Also it is not totaly unseeable...it could be a FR moster book like they did for Dark sun...they might do something similiar for Eberron.
It is a shame that the sign doesn't actually give much information further than it is coming in 2011.
EDIT: Full text of the sign
"Print RPG products return in 2011
Come to the D&D Forum(?) and
Q&A Show at 10:00 tomorrow for
more information"
So is anybody we know going?
Huh. Didn't see that coming.
Nor did I.
it could be a FR moster book like they did for Dark sun...they might do something similiar for Eberron.
I hope not. A Dark Sun monster book works because the DS fauna are so uniquely DS. That's not so for the Realms. The FR doesn't deviate all that much from the "core" where monsters are concerned.
It is a shame that the sign doesn't actually give much information further than it is coming in 2011.
Well, it does give the information that there will be more information tomorrow at 10:00. ;)
I doubt it would be a monster book, FR can take most monsters from other settings without much of a problem - unlike something like Dark Sun that really screamed out for its own creature book. I would think it could be the much demanded book with a poop free map! LET IT BE SO WIZARDS.
Also this could be set up for 5th edition Realms....mmmm....wonder what they are going to do to make the Realms 'new' and 'better'.
Now I hate to be negative...but considering everything they have done to the FR...is it really a good thing that they are going to do more?
Also this could be set up for 5th edition Realms....mmmm....wonder what they are going to do to make the Realms 'new' and 'better'.
I am curious, Is this going to be like a 4e FRCG 2 or more like some of the books they used to do back in the day, like Magic of Faerun or something. Im hoping it is a book on Planes like Delta suggested. Weve never got a full book on the Planes of the Realms, that would be pure awesome in my opinion.
It could also be the Essentials guide to the Realms, Im hopin thats not it, but who knows?
simple, they hit the reset button, and Bane wakes up from a bad dream, and then offs bhaal for his trouble.
Stop it with the reset button!! "They" might hear you! I think that would be a horrible idea, unless the reset is somehow worked into the story, like in Star Trek 11, I might be able to get into that. Id also be more keen on the idea if the reset was just before the Spellplague, or where they left off with 3.x, I dont even remember when that was, 1376?
I'm going to the Q&A thing tomorrow. I can't post here on my phone, though. I'll probably twitter and/or facebook, but so will a million other people. 
simple, they hit the reset button, and Bane wakes up from a bad dream, and then offs bhaal for his trouble.
It's so red... I want to touch it...
I'm going to the Q&A thing tomorrow. I can't post here on my phone, though. I'll probably twitter and/or facebook, but so will a million other people.
I'll keep an eye on your twitter account, Nai, and post anything you've got to say here that's FR-related. But please drop a line if they mention anything about Ravenloft for me!
Guys, c'mon - some of you complain that there isn't enough lore and now that they're publishing more, you're ready to put it down without seeing it? At least wait till you've seen the book(s).
Straight from the D&D twitter!
Looking forward to the Neverwinter guide, but I do hope that there is more.
The Bladesinger class is back too?
Hmm, so far, so very very good.
It's already begun Illuvrien - I'm following it on twitter right now here . Nothing FR related yet except possible the Abyssal Plague (no idea what it is) which seems to be an overarching plot to connect all settings it seems...
That makes little sense....it was all connected...now they are going to re-connect them....
Details on Neverwinter....I guess that makes sense with the computer game. Though I never thought of that as a hot spot for table top campaigns.
As for the lore of 4E Realms I have always been a naysayer....it is like congress I happier with them doing nothing than actualy doing anything....because when they do stuff usualy it screws us. So I don't really think I have been inconsistent here.
But I don't get the Bladesinger class at all...it seems like they are running out of ideas. One of the so called 'good points' of 4ed is that 1 class can fit alot of concepts...they is already spell sword....do we really need a whole class devote to someone else fighting with sword and magic? Also considering this is 4th ed I have to say I rather it not see print if you are going to have dwarven bladesingers...or 1/2orc bladesingers running around...because they won't close the class to non elves( or eladrin). Personaly I don't like 4th ed does it...I love 3.5...and Pathdinder actualy improved on it...but I am curious about what people who do like 4th ed think of it....in light that it is a stated by them that one of the design strengths is that you don't need a ton of core classes.
Anyway though I am not a fan...I am happy for those who are a fan of the 4E and the 4E Realms that you are getting this soucebook. I hope you guys enjoy it and it does not becomes a case of 'Be careful what you wish for'.
But I don't get the Bladesinger class at all...it seems like they are running out of ideas. One of the so called 'good points' of 4ed is that 1 class can fit alot of concepts...they is already spell sword....do we really need a whole class devote to someone else fighting with sword and magic?
Hm... Bladesigner, when they already have swordmages... yeah.
...Neverwinter....I guess that makes sense with the computer game...
Could be interesting if there is a good new story behind it. I hope it's not just the computer campaign turned into a tabletop version.
I applaud WotC for giving FR another sourcebook, and I think the scope of a single city makes for a perfect realmslore oriented product.
Of course, last year this would have been a great book for me, given the campaign I was working on. Now, I've done the work, got it going, and anything they publish is just going to be in my way. Bloody annoying timing, WotC.
so, why are WOTC using the 3e FRCS Logo????
OK..there's 4 pages of posts that i couldn't be bothered to read...
so, why are WOTC using the 3e FRCS Logo????
Theyve been using the same logo, whereve you been? They only change the logo every other edition.
At first I felt kinda bumed, A Neverwinter guide? Why not be a little more general and just do a 4e guide to the North? But after thinking about it some, and remembering that the 4e FRCG said that Neverwinter was in ruins, Im interested to see where they are going with this, and its bound to have a Neverwinter map, which is something that theyve never done, aside from the video game. Im a sucker for maps, and 4e doesnt have too many city maps,so this might turn out kinda cool!
And a Bladesinger class!? Hells yeah! Its about damn time!!!
I agree with John and Jorun here. It looks like they are running out of ideas for classes, especially since they all use the same mechanics. At least in 3.x new classes had new mechanics.
This is one of the major criticisms of 4e and one of the main points that the Essentials line is addressing - new classes from here on out (as well as the old ones being re-covered in Essentials) will most likely utilize more unique mechanics than we've seen so far from the classes.
I agree with John and Jorun here. It looks like they are running out of ideas for classes, especially since they all use the same mechanics. At least in 3.x new classes had new mechanics.
This is one of the major criticisms of 4e and one of the main points that the Essentials line is addressing - new classes from here on out (as well as the old ones being re-covered in Essentials) will most likely utilize more unique mechanics than we've seen so far from the classes.
That is interesting as rit represents a major shift in design philosphey. I mean a year ago they would probably just had the Bladesinger Spellsword build.
Now all they have to do is learn interesting in depth lore...and realize that players should not be allowed to play a 1/2 orc Bladesinger...or a male swanmay(if they ever come out with that as a paragon path or something) and maybe they can make the game interesting again to people who are not 14 years olds who have the attention span of a snail. (present company excluded of course ;) )
I could get into regional books for the 4E Realms. One could only hope this might start happening.
Ed needs to start writing a Waterdeep Campaign Guide, and Cormyr Campaign Guide, and...
I could get into regional books for the 4E Realms. One could only hope this might start happening.
*cough*
I know this is ironic as hell since I'm usually the first one to go to pieces and complain about things, but damn, guys. Seriously? I feel really sorry for the authors, if they come on here and read all of this whining. All we have is a name and you're already bashing it? I'm not a huge fan of the 4e realms myself, but I'm still excited and looking forward to it. So it really makes me sad to come on here and see people cmplaining about stuff people have been wanting for years. Ugh.
By Corellon's Unseen Beard! You're sticking up for 4e Realms!?
ANy way I dont think theres too much negativity in here, theres some sure, but thats to be expected. Im getting the impression that most of us seem interested in it. Im definitely picking it up for the Bladesinger class if for nothing else, im betting that theres gonna be lots more goodies in there as well, but right now thats what really grabbed my attention.
Mechanicly I think there is plenty of room for another "gish" class. To me a bladesinger has a more aggresive, mobile and disrupting strategy than the current Swordmage builds allow.
However I still don't see that as enough reason for a new class. A new aegis and a couple of new powers and done.
Any idea at all who's involved in writing it, Nai?
Sorry, Silversword, there really is a lot of negativity in this thread on one simple announcement. If this is 'normal', no wonder these particular forums are so dead.
No its not normal, its ussually alot worse! For for the most part it seems to be criticism on Bladesinger being its own class, which I can understand. IM lookin foward to it myself, and Im lookin foward too see how they make it different from the Swordmage and Bard, maybe it will be a sort of hybrid class? Im wondering if there will be racial requirements on it like you must be Elf, Eldarin, or half?
Im wondering if there will be racial requirements on it like you must be Elf, Eldarin, or half?
I hope so, it was one of those iconic things that always seemed to be "for the Elves" (of various descriptions) in previous editions. I look forward to the book and the class and really really hope they retained the requirements.
I know this is ironic as hell since I'm usually the first one to go to pieces and complain about things, but damn, guys. Seriously? I feel really sorry for the authors, if they come on here and read all of this whining. All we have is a name and you're already bashing it? I'm not a huge fan of the 4e realms myself, but I'm still excited and looking forward to it. So it really makes me sad to come on here and see people cmplaining about stuff people have been wanting for years. Ugh.
Sorry, Silversword, there really is a lot of negativity in this thread on one simple announcement. If this is 'normal', no wonder these particular forums are so dead.
Any idea at all who's involved in writing it, Nai?
Who's "bashing" it? Frankly, I'm not seeing a lot of negativity toward either announcement. Perhaps a couple people are just being overly sensitive... after all, we've had a couple people comment that it's odd or interesting that they'd do a bladesinger given that there's a swordmage build. One person, one, took a mild jab at designers generally (and it wasn't me). I lightly teased Delta about his hope for lots of sourcebooks, but that was not even really related to either announcement.
As for the Neverwinter campaign announcement, I even said it might be interesting. Others had hoped for another area. And this is supposedly "negative"?
Develop a thicker skin, peeps, seriously! Don't assume negativity where there really isn't any.
I am excited about the Neverwinter Campaign Guide.
So when will I be able to throw some money at WotC for said tome of goodness...
Sorry, Silversword, there really is a lot of negativity in this thread on one simple announcement. If this is 'normal', no wonder these particular forums are so dead.
Any idea at all who's involved in writing it, Nai?
Here I thought I was brimming with positivity...;).
Serious though I think I have been guilty of the most negativeness on this thread. I am sorry if I have been burned by WotC design team in the past by their....'works'. Can you really give me reason to be positive about them futher writting about the Realms when they have proven across the boards unable to do so? Personaly I hoping it just dies and reverts back to Mr.Greenwood at this point...maybe then it can...recapture some of its magic that too many chefs have cooked out of it. Maybe Mr. Greenwood would take over to Pathfinder...that would be awesome...atleast they respect the old D&D lore over there.
Anyway like I said before I hope it is a great book for you guys...really I do. I however beening nurn too many time by the whole 4E and 4E Realms will remain guarded before I say this is AWESOME...
Maybe an easter egg or three about Fox...
John you keep talking about the 'design team'. Erik is a freelancer. Sure I worry when the 'in house' crew is involved. I have no problems when it's Ed or some frelancers, or Rich Baker. They need to let the freelancers that KNOW the setting work on the setting. Thats one of the reason's we are in this mess to begin with.
Just a minor point about Freelancers...they have very little if any control what gets published in the books. It all goes though the design team in house.
That is interesting as rit represents a major shift in design philosphey. I mean a year ago they would probably just had the Bladesinger Spellsword build.
It wouldn't have been called that anyway, it would just be a paragon path for a swordmage. It's likely that it's a more offensive version of a swordmage, which fits the striker role. At the same time, it also could be a swordmage subclass, much like how the Slayer is a subclass of fighter and actually is a striker (not a defender).
