PDA

View Full Version : How do you feel about the Forgotten Realms?



Tanuki Tales
2012-01-19, 05:24 PM
Disclaimer: The reason that I'm putting this thread here is because Forgotten Realms, as a campaign setting, is very old and stretches across multiple editions and multiple rule sets. If this still does not warrant this thread being in this subforum then I apologize in advance to the moderator who will have to move it.


Exactly what the title says folks, but here are three starter questions concerning the topic:

What is your overall opinion of the setting, both mechanically and fluff-wise, as a place to hold games in?
Have you ever (and if yes, do you often) played in the Forgotten Realms?
What is your best experience from playing in the setting? What is your worst?

My only personal experience with the setting is from this forum in particular and from reading the Legend of Drizzt novel series and those one undead novels that I can't remember the title of.

The one thing that sticks in my mind about the setting though is that:

A) The importance of PCs is greatly belittled because of the existence of a multitude of incredibly powerful NPCs (such as....Eliminster I believe).
B) It is from here that one of Pun Pun's many, terrible forms flows forth.
C) That much cheese in the art of the PrC can be found in its sourcebooks (along with some overpowered feats). [For 3.X edition at least.]

Morty
2012-01-19, 05:30 PM
Personally, I like it because it's huge, rich, detailed and abundant in options for players and GMs. The thing with high-level NPCs tends to get blown way out of proportion. Yes, they're there. No, they don't have to show up even once in your campaign because Faerun is a big place and they have their own things to do. And the FRCS book pretty much tells the prospective DMs that - to avoid dominating the campaigns with important NPCs.
My short-lived D&D campaign with my old group took place in FR. It was pretty fun, as our groups propensity for getting ourselves into heaps of trouble necessitated moving out of wherever we ened up quickly, so we covered a large swath of the continent during our travels.

Saph
2012-01-19, 05:48 PM
What is your overall opinion of the setting, both mechanically and fluff-wise, as a place to hold games in?
Have you ever (and if yes, do you often) played in the Forgotten Realms?
What is your best experience from playing in the setting? What is your worst?

The 3.0/3.5 Forgotten Realms is a very good campaign setting, IMO. It's the only campaign world I've ever seen that really feels as big as a world should be. Most campaign 'worlds' are the size of a large country. FR has dozens of meticulously detailed countries (complete with cities, geographical features, NPCs, and adventure locations) in just its main continent. You could literally play for the rest of your life without using all the FR source material out there.

The 4e version, unfortunately, got fairly thoroughly shredded. Most FR fans recommend avoiding it.

The prevalence of high-level NPCs in the Realms tends to get exaggerated - yes, they're there, but there's really very little reason for them to get involved in low-level campaigns. Once you get to higher levels they become important, but they also go a long way to making it feel like a real campaign world - after all, if any adventurer can get to 20th-level just by surviving enough encounters, it kinda strains plausibility that no-one has done it before the party has. It lends itself to a "there's always someone more powerful" atmosphere, as opposed to Eberron, where once the party hits the low teens there's almost nothing on the primary continent that's a challenge for them anymore. Some people dislike having lots high-level NPCs, but I prefer it - it's nice to feel that the party aren't the only competent people in the world.

I ran my first proper D&D campaign in FR, setting it in Tethyr. (The fact that you've probably never heard of Tethyr is another indication of how big FR is. :smallbiggrin:) Went from level 1 to level 7, and didn't use any of the canon NPCs once. Worked fine.

hamishspence
2012-01-19, 05:54 PM
I ran my first proper D&D campaign in FR, setting it in Tethyr. (The fact that you've probably never heard of Tethyr is another indication of how big FR is. :smallbiggrin:)

I've read some of the novels set there (Silver Shadows, War in Tethyr).

The basic sentiment about the sheer size of the Realms is sound though.

Tanuki Tales
2012-01-19, 05:56 PM
The basic sentiment about the sheer size of the Realms is sound though.

Something I too also respect, since even building a country confounds me and kills most of my homebrew settings stillborn. :smallsigh:

Morty
2012-01-19, 06:01 PM
Let's see... it's been a few years - man, time sure does fly - but I think I can remember my party's travels in that campaign.
We started in Saradush, then travelled to Calimshan. From there, we went back north again, entering Amn and then travelling futher north into the Heartlands. We were headed for Berdusk in Cormyr (I think) when our group broke because we all went to college in different cities. While we covered a large swath of terrain by any means, it was pretty modest compared to the whole of Faerun. It was largely due to my group being immature and volatile - we were young at the time - which resulted in having to run away from each town we visited. We left Calimport peacefully, but ran away from one village in the Heartlands twice, so it evened out.

LibraryOgre
2012-01-19, 06:01 PM
Disclaimer: The reason that I'm putting this thread here is because Forgotten Realms, as a campaign setting, is very old and stretches across multiple editions and multiple rule sets. If this still does not warrant this thread being in this subforum then I apologize in advance to the moderator who will have to move it.

The Mod Wonder: It works for me; that's exactly what RPG General is for: Cross edition and cross-genre. (and, to be clear, everything in black text is just me, not Voice of the Mod)



What is your overall opinion of the setting, both mechanically and fluff-wise, as a place to hold games in?
Have you ever (and if yes, do you often) played in the Forgotten Realms?
What is your best experience from playing in the setting? What is your worst?

I've been playing in the Realms for about 18 years now. I enjoy the setting at its best, and can usually tolerate it at its worst. If I run a game of D&D-like, I usually default to FR, because I know it well enough to improvise without violating the setting.



A) The importance of PCs is greatly belittled because of the existence of a multitude of incredibly powerful NPCs (such as....Eliminster I believe).
B) It is from here that one of Pun Pun's many, terrible forms flows forth.
C) That much cheese in the art of the PrC can be found in its sourcebooks (along with some overpowered feats). [For 3.X edition at least.]

I disagree with A. There is always something someone can be doing, and the only reason to bring the big NPCs in is if the players go seeking them out (occasionally, if they're in the NPCs backyard, but very seldom).

B&C are irrelevant to me, since I don't use 3.x.

My version of the Realms is mostly drawn from the 1st edition boxed set, with a few modifications. If there's not much on an area, I'll use more recent material. I include Kelemvor as a deity of the dead, because I like him more than Myrkul (who stays as a deity of undeath). I include some of the data from the Faiths and Avatars books, because they're good supplements.

General rule? If it's cool and from a later source, I keep it. If it's stupid and from a later source, I don't. Ergo, there was no Time of Troubles, but deities are concerned about their worshiper numbers because that's their power base.

Tanuki Tales
2012-01-19, 06:59 PM
I disagree with A. There is always something someone can be doing, and the only reason to bring the big NPCs in is if the players go seeking them out (occasionally, if they're in the NPCs backyard, but very seldom).



I could have sworn that the first time I read something to that end actually came from you in one of my threads, but for the life of me I can't find it. It may have just been me lurking in either a campaign thread or an Eberron question thread on the 3.5/d20 subforum. But I could swear I read you saying something about how PCs in Faerun weren't as "snow flake special".

kaomera
2012-01-19, 08:34 PM
What is your overall opinion of the setting, both mechanically and fluff-wise, as a place to hold games in?
Have you ever (and if yes, do you often) played in the Forgotten Realms?
What is your best experience from playing in the setting? What is your worst?
My overall impression of the Forgotten Realms is that it's a Sadness Bowl (ala Patton Oswalt - I'd link the bit from YouTube, but it's NSFW due to swearing). It's not really a single setting so much as it is a whole lot of campaign settings crammed together. Some of them might actually be good by themselves, but together it just makes a mess. At least that's been my experience the few times I've actually tried running a game there, players do not seem to be able to accept that they can have significant ongoing plot with a lot of recurring NPCs or they can go globetrotting... They shouldn't be asking about what's up with that one bartender they met in the Sword Coast if they if they've run off to Waterdeep for no discernible reason.

