I've got a thing for dwarves--don't ask why. I don't get it either. 
Anyway, I know 4e doesn't give a **** about this, but I'm still more about 3/3.5e.
I've got a big interest in the Thunder Blessing, but have found out little about it. Just wondering if anyone else has learned something I haven't--maybe from on of the designers. Feedback is appreciated.
Haven't heard of it. I also am into the 3.5 era of gaming. Our group gave up buying anymore books.... and these were guys who bought all the 2e stuff.
I dont think it was covered in any greater detail that what was in the 3e campaign guide. I think it had something to do with giving the Dwarves a touch of the arcane. Dwarves in previous editions couildnt be wizards, but they got the green light in 3e. I dont know if that was ever officialy stated but it mades sense to me. All these dwarves born from the thunder blessing could all pursue a career in wizardry, even though thier forfathers could not.
I know that.
I was talking about anything new.
People, just so we don't stumble upon a repeat of the previous two posts, Silversword guy is correct--the Thunder Blessing was partly brought in to explain why dwarves could suddenly use the arcane in 3e. Primarily, though, its purpose was to increase the dwarven population, which was declining at a drastic rate, due their low fertility rate and the amount of conflict the dwarven race as a whole was dealing with, producing casualties faster than births. Moradin bestowed this blessing on his children so that they would multiply and live on.
So...does anyone have any more than this?
Anyway, back to the Thunder Blessing.
Has anyone talked to the designers about this?
Anyway, back to the Thunder Blessing.
Has anyone talked to the designers about this?
But any way I dont think any one has asked the designers about it. They just had that vague description in the camapaign guide as far as I know. I might have to check in the 2e Dwarves Deep and see if anything was mentioned in there about it, but I have a feeling that it was made up just for 3e, but Ive been proven wrong before. You could post a question about it in the ask the designers thread, but no one has answed that in like a month, Rich is too busy on Dark Sun I guess 
.
Edit: Ninjad! Like sfdragon said You could sign up over at Loremaster.org, if you havnt already, and ask Ed Greenwood himself about it.
asked
but it may be some time before I get a response
I’ve removed content from this thread because off topic/disruption is a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code of Conduct here: forums.gleemax.com/community_coc.php
************
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, on-topic, and refrain from personal attacks and flaming, these are violations of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code here: ww2.wizards.com/Company/Misc/Index.aspx?... You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
************
Please return discussion to the topic of the thread, or it may need to be closed.
hey dookie, The Most Esteamed Ed Greenwood has replied that the Thunderblessing is heavily NDA'd
Hmmm.... veddy intervesting... veddy......
not as interesting tht RAvencloak is also NDA
Volo is NDA'd
The Thunder Blessing was not created to explain away why dwarves could use magic.
The changes to the Realms for Third Edition D&D were of an "it's always been this way" nature. Thus, as of 3E dwarves were and could always be spellcasters in the Realms, we just never saw any in print that could before then.
3E tried to rally the demihuman races (Elves, Drow, Dwarves and so on) to make them more active on the mainland of Faerûn and thus more playable in the game. Dwarves had their Thunder Blessing, the Retreat ended for the elves and drow returned to the surface of the Realms.
Personally I never liked how TSR treated the demihuman races before 3E, as though they could only ever be as Tolkien portrayed them in his books (all of them in decline with their numbers dwindling, while humans were ascending to new heights of power). I couldn't understand why the demihuman races were not able to compete with humans of the Realms. It didn't make sense to me.
Thus the changes to the 3E Realms were something I welcomed with open arms.
, Drow, Dwarves and so on) to make them more active on the mainland of Faerûn and thus more playable in the game. Dwarves had their Thunder Blessing, the Retreat ended for the elves and drow returned to the surface of the Realms.
What did the halflings and gnomes get? No seriously, I'm curious to see if I forgot something, because I'm not remembering any big shake-ups for them. At least, I don't consider the destruction of Blingdenstone a major shift for the gnomes.
I can't speak to gnomes because I don't remember big changes for them. As for halflings, well they stopped being round, big-bellied hobbit clones as of Third Edition. ;)
EDIT: Found this bit from Ed Greenwood on the Thunder Blessing in the REALMS-L mailling list archives. Might shed some light on things.
Truth: I did indeed have dwarves in decline to explain
a lot of the ruins and "dungeons," and also had elves
pulling out of mainland Faerun to free up Myth Drannor
as a "gold rush for humans" (in my home campaign,
before TSR ever published the Realms).