Now all they have to do is learn interesting in depth lore...and realize that players should not be allowed to play a 1/2 orc Bladesinger...or a male swanmay
No. These sorts of arbitrary and silly restrictions are no longer required. While essentials does move back in some ways, we're never going to go back to this. It's up to the DM ultimately to decide what's appropriate. Where they have restricted things, they've done it in the most intelligent possible way: Leaving it ENTIRELY up to the DM. The new Dark Sun is one of the best settings I've ever owned, because it doesn't try to include things and doesn't waste time explaining why they shouldn't. If the setting doesn't assume something is there, it just doesn't describe it and leaves it entirely up to the DM if its there or not. For example, there are no divine classes. Instead of wasting multiple pages explaining why they aren't there - or changing them into something else (elemental worship in 2E felt like a hack to keep clerics in the game) they just don't describe it at all.
Much better approach IMO by far than writing completely ad-hoc exceptions to things (especially ironic given that PCs are special exceptions to begin with).
(if they ever come out with that as a paragon path or something) and maybe they can make the game interesting again to people who are not 14 years olds who have the attention span of a snail. (present company excluded of course ;) )
Got anything else intelligent to add?
Oh wait, you don't. Carry on then.
And people wonder why this forum is 90% thread crapping and posters who are obscenely bitter.
Now all they have to do is learn interesting in depth lore...and realize that players should not be allowed to play a 1/2 orc Bladesinger...or a male swanmay
No. These sorts of arbitrary and silly restrictions are no longer required. While essentials does move back in some ways, we're never going to go back to this. It's up to the DM ultimately to decide what's appropriate. Where they have restricted things, they've done it in the most intelligent possible way: Leaving it ENTIRELY up to the DM. The new Dark Sun is one of the best settings I've ever owned, because it doesn't try to include things and doesn't waste time explaining why they shouldn't. If the setting doesn't assume something is there, it just doesn't describe it and leaves it entirely up to the DM if its there or not. For example, there are no divine classes. Instead of wasting multiple pages explaining why they aren't there - or changing them into something else (elemental worship in 2E felt like a hack to keep clerics in the game) they just don't describe it at all.
Much better approach IMO by far than writing completely ad-hoc exceptions to things (especially ironic given that PCs are special exceptions to begin with).
One of the things I liked about 3e was the fact they dropped the racial restrictions on the core classes. It makes sense that they'd completely eradicate it for all classes.
Off-topic: I have to admit I wasn't interested in Dark Sun at all (I bought one of the books back in the late 90s and didn't like what I saw) but perhaps I'll take a peek at the local gameshop...
Despite not DMing any realms based campaigns for a long time in the future, which is currently filled with the extremely awesome Dark Sun and more Eberron I am definitely going to get this. I rather hope for a sourcebook that is around rebuilding the city of Neverwinter in some ways. A nice - poop free - map of the area will go a long way to erasing some of my problems with using FR as a setting. The map is just ugly and I don't find it very inspiring. It might even get me interested in running another FR game in future, I already have a few ideas for running a game around Neverwinter. I wonder if the Fuge plane stuff will be included in this, hmmm.That is interesting as rit represents a major shift in design philosphey. I mean a year ago they would probably just had the Bladesinger Spellsword build.
It wouldn't have been called that anyway, it would just be a paragon path for a swordmage. It's likely that it's a more offensive version of a swordmage, which fits the striker role. At the same time, it also could be a swordmage subclass, much like how the Slayer is a subclass of fighter and actually is a striker (not a defender).Now all they have to do is learn interesting in depth lore...and realize that players should not be allowed to play a 1/2 orc Bladesinger...or a male swanmay
No. These sorts of arbitrary and silly restrictions are no longer required. While essentials does move back in some ways, we're never going to go back to this. It's up to the DM ultimately to decide what's appropriate. Where they have restricted things, they've done it in the most intelligent possible way: Leaving it ENTIRELY up to the DM. The new Dark Sun is one of the best settings I've ever owned, because it doesn't try to include things and doesn't waste time explaining why they shouldn't. If the setting doesn't assume something is there, it just doesn't describe it and leaves it entirely up to the DM if its there or not. For example, there are no divine classes. Instead of wasting multiple pages explaining why they aren't there - or changing them into something else (elemental worship in 2E felt like a hack to keep clerics in the game) they just don't describe it at all.
Much better approach IMO by far than writing completely ad-hoc exceptions to things (especially ironic given that PCs are special exceptions to begin with).(if they ever come out with that as a paragon path or something) and maybe they can make the game interesting again to people who are not 14 years olds who have the attention span of a snail. (present company excluded of course ;) )
Got anything else intelligent to add?
Oh wait, you don't. Carry on then.
And people wonder why this forum is 90% thread crapping and posters who are obscenely bitter.
So you agree with me...that is what I said about Bladesinger being another build type of Spellsword...but they are not doing that. Why are you reading into more that I write.
As for those 'arbitrary and silly restrictions' as you call them...I call them depth. If you don't like them then you really never had to use them. But having them creates interesting lore...and if you choose to relax them actualy make the PC exceptional instead of just like everyone else. And we are talking about the Bladesinger class which has been restricted to elves and half elves since the elves first created this path. So are you going to tell me that it is ok to not even mention these restriction? Yes sorry that is exactly my point. I don't care if you allow 1/2 orc Bladesingers in your game but if you don't have a heck of a backstory for it and/or have this PC hunted by Elves why are you playing D&D(Yes Bladesingers are not unique to the FR) or FR at all...just play Fantasy Hero or some other game. That is right because you are one of those 14 year old(atleast in mentality if not afe) that cry anytimes says "No" or has to face adversity.
Also I would love to see you redefine swanmay to allow a male be one with all the existing lore from previous editions...and the meaning of the word.
So you agree with me...that is what I said about Bladesinger being another build type of Spellsword...but they are not doing that. Why are you reading into more that I write.
It could be another variant swordmage build, but with a different name. Essentials have classes with new names - like slayer/knight that have different mechanics to their core class. Bladesinger can be its own class, while still having ties to the swordmage in a post-essentials world. This also means it can be mechanically different as well.
As for those 'arbitrary and silly restrictions' as you call them...I call them depth.
You would.
If you don't like them then you really never had to use them.
At the same time, if you like them you're welcome to add all the silly and completely nonsensical restrictions you like.
But having them creates interesting lore
Not really.
and if you choose to relax them actualy make the PC exceptional instead of just like everyone else.
Protip: You don't need mechanics to do this. You can write the lore as it is, but the actual mechanics don't need to reflect this at all. Dragonmarks in Eberron are usually bloodline related, but their mechanics don't require them to have to be taken by certain races. The games lore is still the same as third edition, proving that you don't require this at all for either lore or that a PC will be exceptional. By lore in Eberron, a Warforged with a mark is absolutely exceptional - the mechanics don't have to make a restriction for this to still be the case.
The exception of course would be if they made Bladesinger a racial PP. But a class that can be used by a whopping two races isn't one that is likely to see publication in 4E. So it might have lore and fluff that supports it as a class for Elves/Half-Elves, but a mechanical restriction isn't going to happen. You can do that in your game if you like, I prefer to take a better approach in make the world react to it appropriately - not arbitrarily pretend it never happens through mechanics. Alternatively, they may even change the fluff so it isn't a class that is so restricted either and may have spread to other races. Until we see it we don't know.
And we are talking about the Bladesinger class which has been restricted to elves and half elves since the elves first created this path.
Mark of Storm in Eberron is restricted to half-elves by lore and fluff, but mechanically it isn't restricted at all. Expecting them to start doing this for other things is not going to be the case.
So are you going to tell me that it is ok to not even mention these restriction?
You're welcome to be entirely wrong, but it's not going to happen if Wizards still has common sense behind how they design 4E in leaving restrictions up to the DM. Dark Sun and the Dragonmarks of Eberron are good examples of their approach, which works extremely well.
Well Im definitely stoked about it. My main beef with the 4e Realms is the low lore, but if were getting source books again then hells yeah! And Matt and Erik writing on it? They know the Realms so I have faith in them that it will be some awesome work.
Hopefully they will have Mike doing the cartography as well. He's done some fantastic maps in 4E and if they can get him to do another one for Neverwinter it will be a truly fantastic supplement.
@Aegeri: You brought up Eberron...which personaly seeing a Eberron campaign brings up my point exactly. It is not Eberron having say halflings run around with the Mark of Storm...why because it destroys the lore behind the Dragonmarks and Bloodlines in the first place. Why have them except to give your character what pretty much equates to super powers...I mean seriously.
Also I so heavily perfer a system where the mechanics and the lore work with each other...not remain in opposite rooms at the table...lets take your issue with racial restriction...
Why can't humans take the feat Tieflings can called prehensile tail...I mean heck there are humans born in the real world with tails? Why have that mechanic at all that depend on race. But you seem ok with this...but not a style of class that would be kept within the race. I mean for every racial restriction there was lore behind it...it was not arbitary or silly(in most cases granted there was some sillyness in some of it...but most of those were actualy fixed in 3rd).
Take Dwarves and Halfling being barred from Arcane casting classes in 1st and 2nd. It was part of the racial make up to be highly magic resistant(which was reflected in a pretty good bonus to save vs magic). That is what made the race a dwarf...or halfling...that is part of the lore. Is it bad they got rid of it...no because they changed the lore that went with it...well more of tweaked it. Did TSR send stormtroopers to stop DMs from lifting these restriction...not that I am aware of...
This will be my last attempt to explain to you that your way is not the only way to do things...what you like others might not be able to stand. I know it might be tough to realize this but there is no right answear here...WotC took a big gamble...one that they are loosing people quickly at(atleasdt in my area)...we'll see what happens with the essentials and 5th to see if they are loosing more people. But as the mods decided to edit my post without editing your post where you slung the first mud I think I'll just put you on ignore and forget about you...you are not really worth it.
You brought up Eberron...which personaly seeing a Eberron campaign brings up my point exactly. It is not Eberron having say halflings run around with the Mark of Storm...why because it destroys the lore behind the Dragonmarks and Bloodlines in the first place
In your opinion, but this is something the DM decides and as such there is no requirement for a racial restriction. If you've read the actual 4E Eberron books they explain the logic behind why this was done perfectly. It is not required.
Why can't humans take the feat Tieflings can called prehensile tail...I mean heck there are humans born in the real world with tails?
I have no problem with racial feats and humans with tails born in the real world are vestigial and aren't prehensile. The point was things like classes and similar, or world related feats like dragonmarks. Most of the time, I see dragonmarks on the same race anyway as they should be - but not always. The book doesn't need to enforce this, PCs and me (the DM) can do that more than adequately.
I mean for every racial restriction there was lore behind it...it was not arbitary or silly(in most cases granted there was some sillyness in some of it...but most of those were actualy fixed in 3rd).
When I think of racial restrictions, I usually think about 2nd edition actually. 3rd edition removed this and 4E took the most logical step and completely annihilated it. A good evolution.
Did TSR send stormtroopers to stop DMs from lifting these restriction...not that I am aware of...
Equally, what stops a DM from enforcing it if they feel like it? Absolutely nothing. You can write lore, but you don't need mechanics to support it because the DM can decide that. Eberron proved to me that was one of the best ways of doing things. Make sure the lore emphasizes who can take it and why, then leave it to the DM to decide.
I am really stoked for the essentials line.
The FR panel doesn't seem to cover the "print product" though. Gnah.
I will probably listen again and make notes this time.
I heard his name but I thought his was set in either Eberron or Dark Sun? I could very well be wrong; I did try to find it but I had no idea where to look and gave up. Somewhere in the end half...:P
James Wyatt was in control of Eberron when it first came out...I don't know if he is still in that position...but if this Abyssal Plague is effecting all the worlds in a interconnected thing...than it would make sense that he wrote the Eberron leg of it. The third guy is probably somebody over at Dark Sun would be my guess...
(I'm also really hoping for a poop-free map by either Mike Schley or Sean MacDonald. I live in hope!)
Helms back! He will be featured in Shadowbane, which will involve tie ins to the Abyssal Plague as well.
They mentioned a novel about a deva thats inspired by shakespearian tragedy. Could be a fun read.
Helms back! He will be featured in Shadowbane, which will involve tie ins to the Abyssal Plague as well.
What!? Helms back too? cant any of these gods stay dead! I suppose Moander is making a comeback as well!
They mentioned a novel about a deva thats inspired by shakespearian tragedy. Could be a fun read.
Helms back! He will be featured in Shadowbane, which will involve tie ins to the Abyssal Plague as well.
What!? Helms back too? cant any of these gods stay dead! I suppose Moander is making a comeback as well!