Oh, and I hate Cormyr. :smallfurious: :smallfurious: :smallfurious:

A) The importance of PCs is greatly belittled because of the existence of a multitude of incredibly powerful NPCs (such as....Eliminster I believe).
B) It is from here that one of Pun Pun's many, terrible forms flows forth.
C) That much cheese in the art of the PrC can be found in its sourcebooks (along with some overpowered feats). [For 3.X edition at least.]
A: OK, I do not believe that this actually gets exaggerated, so much as it isn't a problem in a lot of games, and could be avoided in the ones it is a problem in. However, not all players or DMs are going to avoid it - important NPCs are a part of what they want in a setting, so avoiding the issue would be counter-productive. In that case you really need to tone down a lot of the NPCs a lot, which is then going to tick off the setting purists... If you haven't had this problem personally, then it's not an issue; and if you do have this issue I think that in a way the setting is just not good for you, which is unfortunate but at some point it's unavoidable that some groups will slip through the cracks like that. Personally I just ignore the NPCs for the most part, which has really bothered some players (to the point that I had one guy give me a warning that he would quit if I refused to give him a good reason why Elminster did not show up...).

As for power levels / play balance I've never really mistaken D&D for anything like a balanced system, and I'd prefer to ban any extraneous stuff that I can get away with, so I've really never had a personal problem with that either.

Morithias
2012-01-19, 08:36 PM
I have...very mixed reactions to forgotten realms.

One yes the world is detailed, and there is a lot of geography to work with, but here's the thing...what's the big deal.

I mean if your campaign when from level 1 to level 7 and you never used most of it...what's the point of it all being there.

The NPCs, yes it makes sense that there are high level NPCs, but at the same time a lot of them are as us tv tropes user say "Suetiful all along". And yet it's clear that no character creator at WOTC has any clue how to munchkin. If he's supposedly the most powerful wizard in the fricken universe I don't want to be able to make a wizard 7 levels lower than him who can take him on and WIN.

Then there's the gods....and the wall of the faithless. Yeah when one of your main afterlife concepts makes your gods look like elder evils it doesn't exactly make me feel like a setting I want to run, being a faithless or at least skeptic myself in the real world.

To be blunt there is exactly ONE person in all of forgotten realms lore that I actually feel sympathy for....Bel. The man is fighting a fight he knows he can't win, but he has to do it or all of reality is going to be wiped away.

That guy is awesome.

Oh and I hate elves, so I hate forgotten realms for playing to the "our elves are better" bit. I do like the underdark and the drow though cause they are actually interesting to read and culture study. So that's one thing I guess you could say I like about Faerun.

One thing I do like without question of the forgotten realms is the prestiege classes. They are made of win. The Hathren, the red wizard, the maiden of pain, the deathstalker. All awesome classes that have great class abilities and such. I especially like the deathstalker's "raise dead after one hour automatically" ability. My group calls them "extra lives".

LibraryOgre
2012-01-19, 08:37 PM
I could have sworn that the first time I read something to that end actually came from you in one of my threads, but for the life of me I can't find it. It may have just been me lurking in either a campaign thread or an Eberron question thread on the 3.5/d20 subforum. But I could swear I read you saying something about how PCs in Faerun weren't as "snow flake special".

Entirely possible; I've been saying it for years.

Since I've been on a DC Comics kick recently (OMG, read everything you can find by Gail Simone), folks who argue that the Realms are unplayable because of Elminster are, IMO, essentially arguing that there should be no other heroes than Superman. After all, Superman is so powerful, why should any other heroes be around?

First, because Superman can't be everywhere, nor can he do everything... few though they may be, Clark has his limits. Secondly, because Superman still appreciates the help... while he's fighting Mongul, someone's got to be willing to tie down Clock King or King Shark. And, lastly, because other people want to be heroes. Sure, Green Arrow is never going to sell the comic books that Superman will. Put Green Arrow up against a lot of Superman's villains, and he's going to be a verdant paste in Star City. But Green Arrow is going to do his damnedest to defeat Darkseid, even if he puts in a call to the Justice League to find that the only ones left at the Hall of Justice are Wendy and Marvin.

He'll also be funnier than Superman. And usually manages to have a couple leggy blondes around.

Similarly with Elkwhisker himself. He's got limits. He appreciates the help, especially since it leaves him more time to sleep with anything ambulatory. And while your heroes may never have the degree of fame/infamy that Elmonster manages, you can still be a hero... if just for one day (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQ0J602X53c).

Terraoblivion
2012-01-19, 08:50 PM
I can't claim to like it much, but not for the usual reasons.

Rather, I dislike it because it exemplifies the greatest degree of all the ways typical D&D settings make my head hurt as a historian. I've never managed to work out how religion actually works on an institutional, existential or cultural level in the setting, to just make one example.

In general it has this patchwork feel like a setting that is stuck together by a large number of things various writers over the years have found cool, with little thought to how it relates to other parts of the setting. How does all the superlethal wildernesses between major urban centers impact trade routes for example? Where does all the food needed to feed the people of the western heartlands come from when most of the region is covered by numerous areas of wilderness that people don't enter? There are so many questions like this that show up without even looking into the confusion of how its history developed.

In short, to me it just doesn't feel like a setting so much as a lot of little setting bits glued together without much thought to how life in the setting works. I don't need explicit plothooks or detailed plans of numerous secret societies to think of plots in a setting, but I do need an idea of how society works to play a character in it and I feel that FR was never even interested in providing that.

LibraryOgre
2012-01-19, 08:52 PM
Oh, and I hate Cormyr. :smallfurious: :smallfurious: :smallfurious:

Honest question: Why?



One yes the world is detailed, and there is a lot of geography to work with, but here's the thing...what's the big deal.

I mean if your campaign when from level 1 to level 7 and you never used most of it...what's the point of it all being there.

Your next campaign can take place simultaneously, in another part of the world? Even react to the events of the previous campaign (which would actually be kinda cool...)? It also allows people to carve out their own niches of specialty, while keeping an overarching cosmology and thought.


And yet it's clear that no character creator at WOTC has any clue how to munchkin. If he's supposedly the most powerful wizard in the fricken universe I don't want to be able to make a wizard 7 levels lower than him who can take him on and WIN.

Recall, please, that Elminster comes with a fair amount of baggage... i.e., he was statted up before there was such a thing as Wizards of the Coast.


Then there's the gods....and the wall of the faithless. Yeah when one of your main afterlife concepts makes your gods look like elder evils it doesn't exactly make me feel like a setting I want to run, being a faithless or at least skeptic myself in the real world.

You know, I had to check to see if that predated WotC? (It does; page 3 of Faiths and Avatars.) Never encountered it as a concept until 3e, though.

For me, people in D&D-land, especially a world like Faerun, who actively deny all deities are a bit delusional. You've got to try to be an atheist on Faerun, since it's within living memory when there were deities walking the planet.

kaomera
2012-01-19, 09:03 PM
Honest question: Why?
I couldn't tell you exactly which products dealing with the place I've actually ended up reading (an it's definitely far from everything), and part of it is definitely from play experiences, but I can't shake the impression that the people of Cormyr (or specifically the people of Cormyr that PCs are going to end up dealing with / being) are just a bunch of elitist jerks, and incompetent to boot. They've just come off as a horrible stereotype of badly-played Paladins and / or holier-than-thou ''nobility'' who can't even keep their own house in order but are more than willing to force others onto ''the right path''.

Bleh. Even as villains that just ends up being the opposite of fun, for me.

Yora
2012-01-19, 09:25 PM
I think the Forgotten Realms are an excelent generic fantasy setting. It doesn't really have anything special and when someone would ask me what kind of setting it is, I think I'd say "a world with very powerful wizards".
It's nothing special, but it does that very well. If you have access to 2nd Edition material, it has a huge amount of source material, but doesn't get too detailed. And it feels consistent. You have a history that goes a long way back and that explains how the things came to be as they are now and how the regions are interconnected.
It has enough metropolitan areas to play in truly urban societies, but at the same time you don't have to travel far to get into dangerous wilderness.
For a kitchen sink setting of fantasy counterpart cultures, I think it is a really great setting.