I believe it was Elaine who formalized the latter as
"the Retreat" (and yes, it is a lot like Tolkien),
with elves feeling a 'calling' to Evermeet; in the
"original" Realms it was simply a strategic decision
on the part of the elves of both Ardeep and
Cormanthor: we can no longer defend these places
(unlike Evereska) against the ever-more-populous
humans and will tear ourselves apart trying, the
demons and devils marauding around Myth Drannor ruins
our realm from within at the same time, so let's cut
and run, keeping a land we can defend better (elven
flying ships, remember) the way we want it. Treat
mainland Faerun as a place to visit, hunt, explore,
inhabit for short periods...just not "home" (because
it hurts too much).
In the same way, dwarves in decline (yes, also
Tolkien-ish) was necessary to explain the predominant
position of humans (in the early D&D rules, which all
of us if we wrote anything for DRAGON or TSR had to
follow) in the game. Otherwise, there was just no way
the humans were going to dominate (orcs were posited
as even more fecund, and nastier, pound for pound,
too: why hadn't THEY taken over?). I talked on several
occasions with Jim Ward (who played in Gary's 'home'
Greyhawk campaign) and read material written by both
Gary and by Rob Kuntz (who played and sometimes DM'ed
Gary's campaign) and yes, dwarves WERE in decline in
Greyhawk, too...not necessarily in every place or in
specific regions, but overall, as humans expanded,
they were declining from a previous 'golden age.'
Interesting...
((Removed))
hey dookie, The Most Esteamed Ed Greenwood has replied that the Thunderblessing is heavily NDA'd
Thanks, sf--appreciate you going to a source. But--forgive me for my lack of commitment around here--but what is NDA again?
The Thunder Blessing was not created to explain away why dwarves could use magic.
I didn't say it was. I did say it was "partly" correct in the fact that it was used to help explain "why" dwarven wizards suddenly started popping up in more frequency.
I can't speak to gnomes because I don't remember big changes for them. As for halflings, well they stopped being round, big-bellied hobbit clones as of Third Edition. ;)
EDIT: Found this bit from Ed Greenwood on the Thunder Blessing in the REALMS-L mailling list archives. Might shed some light on things.
Truth: I did indeed have dwarves in decline....
Good nugget, Mr. M. Thanks....
(( Baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct:http://wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=1916 ))
"NDA" stands for non-disclosure agreement.
As the name suggest, it limits what you can say about something.
In this case, those limits put a cap on what Ed can tell us about some of the subject matter in this thread.
Evil NDAs creep up all the time on the Ask Ed thread at Candlekeep.com. It's such a bummer because I'd wager 99% of what WotC has under NDA with Ed are information they won't ever publish anyway.
:sigh:
or in the past more than 100 years, and Derothad the Bull, the Minotaur wizard from way back in ancient Netheril, who'd be long dead.
Disclaimer: Derothnad is not an Ed Greenwood creation, and in fact does not exist, and was only used as an example of things that are nda's in the anceint past.
(( Baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct:http://wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=1916 ))
For the record, I wasn't baiting, I was trying to initiate a meaningful conversation. 
---
"NDA" stands for non-disclosure agreement.
...
Yeah, I know what a Non Dislosure Agreement is--I type them up for clients sometimes. It was the first thing I thought of when sf said it, but it didn't seem to make any sense. Of course, I only visit Candlekeep when I am hard up for info, so I'm not aware of how Ed speaks or what he imparts, so....
Either way, thanks for the clarification.
I like the concept of the Thunder Blessing. Opinions of the producers and developers aside, the Thunder Blessing represents a new generation of Dwarves who unlike the bulk of their parents, have more interest in the realms outside of the mountains, caves, and mines. This helps justify the adventuring type, as well as integrated dwarves in various human dominated areas.
I think the same for younder evles post retreat. They are less biased by the strong culture that they once perpetuated in their kingdoms, so they are more likely to be open minded to the human culture in most areas.
True. But then you get back into the whole thing of if the Thunder Blessing is the actual reason why that's happened or if it is just a way for the designers to use it as another excuse for why.
Unless the developers are your DM or playing in your game - who cares? Its your oyster.
Unless the developers are your DM or playing in your game - who cares? Its your oyster.
If they are, that's when you break out 1e/2e FR and cackle.
Unless the developers are your DM or playing in your game - who cares? Its your oyster.
Yes. But in case something else has flipped since my hiatus, canon is what we wish to speak about around here.
Yes, I love Pachelbel's Canon in D, it's awesome.
Yes, I love Pachelbel's Canon in D, it's awesome.
Amen!
As for FR canon, couldn't really care less. The books are guidelines not bibles.