EH_HEM
and when the Watcher returns, all will see, that Cyric failed in his deceit.
he forgot that Lord Helm, AO bless him, sees all and acts as such.
we are the Helmites, ans we wait our god's return.
by the way Silversword, did you read them yet??
spoiler fail...
Show
So what is the source for Helm's
return? Now if Tyr returns I will throw a fit!
return? Now if Tyr returns I will throw a fit!=dun dun dun!=
Cyric!
I have used multiple sblocks so people only read the spoilers they want to!
02:45 - R. A. Salvatore (Speaker : James Wyatt)
Show
Ghost King - Paper back out now
Abyssal Plague preview
Ties to some of the earliest Drizzt stories
First book coming in fall of new Trilogy ("Neverwinter")
Gontalgrim (From early Realms - Ed)
Legends of Neverwinter (Speaker : Susan Morris)
Promo Book that is between a sourcebook
(Like R. A. Salvatores - A Reader's Guide to the Legend of Drizzt)
Legend of Drizzt Anthology (Collected Stories) available in 2011
Stone of Tymora Trilogy (aimed at younger readers)
The Stowaway July 2009
Shadow Mask November 2009
Sentinels November 2010
Ghost King - Paper back out now
Abyssal Plague preview
Ties to some of the earliest Drizzt stories
First book coming in fall of new Trilogy ("Neverwinter")
Gontalgrim (From early Realms - Ed)
Legends of Neverwinter (Speaker : Susan Morris)
Promo Book that is between a sourcebook
(Like R. A. Salvatores - A Reader's Guide to the Legend of Drizzt)
Legend of Drizzt Anthology (Collected Stories) available in 2011
Stone of Tymora Trilogy (aimed at younger readers)
The Stowaway July 2009
Shadow Mask November 2009
Sentinels November 2010
ShowSo what is the source for Helm's
Even Cthulhu loves Kool-Aid!
OH YEAH!
This thread makes me facepalm forever.
Although they could bring Vhaeraun back with the reason 'He just kind of showed back up for no reason what are you talking about shut up' and I'd be happy with it.
So I hear they are bringing back Mystra...Helm...maybe Tyr...(I still think Torm would make a great villian) , Now if they bring back the racial pantheons...Elistraee...Vhar...er...her brother I can't spell his name...and send Abier back....
What if this is what is really coming up?
Would it be awesome or stupid?
I have no idea...but I tend to take the fatalistic...and negative route with WotC these days...because I won't be let down again..
But if they pull it off I'll be pleasentry surprised.
That is my philosphy...
R Salvatore's next trilogy is called Neverwinter. First novel is Gauntgrym, out in Oct 2010. Legends of Neverwinter is due in 2011 (might be an anthology)
I must have missed the topic about bringing back certain deceased gods. Did it occur off mic or is it just misinformation?
Keith
Didn't gods die because they needed to reduce the numbers of gods in FR because players/designers where confused?
No, I don't think there was much confusion per-se, just the fact that the amount of deities was pretty ridiculous and wasn't really required. Many of the deities over-lapped in various areas and seemed shore-horned into the setting IMO. I for one don't need to see each race (and sub-race) have a multitude of deities that share one or more common elements with other Gods from differen't pantheons. It gets to a point where Deities lose what makes them unique. Do Drow really need 5 (yes 5!) different Gods to pray to??! I could easily do with just Lloth and Elistraee and be done with it.
The fact that they're bringing back Helm isn't something I honestly like seeing as he was yet another deity with over-lapping portfolilos and who's niche in the Realms is already taken up by Torm and Bahamut. Its not that I don't like Helm (I have at least two characters who worship him), but I feel he really doesn't have a place in a 1479 DR Faerun.
So I hear they are bringing back Mystra...Helm...maybe Tyr...(I still think Torm would make a great villian) , Now if they bring back the racial pantheons...Elistraee...Vhar...er...her brother I can't spell his name...and send Abier back....maybe we can start making the Realms...to use how they speak...'Cool' again...and 'Awesome'...oh yeah get rid of Dragonborn....and make Tieflings what they once were...ok maybe asking too much here...lets start the road to recovery slowly....sigh I know this will never happen.
I'd probably puke if they brought back Mystra. Killing her off was pretty much the MAIN reason we had the Spell-plague and changes to magic (which apparently were needed for 4E mechanics) in the first place. Sure, they really didn't need to kill her off but it was an easy choice to qualm the people who disliked the Realms Justice League (ie. all of the immaculate Chosen) and lay to rest a deity which had zero continunity in the way her character reflected her supposed LN alignment in addition to her stability as a deity (she died what 3 times now?!).
I've already mentioned my POV on Helm but bringing Tyr back would be a mistake too. First, he wasn't even pure "Realmsian" to begin with and second, it wouldn't make much sense for the designers to go through all the hoop-la with bringing Ilmater back to Celestia and Bahamut from the Minors with Torm leading the show JUST to have Tyr come back and re-claim it all and retake the throne. It's even more stupid than the stupid love-betrayal triangle which got Tyr and Helm killed to begin with. When you make a stupid mistake, you don't go and make ANOTHER stupid mistake to try to fix the first stupid mistake. It just makes it look like a sloppy mess.
As for Abier, I don't think it's all that much of a problem anymore. It more or less just "fused" with the backround for the setting and made some (albiet drastic) changes in certain places but any DM can put as little or much emphasis on it's existance as they wish. I've been doing 4eFR for over 2 years now and it's never come up in the campaign or genereal conversation with the local populace or my PCs.
As far as Dragonborn are concerned, their existance is easily placed in the Realms prior to Abier coming into contact with Toril. Easily re-name them to Dragon-kin and *pop* there ya go. I for one didn't feel their existance needed to be explained in such a dramtic way as the designers went where a simple name change (like Devas sometimes being called Aasimar) would've sufficed.
And as for Tieflings, besides their "appearence" (which BTW could be changed any-which-way a person wants) what has changed with them since 4E? If anything, they've been brought in-line with the other races for more options as a PC race and fleshed out more so than any previous
edition. Would you like them to go back to being just a monster with no ecology?
"Rant over" you may go back about your buisness.
P.S. - Glad to see their putting out more info and supplements in Book form. Can't wait for the next years line-up. And thanks to those for keeping us posted.
I also doubt Mystra will be back (at least as a goddess).
his essence is in the godsword.
as for Mystra.. well we don't even know which mystra, and offing her the third time was bad news....
Tyr can stay gone
they could bring thme back... Helm isn't dead, he is all but dead.
his essence is in the godsword.
as for Mystra.. well we don't even know which mystra, and offing her the third time was bad news....
Tyr can stay gone
From what I understand of the lore, no god is truly dead in the Realms. Their bodies float in the Astral plane pretty much forever and their god essences get dispersed to who knows where. So they can be killed but never destroyed. Regardless, I like the idea of bringing back dead gods. It makes for interesting stories and adventures. There is plenty of room in the Realms for hundreds of gods...especially if they are regional gods.
@Diffan: I disagree with you. I respect your opinion but this is how have always saw it....
1) Actualy I think it makes sense that they would be many gods...even with overlapping areas of control. As in the real world...you have any idea how many gods existed in our history(or mythology? How many gods of war...or the sun...etc? Also each of the drow gods were different enough between them that I think it actualy is less realistic for them to whorshipp only one god. Also they way they slaughter the gods were just plain out stupid.
2) Helm was not 'just like' Torm or Bahamunt...or Tyr. He defintly had a role to fuldilled as his own. In 4th Ed he would be the unaligned good...He was not good. Personaly it was a mistake to tie him as allies with the Triad...as I have also had him he had alot of LE worshippers. Again I don't see overlap between the gods as a bad thing...just think of the conflict and RP between the various faiths of the gods they just got rid of. It is simpler...not better or more logical.
3) Mystra and choosn made my campaign better...and also they wrote her and her choosen like morons. That is the reason why I ignored the novels...because the authors plain out ignored what was written about them previously. Also killing Mystra and the spellplague made me puke.
4) Abier should have been it's own campaign world. Heck it was but the designers didn't think it would sell on it's own so they lumped it intp the FR...alot of the 4th ED Realms idea was are like that...which is why they had to rewrite the history so they could see thei ideas published...which I don't mind but I think they could have fit it in better in my opinion.
6) Also Tyr not being Realmsian...well neither are Silvanus...Mielikki...or Loviarar(the las two being taken from the Finnish Pantheon). But I liked the idea of the whole interconnected planes...where gods can be worshipped on many different planets. Again it creates great RP opportunity.
7) Dragonborn...you are right...I just dislike players races that are Dragons. and yes they can easily be redefined as half-dragons.
8) Ok I have to say I completely disagree with you about Tieflings back in earlier editions of the games. I have been playing them since I first could(which was Planescape in 2nd ed by the way). I loved the fact that there was no racial unity...each Tiefling was unique in it's orgins...appearence...and powers(though in 3rd they simplfied it). It made the race RP points alot of fun to deal with. Actualy from what I gather from the creator's notes that I would have loved the 1st draft of the Tiefling(for 4th Ed.) which was more like the 2nd ed version. But the races was never some 'monster with no ecology' to me atleast.
Anyway don't consider this as a arguement...it is just the other side of your viewpoint.
They mentioned a novel about a deva thats inspired by shakespearian tragedy. Could be a fun read.
Helms back! He will be featured in Shadowbane, which will involve tie ins to the Abyssal Plague as well.
What!? Helms back too? cant any of these gods stay dead! I suppose Moander is making a comeback as well!
Well, being featured is not the same as being back. There was a recent DDI article about some heretical torm worshipers worshiping Torm as the three-in-one triad of Helm/Tyr/Torm merged and using a holy symbol that's an amalgam of all three. This shadow bane guy was one of them IIRC correctly.
Do Drow really need 5 (yes 5!) different Gods to pray to??! I could easily do with just Lloth and Elistraee and be done with it.
Six actually. And yes. They're removed enough from surface elves in their lookout that the Seldarine are not in general a good fit, and Lolth by no means fills the religious needs of all drow. Her and Eilistraee don't either, due to the nature of Eilistraee's church.
Lolth is an insane backstabbing matriarchy. Eilistraee is a supposedly goody-two-shoes matriarchy that's actually more strict in that religiously than Lolth. Wanna be a male priest of Lolth? OK, she'll allow it for gits and shiggles, but you won't get far and you're going to have to watch your back constantly. Male priest of Eilistraee? Come back after you've had a sex change. Then maybe.
Vhaeraun, then, actually fills a gap - Males. He's the only one who really gives males a fair shake. He reverses the matriarchy to a patriarchy, sure, but if you're a male drow, it's a good gig for you, isn't it? And there are still a few females even there, with a fairly special role.
Kiaransalee and Ghaunadaur are somewhat more extraneous; there's room for them, but they're a bit of an odd thing.
Selvetarm is something of an odd case due to his backstory, though it does generally give males another outlet with his faith rather than his father's, for those who aren't utterly opposed to Lolth.
And we'll refrain from getting into the way the LP series handled killing nearly the entire pantheon and how terrible it was simply because I could go on for days.
Anyway. New book. Awesome news. Awesome people working on it. It will be awesome, yes? Awesome.
Edit: One thing that immediately catches my eye is the absolute lack of any FR logo on it. It's done in the same style as all the other books. I have to wonder if this means it makes a lot of core world assumptions, adding Neverwinter into the core world and not being strictly designed for FR. This would explain why they are doing this with the previously stated 2 core books and an adventure per setting thing. It mean they can expand on FR while making something that will still be generally useful to players of the "core" world that doesn't use strictly FR assumptions. Unless the FR logo has been shoved off onto the spine of the book or something. A 'dual' use supplement is a good idea actually.
Ugh, its not going to be available until 3rd quarter 2011!? Its gonna be a long, long wait.
Also, is it a boxed set or a book?
It's the 4e look: no logo's. One possuble way to 'differentiate' setting books may be the spine color (light green).
It sounds to me btw that it might be a bit like the 'Hammerfast' books: concentrated on detailing one location. This one just happens to be a FR location. Just speculating.
Hmmm. I hope LFR editors get to proofread...
Gomez,
still wondering if he will be an editor next year.
The Campaign Guide and the Players Guide didn't have logo's either.
It's the 4e look: no logo's. One possuble way to 'differentiate' setting books may be the spine color (light green).