But in the end, it is still a generic setting that suffers from serious bloat and simply is a child of the early 80s. Thirty years later, knights, castles, and fat merchants are just not what everyone wants. No matter how you turn it, Forgotten Realms just isn't a gritty setting and it just works best if you approach it with a clear black and white thinking.

Cormyr is as fun as the Shire. It's just too shiny and perfect, which just makes it boring. It's a fairy tale country and I never understood why one would play there when you could also play in the North, the Lands of Intrigue, or the Bloodstone Lands.


I played Forgotten Realms a lot. I'd say easily 90-95% of any RPGs I played where FR.

Belril Duskwalk
2012-01-19, 10:22 PM
I play and DM primarily in Forgotten Realms using Second Edition. I think the hugeness of the campaign setting (and the detail within it) is definitely among it's advantages. The group I currently DM for was originally planned to stick primarily to Sembia. Sembia, being a nation heavy with agriculture and merchants, is actually rather short on forests and wilderness. Of course, when I got done with a few (player-scheduling related) shuffles of PCs I somehow wound up with a group that is half Rangers who favor forests. The bright side of this in FR (for me) was that it was a brief trip North and they are in the Dalelands/Cormanthor, exactly the kind of setting Rangers fit right in with. No hassle, no re-planning, if they had decided to abandon Sembia 5-minutes in I had books of enough setting details and adventure hooks to keep them going a full session (or a few dozen) till I had to plan a new direction.

That, I feel, is one of the major benefits of a world with the size and detail of Forgotten Realms. It immediately lends itself to sandbox style play, because the setting already has surface detail enough that your players would need to actively try to find a direction where there aren't terrain features, detailed towns populated with named NPCs waiting to interact with them. And if that sandbox game turns into your PCs somehow burning every town they pass to the ground (which happens, sometimes even on purpose!) you can feel safe in the knowledge that they'll most likely kill themselves before they run out of towns.

Alleran
2012-01-19, 10:45 PM
What is your overall opinion of the setting, both mechanically and fluff-wise, as a place to hold games in?
Have you ever (and if yes, do you often) played in the Forgotten Realms?
What is your best experience from playing in the setting? What is your worst?
Mechanically? It uses the same ruleset. I don't quite understand the question.

Fluff-wise, it depends. There are places I like, and places I don't like. Recently, I've been fond of the Border Kingdoms, and Cormyr is always good for some intrigue and traitorous nobles, bandits and their ilk (so are the Lands of Intrigue - Tethyr, Amn, etc. - for obvious reasons). A place (or rather, a group) I dislike would be Zhentil Keep and the Zhentarim. They suffered a lot of villain decay because of TSR's Code of Ethics (bad guys were not allowed to win), and I just don't think they ever really recovered from that. I've seen them used very well, but there's just this niggling sensation in the back of my head that keeps on reminding me how many failures they have in the published material.


A) The importance of PCs is greatly belittled because of the existence of a multitude of incredibly powerful NPCs (such as....Eliminster I believe).
B) It is from here that one of Pun Pun's many, terrible forms flows forth.
C) That much cheese in the art of the PrC can be found in its sourcebooks (along with some overpowered feats). [For 3.X edition at least.]
I would disagree with A for reasons that have been given by others. I do agree that it has some rather stinky cheese, though. Incantatrix and the Sarrukh, among other stuff (Hathrans with Acorn of Far Travel, Circle Magic...). At least it doesn't have the Planar Shepherd on top of that.

Morty
2012-01-20, 05:06 AM
Recall, please, that Elminster comes with a fair amount of baggage... i.e., he was statted up before there was such a thing as Wizards of the Coast.


Honestly, I think the reason the statblocks of iconic NPCs in FRCS are somewhat, let's say, wonky, is that it was written in the earliest days of 3.0, and we all know WoTC didn't entirely know what they were doing at that time. The result is that for instance Drizzt, who is supposed to be a high-and-mighty badass, wouldn't be much of a threat to most characters at his level. Personally, if I were a DM and expected my party to end up in conflict with one of the statted-out NPCs, I'd rewrite their stats.



But in the end, it is still a generic setting that suffers from serious bloat and simply is a child of the early 80s. Thirty years later, knights, castles, and fat merchants are just not what everyone wants. No matter how you turn it, Forgotten Realms just isn't a gritty setting and it just works best if you approach it with a clear black and white thinking.

This is undeniable true but personally, when I want something other than a generic heroic fantasy setting, I won't play D&D in the first place.

WitchSlayer
2012-01-20, 06:25 AM
Never really liked it. I think the latest iteration improved it but I still don't really like it all that much. Would prefer homebrew or other settings like Eberron or Dark Sun.

Yanagi
2012-01-20, 07:58 AM
I've consistently had fun playing in the Realms. It's high fantasy with a lot of Tolkien notes (especially around the elves), and a bit of Hellenic Heroic Age feels (because of the gone-and-lost Gold and Silver Ages that preceded). If you can obtain the old TSR materials, they're a trove of ideas for campaigns.

The best time I've had in the Forgotten Realms was an evil campaign where we were slowly building up a syndicate on the southwestern coast--Calimshan, Tethyr, Amn. It was mostly evil-versus-evil conflict.

That said...my group, and me in particular, have vigorously chopped and edited the setting to our liking. Mostly this has been a matter of picking and choosing what 2e fine detail, novel content, and newly-printed events are "true" in our collective version of the setting. The result for us has been a major step away from the TSR "Evil can't win" guideline and aggressive rewrites for the more trite Earth-culture-proxies, and basically ignoring the content of novels.

Honestly, a lot of critiques I've seen of FR are really more about the worst conduct of certain fans than what's actually in the materials. There's the fans who are jerkish-ly insistent that elves are perfect; the fans who embrace the Sue-ness of the Mystra-related characters; and the fans who squat on Candlekeep quizzing authors rather than coming up with stuff themselves. All annoying; none the product of the actual game materials. If you're playing with people who can't get away from the "lore" and treat it like sacred canon, then I guess the whole thing is a lot less fun.

As to your concerns:

A. Overshadowing by NPCs.

The powerful NPCs are there to be used as the DM sees fit. If they're all up in your group's face, that's a problem emanating from the DM. I've played four FR campaigns totalling five years of weekly play, and never encountered one of the famous novel-having heroic NPCs, let alone had them cut in on the group's action. There's been maybe two cameos by big-name villains.

B. Mechanical Cheese

Okay...there's a bit of FR-derived cheese out there, but it's not really any more dramatic than what can be cooked up for casters with any other array of splatbooks. And the big dramatic stuff is optimization where the DM has to sign off on a certain combo of feats/PrCs. Pun-pun isn't going to happen at your table unless someone drugs the DM.

C. Non-mechanical cheese

Well...I agree with you that there's a bunch of mediocre art, but don't let that phase you. Harrumph.

Final thought: The FR setting is a giant pastiche...partly by design, partly by sedimentation of decades of materials exploiting every trope available. If you treat the materials like a tool set rather than scripture you'll have a good time.

valadil
2012-01-20, 09:24 AM
A) The importance of PCs is greatly belittled because of the existence of a multitude of incredibly powerful NPCs (such as....Eliminster I believe).
B) It is from here that one of Pun Pun's many, terrible forms flows forth.
C) That much cheese in the art of the PrC can be found in its sourcebooks (along with some overpowered feats). [For 3.X edition at least.]

A) Whether the PCs are overshadowed is up to the GM, not the setting. I could put you in a generic world I just wrote and still overshadow your character with my badass ogre DMPC, which is especially badass since regular PCs can't play ogres. I could also put your character next to Elminster and not make you feel like the little guy. How a powerful NPC is presented is up to the GM, not the NPC.

One of the choices a GM has to make when determining a setting is the role the PCs play. One of my friends insists that the PCs should always be the best in the world at whatever they've specialized in. I prefer my PCs to be underdogs. If you want big fish in a small pond, FR is the wrong setting to choose.