Speaking of canon, I've always perfered Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture
But it is nice to know the official Realmslore about something, regardless if you want to use it or not.
Yup. This place really has gone to ****. No wonder everyone credible has bailed. 
Spicy Belebuz porking a horny pony, the only one I actively trust and respect around here is Stigger. And our own relations are so retarded at times that that creates an act of extreme faith.
As for FR canon, couldn't really care less. The books are guidelines not bibles.
All too true. It was, however, a matter that was brought up in the "we should have 2 boards not 3" thread and as such I had thought it was at least agreed that RtR was primarily for how the Realms can be repurposed for games, and Realmslore was primarily for discussing the presentation of the canon Realms that we have.
Are you reopening this discussion?
"Canon-only" discussions are crap. Especially when it comes to the Realms.
[EDIT: just saw Illuv's post. For the record, the Thunder Blessing was designed in-house at WotC by the game designers. No novel author or editor had a hand in it. No person can reasonably expect that a sweeping addition to the setting geared towards encouraging play decisions should fall under the "we only talk canon here" nonsense.]
But on the other hand saying, "It's your game, so who cares why designer X did Y?" isn't always helpful either. ;)
As to JD's question: I don't think the designers intended that the Thunder Blessing be some sort of subtle mind-control that pushes young dwarves born under its auspices to go about liking flatlanders and to go exploring the big wide world.
I do think that the designers intended for the Thunder Blessing to be something that would reshape how the dwarven race behaves in the setting. More dwarves means more crowding in population centers and tunnels. It means a little bit of strife (by dwarven standards). It means young dwarves are more likely to strike out and find and retake lost dwarven citadels and redoubts so the dwarven people can renew and grow as Moradin so obviously intended them to.
Personally I'd like to see current Realms authors and designers focus on how the blessing turned out. The basic info on dwarves in 4E plays right into the notion of positive results for the Thunder Blessing, but I'd still like to see in detail how things went in the Realms.
All too true. It was, however, a matter that was brought up in the "we should have 2 boards not 3" thread and as such I had thought it was at least agreed that RtR was primarily for how the Realms can be repurposed for games, and Realmslore was primarily for discussing the presentation of the canon Realms that we have.
Are you reopening this discussion?
Ironically enough, what we currently have is due to LK. I argued some over things, but it was inevitably what he wanted, due to his role as "Forum Lead."
"Canon-only" discussions are crap. Especially when it comes to the Realms.
Don't see why.
As to JD's question...
Dude, I was more or less agreeing with you from the start. Sorry for the confusion.
And, while I trust and respect Stig more than anyone else still active on these boards, I'm more apt to believe you in your regurgitated knowledge than others.
I simply don't trust or respect you as much. 
Oh no, someone I have absolutely no respect for who annoys the hell out of me doesn't trust and respect me, however shall I live.
[EDIT: just saw Illuv's post. For the record, the Thunder Blessing was designed in-house at WotC by the game designers. No novel author or editor had a hand in it. No person can reasonably expect that a sweeping addition to the setting geared towards encouraging play decisions should fall under the "we only talk canon here" nonsense.]
And for the record I don't consider "canon" to be comprised of just the novels. I consider one of the strongest sources of canon to be the sourcebooks that are written for play. (As well as the magazines, various author and designer posts and so on and so forth). Just because I am novel biased (having now played both 4E and 4E Realms I am no longer novel only) does not mean that I don't recognise the subserviant position that lore has to the game. Much as some of the decisions taken off the back of that fact annoy me sometimes.
It is on that basis that we discussed Realmslore being canon. Yes, half of it contradicts the other half but that is where the discussion part comes in. Can a consensus be reached? Not always, but the back and forth is almost always interesting. And certainly not what you called it.
Are the novels now being considered canon?
Are the novels now being considered canon?
Werent they always?
Are the novels now being considered canon?
Werent they always?
No idea.
As far as I know they have always been considered to be canonical, and yes, they still are.
As far as I know they have always been considered to be canonical, and yes, they still are.
Ok. Must be the Star Trek novels which I'd heard that weren't canonical.
Oh no, someone I have absolutely no respect for who annoys the hell out of me doesn't trust and respect me, however shall I live.
You just messed up. Now he knows that he annoys you...
I am just mad Doo-Doo didn't say anything snarky about yours truely...me!
Speaking of canon, I've always perfered Tchaikovsky's 1812 OvertureBut it is nice to know the official Realmslore about something, regardless if you want to use it or not.
It’s nice till it’s treated like a holy gospel.