It sounds to me btw that it might be a bit like the 'Hammerfast' books: concentrated on detailing one location. This one just happens to be a FR location. Just speculating.
Hmmm. I hope LFR editors get to proofread...
Gomez,
still wondering if he will be an editor next year.
I am curious...not saying it is a bad thing here...but why would LFR editors get a proofread? Especialy with the rumor I heard that the RPGA LFR won't be considered cannon anymore...?
Also, if we know a bit of what comes in the new guide, we could make an adventure or two for it to be released when the product comes out, and thus support the product.
Plus, I am curious, and I do hope to stay on as an editor...
Not that I expect editors will get to proofread. I have not seen such a thing happen yet (likely legal reasons). I have not noticed much effort by R&D to actively utilize the power of the LFR community to promote their products.
I just think it could be beneficial for both parties if they did.
Gomez
The Campaign Guide and the Players Guide didn't have logo's either.
By gum youre right! I cant beleive Ive never noticed before! I actually had to go look, and nope no FR logo. So I guess it shouldnt be taken as a bad sign that the Neverwinter guide doesnt have one, or should it!? DUM DUM DUM
While LFR is non-canon, I think it proper if we try to keep it matching. Nobody benefits if LFR writes soemthing entirely different from 'canon' lore, imo.
Also, if we know a bit of what comes in the new guide, we could make an adventure or two for it to be released when the product comes out, and thus support the product.
Plus, I am curious, and I do hope to stay on as an editor...
Not that I expect editors will get to proofread. I have not seen such a thing happen yet (likely legal reasons). I have not noticed much effort by R&D to actively utilize the power of the LFR community to promote their products.
I just think it could be beneficial for both parties if they did.
Gomez
I can understand that. It would be nice. I don't know why they can't let some of the RPGA editors a advance look...I mean they can get you guys to sign NDAs...with very stiff penalties..though...it would been easy to leak it I guess and hard to prove the person who leaked it did it.
I agree with you it would benefit both parties.
I'm also reasonably hopeful that we will be getting a good regional map, like those done by Mike Schley and Sean MacDonald for DDi articles, rather than bum-wiped version from the FRCG.
I sincerely hope, though, that we will see a Forgotten Realms Adventures-like book for 4E that will 1. provide similar content to the 2E version, 2. be practically required reading for LFR DMs so that it has a solid market and 3. has a revised 4E map which is preparing with traditional media, or even digitally, but not by wiping someone's bum.
(And, yes, I do realise that "bum-wiped" etc... is completely puerile; I'm just trying to communicate the depth of my disgust for the existing 4E map.)
The Neverwinter Campaign Guide is great news. I hope, in due course, it leads to actual content on these forums rather than the now traditional "The WotC-dingo took my FR-baby"-attitude that has basically removed any reason for visiting these forums most of the time.
...rather than bum-wiped version... I hope, in due course, it leads to actual content on these forums rather than the now traditional "The WotC-dingo took my FR-baby"-attitude that has basically removed any reason for visiting these forums most of the time.
Translation: "It's okay for me to compare things to excrement, but when others do it, my whole experience is ruined!"
...rather than bum-wiped version... I hope, in due course, it leads to actual content on these forums rather than the now traditional "The WotC-dingo took my FR-baby"-attitude that has basically removed any reason for visiting these forums most of the time.
Translation: "It's okay for me to compare things to excrement, but when others do it, my whole experience is ruined!"
It is also amusing that he reference a case where a woman claimed her baby was eaten by a dingo....was not believed...went to jail for years for murdering her own baby... till evidence was find later that she was telling the truth. I love it when people make references that they don't understand.
While I find your reference accurate(though a little overstated) you probably would be better off with going with the "Boy who cried wolf" allegory in describing people who happen to disagree with you. Atleast it would more accurately reflect your opinion to people who actualy know things.
Do we know if it's a full-sized hardcover book (or even box set), or just a small supplement along the lines of the Hammerfast or Vor Rukoth products?
I can't recall, for sure, to be honest. But the impression I was under was that it would be a single hard cover. This is probably based partially on the question asked at the Preview/Q&A about if boxed sets and soft cover books would kill hardc covers and the answer was something to the effect of, "we have the boxed sets we mentioned, and one or two soft covers...the rest are hard cover that you're used to".
There has also been some mention in that same panel, probably due to the same question, that softcover comes with special challenges to retailers that WotC is aware of and working to fix, which might mean that there are fewer small soft cover books all around.
I'd have to go back and re-listen to the audio again to be sure, though.
1) Actualy I think it makes sense that they would be many gods...even with overlapping areas of control. As in the real world...you have any idea how many gods existed in our history(or mythology? How many gods of war...or the sun...etc? Also each of the drow gods were different enough between them that I think it actualy is less realistic for them to whorshipp only one god. Also they way they slaughter the gods were just plain out stupid.
While I see there are connections in referece to the multitude of deities of our planet, I don't see the need to reflect those same ideas in a Fantasy campaign setting. Just because it's plausable here, doesn't mean it should be used there. Don't get me wrong, options are good but from my own view, I think it got to the point where the deities lost their distinctiveness and (in the cases of using it as a gaming tool) helped Min/Max people's characters.
2) Helm was not 'just like' Torm or Bahamunt...or Tyr. He defintly had a role to fuldilled as his own. In 4th Ed he would be the unaligned god...He was not good. Personaly it was a mistake to tie him as allies with the Triad...as I have also had him he had alot of LE worshippers. Again I don't see overlap between the gods as a bad thing...just think of the conflict and RP between the various faiths of the gods they just got rid of. It is simpler...not better or more logical.
Lets first take a look at Helms symbol as opposed to Torms......not much difference there. Then lets look at worshippers ---- fighters, paladins, mercenaries, guards for both of them. Then look at what their designed to do (ie Domains) and 3 out of possible 5 are exactly the same: Law, Protection, Strength. So one's ethos is more aligned towards protection and law while the other is geared towards loyalty and duty, which sort of coinside together to begin with. I like Helm but bringing him back isn't needed IMO.
3) Mystra and choosn made my campaign better...and also they wrote her and her choosen like morons. That is the reason why I ignored the novels...because the authors plain out ignored what was written about them previously. Also killing Mystra and the spellplague made me puke.
Then why exactly is she LN then? Were there evil or quasi-evil characters who gained "Chosen" status too? I don't believe so. No, Mystra had her very "exclusive" crowd which only certain members were able to join. To me that didn't make them cool or special, it made me annoyed.
4) Abier should have been it's own campaign world. Heck it was but the designers didn't think it would sell on it's own so they lumped it intp the FR...alot of the 4th ED Realms idea was are like that...which is why they had to rewrite the history so they could see thei ideas published...which I don't mind but I think they could have fit it in better in my opinion.
From my earlier experiences with Magic: The Gathering, merging world in catastrophic fashion was the norm, so it wasn't a far fetch for me. And Returned Abier can still be a campaign setting in it's own right. Hopefully with WotC publishing further Realms game supplements, we'll see this too. Also, the fact that the merging of Abier took out the places I despised most about the Realms made me happy, so I can't complain about it's inclusion.
6) Also Tyr not being Realmsian...well neither are Silvanus...Mielikki...or Loviarar(the las two being taken from the Finnish Pantheon). But I liked the idea of the whole interconnected planes...where gods can be worshipped on many different planets. Again it creates great RP opportunity.
I didn't know about the deities you mentioned being from other (Earth based) pantheons. But I'm not botherd by Silvanus or Loviatar because they're very distinctive and Silvanus is a Greater god. Mielikki I don't really care for and I"m happy she's been delegated to a Exarch status in 4E.
7) Dragonborn...you are right...I just dislike players races that are Dragons. and yes they can easily be redefined as half-dragons.
I knew we'd agree on something
8) Ok I have to say I completely disagree with you about Tieflings back in earlier editions of the games. I have been playing them since I first could(which was Planescape in 2nd ed by the way). I loved the fact that there was no racial unity...each Tiefling was unique in it's orgins...appearence...and powers(though in 3rd they simplfied it). It made the race RP points alot of fun to deal with. Actualy from what I gather from the creator's notes that I would have loved the 1st draft of the Tiefling(for 4th Ed.) which was more like the 2nd ed version. But the races was never some 'monster with no ecology' to me atleast.
My experience with 2e/AD&D is very limited but in 3.x Tieflings weren't really expanded upon in many supplements and even as a PC race, didn't really appeal much to me. When they got rid of Level Adjustments for 4E and Tieflings became a major PC race, my interest for them grew 10-fold. The fact that they make good Paladins, Sorcerers, Warlocks, Rogues, Wizards, and a fighters just opens the door to possibilities and they have great feat support too. Their appearance (which to some seems bad, off, or stupid) can just as easily be written off in the character description. I don't see what the problem with them is Now compared to previous editions.
Anyway don't consider this as a arguement...it is just the other side of your viewpoint.
No, this isn't an argument at all. It's two people with different points of view talking about something they both have a passion for. It creates great discussion when two people don't share the same ideals but can talk about it in a calm fashion. *cheers*!
While I see there are connections in referece to the multitude of deities of our planet, I don't see the need to reflect those same ideas in a Fantasy campaign setting. Just because it's plausable here, doesn't mean it should be used there. Don't get me wrong, options are good but from my own view, I think it got to the point where the deities lost their distinctiveness and (in the cases of using it as a gaming tool) helped Min/Max people's characters.Lets first take a look at Helms symbol as opposed to Torms......not much difference there. Then lets look at worshippers ---- fighters, paladins, mercenaries, guards for both of them. Then look at what their designed to do (ie Domains) and 3 out of possible 5 are exactly the same: Law, Protection, Strength. So one's ethos is more aligned towards protection and law while the other is geared towards loyalty and duty, which sort of coinside together to begin with. I like Helm but bringing him back isn't needed IMO.
"Should" is always an interesting word. I'm one of those people who liked multiple deities with overlapping portfolios, and I think we're looking at the issue in two entirely different ways (at least, you and me... I can't speak for johnkretzer).
From a mechanical point of view, where you look at fighters, paladins, mercenaries, etc... and supposing you don't want to have overlapping domains, then I can see your point. For the game, mechanically, it's absolutely not needed. Particularly if you want a tight pantheon where none of the deities overlap much in their "jobs"/domains.
But if you take a completely different view (the one I prefer), I look at the deities from the perspective of multiple cultures. In a world with many cultures, the people of one culture tend to relate (or assign) their own unique perspectives about "jobs"/domains/purpose to deities. Those can, and do, even change over time. When two cultures clash and merge, gods may fight and destroy each other... and win a worship from the conquered culture. But if two cultures aren't in conflict, two distinct gods of love (one for each culture) retain not only their domains but also their roles within the greater ritualistic culture.
With two separate deities of love (or more, one for each distinct culture), overlapping domains offer the possibility of conflicting moral viewpoints with respect to each culture. Love may be chaste and pure, noble and chivalrous for one culture, and yet for another love may be associated with lust and sexual exploration. As a DM, when there are cultural clashes and overlapping domains, my players have absolutely no idea which deity might want something done (or prevented). That's gold for me, and it makes the story far richer than having a single deity of love for every culture. It gives me options, not only in how I present a deity's "wants" but also lets me color in details for each culture.
The halfling deity of thieves may want to steal something for a personal reason that would not interest a human deity of thieves in the slightest. Perhaps he wants to steal pipeweed from everyone because it's fun, and yet the human deity of thieves might feel that pipeweed dulls the senses for effective robberies. The human god of war may want to expand into elvish territory and the elvish god of war would not want his people to stand for such a thing; one deity may see it as a game of strength with no moral question, and the other may see it as rightful crusade. Who do the players help, and why, particularly if their party is composed of both elves and humans?
Without overlapping portfolios of deities from multiple cultures, the deities become... concepts, general principles that affect everyone. But we know for a fact that for millenia the deities of the Realms were not simply concepts but actual beings with their own particular anthropomorphic needs and desires. And additionally, they are largely polytheistic cultures that we've been dealing with. Rather than say, "there are too many gods of war, or too many deities of love," isn't it more fun, more complex, and more rich to ask what makes each deity unique and important to that culture? Know the unique qualities of each one, and you know a lot more about the cultures... and why they clash (or why they don't).