B-C) FR offers a lot of mechanics that I wouldn't let my PCs have access to. As a PC I wouldn't expect to have access to a great many of FR's mechanics. Those mechanics exist to represent something that happened in a novel and they may not have been thought out in game terms when the novel was written. My players understand that just because Incantatrix shows up in a book, they are not entitled to play an Incantatrix. I wouldn't play with anyone who didn't grasp that.

I really enjoy the quantity of material there is about FR. At first it was paralyzing because I have the expectation that I can digest all the setting info before planning a game. That's not going to happen in FR. What's cool about it though is that you can explore the setting with your players. Instead of rolling on a chart to find out if the town is populated by gnomes or half-elves, just look at the map and see where you end up. Tell your story around that.

Earlier I mentioned using Elminster in my last game. I never planned to use Elminster. The players found themselves heading to Shadowdale and it just turns out that that's where Elminster lives in 4e. I could have said he was out saving the world from some other threat, but that would have put the players in yet another generic town with historical significance they could observe but not touch. Instead they found Elminster. Pretty much wherever they wandered, FR was already littered with stuff I could import into my game. As a lazy GM searching for ideas, this was awesome.

Kish
2012-01-20, 10:13 AM
How do I feel about the Forgotten Realms? Oversaturated. The "everyone worships a specific god or gets horribly tortured upon death without regard for their morality" thing is a combination of silly and horrific (two awful tastes that taste loathsome together...). While I do not consider myself a fan of traditional "low magic" worlds, the level of magic in the Forgotten Realms strikes me as extremely excessive.

And about the NPCs. It's not a matter of "the setting mind-controls the DM and forces him/her to bring in Elminster all the time." It's a matter of...if you know the setting, the question, "Why isn't Elminster dealing with this?" poses itself, generally without receiving a satisfying in-character explanation.

(Non-satisfying explanations include:
"It's beneath his notice." Glad to hear what I'm doing is irrelevant in the long-term.
"He's busy doing something else." This is the same answer as above, just slightly disguised; he's classified what's going on here as Not As Important, and whether he gets around to it when he's done with what he's doing, or it has no chance of ever attracting his notice, glad to hear what I'm doing is irrelevant in the long-term.
"You're able to deal with this; he is actually unable to." This can actually work if the campaign is well into epic levels; I have yet to encounter an explanation for why Elminster would both classify something as a threat and absolutely have to leave it to a group of fifth-level adventurers that doesn't squeak with obvious contrivance.
"Elminster, Khelben, Alustriel and all those world-breakers don't exist in my version of the Forgotten Realms." This is acknowledging that there is a problem and house-ruling it away. That's certainly not a bad thing, but if someone wants to use it as a defense of the Forgotten Realms setting, that person needs to have a chat with someone named Oberoni.)

Alleran
2012-01-20, 10:30 AM
"He's busy doing something else." This is the same answer as above, just slightly disguised; he's classified what's going on here as Not As Important, and whether he gets around to it when he's done with what he's doing, or it has no chance of ever attracting his notice, glad to hear what I'm doing is irrelevant in the long-term.
I snitched this from a post on (I think, it's been a while) ENWorld by Paul Kemp:

"In any given day, Elminster (or any high powered individual we'd care to name) sleeps, eats, hits the loo, smokes his pipe, prepares his spells, tends his garden, discusses the weather with friends, plays a game of chess, reads a book, and generally lives his life. The notion that he dots around the Realms resetting hundreds of contingency spells, spends hours cutting through the defensive wards of hundreds of high level "evil" powerful beings so that he can scry them, learn of their plots, then generally foul and foil such plots is silly. He's a man. A powerful man, but a man nevertheless, with all that that implies. I think we tend to regard NPCs like Elminster the way we might regard the POV character in a video game -- he never tires, he never eats/sleeps/relaxes, he never simply takes a moment to live, and his mind has limitless capacity for containing, keeping straight, and accurately evaluating information. All of that is wrong. He's just a powerful wizard with a big reputation. The idea that he would constantly overshadow PCs is baffling to me. Given his limits as a man and the enormous amount of activity going on in the world at any time, I find it highly implausible in most cases that he would have any idea what was transpiring with the PCs, even if their quest were a high-level one. I take your point about an attack on the Weave. Were that to occur, given the assumptions of the setting, I think Elminister might get involved at some point. But barring that or an attack on Shadowdale, I just don't see him as much of a factor."

The Realms is just too large for any single character to monitor everything. Even a group of characters. There are entire organisations spread all over the world that are flat-out working to counter the schemes of the "other side" (and, relatively often, their own side as well) plus thousands if not tens upon tens of thousands of bands of adventurers (the PCs aren't the only group, after all), and they still can't catch everything that goes on, even when it's inside their area of influence (e.g. Icewind Dale for Drizzt and friends - every so often, he's off doing something else; maybe he's on the Sea Sprite with Deudermont, for example, and simply doesn't have any idea that there's a massing goblin/orc invasion brewing near Kelvin's Cairn).

It's usually Elminster that gets the most flak for it, though. I'm pretty sure that FR actually sticks more or less by the standard DMG guidelines for NPC character levels. We hear about the high-level ones (Drizzt and Elminster, to name two) because their names sell books.

Tyndmyr
2012-01-20, 10:42 AM
Entirely possible; I've been saying it for years.

Since I've been on a DC Comics kick recently (OMG, read everything you can find by Gail Simone), folks who argue that the Realms are unplayable because of Elminster are, IMO, essentially arguing that there should be no other heroes than Superman. After all, Superman is so powerful, why should any other heroes be around?

First, because Superman can't be everywhere, nor can he do everything... few though they may be, Clark has his limits. Secondly, because Superman still appreciates the help... while he's fighting Mongul, someone's got to be willing to tie down Clock King or King Shark. And, lastly, because other people want to be heroes. Sure, Green Arrow is never going to sell the comic books that Superman will. Put Green Arrow up against a lot of Superman's villains, and he's going to be a verdant paste in Star City. But Green Arrow is going to do his damnedest to defeat Darkseid, even if he puts in a call to the Justice League to find that the only ones left at the Hall of Justice are Wendy and Marvin.

He'll also be funnier than Superman. And usually manages to have a couple leggy blondes around.

Similarly with Elkwhisker himself. He's got limits. He appreciates the help, especially since it leaves him more time to sleep with anything ambulatory. And while your heroes may never have the degree of fame/infamy that Elmonster manages, you can still be a hero... if just for one day (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQ0J602X53c).

Yeah, but teleportation/super speed renders most of those arguments moot. When you can save the world in seconds, then appear anywhere else you need to be nigh-instantly, you have to wonder...how frigging often does the world need saving?

Also, I hate the wall of the faithless quite a lot. It basically turns any campaign in the realms to "and then we'll kill all the gods". Which is fun...but doesn't give much in the way of variety.

I don't really care about Pun Pun. That's TO stuff. One poorly written ability has little effect on actual games.

The prestige classes are pretty badass. They're my favorite bits of the setting, along with the time of troubles.

Alleran
2012-01-20, 10:52 AM
Yeah, but teleportation/super speed renders most of those arguments moot. When you can save the world in seconds, then appear anywhere else you need to be nigh-instantly, you have to wonder...how frigging often does the world need saving?
He can't go at top speed inside the atmosphere. If he did, he'd set it on fire.

But anyway, what happens when Superman has to be at the Daily Planet, maintaining his cover? Or doesn't want to be Superman for a while, but just wants to be Clark, and have dinner with Lois and a quiet night together? Or go out to Smallville and throw a ball with Krypto, and spend the afternoon with his parents? He does that, you know. Clark is the real person, not the Kryptonian Kal-El. He's not Superman 24/7, and he can't save everybody. He came to terms with that a long time ago.