As for FR canon, couldn't really care less. The books are guidelines not bibles.All too true. It was, however, a matter that was brought up in the "we should have 2 boards not 3" thread and as such I had thought it was at least agreed that RtR was primarily for how the Realms can be repurposed for games, and Realmslore was primarily for discussing the presentation of the canon Realms that we have.
Are you reopening this discussion?
I wasn’t actually, as I think we were waiting till next month or the New Year to do so. It does look to me as if it should be something brought up again but I’ve no interest in pursuing it myself at this time.
My own off-the-cuff comment was merely the latest in the stream of off-topic comments on this thread.
I personally can’t stand seeing the nigh-religious aura around the word ‘canon’.
html_removed html_removed html_removed html_removed
Oh no, someone I have absolutely no respect for who annoys the hell out of me doesn't trust and respect me, however shall I live.
Um…Die, maybe?
Look--you started with the insults, not I. I suggest you quit.
And for the record I don't consider "canon" to be comprised of just the novels. I consider one of the strongest sources of canon to be the sourcebooks that are written for play. (As well as the magazines, various author and designer posts and so on and so forth). Just because I am novel biased (having now played both 4E and 4E Realms I am no longer novel only) does not mean that I don't recognise the subserviant position that lore has to the game. Much as some of the decisions taken off the back of that fact annoy me sometimes.
It is on that basis that we discussed Realmslore being canon. Yes, half of it contradicts the other half but that is where the discussion part comes in. Can a consensus be reached? Not always, but the back and forth is almost always interesting. And certainly not what you called it.
Perfectly stated, my man.
Werent they always?
Not often.
You just messed up. Now he knows that he annoys you...
I am just mad Doo-Doo didn't say anything snarky about yours truely...me!
You know I love you 18D.
But...
1 - You're still a hand of Karsus.
2 - You switch gods every 2 months.
Therefore, no trust or respect. Granted, you stopped with all the smiley's, but I must assume that is due to the change in the boards and not your need to be over joyous with anything remotely fun.
You know me so well JD. I am a chaotic sort...Free spirit if you will...Yes I would still be abusing the **** out of my old smilies, not this crap...
Guys, let's not fight and have another flame war start up, let alone bannings and suspensions. If there's nothing more to be said about the Thunder Blessing, then let this thread die.
On topic, does this Thunder Blessing have a 4e correlation? I'm not familiar with it myself.
Guys, let's not fight and have another flame war start up, let alone bannings and suspensions. If there's nothing more to be said about the Thunder Blessing, then let this thread die.
On topic, does this Thunder Blessing have a 4e correlation? I'm not familiar with it myself.
Yes I agree, no fighting. I have my SMITEing stick right here, don't make me use it!
But any way, on topic: The Thunder Blessing was an event that occured I believe around 1340 Dale Reckoning, where Moradin gave a fertility blessing to his people. Dwarven females touched by the Thubder Blessing gave birth to Twins, called Thunder Twins. This was all to bring the Dwarven Peoples back from the brink of extinction.
I'm curious to know if there are any references to the Thunder Blessing before 3rd edition?
1306 DR the Year of Thunder...
Off topic what does misogyny mean?
Antagonistic attitudes and/or behavior towards the female gender, just bein' a hater on the ladies... that sort of thing.
Oh...
As to the topic at hand... mostly what Misc said. TSR definitely didn't do the 'demihumans' any favors unless they were elves, and even then they were still the red-headed stepchild in a lot of respects when compared with humans. The Thunder Blessing was a move away from that mostly as I recall it, though to be honest, I'm hardly an expert on dwarves in any sense, beyond the art of plucking them off the ground and swinging them for release at some distant target. If there was a mention of it before though, it would probably be found in the old Dwarves Deep supplement, and maybe, possibly, though highly unlikely in the Giantcraft supplement.
I never heard about it during the 2E Days. When I got my FRCS back in the day, I was glad to see that something was done. I hated the 2E Level capps. I didn't use them, and every Race could Dual Class also not just Humans. So 3E was cool with me in that reguard.
I just got done flipping through the 2e Dwarves Deep sourcebook. No mention in there of the Thunder Blessing, but it does address declining Dwarf Popultaions. Many Dwarves took humans as mates. These half-breeds stand approximatly a head taller than full blooded Dwarves but as far as game mechanics go, they are to be considered full blooded Dwarves. Dwarves are also cross-fertile with Gnomes and Halflings, and Elminster points out Elves as well, although this is unheard of today. Any Half-Blooded Dwarf is to be considered full blooded as far as game purposes go.
...Many Dwarves took humans as mates.
Did the humans want them to?!
...Many Dwarves took humans as mates.
Did the humans want them to?!