So yes, while two deities with exactly the same domain might not be "needed" mechanically, the multitude of options is exactly what I loved for helping with the story... both from a goal-oriented view but also from a desire to have that richness and complexity. I think we're much worse off now with the "simplification" than when we had the complex overlapping domains of many deities.
P.S.: not saying that my way is better or yours is worse. Each has their merits depending upon play preferences. I just prefer the complex, many-options route.
@Jorunhast: Yeah the pretty much sums my views about the richness of the multiple pantheons with overlapping portfolios can have.
@Diffan: And while I can enjoy a world with fewer gods...each with it's own define area and no...or very little overlap(almost in every setting there is a evil god of war...and a good god of war...same is true about magic[actualy I really like the Realms because they really avioded that...routine with Tempus...and Mystra])...I have Eberron for that...the FR was the place for that complexity. Now I can perfectly understand why you might want to cut the gods list down...but I rather they just give us a 'million' gods...and let the DMs trim it down that to give usa a few gods...that if we want more we'll have to create them. I mean really I invest in a campaign setting do to the work for me.
Also...maybe it was just how I thought about them breyond what was written...I always saw the difference between Helm and Torm...between Sharess and Lliira...etc. But then again when I RP a priest I always develope their religion alot more than the books give info...on...so maybe it is how I treated the souce material...
Then why exactly is she LN then? Were there evil or quasi-evil characters who gained "Chosen" status too
Yes, there were (Ed Greenwood confirmned this at CK).
They were not written about much though.
Sammaster is an example, but there were others who were more succesful but less prominent.
The last Mystra was NG though. I think that messed up a lot.
As an aside, I think the combination of Tyr, Torm, and Helmw as too much. Helm was most ditsinctive of the three, but Tyr and Torm seemed to me to be the same thing.
I don't see a need to return Helm though. I like the idea that all three gods are worshipped as one enitity more.
Gomez
But if you take a completely different view (the one I prefer), I look at the deities from the perspective of multiple cultures. In a world with many cultures, the people of one culture tend to relate (or assign) their own unique perspectives about "jobs"/domains/purpose to deities. Those can, and do, even change over time. When two cultures clash and merge, gods may fight and destroy each other... and win a worship from the conquered culture. But if two cultures aren't in conflict, two distinct gods of love (one for each culture) retain not only their domains but also their roles within the greater ritualistic culture.With two separate deities of love (or more, one for each distinct culture), overlapping domains offer the possibility of conflicting moral viewpoints with respect to each culture. Love may be chaste and pure, noble and chivalrous for one culture, and yet for another love may be associated with lust and sexual exploration. As a DM, when there are cultural clashes and overlapping domains, my players have absolutely no idea which deity might want something done (or prevented). That's gold for me, and it makes the story far richer than having a single deity of love for every culture. It gives me options, not only in how I present a deity's "wants" but also lets me color in details for each culture.
The halfling deity of thieves may want to steal something for a personal reason that would not interest a human deity of thieves in the slightest. Perhaps he wants to steal pipeweed from everyone because it's fun, and yet the human deity of thieves might feel that pipeweed dulls the senses for effective robberies. The human god of war may want to expand into elvish territory and the elvish god of war would not want his people to stand for such a thing; one deity may see it as a game of strength with no moral question, and the other may see it as rightful crusade. Who do the players help, and why, particularly if their party is composed of both elves and humans?
Without overlapping portfolios of deities from multiple cultures, the deities become... concepts, general principles that affect everyone. But we know for a fact that for millenia the deities of the Realms were not simply concepts but actual beings with their own particular anthropomorphic needs and desires. And additionally, they are largely polytheistic cultures that we've been dealing with. Rather than say, "there are too many gods of war, or too many deities of love," isn't it more fun, more complex, and more rich to ask what makes each deity unique and important to that culture? Know the unique qualities of each one, and you know a lot more about the cultures... and why they clash (or why they don't).
So yes, while two deities with exactly the same domain might not be "needed" mechanically, the multitude of options is exactly what I loved for helping with the story... both from a goal-oriented view but also from a desire to have that richness and complexity. I think we're much worse off now with the "simplification" than when we had the complex overlapping domains of many deities.
Except that isn't how the Realms deities operate. In 'real life' it's perfectly true that there are a stack of war gods hanging around; some pantheons even have more than one. The analogy in the Realms would see the Chondathans having a war god, and the Chessentans having a war god, and the Raumvira having a war god, etc; and all those war gods having different names and different beliefs and different methods of worship. Suggesting that the existence of lots of overlapping gods in real life means that similar numbers (actually, a lot fewer) should exist in the Realms ignores fundamental differences between how pantheons in real life and the Realms pantheon work.
...rather than bum-wiped version... I hope, in due course, it leads to actual content on these forums rather than the now traditional "The WotC-dingo took my FR-baby"-attitude that has basically removed any reason for visiting these forums most of the time.
Translation: "It's okay for me to compare things to excrement, but when others do it, my whole experience is ruined!"
It is also amusing that he reference a case where a woman claimed her baby was eaten by a dingo....was not believed...went to jail for years for murdering her own baby... till evidence was find later that she was telling the truth. I love it when people make references that they don't understand.
While I find your reference accurate(though a little overstated) you probably would be better off with going with the "Boy who cried wolf" allegory in describing people who happen to disagree with you. Atleast it would more accurately reflect your opinion to people who actualy know things.
@Jorunhast: Perhaps you are right. I do make frequent excrement-related comments about the 4E map for FR which is inconsistent with me getting annoyed with others for threadcrapping. I'll stop.
@JohnKretzer: For Helm's sake, it was a quick, "You've stolen something from me"-comment, meant to convey the absolute seriousness of the nerdrage that is so often expressed when it comes to Fr4E.
I have no problem with people who disagree with me (heck, I sometimes disagree with me). I just get tired of reading the same old anti-FR4E comments in every single FR4E thread (yes, I may have exaggerated).
Except that isn't how the Realms deities operate.
Read "Down to Earth Divinity," when Greenwood first introduced the Realms pantheon. It's how he uses the deities himself.
In 'real life' it's perfectly true that there are a stack of war gods hanging around; some pantheons even have more than one. The analogy in the Realms would see the Chondathans having a war god, and the Chessentans having a war god, and the Raumvira having a war god, etc; and all those war gods having different names and different beliefs and different methods of worship. Suggesting that the existence of lots of overlapping gods in real life means that similar numbers (actually, a lot fewer) should exist in the Realms ignores fundamental differences between how pantheons in real life and the Realms pantheon work.
I understand that designers never chose to detail variant pantheons for each one of the current human cultures, but there are things that strongly suggest that certain current deities are derived from specific cultures of the past and that some cultures have a different view entirely. Is not Jergal thought to be Netherese or even earlier in origin? There were differences in the old Netherese pantheon, as well. And there are some notable differences, culturally. Mulhorand, before it was swept away. Tempos (barbarians) is a little different than Tempus (civilized humans). Kara-Tur has a different pantheon. Zakhara has a different pantheon. Aren't Kara-Tur and Zakhara human cultures?
Of course human cultures on Faerun don't need to mirror Earth in every single way. And with deities that regularly communicate their desires to high priests, perhaps the human deities wanted to be seen by different cultures in very similar ways. Or perhaps there has been so much trade among the various western Faerunian cultures that their pantheons blended or merged, some gods killing or subsuming others. Who is to say, really? After all this time, and with 4E, what's obvious (at least to me) is that no one may know the exact and complete story of what's going on with the deities on Faerun. My view isn't ignoring some "right" way as you suggest, it's just another way to think about what's going on (and what might be better for some DMs).
...I just get tired of reading the same old anti-FR4E comments in every single FR4E thread (yes, I may have exaggerated).
Every single one? Seems like a big over-estimation to me. In looking through threads now, there is negatiivity spread out, but it isn't everyone and doesn't feel like every single thread. A few people talk of threadcrapping, spamming, and the like, but honestly the moderators do a pretty good job of getting rid of true spam and threadjacking in our Realms threads when it does happen. What's leftover is just people stating their honest opinions, and that's what a forum is for. It's certainly no where near the level of negativity (and the constant moderation) that I see in the general D&D forums, at least from my perspective. YMMV, of course.
Just like in real life, if you haven't been irritated or miffed by someone's speech at some time, you may not be paying attention. ;)
@JohnKretzer: For Helm's sake, it was a quick, "You've stolen something from me"-comment, meant to convey the absolute seriousness of the nerdrage that is so often expressed when it comes to Fr4E.
I have no problem with people who disagree with me (heck, I sometimes disagree with me). I just get tired of reading the same old anti-FR4E comments in every single FR4E thread (yes, I may have exaggerated).
I am sorry....but I hate the word nerdrage. I got what you were trying to convey with your comment....I really do. My comment was more in light of dimissing people in such a way is really not a good thing to do. I just used the actual events of the sound bite you choose to use to prove my point.
The Realms had depth...complexity...and now they just went and made it simple. Which is fine for some but for others it is a very real cause to complain. I am sorry if you think I threadcrap...but I believe people need to be heard...it does not matter if they agree with you or not. Before 4th ed there was a vocal minority of people who came to the Realms and complained about things....I really never saw the point of treating these people in a uncivil matter...or dismissing their complaints as being 'nerdrage'. It is just in most cases(this is the internet so their are trolls and flamers out there) it was just people given a honset complaint and if they do it respectfuly I really never minded it. Because it does cause interesting discussion and debates.
Personaly I think your complaint about the FR 4E map is highly valid....and you should speak about it on threads in that topic. I would also say you should put in your sig a statement of '4e FR Map = Used Toilet Paper'. If we are quiet and don't complain...then nothing ever will improve.
While similar in some respects, achieving a LG society, they are vastly different things when it comes down to it in what they tolerate, emphasize, and accept as the best methods to achieve that end. Hard to do that under a single deity, otherwise you get accusastions of apostasy and ecclessiastic infighting as resources are marshalled and strategies are debated and argued over. Much easier, and logical I think, to make them two seperate but allied faiths and call it a day.
Except that isn't how the Realms deities operate. In 'real life' it's perfectly true that there are a stack of war gods hanging around; some pantheons even have more than one. The analogy in the Realms would see the Chondathans having a war god, and the Chessentans having a war god, and the Raumvira having a war god, etc; and all those war gods having different names and different beliefs and different methods of worship. Suggesting that the existence of lots of overlapping gods in real life means that similar numbers (actually, a lot fewer) should exist in the Realms ignores fundamental differences between how pantheons in real life and the Realms pantheon work.
There was some cultural gods(or more accurate regional) in the Realms....but true the did provide one pantheon for the humans...which is fine because unlike in real life the Realms had many different races. So it would make some sense that racial pantheons would develope over say cultural pantheons. Which is the way the Realms gods operated before.
I (and I bnelieve Jorunhast) are not saying it should mirror Earth's pantheons...we merely bring up Earth as a example that it is completely possible. I would also say that given the fact that the gods are actualy tangiably real in the Realms would even make it highly more likely that multiple pantheon can exist.
On the subject of the new source book, any more news? Im pretty stoked for it, I cant wait until next year, and Im hopin Neverwinter is just the first of many new source books. I wondering was Matt James's questions about the fugue plane related to the Neverwinter book, or perhaps something else?
Tossing in a few local names is all well and fine but you may as well just 'fess up that that love goddess with the funny name is just Sune after all. Not unless you're going to get into a whole new mythology with its own creation myths. If you're going to do it, do it all the way or don't bother for the main campaign guides.
...It's a game and you don't need a hundred gods to play it.
Absolutely agree. However, as we've been saying, it's not about need, it's about preference, richness and options - for all DMs everywhere who want to use them.
On the subject of gods, Ed has also said that there are far fewer gods than what most mortals believe, there is but one nature deity for instance, the rest are merely aspects, some of these aspects, dont even realize that theyre aspects. Ok so maybe Ed didnt state this as fact, it was more presented as the unreliable narrator, but, by all the watching gods this makes sense to me.
Can you point me to a source where he says this, specifically? I'm not saying he didn't, but I'd like to see the source in context.
I'm of the fewer gods camp myself. The Grey Box listed a set of deities who are pretty consistently carried over into (almost) every edition. Real cultures are all well and wonderful in their variety but we aren't doing with real cultures. It's a game and you don't need a hundred gods to play it.