This is all speculative, naturally. Superman obviously isn't Clark Kent, because I've seen them standing next to each other! And Clark Kent has glasses. If he took them off, he wouldn't be able to see. :smalltongue:

Saph
2012-01-20, 11:01 AM
(Non-satisfying explanations include:
"It's beneath his notice." Glad to hear what I'm doing is irrelevant in the long-term.
"He's busy doing something else." This is the same answer as above, just slightly disguised; he's classified what's going on here as Not As Important, and whether he gets around to it when he's done with what he's doing, or it has no chance of ever attracting his notice, glad to hear what I'm doing is irrelevant in the long-term.

Those are both completely valid explanations.

The idea that the PCs must be the only significantly powerful heroes in the world leads to much more inconsistent and unsatisfying gameworlds than one where there are powerful NPCs. How exactly are there any high-level threats for the PCs to fight if there aren't any powerful NPCs to deal with them? What's stopping said high-level threats from eating the civilized world fifty years before the PCs were born? And if any 1st-level party can get to 20th-level by fighting and defeating 13 CR-appropriate encounters per level, then how is it that nobody apart from the PCs has the competence to do it?

Gameworlds with no high-level NPCs kind of remind me of the worlds of the Final Fantasy game series, where everything just stays in stasis until the party does something. It's the It's Up To You (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ItsUpToYou) trope. Fun for a while, but eventually it gets ridiculous. What the hell is the point of saving a world where every single other inhabitant is so passive?

Kurald Galain
2012-01-20, 11:02 AM
Also, I hate the wall of the faithless quite a lot. It basically turns any campaign in the realms to "and then we'll kill all the gods".

I'm really curious how you came to that conclusion.


(edit)

A) Whether the PCs are overshadowed is up to the GM, not the setting. I could put you in a generic world I just wrote and still overshadow your character with my badass ogre DMPC, which is especially badass since regular PCs can't play ogres. I could also put your character next to Elminster and not make you feel like the little guy. How a powerful NPC is presented is up to the GM, not the NPC.
Also, this. Very much. Of the two campaigns I've played where we were consistently overshadowed by DMPCs, neither had anything to do with the Forgotten Realms. Both were just not an example of bad DM'ing, and Elminster is hardly required for that.

Tyndmyr
2012-01-20, 12:03 PM
I'm really curious how you came to that conclusion.

Anyone who wishes to torture and destroy me unless I perform his demands is quite clearly not my friend. The choice is simple...go along with it, or attempt to fight it. I'm not a great fan of the first option, and would have difficulty RPing anyone who was willing to worship someone that's basically a self declared ball of evilness.

Saph
2012-01-20, 12:27 PM
Anyone who wishes to torture and destroy me unless I perform his demands is quite clearly not my friend.

It's a while since I've read the FR cosmology, but I'm pretty sure that's not how it works. Got a page reference?

Tyndmyr
2012-01-20, 12:31 PM
It's a while since I've read the FR cosmology, but I'm pretty sure that's not how it works. Got a page reference?

Away from book atm. But if you die as one of the faithless(ie, no divine patron). This is distinct from not believing that gods exist...it's just simply not having one you worship. Or your patron died. Sucks for you.

So, since all the deities accept and use this system of judgement, all of them are at fault for it's existence.

And yes, being bound to the wall is torture/annihilation.

So...unless I worship them, that's my fate, and it's their fault. Pretty crapsack system, and the only real options are to shrug and go along with it or tear it all down.

INDYSTAR188
2012-01-20, 12:45 PM
In my group we almost exclusively play in the FR. We have had some homebrew and Eberron experiences in there as well, but for the most part it's all FR. I enjoy the setting (both 3.x and 4E) and think that it is an excellent place to hold a game. There are literally hundreds of campaign and adventure ideas there, the best part being that you can pick and choose what to use and not use. If you're playing 4E, Mystra can still be alive if you want or you could have an entire campaign centered around bringing her back.

As far as powerful NPC's go, it's up to you as the DM to decide how, where, and what they're doing in your game. In my Realms they're semi-accessible and occasionally can be ran into (sometimes without identifying themselves). But rarely do they play a huge role in anything the PC's are going to do.

As for all the Cormyr hate, I can see how you might think it's a generic kingdom but I would like to present to you some of the plots and adventure ideas from FRCG 4E:


Darkhold: West of Cormyr in the Far Hills is a high-spired keep rising from a bare rocky spur on the side of Gray Watcher Mountain. This echoing stronghold was a fortress under the control of the Zhents and remains so to this day, despite Zhentil Keep's failed fortunes. Darkhold's massive doorways, corridors, and ceilings of black stone were constructed for giants. Legends ascribe the keeps construction to the days when giants ruled Faerun or to elder elementals serving as slaves for the kingdoms of Netheril. At present, the citadel houses a force of Zhent mercenaries available for any task, no matter the perfidy required.

Belendithas of the Dusk: A shade assassin stalks the countryside and cities of Cormyr, killing lords and commoners alike. Some say that he is an agent of the Netheril. Others believe he has come to Cormyr to flee Shadovar justice. Either way, he is a force to fear, if an enemy contracts with him to take your life. His fee is a mere 100 gold coins - and a newborn human baby. What he does with the child is unknown.

Aurgloroasa and the Thunder Peaks: A dracolich named Aurgloroasa lairs in the abandoned dwarven city of Thunderholme, which lies in the Thunder Peaks. Named for the sudden and devastating storms that batter them all year, they are home to tribes of Orcs and Goblins that bear no love for Cormyr, Sembia, or the Dales.


And that's not even all of the ideas in the FRCG for Cormyr, let alone the political intrigue, mounting tension with Netheril, ect ect. I can certainly understand that some people might not like FR, it's like the DnD flagship, something even my wife knows a little bit about and she doesn't play at all. But, really in my opinion, it's just like any other resource you can buy, a lot of interesting options to pick and choose at your leisure.

As for a cool experience I've had in the Realms:

In my current game the PC's all started in Cormyr and have made enemies of one of the Barons. He has been plotting to open a portal to the Shadowfell to eventually unleash Orcus onto the world. He is a well liked and respected leader from all the political powers that matter and even donates money to orphanages and the poor. He recently gifted a very nice gold ring with a astral diamond set into it (that is in actuality his phylactery) to the King of Cormyr. The PC's are slowly winning the people over and have just learned that undead are being spotted at an alarming rate all over Cormyr.

Saph
2012-01-20, 12:47 PM
So, since all the deities accept and use this system of judgement, all of them are at fault for it's existence.

Doesn't follow. Deities aren't omnipotent in FR - just because something happens in the afterlife doesn't mean they set it up that way.

Kurald Galain
2012-01-20, 12:53 PM
Away from book atm. But if you die as one of the faithless(ie, no divine patron). This is distinct from not believing that gods exist...it's just simply not having one you worship. Or your patron died. Sucks for you.

I'm pretty sure that's Kelemvor's responsibility, and not anyone else's. He gets all the souls that nobody else wants, and he has chosen to make a wall out of them (or maybe it was his predecessor, and he has chosen to keep it that way). Not very nice, but then Kelemvor is not particularly known for being nice.

(edit) Checking my Realmslore - yes, it was Myrkul who did that, and the rest of the pantheon didn't have a say in that.

So yeah, you could overthrow the god of the dead. It's hardly the first time that has happened in the FR.

Tyndmyr
2012-01-20, 01:02 PM
Doesn't follow. Deities aren't omnipotent in FR - just because something happens in the afterlife doesn't mean they set it up that way.

They are, however, pretty damned powerful. I'll cite NWN 2, in which you can tear down the wall as a mortal, and if you do so, you break part of the covenant between gods and mortals.

So yeah, any of them could have put a stop to it if they really wanted to, but all of them are pretty comfortable with things as they are.

Edit: And yes, acceptance by those who came after Myrkul does not make them less responsible.

Saph
2012-01-20, 01:04 PM
So yeah, any of them could have put a stop to it if they really wanted to, but all of them are pretty comfortable with things as they are.

