


Nah, not really. I just take issue with change-for-the-sake-of-change, and especially with stupid change. I object to things that don't make sense from basically any angle... and happily stop objecting when someone can inject sufficient sense into it. I hate the destruction of lore, particularly when it's not balanced by an influx of better lore and particularly when we could have gotten the positive without the negative. I find it completely reasonable to hate the TOT (and several other plots) on this basis.


quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

Two exact quotes:

"I'm left with the feeling that the whole purpose of the TOT was to introduce Cyric and make him unalterably a part of the Realms"

"I meant to say that adding Cyric was the point of the TOT, and removing several other gods was a "necessary" consequence of that, and I'll stand by that."

Those statements are saying that the official stated reasons for the ToT are not what TSR said. Criticizing the decisions is fine. Saying the designers lied is something else.


Eh, fair point. I should have been more careful to avoid appearing to accuse anyone of lying. Jeremy is right about my intent. I think the decisions that led to the edition-introducing RSEs we've seen have been (insert favorite colorful expletive here). I also think "we have to change the setting because we have to change the rules" is inconsistently applied (yes in 2e, 4e, and twice in 5e, but not in 3e) and therefore... well, it just doesn't work. The success of 3e, in spite of no great worldbreaking RSE to introduce it, means that we do not in fact need RSEs to introduce ruleset changes. I'm not disagreeing that somebody said the TOT was intended to explain the 2e rules changes. I do question whether they believe it themselves. Ultimately, though, I'm just saying it makes no sense while another explanation makes a lot of sense... somebody had a dream about a guy named Cyric, and made it real.


quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

You can't change things without explanation and maintain continuity. Bigger changes require bigger explanations.


Yikes. I should probably leave this alone. I'll just say this, and then drop it: WotC's "explanations" are precisely what breaks continuity. If that weren't true, our bitterest battles here on Candlekeep would be over whether Alusair thinks Drizzt or Wulfgar is sexier.


quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer

quote:
Originally posted by Irennan

But -as I said- rules are not a realistic description of people's skills in a setting (snip)

While you may feel that way, that's not necessarily how TSR saw the Realms, nor how they thought gamers saw the Realms. <snip> When the rules changed, the world had to change. That's just how they saw it.



This is pretty huge, and something I should keep more firmly in mind. I tend to look at WotC in terms of their responsibility to the setting... but their perspective is undoubtedly different and sitting at our keyboards we're all just people with opinions and priorities and often-flawed perceptions. It's easy for me to dehumanize corporations. Automatic, actually. So if you find my rants to run long or hot, just remind me that they're human.


quote:
Originally posted by Irennan

That's why I think that it is not wise to bend and change the world just because some game changed its rules, otherwise you're going to end up with stuff like Mystra dying every other edition.


Bingo. This is why it's important for everyone to say their piece and never let me monopolize a thread. Others say it better than I do.


Wooly: my initial purpose in gnashing about the TOT was to say that it would have been better as an optional campaign arc. It's become clear that you disagree, and our perspectives differ enough that agreement (on some points at least) is probably not possible, and that's fine.

Taking a step back, I suppose you, me, and Jeremy are a great little demonstration of how it's impossible to please everyone.

Best wishes to all in 5e.
Go to Top of Page

George Krashos
Master of Realmslore

Australia
6641 Posts

Posted - 19 Sep 2014 :  06:43:19  Show Profile Send George Krashos a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I won't comment overmuch on the 1E to 2E changeover as I was a fan just like everyone else back then. To me, that change in edition was clearly rules driven. The death of the Bhaal assassins was the clincher for me in this regard. Salvatore has an anecdote where he was told to kill off Entereri because he was an "assassin" (i.e. the 1E class) wherupon he told them that he was no such thing. Entreri was a fighter/thief who killed people for money! Salvatore, if anything, has always been able to look after his protagonists.