Tossing in a few local names is all well and fine but you may as well just 'fess up that that love goddess with the funny name is just Sune after all. Not unless you're going to get into a whole new mythology with its own creation myths. If you're going to do it, do it all the way or don't bother for the main campaign guides.
Well unfortunaly I don't have time to go all the way...I mean if I did I would not need the FR. Also what is needed is different for different people...Honestly I don't need Cyric...I don't need Torm...but I do need Mystra...I need Elistraee...I need the Racial Pantheons...I need the the Mulhondri pantheon...and well that area of the world. I also need more ifo maehcanicaly for gods like Lliira...Sharess...Eldath...Elistraee.
So I personaly I think I rather see a hundred gods even if I don't need then to use then a narrow list that does not include the gods I do need. It is far easier to cut things out than to add it. A example...I don't like Cyric...I say he does not exist. Easy....I want to add in Elistraee back in as a goddess...I have to atleast from my own mind come up the in 4thed parlance a Divine feat for her( maybe one or two other) make sure they are balanced in a very delicately balanced system...and create a Paragon Path for her priests...and make sure it is balanced.(Yes I think all god should have these...one of the reasons why I dislike 4th ed so much is that they leave that out), Which one is easier?
I personaly think they have turned the FR into a terrible RPG setting...it is very limited...in which if you want to expand on it it takes alot of work on your part. Don't get me wrong here...it could be a great fantasy novel setting...but I think they have really forgotten the gaming aspect of it.
For a DM new to the Forgotten Realms, they probably are not going to look at the existing list and go 'gee, there's not enough here'. You might argue there isn't much in the book about them. True. But then there wasn't much in the Grey Box and thanks to the internet, you can find out a heck of a lot about them just googling many of the big names.
I will step back a little from my point because something has been taken away for you; that I can regret. But I still say that the syncretistic approach should have been more strongly emphasised from the beginning just to spare a lot of the grief that still lingers.
Show
in which chats on about how Elminster is very much still stuck in Mystra's dogma even deep into the new century
..."I always included multiples of dark temples and altars in my adventures and I wanted them to have more character than a classification in "chaotic evil clergy" to add a sense of mystery or dread of the unknown. The different faces of darkness and evil gods I created to add flavour to the interior of their chapels and to show all the heinous practices going on in them. Players dont need to now all the rules."
Woohoo! Preach it Brother Ed!
This is a very 1E mindset. Exploring unknowns, getting creeped out by how a scene unfolds, being far away from a safe haven and nearly dieing of thirst. The DM knows all there is in his world and the players peek into his mind every session.
GROGNARD PRIDE! ROCKS FALL, EVERYONE DIES!
I have no problem with people who disagree with me (heck, I sometimes disagree with me). I just get tired of reading the same old anti-FR4E comments in every single FR4E thread (yes, I may have exaggerated).
It is nowhere near as bad as it used to be. If you think this thread is bad, you never got to see the way it was before the forum change over.
On the subject of gods, Ed has also said that there are far fewer gods than what most mortals believe, there is but one nature deity for instance, the rest are merely aspects, some of these aspects, dont even realize that theyre aspects. Ok so maybe Ed didnt state this as fact, it was more presented as the unreliable narrator, but, by all the watching gods this makes sense to me.
Can you point me to a source where he says this, specifically? I'm not saying he didn't, but I'd like to see the source in context.
Id be happy too, after all it was my question Ed was answering when he made this revelation, whats interesting is I didnt even ask about it, Ed just went off and spilled some more beans, I love Ed!
Its in the Ed Greenwood interview section on loremaster.org page 15, second post down. Eds exact words were:
"Here's the real secret: if you read my Realms novels, you'll occasionally "hear" characters swearing by "all the Watching Gods."
Well, unbeknownst to all but a few sages and ancient elves, that phrase, "the Watching Gods," refers to an old, old belief among intelligent races that there are far fewer actual gods than most mortals believe, and that these fewer "Watching Gods" are unwittingly worshipped under several names by clergies and devout lay followers who see them as a variety of different beings. Some sages believe the gods themselves are partially or wholly unaware that they are "split personalities" or "aspects" of the same mighty being, while others cling to the view that this is a deliberate deception (insurance, if you will, on the part of a divine being that they will always be venerated regardless of whether this or that named god falls out of favour). A few sages believe Ao and the goddess of magic best known as Mystra are the only "uber-gods" mortals have glimpsed, and that the others are hidden behind their arrays of names (for example, just one being is behind Silvanus, Eldath, Mielikki, and most of the other nature deities).
No mortal knows the truth behind all of this, mind you, so a DM can decide whatever he or she wishes - - or choose to NOT decide, being as they can arrange matters so that mortals (including PCs) never know.
(Here, I believe, is where I'm supposed to make "Bwoohahahaha" noises.)"
On the subject of gods, Ed has also said that there are far fewer gods than what most mortals believe, there is but one nature deity for instance, the rest are merely aspects, some of these aspects, dont even realize that theyre aspects. Ok so maybe Ed didnt state this as fact, it was more presented as the unreliable narrator, but, by all the watching gods this makes sense to me.
Can you point me to a source where he says this, specifically? I'm not saying he didn't, but I'd like to see the source in context.
Id be happy too, after all it was my question Ed was answering when he made this revelation, whats interesting is I didnt even ask about it, Ed just went off and spilled some more beans, I love Ed!
Its in the Ed Greenwood interview section on loremaster.org page 15, second post down. Eds exact words were:
"Here's the real secret: if you read my Realms novels, you'll occasionally "hear" characters swearing by "all the Watching Gods."
Well, unbeknownst to all but a few sages and ancient elves, that phrase, "the Watching Gods," refers to an old, old belief among intelligent races that there are far fewer actual gods than most mortals believe, and that these fewer "Watching Gods" are unwittingly worshipped under several names by clergies and devout lay followers who see them as a variety of different beings. Some sages believe the gods themselves are partially or wholly unaware that they are "split personalities" or "aspects" of the same mighty being, while others cling to the view that this is a deliberate deception (insurance, if you will, on the part of a divine being that they will always be venerated regardless of whether this or that named god falls out of favour). A few sages believe Ao and the goddess of magic best known as Mystra are the only "uber-gods" mortals have glimpsed, and that the others are hidden behind their arrays of names (for example, just one being is behind Silvanus, Eldath, Mielikki, and most of the other nature deities).
No mortal knows the truth behind all of this, mind you, so a DM can decide whatever he or she wishes - - or choose to NOT decide, being as they can arrange matters so that mortals (including PCs) never know.
(Here, I believe, is where I'm supposed to make "Bwoohahahaha" noises.)"
Please pay special attention to the last line there. That is why I have a deep respect for Mr. Greenwood...he gaved his creation to us to do what we will with...Make it our own. Unfortunaly it gets harder and harded to do that with WotC...and the endless novels dicating things...
Also please note...The Realms published waaayyy back in the day...was not all Ed Greenwood's work...even in that first box set others worked on it...it is that setting that I love...so while I respect Ed Greenwood for his creativity...but mostly because of his generousity of sharing the FR with us...he is but one voice in what was the final product.
No mortal knows the truth behind all of this, mind you, so a DM can decide whatever he or she wishes - - or choose to NOT decide, being as they can arrange matters so that mortals (including PCs) never know.
What a shame novels being canon drives a truck through such logic.
Id be happy too, after all it was my question Ed was answering when he made this revelation, whats interesting is I didnt even ask about it, Ed just went off and spilled some more beans, I love Ed!
Its in the Ed Greenwood interview section on loremaster.org page 15, second post down. Eds exact words were:
"Here's the real secret: if you read my Realms novels, you'll occasionally "hear" characters swearing by "all the Watching Gods."
Well, unbeknownst to all but a few sages and ancient elves, that phrase, "the Watching Gods," refers to an old, old belief among intelligent races that there are far fewer actual gods than most mortals believe, and that these fewer "Watching Gods" are unwittingly worshipped under several names by clergies and devout lay followers who see them as a variety of different beings. Some sages believe the gods themselves are partially or wholly unaware that they are "split personalities" or "aspects" of the same mighty being, while others cling to the view that this is a deliberate deception (insurance, if you will, on the part of a divine being that they will always be venerated regardless of whether this or that named god falls out of favour). A few sages believe Ao and the goddess of magic best known as Mystra are the only "uber-gods" mortals have glimpsed, and that the others are hidden behind their arrays of names (for example, just one being is behind Silvanus, Eldath, Mielikki, and most of the other nature deities).
No mortal knows the truth behind all of this, mind you, so a DM can decide whatever he or she wishes - - or choose to NOT decide, being as they can arrange matters so that mortals (including PCs) never know.
(Here, I believe, is where I'm supposed to make "Bwoohahahaha" noises.)"
Thing is, Ed is just relating an "old mythical belief" while supporting the DM's decision to choose what's really happening. He's not saying "this is really the way it is," he's saying it's a belief. Even the part about "one nature deity" is really just a belief of a few sages in the Realms, and he specifically states "no mortal knows the truth behind all of this..."
And that's a good thing! It gives me options - the option of having it be false, or the option of having it be true, or the option of having it be partially true. I love that! It's Greenwood at his best. With it being part of the truly unknown, and not "true" one way or another, I can keep my players guessing and on their toes when dealing with deities and their faiths.
Thanks for the reference!
Thing is, Ed is just relating an "old mythical belief" while supporting the DM's decision to choose what's really happening. He's not saying "this is really the way it is," he's saying it's a belief. Even the part about "one nature deity" is really just a belief of a few sages in the Realms, and he specifically states "no mortal knows the truth behind all of this..."
And that's a good thing! It gives me options - the option of having it be false, or the option of having it be true, or the option of having it be partially true. I love that! It's Greenwood at his best. With it being part of the truly unknown, and not "true" one way or another, I can keep my players guessing and on their toes when dealing with deities and their faiths.
Thanks for the reference!
Yes exactly! Thats usually how Ed works, leaves it up to interpretation! Personally I think the gods should be beyond mortal understanding, The PCs shouldnt know what really going on with gods, they wouldnt necessarily know that Cyric killed Mystra, or that Amaunator is really Lathander, or that Helm is dead, or what ever.
It's interesting reading that from Ed because that is what a lot of 4E Gods were "retconned" as to remove them - just aspects of other gods. Personally, I don't mind lots of gods but when they all act so incomprehensibly stupid it just doesn't really add anything to the game. I'm not particularly enthused with having real world pantheons though - that is something I hate with an unrelenting passion and couldn't be happier to see it go (but they exploded with the equally boring real world but fantasty cultures they were there with).No mortal knows the truth behind all of this, mind you, so a DM can decide whatever he or she wishes - - or choose to NOT decide, being as they can arrange matters so that mortals (including PCs) never know.
What a shame novels being canon drives a truck through such logic.
Which novels? I havnt read alot, but any of the ones Ive read with the gods in them could still fit in with the Watching God Theory, after all Ed does point out that many of the gods dont realize that they are just lesser aspects of a much greater power.
The Realms had depth...complexity...and now they just went and made it simple.
The current Realms still have depth and complexity. It is just a matter of wanting to see it.
Gomez
Which novels? I havnt read alot, but any of the ones Ive read with the gods in them could still fit in with the Watching God Theory, after all Ed does point out that many of the gods dont realize that they are just lesser aspects of a much greater power.
All of the gods are just aspects of Corellon. They just don't know about it. :twisted:
Which novels? I havnt read alot, but any of the ones Ive read with the gods in them could still fit in with the Watching God Theory, after all Ed does point out that many of the gods dont realize that they are just lesser aspects of a much greater power.
All of the gods are just aspects of Corellon. They just don't know about it. :twisted:
No, no, no, you got it all wrong. Theyre all lesser aspects of Cyric, its all in the Cyrinishad, you should read it some time!
What a shame novels being canon drives a truck through such logic.
Really? I honestly fail to see why.
What about novels being canon removes the DM's ability to say "In my game we are doing..."?
Really? I honestly fail to see why.
Because they provide definitive canon answers. So it's not up to the DM to decide. The novels do and the DM decides if the novels are right or not. The movement of the question being answered is in fact a key and very important distinction between these two concepts.
What about novels being canon removes the DM's ability to say "In my game we are doing..."?