You know thats a good question. It didnt really say, but Dwarves are all about honor and I couldnt see them taking a mate against their will.
...Many Dwarves took humans as mates.
Did the humans want them to?!
You know thats a good question. It didnt really say, but Dwarves are all about honor and I couldnt see them taking a mate against their will.
Even the shades-of-gray ones like Rath don't force the humans into it. Of course, Rath seemed a tad reluctant to pick a human bar wench, but in the end nature won out.
Guys, let's not fight and have another flame war start up, let alone bannings and suspensions. If there's nothing more to be said about the Thunder Blessing, then let this thread die.
On topic, does this Thunder Blessing have a 4e correlation? I'm not familiar with it myself.
Yes I agree, no fighting. I have my SMITEing stick right here, don't make me use it!
But any way, on topic: The Thunder Blessing was an event that occured I believe around 1340 Dale Reckoning, where Moradin gave a fertility blessing to his people. Dwarven females touched by the Thubder Blessing gave birth to Twins, called Thunder Twins. This was all to bring the Dwarven Peoples back from the brink of extinction.
I'm curious to know if there are any references to the Thunder Blessing before 3rd edition?
Something like that... It wasn't until this thread that it jogged my memory of reading about it sometime back....
Something like that... It wasn't until this thread that it jogged my memory of reading about it sometime back....
The first reference to the Thunder Blessing I came across was in the 3e FR Campaign Setting. Its possible it existed before then in Ed's notes or something. Its NDA so theres appreantly more to it than what was stated in that book. If it had a reference before 3e I would imagine it would be in the Dwarves Deep source book but its not. It could be in another source however, perhaps under Moradins entry in the Demihuman Deities? Nope not there either. The time line in the 2e FR boxset makes no mention of it either for the Year of Thunder, only that that was the year of the Moonsea War, Mulmaster vanquished by alliance of other cities, and Vangerdahast founds the War Wizards of Cormyr.
Something like that... It wasn't until this thread that it jogged my memory of reading about it sometime back....
The first reference to the Thunder Blessing I came across was in the 3e FR Campaign Setting.
That was where I'd seen it.
Its possible it existed before then in Ed's notes or something. Its NDA so theres appreantly more to it than what was stated in that book. If it had a reference before 3e I would imagine it would be in the Dwarves Deep source book but its not. It could be in another source however, perhaps under Moradins entry in the Demihuman Deities? Nope not there either. The time line in the 2e FR boxset makes no mention of it either for the Year of Thunder, only that that was the year of the Moonsea War, Mulmaster vanquished by alliance of other cities, and Vangerdahast founds the War Wizards of Cormyr.
I don't have any of those books other than Demihuman Deities. It probably got packed up somewheres around the house....
You know me so well JD. I am a chaotic sort...Free spirit if you will...Yes I would still be abusing the **** out of my old smilies, not this crap...
I know you enough, my man.
On topic, does this Thunder Blessing have a 4e correlation? I'm not familiar with it myself.
Other than dwarves being plentiful, no. Unfortunately.
I'm curious to know if there are any references to the Thunder Blessing before 3rd edition?
3e concept.
If there was a mention of it before though, it would probably be found in the old Dwarves Deep supplement....
No. Have it. Thus, I continue to ask the question.
I just got done flipping through the 2e Dwarves Deep sourcebook. No mention in there of the Thunder Blessing, but it does address declining Dwarf Popultaions. Many Dwarves took humans as mates. These half-breeds stand approximatly a head taller than full blooded Dwarves but as far as game mechanics go, they are to be considered full blooded Dwarves. Dwarves are also cross-fertile with Gnomes and Halflings, and Elminster points out Elves as well, although this is unheard of today. Any Half-Blooded Dwarf is to be considered full blooded as far as game purposes go.
Rock, my man. Think you are the only other guy I know that has it. ;)
---
Yo, I appreciate everyone getting back on topic and doing due diligence. I have searched everywhere for detailed info on this and have found nothing. I asked here because I thought someone may have talked to a designer that may have imparted some more info.
Providing nothing pops up in the next couple days that changes things, I'll simply ask the ORCS to have this thread close. I don't see anything new arising.
Got it myself. There is a vague comment that Moradin was concerned about low birthrates... which is about as close to a reference to it as I could find in the 2e stuff I have.
Got it myself. There is a vague comment that Moradin was concerned about low birthrates... which is about as close to a reference to it as I could find in the 2e stuff I have.
Again, I am aware.
`
I've removed content from this thread because Baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code of Conduct here: wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg...
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic.
Stigger?!?! 
Eh? No idea what you're referring to there...