I can however give you a little bit of a quasi-insider's view of the 2E to 3E changeover as it applied to the Realms. Again, rules changes did act as a catalyst for some changes - the Thunder Blessing used as a reason for wizard dwarves etc. What was clear however was that there were some things that were set in stone, and were new because a whole bunch of FR fiction was going to revolve around them - the most obvious example was Shade. I sent more than a few increasingly pointed e-mails trying to argue that bringing back a full blown city full of Netherese arcanists was overkill, unbalancing and difficult to reconcile in the "greater FR scheme of things". As is their wont of course, WotC didn't bother to tell us "commentators" that The Return of the Archwizards novel trilogy was happening right behind us. Their decisions and lack of flexibility on some "issues" became clearer after the novels started rolling out.

In that regard I think that the OP's point about the importance of Cyric and co to the ToT has some validity, but not totally so. Gaming products and novels came hand in hand in those days. Each had a stint driving the bus by turns (I think the fiction line got behind the wheel a bit more during the 1E to 2E transition, but that's only supposition on my part).

The "running it past the fans" comment is an interesting one. I was at GEN-CON In 2007 when I was made privy to the FR changes that were looming in th 3E to 4E transition. When I say privy, I'm talking broad brushstrokes (i.e. basically the 100 year gap). The details (ala killing off Mystra, earthmotes, an even greater Rift, et. al.) weren't offered up. Heck, we smashed ourselves to get GHotR out in a 6-week time period (yes kids, 6 weeks from "we have a project ..." to "it's a wrap because we have no more time") not knowing what additional 3E to 4E "history" the staffers were planning on tacking on. Brian and I had a good catch up at GEN-CON this year where we talked about what we could have done if we'd only had three or so more months (think of a GHotR that's twice the size of the one you have now with product/page references to every timeline entry ...).

To get back on topic, I think that edition changes are seen as an opportunity to shake things up, introduce the new and the wonderful, add a bit of pizzazz to the staleness and (in some cases) blow up the moon. RSEs are not everyone's cup of tea, but there is one truism about them: they are dynamic and can be the catalyst and generator of significant gaming activity, whether fiction or straight gaming stuff.

And that's the kernel of why they occur: they impart energy to the brand and provide a justification and framework for both gaming and fiction opporunities. RSEs are here to stay I think. The powers that be have become comfortable in using them and have forgotten that there is any other way.

-- George Krashos

"Because only we, contrary to the barbarians, never count the enemy in battle." -- Aeschylus
Go to Top of Page

xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore

USA
1853 Posts

Posted - 19 Sep 2014 :  07:21:00  Show Profile  Visit xaeyruudh's Homepage Send xaeyruudh a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Thanks George. I can only guess what your reactions would have been if they had told you anything specific about 4e. It would have been insanely difficult for any fan to keep quiet about that.

And I really wish more time had been available for the Grand History. It's a vital resource as-is, but a longer book with more detailed references would have been even awesomer. I also loved the profile/detail pages throughout, and more of those would have been great too.

Edited by - xaeyruudh on 19 Sep 2014 07:27:20
Go to Top of Page

sfdragon
Great Reader

2285 Posts

Posted - 19 Sep 2014 :  15:26:56  Show Profile Send sfdragon a Private Message  Reply with Quote
All I'll say is that time and things change and not often for the better. What seems likea good idea at the moment, can flop later on.


why is being a wizard like being a drow? both are likely to find a dagger in the back from a rival or one looking to further his own goals, fame and power


My FR fan fiction
Magister's GAmbit
http://steelfiredragon.deviantart.com/gallery/33539234
Go to Top of Page

Krafus
Learned Scribe

246 Posts

Posted - 19 Sep 2014 :  15:33:03  Show Profile  Visit Krafus's Homepage Send Krafus a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
He can't be an intelligent artifact and a deity at the same time.


Why not? For a while, Mask was both Mask and Cyric's gods-killing sword, Godsbane. This came back to bite Mask hard in Prince of Lies, when Cyric broke Godsbane's blade.

As for Myrkul and the Crown of Horns, when Myrkul returns in 5e, one could rule the Crown is similar to Godsbane: a sentient artifact invested with part of Myrkul's divine essence, which allows him do things gods normally cannot, but will result in a loss of divine power should the Crown somehow be broken/destroyed. This way, the Crown would be both an advantage and a weakness.