I thought you've been here for long enough to see the repeated threads on why canon impacts on a game, even if people like to pretend evolving metaplot is simple to ignore (it isn't always). Otherwise we wouldn't have half the posts on this forum complaining about the spellplague if everyone found it simple to just ignore everything that was current canon would we?
Because they provide definitive canon answers. So it's not up to the DM to decide. The novels do and the DM decides if the novels are right or not. The movement of the question being answered is in fact a key and very important distinction between these two concepts.
On that basis, anything covered in novel or sourcebook could prevent a problem. It isn't just confined to novels. What about the 3rd person-omniscient view presented by the FRCS in 3E? That is likely to be read by players too. Any source that sets out to talk about a subject might impose something that could provide the same problem be it in the Dragon or Dungeon magazines, the FRPG or the novels. All of the above cause the same issue, that is why I failed to see the reason for singling out the novels.
I thought you've been here for long enough to see the repeated threads on why canon impacts on a game, even if people like to pretend evolving metaplot is simple to ignore (it isn't always). Otherwise we wouldn't have half the posts on this forum complaining about the spellplague if everyone found it simple to just ignore everything that was current canon would we?
Oh, I have been around long enough, indeed long enough to join in and post a wall-o-text reply on the "Canon Fodder" thread a week ago suggesting that this problem may well not find its source in the novels themselves or their canonicity but in the way they were comissioned and how players and DMs react to them... a post that nobody seems to have challenged as yet.
I can't speak for others, but the reason I may complain (and I tend not to complain about the spellplague so much as the century time jump) is that by encountering 4E-FR primarily through the medium of the novels I do not have the choice that people running games do. I cannot wish the time-jump away as DMs who run the Realms can.
If that is the basis of your argument then I am afraid that I still cannot agree with your conclusion.
Not that I really have any issues with them being canon, from the standpoint of my own games, the issue doesn't come up. I'm that way with any setting though, though "original" authors don't often bother me as much (though they can often be worse in some cases), not just the Realms.
Novels though... I've never understood the strange sacredness that a lot of people attach to them, that things must occur that way... which is largely why I'd love to see them divorced from canon.
Whereas I would prefer to see that "sacredness" educated out of them and for the novels to be left alone. It is an unhealthy attitude to have in pretty much any RPG game, why stand for it? In a game based on an LFR module, the first time I piped up on a tangential subject (not challenging or lore-lawyering, just a query) the group had a nice chat about the difference between WotC canon and my DM's canon, and there hasn't been an issue since with any of our players. As I said in my "Canon Fodder" post, we aren't special in any way, how has this become enough of a problem that people want the novels de-canonised over it? And can it not be sorted out with a frank discussion between players and DM?
I think a positive way at looking at canon via novels is that it keeps the story of Faerun going. It demonstrates that adventures happen outside of the gaming world and the conquences of those stories can even help create ideas for adventures in your own Realm games. And I think it's espically true considering 4eFR and it's view on additional sourcebooks. Sure, we're getting the Neverwinter Campagin Guide, but that's just one small city in a very, VERY, large campaign and I feel that the canonized stories help flesh out the rest of the setting.
But i've taken Iluvren's stance and not let Canon hinder any of my games. If something is canon and I don't like it or want to see something change (ie. Elistraee is alive in well in my Realms, the Border Kingdoms are a bit more unified, and warforged have a prominent community in Aglarond) then all is well Canon or not. I like canon because it continues the story where the gaming supplement just can't (due mostly to lack of sourcebooks and DDi content).
Now, I can see and understand Chris's view on a lot of why people hate the books being canon, and I definitly hate the fact that lore-lawyers ruin the appeal that canon can have and that RSEs are a pain the the butt, but I just don't let those aspect of lore affect my games and I urge other DMs not to feel constrained by lore and use it as a tool to further your Realms experiences.
If I may chime in here:
I think a positive way at looking at canon via novels is that it keeps the story of Faerun going. It demonstrates that adventures happen outside of the gaming world and the conquences of those stories can even help create ideas for adventures in your own Realm games. And I think it's espically true considering 4eFR and it's view on additional sourcebooks. Sure, we're getting the Neverwinter Campagin Guide, but that's just one small city in a very, VERY, large campaign and I feel that the canonized stories help flesh out the rest of the setting.
But i've taken Iluvren's stance and not let Canon hinder any of my games. If something is canon and I don't like it or want to see something change (ie. Elistraee is alive in well in my Realms, the Border Kingdoms are a bit more unified, and warforged have a prominent community in Aglarond) then all is well Canon or not. I like canon because it continues the story where the gaming supplement just can't (due mostly to lack of sourcebooks and DDi content).
Now, I can see and understand Chris's view on a lot of why people hate the books being canon, and I definitly hate the fact that lore-lawyers ruin the appeal that canon can have and that RSEs are a pain the the butt, but I just don't let those aspect of lore affect my games and I urge other DMs not to feel constrained by lore and use it as a tool to further your Realms experiences.
While I agree with you that novels were great in fleshing out the world. Letting you have a insight into the cultures and such in the Realms...I think it sets a mind set in the designers and authors minds that is not conductive to a RPG setting. It creates storys instead of history. Now let me point to example of what I am getting at.
They had the whole seris of books designed to narrow the drow pantheon to Lloth...why because they wanted to resolve that 'story'. Also the Cyric assassinating Mystra...was done for the same reason. To end the story. The problem with this I don't want to read a novel when I am gaming...I want to feel that the world I am playing in is not some sort of movie or novel that I am esperiencing...I want to feel that I am playing a actrual character in a living world...where history does not end because of literature conventions. Which is why I always believed that novels should not be cannon...because to me atleast it is the antithesis of a RPG. You can get the peak into cultures without the novels being cannon.
Also here is another reason why I think it is...not a good idea from a bussiness prospective. I mean even if I thought 4th ed was the greatest game ever created by people...with the changes they did the Realms...and what has happened in my game...I can't think of a single reason why I would ever need to but into 4th ed FR...it is completely the opposite of what happens in my ongoing game world. The Spellplague won't and can't happen in my FR...Abier was just a name...Cyric got killed...Mystra reverted to her duties of keeping the balance...etc. These are thing that my PC have archieves so not only is it i just find the changes very heavy handed and just badly thought out...it would be a insult to my players to go with what happens in 4th ed.
So it put me...and others like me in a position of saying to ourselves...what is the point in buying the 4th ed Realms...for what maybe a handful of interesting ideas you can convert back into the Classic FR...it is not worth the money. Which I think...makes the setting very much non-viable...heck the only reason I think you guys are getting the Neverwinter soucebook is because of two reasons:
1) I think they are running out of ideas to publish things for 4th ed...and we might see a souce book for Eberron and Dark Sun detailing a city.
2) Because you guys are passionate fans that it is sorta hard to ignore.
Anyway just my two coppers.
Whereas I would prefer to see that "sacredness" educated out of them and for the novels to be left alone. It is an unhealthy attitude to have in pretty much any RPG game, why stand for it? In a game based on an LFR module, the first time I piped up on a tangential subject (not challenging or lore-lawyering, just a query) the group had a nice chat about the difference between WotC canon and my DM's canon, and there hasn't been an issue since with any of our players. As I said in my "Canon Fodder" post, we aren't special in any way, how has this become enough of a problem that people want the novels de-canonised over it? And can it not be sorted out with a frank discussion between players and DM?
I think my largest problem isn't that it intrudes into the game for me (it doesn't, not at all, as none of us bother with very many novels in the first place), but that it advances the world in ways I never would, and that means I have to sort out the mess that novels make from various sourcebooks and such. Take that nonsense with the canal... or the war with Iakhovas... or that melodramatic Sembian nonsense... or the garbage with Reborn Netheril. Absolutely none of that would every find its way into any game I ever ran. Personally, I find a lot of the ideas half-baked, half-cocked, and just plain stupid. Note that I don't necessarily blame the authors for all of this... very little of it actually, they're just following orders when it comes down to it.
Even with cultures, I find them less than useful, as a lot of them interject some pretty modern nonsense into the works, with attitudes and mores that just don't work in my head. Either that or they borrow from garbled real-world analogs that tend to fall flat for me.
Given the choice, I'd be much happier with things if the novels focused on small things that were apocryphal and non-canon, rather than events that significantly changed things. Which is why I particularly enjoyed Mel Odom's Lost Library of Cormanthyr, as it introduced some interesting characters, tossed out some nifty ideas and locales, and yet changed pretty much nothing in the campaign setting when it came down to it. That and it had an azmyth in it, which are always good. Which is pretty much why I hated the Cormyr trilogy. I'd have been much happier with the idea of the 3e FRCS telling us that Azoun IV & Tanalasta had died, without telling us how or why, and that Alusair had taken the throne as regent for Azoun V than with the whole thing spelled out for us in such a way that made me want to pull my hair out from annoyance when I read it.
I guess when it comes down to it, I'd prefer interesting little details over grandly sweeping alterations and events. Probably why I've avoided the novels for the most part all these years (that and a lot of them just plain don't interest me).
It's going to be a book.
I actually find that oddly disappointing.
Because they provide definitive canon answers. So it's not up to the DM to decide. The novels do and the DM decides if the novels are right or not. The movement of the question being answered is in fact a key and very important distinction between these two concepts.
On that basis, anything covered in novel or sourcebook could prevent a problem. It isn't just confined to novels. What about the 3rd person-omniscient view presented by the FRCS in 3E? That is likely to be read by players too. Any source that sets out to talk about a subject might impose something that could provide the same problem be it in the Dragon or Dungeon magazines, the FRPG or the novels. All of the above cause the same issue, that is why I failed to see the reason for singling out the novels.
I don't mind this so much. I can interpret my way around what the book says if it leaves enough in the dark. It's when your dark parts are suddenly illuminated that is the problem - this is what an evolving metaplot does to a setting. A setting in state X is fine, a setting that is in state Y due to things outside the setting is not. Also 4E doesn't have a preponderance of sourcebooks for its settings. So sourcebooks screwing around with canon is a non-issue. Meaning that singling out the novels is all there is left.
Oh, I have been around long enough, indeed long enough to join in and post a wall-o-text reply on the "Canon Fodder" thread a week ago suggesting that this problem may well not find its source in the novels themselves or their canonicity but in the way they were comissioned and how players and DMs react to them... a post that nobody seems to have challenged as yet.
Because that is precisely what the problems with novels and metaplot inherently is.
The Realms had depth...complexity...and now they just went and made it simple.
The current Realms still have depth and complexity. It is just a matter of wanting to see it.
Gomez
Exactly.
Hopefully it is another Forgotten Realms Adventures Book. Anything else would be useless.
It's going to be useless then. The book will be about Neverwinter.
I would love a 4E Forgotten Realms Adventures book.
Hopefully it is another Forgotten Realms Adventures Book. Anything else would be useless.
It's going to be useless then. The book will be about Neverwinter.
I would love a 4E Forgotten Realms Adventures book.
I agree that a 4e Realms Adventures book would be pure awesome! I love the Forgotten Realms Adventures, I still pull that one out, I think its one of the best overview of the Realms theyve ever done, The Heartlands any way, All those city maps! Id love to see that updated for 4e!
But I wouldnt call it useless! Theyve never done a Neverwinter sourcebook before, and they never did a map for it, aside from the video game. Im anxious to see what they do with it, how much will be familiar from the video games, and how much will be all new? ANd its got the Bladesinger in it? It might not be exactly what we was hopin for, but it sounds like its going to be chockfull of good stuff, and if it sell well then maybe theyll do more, and hopefully get us that 4e Adeventures! Buy that book people!
...But I wouldnt call it useless! Theyve never done a Neverwinter sourcebook before, ... Buy that book people!
I dunno, I'm ambivalent about a Neverwinter book for a couple reasons.
First, we know that one of the upcoming novels, Gauntylgrim, will be involving the Neverwinter area. I didn't really understand the choice of Neverwinter for a campaign guide until I heard this. I think the general idea is to tie it in to the novel, at least in part, and I'm not sure I'd want another "sourcebook" that is so intimately tied to a 4E novel event (whatever that event might be).
Second, I'm not super duper thrilled about yet another book detailing a city/region of northwest Faerun. It could be interesting and fantastic and all that, but why not do what the fans have asked for - for ages - and give us something in the south like Ahm? Or in the east, like Thay or Aglarond? Personally, I'd like to see something really new and fresh. Yeah, it'll be post-spellplague Neverwinter, but I just can't get all excited about that... it just seems like we are getting the same old stuff, maybe dressed up a little differently.