You're not making any sense. "Any of the gods" could put a stop to it? What if two other gods opposed them? Honestly, I think you're just looking for reasons to be angry at this point.

Also, on the topic "why doesn't Elminster or [insert epic-level character here] solve all the world's problems" I think I remember a sidebar in one of the books answering that specific question. Let's see if it's on the Net somewhere . . .

Here it is. From Realms Helps:


The Concerns of the Mighty

There comes a time when every student and many a passing merchant, farmer, and king, too, demands the same answer of me: Why, O meddler and, mighty mage, do ye not set the crooked straight? Why not strike directly against the evils that threaten Faerūn? Why db not all mighty folk of food heart not simply make eyerything right?

I've heard that cry so many times. Now hearken, once and for all, to my answers as to why the great and powerful don't fix Toril entire every day.

First, it is not at all certain that those of us with the power or the inclination can even accomplish a tenth of the deed asked of us. The forces arrayed against us are dark and strong indeed. I might surprise Manshoon or old Szass Tam and burn him from the face of Toril - but he might do the same to me. It's a rash and short-lived hero who presses for battle when victory is not assured.

Second, the wise amongst us know that even gods can't foresee all the consequences of their actions - and all of us have seen far too many instances of good things turning out to cause something very bad, or unwanted. We've learned that meddling often does far more harm than good.

Third: Few folk can agree on what is right, what should be done, and what the best end result would be. When ye consider a mighty stroke; be assured that every move is apt to be countered by someone who doesn't like the intended result, is determined to stop it, and is quite prepared to lay waste to you, your kingdom, and anything else necessary to confound you.

Point the fourth: Big changes can seldom be effected by small actions. How much work does it take just to build one house? Rearrange one room? How many simple little actions, then, will it take to destroy one kingdom and raise another - with name, ruler, and societal order of your choice - in its place?

Finally: D'ye think we "mighty ones" are blind? Do we not watch each other, and guess at what each is doing, and reach out and do some little thing that hampers the aims of another great and mighty? We'll never be free of this problem, and that's a good thing. I would cower at the thought of living in any Faerūn where all the mighty and powerful folk agreed perfectly on everything. That's the way of slavery and shackles and armed tyranny ... and if ye'd like to win a bet, wager that ye'll be near the bottom of any such order.

Right. Any more silly questions?

Tyndmyr
2012-01-20, 01:11 PM
You're not making any sense. "Any of the gods" could put a stop to it? What if two other gods opposed them? Honestly, I think you're just looking for reasons to be angry at this point.

But no such conflict exists, so far as I am aware. No god has considered it important to make an issue out of or tried to fix it. If one of them wished to, and attempted to do so, but was unable, you'd have a good case for them not having any blame for the situation. However, instead everyone appears to passively accept the situation and benefit from it.

Also, that's a terrible explanation. Especially 4. Yes, big changes come from small actions all the time. The unintentional slight to a king, the oversight of a small weakness...these things can have massive repercussions in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Saph
2012-01-20, 01:18 PM
But no such conflict exists, so far as I am aware. No god has considered it important to make an issue out of or tried to fix it.

You might want to take a look at this (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Kelemvor).

123456789blaaa
2012-01-20, 01:21 PM
"But no such conflict exists, so far as I am aware. No god has considered it important to make an issue out of or tried to fix it. If one of them wished to, and attempted to do so, but was unable, you'd have a good case for them not having any blame for the situation. However, instead everyone appears to passively accept the situation and benefit from it."

actually after kelemvor became the god of the dead he tried to fix it.

"Kelemvor, however, was more lenient on those Faithless and False who were virtuous and honorable in life, while the ones who were cowardly or capricious were severely punished. Those souls being judged as noble, would be sent to the then merrier and heaven-like parts in the City of Death, such as the Singing City, or Pax Cloister, while for thieves and cowards there were hell-like parts of the City such as Acid Swamps.

As a result, honorable and brave mortals no longer feared death, and recklessly threw their lives away, trusting in Kelemvor's judgment rather the worshiping of other benevolent gods. The cowardly and crafty mortals became too fearful to do much, lest they die and find themselves before Kelemvor. This, in combination with Mystra's unjust granting of magic, favoring only those good, brought unintentional imbalance and robbed the other deities of potential worshipers. Being exposed by Cyric, Kelemvor and Mystra were accused by the Circle of Greater Gods of being guilty of Incompetence by Humanity.

Kelemvor wondered how he could judge the damned, when he himself failed his own personal judgment. He gradually came to realize that there is nothing human in being a god. To correct his mistakes, great changes were undergone in his realm, as well as in himself. The City of the Dead was changed to a gray world, not truly light, not totally dark, simply dull gray. Gone was the good and evil in the City, only indifference and silence remained. The once diamond-like Crystal Spire was also smoked the color of topaz. Kelemvor also rid himself of all signs of humanity in order to properly fulfill his duties, which means replacing the warrior-like human he used to assume with a darkly robed figure, his raven black hair turned to silver, his eyes became pupiless, his appearance aged, his armor tattered and black, and donned a silver death mask.

He then conducted the Re-evaluation, where all souls in the City were to be judged according to new criteria, then be sentenced to new places in the City. Souls being judged will not find torture, but neither will they find joy. They will exist with souls ethically similar to themselves."

edit: ninja'd

Diamondeye
2012-01-20, 01:23 PM
I pretty much only use FR for DMing anymore, and I vastly prefer to play it, as long as it is not the 4.0 version. In terms of the Edition Wars, I thought the reboot to FR far overshadowed any real or imagined inter-edition debates, at least in terms of my desire. If I play 4E, I don't want it to be in FR unless it's using the 3.X setting.

That said, things I like about the setting:

1) It's really quite large. There are a lot of areas that have not been extensively explored in novels if you want to get away from the characters that have appeared repeatedly.
2) Mechanically, you can use just about anything you want in it. It doesn't place large numbers of classes "off limits" or insist on replacing them with its own setting-specific versions.
3) There is a lot going on besides just what the PCs are up to. Even if PCs are "heros" in your campaign (i.e. not just adventurers that happen to be the PCs, but something special), they don't feel like the entire world revolves around them for no apparent reason.

Those are the three big things about the setting as a whole. There are a zillion smaller things I like as well

Things I dislike:
1) Certain areas and characters are rather overused, not just in the books but in the campaigns I've played in as well. The two tend to correspond to each other.
2) While I don't really need it to be gritty per se, I would like the world to feel a little less well-explored. The 1E boxed set (I'm unbelievably jealous of whoever said they still have one) evoked this feel nicely and it's been missing since

I have found that places like the South (as in, anywhere south of Cormyr and staying east of Calimshan) has a lot less "book baggage" and allows a lot more freedom to do as you please. Some of the areas north and east from the Moonsea work as well, not to mention a lot of the east in general. Even if it's been in books, it hasn't appeared over and over and over the way a lot of the Sword Coast and environs has.

If you can lay hands on it, I highly recommend the 2E Forgotten Realms Atlas. This shows the entire planet and gives good views of the areas that tend to be at the edge of maps published elsewhere. I think it's an invaluable resource.

As to the issue of the gods.. I'd say that's the same thing as many alignment debates. Don't try to impose real-world values or philosophical vagaries on the setting.

Kurald Galain
2012-01-20, 01:31 PM
Anyone who wishes to torture and destroy me unless I perform his demands is quite clearly not my friend.

Conversely, any FR deity will save you from the torture and destruction, if you are his friend. So why not befriend one?

Suppose you were born in a Realms village somewhere, then you would have been raised knowing that Chauntea saves all the villagers from destruction, and provides you with a yearly harvest. That's a pretty cool lady, that Chauntea. So why wouldn't you want to be her friend?