Edited by - Krafus on 19 Sep 2014 15:33:44
Go to Top of Page

Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
Moderator

USA
36779 Posts

Posted - 19 Sep 2014 :  16:21:59  Show Profile Send Wooly Rupert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Krafus

quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
He can't be an intelligent artifact and a deity at the same time.


Why not? For a while, Mask was both Mask and Cyric's gods-killing sword, Godsbane. This came back to bite Mask hard in Prince of Lies, when Cyric broke Godsbane's blade.

As for Myrkul and the Crown of Horns, when Myrkul returns in 5e, one could rule the Crown is similar to Godsbane: a sentient artifact invested with part of Myrkul's divine essence, which allows him do things gods normally cannot, but will result in a loss of divine power should the Crown somehow be broken/destroyed. This way, the Crown would be both an advantage and a weakness.



Godsbane was an avatar, not an artifact.

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!
Go to Top of Page

Gary Dallison
Great Reader

United Kingdom
6350 Posts

Posted - 19 Sep 2014 :  16:33:37  Show Profile Send Gary Dallison a Private Message  Reply with Quote
An idea i have stolen for the Masked Lady.

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
Go to Top of Page

Tanthalas
Senior Scribe

Portugal
508 Posts

Posted - 19 Sep 2014 :  18:45:50  Show Profile Send Tanthalas a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I think several people in this scroll need to stop acting like everyone hates the same things that they hate. Or trying to define what a FR fan is (mostly I'm seeing is that a true FR fan has to think exactly like the guy making the definition).

I've only been around the Realms since after the ToT. I was introduced to the setting with the Baldur's Gate PC games and I've been a big fan of the setting ever since. And yeah, I'm one of those fans that have actually liked the transitions from each edition to the next, something that a lot of people around here wants to pretend doesn't exist.

Did I like everything about the each transition? Of course not. But I'd rather get some bad with the good than having a stale setting where nothing ever changes.

Sir Markham pointed out, drinking another brandy. "A chap who can point at you and say 'die' has the distinct advantage".
Go to Top of Page

Irennan
Great Reader

Italy
3802 Posts

Posted - 19 Sep 2014 :  20:37:23  Show Profile Send Irennan a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Tanthalas

Did I like everything about the each transition? Of course not. But I'd rather get some bad with the good than having a stale setting where nothing ever changes.



Yeah, but the point of the recent discussion is (I think) that changes should happen to tell a story, build upon it and enrich the setting, not because now wizards can cast 1 more spell/day and fighters can do some acrobatic fancy move, or because designers thought ''hey, lets get rid of this''.

Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things.

Edited by - Irennan on 19 Sep 2014 20:37:55
Go to Top of Page

Krafus
Learned Scribe

246 Posts

Posted - 19 Sep 2014 :  20:45:35  Show Profile  Visit Krafus's Homepage Send Krafus a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Godsbane was an avatar, not an artifact.



Then why couldn't WotC rule that after Myrkul's return in 5e, the Crown of Horns becomes an avatar shapeshifted into an object?
Go to Top of Page

Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
Moderator

USA
36779 Posts

Posted - 19 Sep 2014 :  21:18:52  Show Profile Send Wooly Rupert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Krafus

quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Godsbane was an avatar, not an artifact.



Then why couldn't WotC rule that after Myrkul's return in 5e, the Crown of Horns becomes an avatar shapeshifted into an object?



They could, but that would be a retcon, because it had been previously stated that the Crown of Horns was an artifact and that his remaining essence took refuge in it, after his near-demise on the top of Blackstaff Tower.

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!
Go to Top of Page

xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore

USA
1853 Posts

Posted - 19 Sep 2014 :  22:07:06  Show Profile  Visit xaeyruudh's Homepage Send xaeyruudh a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Tanthalas

I think several people in this scroll need to stop acting like everyone hates the same things that they hate. Or trying to define what a FR fan is.


My apologies if I contributed to this. I know from experience that it's frustrating at least (and more often infuriating) to feel like my stance is being belittled or ignored, particularly if it also seems like nobody even gets my point of view. So I don't want to cause that feeling.
Go to Top of Page

Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader

USA
2717 Posts

Posted - 20 Sep 2014 :  00:00:39  Show Profile Send Jeremy Grenemyer a Private Message  Reply with Quote
We're I you, I would keep on expressing myself.