That said, maybe it will be amazing and cool and all that. I just don't know. But I absolutely know that I'm holding back my enthusiam until I see it and can review it.
Wizards needs to focus on the bigger picture. At the moment the 4th FR is unplayable without using material from other versions (mostly 2nd edition).
I wanted to come in and address a couple points, mostly related to the NWCG, and a little to my writing, and to canon fiction in general:
1) The three primary authors on the Neverwinter Campaign Guide are Matthew Sernett, Ari Marmell, and myself (Erik Scott de Bie). Not to speak for either of them, but I for one had a LOT of input into the book (I wrote a third or more of it). There may have been (or may eventually be) other people involved--if so, they have not been announced yet.
2) The NWCG will be something a little different from anything released in the Realms before. Can't say much else other than, I hope you'll like it, that you'll find uses for it in *any* FR game (not just one set in Neverwinter), and that you'll enjoy the acres and acres of story I and my fellow designers spent all that time crafting. I for one think it is (to quote NC quoting me) "awesometastic."
3) Whoever said I (or anyone else, for that matter) was bringing back Helm and in what form? I believe I said at the seminar that I *use* Helm, even though he's dead, and that if you want to read more about him, read more of my stuff . . . but I am *far* too fond of teasing to confirm or deny that there is any sort of plan to bring Helm back in any particular form.
4) Related to #3: Rest assured that if that *does* happen, and I *do* bring Helm back, it will be in a way that makes sense and fills a genuine need in the setting. (So all you folks who are saying "Helm doesn't have a place in 4e FR anymore," take a load off.) For more on the subject, read my next novel, Shadowbane (Sept 2011).
5) If anyone ever feels my input would be helpful or even necessary in a thread on these boards, please drop me an email at ERIKSCOTTDEBIE at YAHOO dot COM. To clarify or address something or whatever. I'll tell you what I can. Seriously.
Cheers
2) The NWCG will be something a little different from anything released in the Realms before. Can't say much else other than, I hope you'll like it, that you'll find uses for it in *any* FR game (not just one set in Neverwinter),
Speaking of concepts like this, is the Bladesinger a full class or is it an essentials like build of the Swordmage?
Whew! That was a lot of pages of posts. I wanted to come in and address a couple points, mostly related to the NWCG, and a little to my writing, and to canon fiction in general:
ok, can we ask you a few quick quastions?
1) have you had any experence with the neverwinter video games, and if so how did those effect your writeing choices?
2) what where your first thoughts (weather they made it in or not) for this book when you were offered it?
3) did you feel everything got covered, or did you think you needed more space?
Wizards needs to focus on the bigger picture. At the moment the 4th FR is unplayable without using material from other versions (mostly 2nd edition).
While I do reference material from previous editions (all from 3e/3.5) I feel the Realms can easily play as-is. It's just a bit more work for the DM to include things (known locale, NPCs, etc.) in a specific area.
Whew! That was a lot of pages of posts.
I wanted to come in and address a couple points, mostly related to the NWCG, and a little to my writing, and to canon fiction in general:
2) The NWCG will be something a little different from anything released in the Realms before. Can't say much else other than, I hope you'll like it, that you'll find uses for it in *any* FR game (not just one set in Neverwinter), and that you'll enjoy the acres and acres of story I and my fellow designers spent all that time crafting. I for one think it is (to quote NC quoting me) "awesometastic."
This makes me very very happy. See, currently I'm running a campaign with my PCs (lvl 10-ish) to retake Neverwinter from hostile forces using the help of the clergy of Tempus. When I found out the NWCG is coming out, well suffice to say I've put my PCs on a track to go.....else where.... for the time being until I can get the book and see how it can be incorporated into the campaign. So I guess the only problem I have is that it's release date is just too far away.
3) Whoever said I (or anyone else, for that matter) was bringing back Helm and in what form? I believe I said at the seminar that I *use* Helm, even though he's dead, and that if you want to read more about him, read more of my stuff . . . but I am *far* too fond of teasing to confirm or deny that there is any sort of plan to bring Helm back in any particular form.
4) Related to #3: Rest assured that if that *does* happen, and I *do* bring Helm back, it will be in a way that makes sense and fills a genuine need in the setting. (So all you folks who are saying "Helm doesn't have a place in 4e FR anymore," take a load off.) For more on the subject, read my next novel, Shadowbane (Sept 2011).
I think this sorta pertains to me since I said that Helm doesn't fit a role into the Realms, but as long as his return (if indeed he does have one) is done in such a way that is fitting to his character and (as eriksdb stated) makes sense then I'm all for it. And I will be looking for your novel Shadowbane so it better be a good read or else....
since he was the god of protectors and such.........
Helm could be a god of Defense
since he was the god of protectors and such.........
um....he was the god of defense.....
Helm could be a god of Defense
since he was the god of protectors and such.........
um....he was the god of defense.....
umm no, he was protection.
he would be unaligned defense granting war, str, protection domains in 4e...
but....... anywhooo. moving on
Helm is cool
shadowbane is cooler
and fox at twilight is smokin hot coolest( hey depths of madness gave me the first wth and wthwst moments)
As you'll see, I can't talk about the actual content, which is all extremely secret and hush hush (and covered in NDAs). So if you ask about content, I will just say that I can't say. That doesn't necessarily mean something is there or isn't--I just can't say.
This makes me very very happy. See, currently I'm running a campaign with my PCs (lvl 10-ish) to retake Neverwinter from hostile forces using the help of the clergy of Tempus. When I found out the NWCG is coming out, well suffice to say I've put my PCs on a track to go.....else where.... for the time being until I can get the book and see how it can be incorporated into the campaign. So I guess the only problem I have is that it's release date is just too far away.
You didn't ask a question, Diffan, but hearing this, I think you'll be pleased with the product and find a great deal to use (maybe with a little math involved).
so Erik, can you say whether or not Crossroad keep shows up in the neverwinter guide???
Nope, can't say.
ok, can we ask you a few quick quastions?
1) have you had any experence with the neverwinter video games, and if so how did those effect your writeing choices?
2) what where your first thoughts (weather they made it in or not) for this book when you were offered it?
3) did you feel everything got covered, or did you think you needed more space?
Answers:
1) Some, and the design team made a distinct effort to put in stuff from the original NWN games. I for one put in a few things, some of which are subtle, some overt. And, well, 100 years have passed, in which some major events took place. Seeing how much can happen in the span of just a few years (2e to 3e, or even just in the scope of the NWN games), it's fair to say some things will be different. For precise details, you'll have to see the actual product.
2) I was incredibly excited, and glad to see the return to print products.
3) My personal opinion probably isn't all that helpful (and I'm sure some will agree and some won't), but I think we've covered a heckuva lot, and that comes from a background steeped in Realms products of the past. That said, we *did* come up with a lot more that probably won't make it in due to space concerns, which I think is a really good sign. There may or may not be DDI support to cover stuff we couldn't put in.
I'm happy with how the book is turning out, and I think you guys will be too.
Cheers
Helm could be a god of Defense
since he was the god of protectors and such.........
um....he was the god of defense.....
umm no, he was protection.
he would be unaligned defense granting war, str, protection domains in 4e...
but....... anywhooo. moving on
Helm is cool
shadowbane is cooler
and fox at twilight is smokin hot coolest( hey depths of madness gave me the first wth and wthwst moments)
Um...Defense and protection mean the same thing...it is like saying...
Tempus would make agreat god martial conflicts
Mystra can come back as the goddess of arcane...and be gurdian of the great blanket
Elistraee can back as the goddess of making amends...and tracking things down to kill...and moving rythmaticaly to music...and celestrial night objects...
And if we continue this we should take it too the spam club.
Helm could be a god of Defense
since he was the god of protectors and such.........
um....he was the god of defense.....
umm no, he was protection.
he would be unaligned defense granting war, str, protection domains in 4e...
but....... anywhooo. moving on
Helm is cool
shadowbane is cooler
and fox at twilight is smokin hot coolest( hey depths of madness gave me the first wth and wthwst moments)
Um...Defense and protection mean the same thing...it is like saying...
Tempus would make agreat god martial conflicts
Mystra can come back as the goddess of arcane...and be gurdian of the great blanket
Elistraee can back as the goddess of making amends...and tracking things down to kill...and moving rythmaticaly to music...and celestrial night objects...
And if we continue this we should take it too the spam club.
He was (perhaps still is) the god of Vigilance, the patron of guards, although defense and protection plays into that, I think the vigilance was his main thing.
He has a number of nicknames: The Watcher, the Vigilant One, the Vigilant, He of the Unsleeping Eye, the Great Guard, the God of Guardians.
Move on.
Surprised no one's asked about Helm potentially being part of the sourcebook--it was my understanding that Helm's kinda significant in the old school Neverwinter stuff.
Ah well, not like I could have confirmed or denied one way or the other.
Cheers
That and I often wonder which Oleff actually was... the gnome that was mentioned in Volo's Guide to the North, or the human that was mentioned in The North boxed set... I think I personally prefer him as a gnome, as it just suits Neverwinter well I think.
so did Tyr
so did Sune
Surprised no one's asked about Helm potentially being part of the sourcebook--it was my understanding that Helm's kinda significant in the old school Neverwinter stuff.
Ah well, not like I could have confirmed or denied one way or the other.
*shrug* As long as he stays dead. I'd be happy to see dead deities stay dead for once. Although truth be told if they had to bring any deity back I would rather see Helm then Mystra. She needs to stay dead, dead for good this time. All versions of her.
4) Related to #3: Rest assured that if that *does* happen, and I *do* bring Helm back, it will be in a way that makes sense and fills a genuine need in the setting. (So all you folks who are saying "Helm doesn't have a place in 4e FR anymore," take a load off.) For more on the subject, read my next novel, Shadowbane (Sept 2011).
Yay, Shadowbane! I loved that book. To be honest, I'm enjoying the 4E FR novels, probably because so far I've seen at least two Paladin's fill the main character role. Seriously, it was like pulling teeth in the last editions to find a Paladin anywhere close to the main character role, or at least a Paladin you could stand.
This really isn't that complicated. Both Faith & Avatars and Faith & Pantheons detail Helm's portfolio, and they are the same in both cases: "Guardians, protectors, protection". In the Old Grey Box, he is simply the god of guardians, and in FRA he is god of guardians and protection.
He has a number of nicknames: The Watcher, the Vigilant One, the Vigilant, He of the Unsleeping Eye, the Great Guard, the God of Guardians.
Move on.
Hoar is really Helm in 4E Realms. *runs*
4) Related to #3: Rest assured that if that *does* happen, and I *do* bring Helm back, it will be in a way that makes sense and fills a genuine need in the setting. (So all you folks who are saying "Helm doesn't have a place in 4e FR anymore," take a load off.) For more on the subject, read my next novel, Shadowbane (Sept 2011).
Yay, Shadowbane! I loved that book. To be honest, I'm enjoying the 4E FR novels, probably because so far I've seen at least two Paladin's fill the main character role. Seriously, it was like pulling teeth in the last editions to find a Paladin anywhere close to the main character role, or at least a Paladin you could stand.This really isn't that complicated. Both Faith & Avatars and Faith & Pantheons detail Helm's portfolio, and they are the same in both cases: "Guardians, protectors, protection". In the Old Grey Box, he is simply the god of guardians, and in FRA he is god of guardians and protection.
He has a number of nicknames: The Watcher, the Vigilant One, the Vigilant, He of the Unsleeping Eye, the Great Guard, the God of Guardians.
Move on.
Hoar is really Helm in 4E Realms. *runs*
Blasphemer!!!
when Helm returns,... oh wait.
In the Name of Helm, I sick the vigiliant eye after thee,
The only dead god who needs to return is Vhaeraun.
Maybe Selvetarm.
The only dead god who needs to return is Vhaeraun.
Maybe Selvetarm.
Seconded. No sense in killing them off.
Haven't been around in awhile, seemed like nothing was really going on, but I get on here and bam, I'm hit with this news! I don't know what to say! I'm totally speechless! This is unexpected, but great news. All I can say is, it's about damn time Wizards!
Oh, and thank you, thank you, thank you!!!
Hoar is really Helm in 4E Realms.
Makes perfect sense to me.