(substitute Chauntea by Corellon, or Moradin, or whatever deity is appropriate for your character's race and birthplace)

hamishspence
2012-01-20, 01:31 PM
Deities and Demigods has a slightly different take on what it requires to qualify as "The Faithless"

p6:

"In the Forgotten Realms campaign setting, for example, the souls of those with no patron deity are consigned to wander the Fugue Plane until they are either taken in by a merciful deity or captured by demon or devil raiders and drafted into service in their infernal war. The souls of the "faithless," those who actively opposed the worship of the gods, are bound into the living wall around the City of Judgement, from which they can never return. In the world of Toril, nearly everyone has a patron deity."

GungHo
2012-01-20, 02:12 PM
In short, to me it just doesn't feel like a setting so much as a lot of little setting bits glued together without much thought to how life in the setting works. I don't need explicit plothooks or detailed plans of numerous secret societies to think of plots in a setting, but I do need an idea of how society works to play a character in it and I feel that FR was never even interested in providing that.
They have had tons of this stuff through the years. Many of the AD&D 1 & 2 suppliments were full of this. 3E definitely got more crunchy, but it still had some of this novelty information.


Honestly, I think the reason the statblocks of iconic NPCs in FRCS are somewhat, let's say, wonky, is that it was written in the earliest days of 3.0, and we all know WoTC didn't entirely know what they were doing at that time. The result is that for instance Drizzt, who is supposed to be a high-and-mighty badass, wouldn't be much of a threat to most characters at his level. Personally, if I were a DM and expected my party to end up in conflict with one of the statted-out NPCs, I'd rewrite their stats.
Their statblocks have been wonky since Hall of Heroes (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Hall_of_Heroes). They've never been good at translating the novel characters into statblocks, mostly because the novel characters aren't really written with respect to how the game actually works. Which is fine... because reading a novel where they try to simulate how any D&D edition fight would occur would be painful.


Final thought: The FR setting is a giant pastiche...partly by design, partly by sedimentation of decades of materials exploiting every trope available. If you treat the materials like a tool set rather than scripture you'll have a good time.
It's also a body of work that encompasses the efforts of many authors and designers. While Ed Greenwood made the initial design and owned the "bible" for some time, some items were clearly bolted on, wedged in, and foisted upon the setting when it became popular. Bloodstone Pass, Kara-Tur, and several other "countries" were among the many adds.

Through several editions of the setting, they modified the setting maps (2E to 3E took made a lot of changes), created cataclysms to justify rule changes, and held other world-changing events to change the focus of the setting for whatever TSR or WotC thought would sell (e.g. shifting the main villains from the Zhentarim to the Drow to the Yuan-Ti to the Thayans to the Shadovar). Those changes, while sometimes intriguing, have made "normalization" a bit difficult for anyone trying to integrate everything that's been published.


"It's beneath his notice." Glad to hear what I'm doing is irrelevant in the long-term.
Does your Congressman say, "well, Kish, it's wonderful that you took the time to volunteer at the hospital. I know that I have thousands of constituents to serve and lobbyists beating down my door, but I just wanted to tell you that time when you took that old lady to the gift shop... that was outstanding! Here's a Dagger +2 with your name on it. Remember to vote."?

Kurald Galain
2012-01-20, 02:19 PM
reading a novel where they try to simulate how any D&D edition fight would occur would be painful.

And of course, such novels exist. Back in the day of TSR there were a lot of writers, some of which were just not very good; not everybody is an Ed Greenwood, after all. I'm pretty sure WOTC fired the bad ones, though :smallamused:

Hanuman
2012-01-20, 02:21 PM
Disclaimer: The reason that I'm putting this thread here is because Forgotten Realms, as a campaign setting, is very old and stretches across multiple editions and multiple rule sets. If this still does not warrant this thread being in this subforum then I apologize in advance to the moderator who will have to move it.


Exactly what the title says folks, but here are three starter questions concerning the topic:

What is your overall opinion of the setting, both mechanically and fluff-wise, as a place to hold games in?
Have you ever (and if yes, do you often) played in the Forgotten Realms?
What is your best experience from playing in the setting? What is your worst?

My only personal experience with the setting is from this forum in particular and from reading the Legend of Drizzt novel series and those one undead novels that I can't remember the title of.

The one thing that sticks in my mind about the setting though is that:

A) The importance of PCs is greatly belittled because of the existence of a multitude of incredibly powerful NPCs (such as....Eliminster I believe).
B) It is from here that one of Pun Pun's many, terrible forms flows forth.
C) That much cheese in the art of the PrC can be found in its sourcebooks (along with some overpowered feats). [For 3.X edition at least.]
Great setting, not a fan of exclusive use.

Need_A_Life
2012-01-20, 02:28 PM
What is your overall opinion of the setting, both mechanically and fluff-wise, as a place to hold games in?
I don't like it. It's a bit bland, if you ask me, although I'm sure people will disagree. I like some of the organisations and isolated concepts, but I find it much faster to take what I like than scrap everything I find indistinguishable from "Random GM Pseudo-Middle Earth Homebrew High Fantasy setting."
I've enjoyed a few of the books (a couple of Elminster ones as well as one Drizzt [Who is probably spelled differently]).


Have you ever (and if yes, do you often) played in the Forgotten Realms?Yes and only once, so I can't list a frequency.


What is your best experience from playing in the setting? What is your worst?
Best part: GM making Waterdeep interesting.
Worst part: Info-dump from the FR-enthusiast next to me, who had every FR book more or less memorised.

I'm also put off by the setting painting canon NPCs as being "cooler than thou." I'm not roleplaying to be a mook, but to be a hero/villain. I'm not saying I have to be the best, but being akin to a faceless minion compared to the important (NPC) movers and shakers grows boring fast.

It's part of the reason I liked it when WotC stated that none of the Eberron novels were canon.

Terraoblivion
2012-01-20, 02:29 PM
They have had tons of this stuff through the years. Many of the AD&D 1 & 2 suppliments were full of this. 3E definitely got more crunchy, but it still had some of this novelty information.

I've read a fair bit of that actually and while it does male certain Arlas make more sense, it still doesn't do much to make the setting as a whole fit together. Not just that things like religion or the overall history still doesn't make any sense. It also has a notable tendency to treat different locations as existing in a vacuum.

nyarlathotep
2012-01-20, 02:40 PM
Referring to A. I don't have a problem with super powerful NPCs, but I have a problem with Forgotten Realm's super NPCs. My problem is that Forgotten Realms does not feel like a setting that has high level people running around, even for 2nd edition. Why is it that anyone in a country with someone like Elminister running around ever have to farm, or fight with massed armies, or anything else that allows it to be a medieval pastiche.

There were a few places that felt like high power magic was at work, specifically AD&D high level magic, and those are the part of the Forgotten Realms that I like, but they are not the majority of it. The main places that showcase good use of high level NPCs are the various monster cities in the Underdark, the Thay/Rashoman (sp?) region and its conflicts, and the various ancient empires from the distant past that used floating mountains as cities. If magic were integrated into the entire setting like in these locations and in Eberron, then I wouldn't have a problem with the high level NPCs, but because it isn't I tend to run the Realms like most of them don't exist. Additionally I only run it as AD&D because the 3rd edition rules do not suit the setting at all.

Tyndmyr
2012-01-20, 02:41 PM
Conversely, any FR deity will save you from the torture and destruction, if you are his friend. So why not befriend one?

Suppose you were born in a Realms village somewhere, then you would have been raised knowing that Chauntea saves all the villagers from destruction, and provides you with a yearly harvest. That's a pretty cool lady, that Chauntea. So why wouldn't you want to be her friend?

(substitute Chauntea by Corellon, or Moradin, or whatever deity is appropriate for your character's race and birthplace)

A "do what I say, and I save you from this artificially imposed fate" is nothing more or less than someone taking me hostage. That is not the act of a friend. That's the act of a blackmailer. Such a person cannot really be accorded respect and worship, at least, not if your character tends toward the good side of the alignment spectrum.

Savannah
2012-01-20, 03:06 PM
I haven't ever used the Forgotten Realms because I'm not a huge fan of the "and the kitchen sink, too" approach to setting design (I can easily do that myself) and it's just too big. I have never found a clear place to start and I'm not about to spend ages figuring it out when I could be spending the time writing my own setting tailored to the campaign I want to run.