If you feel like you're being belittled, take it to the moderators. If that's not practical, take it to the website owner.

Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver).
Go to Top of Page

Aldrick
Senior Scribe

909 Posts

Posted - 20 Sep 2014 :  03:52:46  Show Profile Send Aldrick a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Re: Crown of Horns & Myrkul's Return.

This is an easy situation to solve. The Crown of Horns simply becomes a divinely touched artifact. The powers and abilities of the Crown may shift a bit, but it should still exist and be fully functional UNLESS it was somehow destroyed / drained to fuel Myrkul's re-ascension to divinity.

Assuming the Crown of Horns was not destroyed / drained of power then it's only logical to conclude that it is now a very valuable divine artifact.

The way I'd personally choose to use it would be...

1. I'd assert that it is a highly prized holy relic of the newly re-founded cult of Myrkul.

2. That the Crown of Horns is to be worn by the 'High Priest' of the cult.

3. That the cult believes that Myrkul can directly commune with the High Priest, who then in turn relays the messages from the deity to the faithful. I would, however, always leave room for doubt here. I'd want the High Priest to at least appear a bit crazy, and have room for people to wonder if the power of the Crown has driven him mad or if he's really receiving visions / instructions from the deity.

Here are the powers I'd give the Crown:
- Non-faithful or those who reject Myrkul's re-ascension to divinity must make a very difficult will save, or be struck with fear and terror while in the presence of the wearer of the Crown.

- The Faithful of Myrkul must make a very difficult will save, or be struck with awe and reverence while in the presence of the wearer of the Crown.

- The Crown is 100% immune to all magic, whether beneficial or harmful to the Crown.

- The Crown is 100% immune to all known forms of damage, whether magical or mundane. It cannot be destroyed through any known means - though there may be a way to eventually accomplish it.

- Once every 10 minutes and at will, the wearer of the Crown may attempt to Destroy or Command all nearby Undead. This power bypasses all forms of resistance, and requires the Undead to make a difficult will save. Any Undead that are Commanded are held under the power of the Crown, and not the wearer of the Crown. However, they will obey the wearer of the Crown unless the Crown itself desires something different. They may only be commanded while the Crown is worn, but they cannot harm or retaliate against anyone who has worn the Crown once it's removed.

- Once every 10 minutes and at will, the wearer of the Crown may attempt to magically slay any living creature with the touch of his hand. The living creature must make a difficult fortitude save or die; falling to the ground screaming in agony before going into shock and dying. They cannot be resurrected; as once they are dead their soul is bound to the Crown. The wearer of the Crown may then summon anyone so slain as a Wraith which is under the control of the Crown (and therefore nominally under the control of the wearer of the Crown). Anyone slain by the Wraith is also bound to the Crown in an identical fashion.

- All Necromantic Magic is empowered while wearing the Crown. (Determined by DM.)

- Divine Spellcasters of Myrkul receive additional bonuses to their spellcasting abilities. (Determined by DM.)

Potential Drawbacks
- From the moment the Crown is placed on the head of a living creature it forms a bond with that creature.

- Through the bond with the creature it instantaneously knows all of it's memories, fears, ambitions, and other drives. The Crown will seek to manipulate the individual into doing it's bidding, using all of this knowledge against the wearer.

- Through the bond with the creature it begins to drain it's life force. If only worn for a brief time, it could take decades for the crown to fully absorb the life force of someone who has worn it. However, on average use it will take as little as two years (24 months). Using at will powers of the Crown drains the life essence of the wearer even faster (1d4 months are lost each use).

- Eventually, anyone who has worn the crown will have their life force completely drained, and at this point they will be transformed into a Lich. Their soul will become permanently bound to the Crown, which in turn will become their phylactery. All individuals such turned are fully under the sway and control of the Crown.

- When the life force is fully drained, and a new lich is created the Crown has two options. First, it may allow the lich to keep its sentience. Second, it may allow a previously created lich to be 'reborn' into the body of the newly created lich. In this way, those who once faithfully served the Crown may be reborn.

- The Crown has a 100% chance of sensing all living and undead creatures within 100 feet.

- The Crown has the ability to use Detect Thoughts on any sentient creature within 100 feet. It has a 100% chance of success in achieving this.

- The Crown can manipulate those it has Detected Thoughts of regardless of distance for 1d20 days. The manipulations are subtle, and it's goal is to attempt to encourage individuals to wear it and use it.

- Individuals who have worn the Crown begin to suffer from extremely life-like hallucinations. All hallucinations center around death and the dead. The longer the Crown is worn, or the more it is used the more the 'world of reality' and the 'world of the dead' merge together in the mind - to the point where it can no longer be mentally separated. This coincides with the life force draining ability.

Example 1: As a former wearer of the Crown walks down the street the people around him suddenly start to appear ill or dying. He notices some of them appear to break out in sores, while others appear to develop life threatening wounds, and while still others seem to age rapidly before his eyes - growing old and frail. He will instinctively realize that he's witnessing how each of them will die, those who have the sores will die of plague, those with the life threatening wounds will be murdered, and meanwhile those who appear frail and old will die of old age. Is it true? Is it a mere possibility? Or is it fate as the Jergalites would say? Or are they simply going mad? That's left up to speculation. To everyone else, everyone seen appears completely normal.

Example 2: As a former wearer of the Crown walks into a mortuary, one of the nearby corpses turns toward him and begins to speak. It talks to him about her life, the things she left unfinished, and other things of interest. He can carry on a conversation with her as if she were living, and standing right there next to him. In fact, she looks just as she did in life, and it's very difficult to tell that she's dead at all. Such beings always speak highly of Lord Myrkul, singing his praises, his glory, and his ultimate triumph. It is irrelevant whether or not they served him in life, or were even his most bitter enemy. According to them, all serve Lord Myrkul in the end. All such individuals, whether they knew the former wearer in life, will know intimate details about them. They will call him by his name, and speak to him as if they were friends and intimately familiar. All such beings are manipulative toward one goal or another, though it's usually unclear whether it's manipulative toward the ends of the Crown or toward the ends of the dead individual. To anyone observing these exchanges, it appears as if they're talking to a corpse and having a one-sided conversation. Are they going mad? Are these hallucinations really the dead speaking or is it all a trick by the Crown? This is all left up to speculation.

- Individuals slain by the powers of the Crown may appear from time to time as hallucinations to communicate to someone who has worn the Crown.

- As time passes, an individual who has worn the Crown will be drawn to places of mass death, such as battlefields and mass graves. Once there, the individual may witness spirits re-enacting their final moments, or screaming out in agony and pain from beyond the grave. Others may attempt to communicate with the individual.

- Over time an individual who has worn the Crown will develop a sixth-sense around death. He will sense when someone is dying nearby, or someone who has just recently died. He will be able to instinctively find his way to such locations, and should he visit such locations he will feel the power of Myrkul strongest there.
Go to Top of Page

Krafus
Learned Scribe

246 Posts

Posted - 20 Sep 2014 :  14:04:19  Show Profile  Visit Krafus's Homepage Send Krafus a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Aldrick: What about the Crown's powers to create lesser and greater shadowraths under the control of the Crown's wearer, as seen in the Campaign Guide of the City of Splendors boxed set? I thought the ability to create unique undead creatures was a very nifty power.
Go to Top of Page

sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist

USA
11686 Posts

Posted - 20 Sep 2014 :  17:14:59  Show Profile Send sleyvas a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Wow... heated folder.... I'll just throw out my personal thoughts real quick

YAY Leira!
Myrkul? Yeah, if he comes back as a deity, let it be in the form of a planar bound deity tied to the Crown of Myrkul, such that if the crown were destroyed his priests would have difficulty granting power. Oh, and make it that he's NOT actively seeking godhood... he kind of just can't prevent it (not sure how to work that offhand).

Bring Back Velsharoon..... but with some twist.

Alavairthae, may your skill prevail

Phillip aka Sleyvas
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 4 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Candlekeep Forum © 1999-2024 Candlekeep.com Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000