Kurald Galain
2012-01-20, 03:18 PM
A "do what I say, and I save you from this artificially imposed fate" is nothing more or less than someone taking me hostage. That is not the act of a friend. That's the act of a blackmailer.

Ah, but here's the thing. You feel that way, but your character doesn't have to share that feeling. And since your character doesn't have to feel that way, it does not follow that every FR campaign must end with an attempt to kill all the gods.

Tyndmyr
2012-01-20, 03:20 PM
Ah, but here's the thing. You feel that way, but your character doesn't have to share that feeling. And since your character doesn't have to feel that way, it does not follow that every FR campaign must end with an attempt to kill all the gods.

I only see two possible outcomes to this that are sane, though. Yield and go with the flow, or fight it. The type of character that selects the first option when faced with adversity is a rather odd choice for an adventurer.

INDYSTAR188
2012-01-20, 05:03 PM
I haven't ever used the Forgotten Realms because I'm not a huge fan of the "and the kitchen sink, too" approach to setting design (I can easily do that myself) and it's just too big. I have never found a clear place to start and I'm not about to spend ages figuring it out when I could be spending the time writing my own setting tailored to the campaign I want to run.

I don't have any doubt that your own setting is pretty awesome, but what I like about the Realms is that no matter what kind of campaign you want, you can probably find it in there. Say you want to run a game that's entirely in a huge city, well there's several places already available to you to reference for that... Waterdeep, Luskan, Boulders Gate, Calimshan. The point I'm trying to make is that if you have an idea, you can just find where in the realms that is similar and use the background there to build upon. Plus, it's not likely that your game would go through every place in Faerun, probably just focus on a small region at first and expand to a larger area as it gains in scope.

Belril Duskwalk
2012-01-21, 10:12 AM
I only see two possible outcomes to this that are sane, though. Yield and go with the flow, or fight it. The type of character that selects the first option when faced with adversity is a rather odd choice for an adventurer.

I feel our definitions of 'sane' diverge significantly if trying to kill the gods falls within your definition set. :amused:

There are (or at least in 2nd ed. FR there were) a huge number of gods in the standard pantheon, not counting every other race having a half dozen or so gods in their own pantheons. I find it difficult to imagine a character that couldn't find common ground with at least one of them. Especially when some of the gods are dedicated to things so broad as 'Magic', 'Nature', 'Mercy' and 'Luck'. Few of these gods have anything that could be described as very strict requirements of their lay-followers.

Yora
2012-01-21, 10:20 AM
You don't go looking for a god that fits you. You follow the one your parents did, or pick up another one that is followed by the organization you serve.
It's not like chosing a car manufacturer who produces the model that suits you best.

Alleran
2012-01-21, 11:39 AM
Few of these gods have anything that could be described as very strict requirements of their lay-followers.
Not to mention that you'd still give at least lip-service to other deities as well - it's a polytheistic system in which the gods are known to exist. Umberlee may be a crazy and evil goddess, but you would find very few sailors (even Lawful Good ones) who wouldn't toss a few coins her way and perhaps a prayer before they left port. Or a wizard who makes a brief prayer to Mystra (or Azuth, or Savras) before embarking on a difficult bit of spell research.

Worship is simply what you do. It doesn't have to be a very big part of your life (unless you're a cleric or paladin of a deity, naturally). It's a little bit like Greek religion, actually. If you were about to go sailing, you'd give Poseidon a prayer asking that he smile upon you.

You could also look at the Drizzt books for an example. The titular character hardly spends every waking moment praying to Mielikki. I don't even think he prays to her more than a handful of times across the entire corpus of stories involving him.

deuxhero
2012-01-21, 01:50 PM
OK as a setting under 1 condition.

Stay! Off! The! Sword! Coast! (and Dalelands for that matter.)

TheArsenal
2012-01-21, 01:55 PM
1:
Kinda bland to be honest. It just lacks a personality.

2:

Nope.

Yora
2012-01-21, 03:18 PM
I think that nails it. It's a solid setting, but it just doesn't have special appeal except being big and well developed. But other settings have that as well.

Terraoblivion
2012-01-21, 06:50 PM
Eberron's afterlife is rather similar to the Greek one, really. Also, it kinda portrays the afterlife as a non-entity and not really relevant outside how religions interpret it and what they promise and threaten with after death, so pretty close to reality all told.

Terraoblivion
2012-01-21, 07:20 PM
Not really. There's substantial theological and scholarly discussion in Eberron about whether the shades of Doluhr are actually the souls of the dead or simply reflections of them. Not just that, among those who believe the former there is a discussion about what happens to those shades that vanishes, with the most popular position being that it is essentially purgatory before they go on to their final reward.

Still, the ontological status of the shades is such that it isn't all that different from a big. I dunno. And in any case, it's still basically the same as the ancient Greek, especially in older mythology where Tartaros and Elysium wasn't as big a deal.

Diamondeye
2012-01-22, 05:17 PM
I only see two possible outcomes to this that are sane, though. Yield and go with the flow, or fight it. The type of character that selects the first option when faced with adversity is a rather odd choice for an adventurer.

I think you're imposing on the fictional adventurer in question the desire to be a Faithless in the first place.

First of all, having to worship a god, especially in an FR-type setting where the gods not only are real but provide a major tangible benefit to the world in the form of divine magic "adversity" is really stretching the meaning of the term. This is compounded by the fact that there's no requirement to be terribly devout unless one is a paladin, cleric, crusader, or something like that and there's hardly any requirement to be any of those things.

Any given character might have an issue with one or more individual gods, but seeing as there's a multitude of gods it's quite hard to imagine a person having an issue with the tenets of all of them. Similarly, in FR it's rather hard to envision an atheist or agnostic in the sense we use the terms on Earth, because the gods not only grant major powers to their followers but actually show up in person every so often. It's very hard to imagine that there's any serious intellectual debate about the existence of the gods in Faerun. They might legitimately debate what's a god and what's a very powerful non-divine being (Orcus, for example, might be the topic of some pretty serious argument), or what the true nature of godhood is, and those would be the theological questions that would occupy the great thinkers of the setting.

It's possible to envision a character concept of a person that resents the fact of the god's power and demand for worship and wants to hunt down and kill them, but imposing this as the necessary endstate of the thought process of every "sane" adventurer is... at best, highly strained logic.

One might, in fact, ask why the gods should bother doing anything better with someone that lives in a world they either created, or at least help maintain, depending on how you want to look at FR creation myth, in which they benefit from healing, disease and poison curing, and other sorts of magic, and yet gets angry that they need to pick just one of the multitudes of deities available as a patron and pay lip service to him or her. It seems that your argument rests on the idea that everyone not onyl wants to, but feels entitled to, not worship any gods in Faerun, at the least if they're an accomplished person. Some people here and there might feel that way, but it is hardly the logical conclusion of the setting, especially since you are focusing on what the gods are demanding and ignoring what they provide.

LibraryOgre
2012-01-22, 07:41 PM
How do you expect the setting to react to it? Get angry and overthrow the deities who provide real and tangible benefits? Mass emigration to another Crystal Sphere?

Kurald Galain
2012-01-22, 08:35 PM
I don't think it'd get half the negative real world reaction if they'd have just included some reaction in the metaplot.

Frankly I think you may be overstating the real-world reaction. I've been playing in the FR for years now, and before last week I had no idea this viewpoint even existed.

Tiki Snakes
2012-01-23, 01:16 AM
Yeah, I can only really imagine that if I were to play a FR campaign far enough into high levels/epic, the Wall and then the Gods become increasingly probable targets.

But that's mostly because I feel, out of character, that it's the correct thing to do. It's certainly conceivable that there are people, powerful people even, who don't have a problem with the wall.

I could even play one.
But I probably wouldn't want to, because the fact that the gods are little more than powerful spirits or demons with more restrictive guidelines gets my personal goat and pushes some powerful psychological triggers in me and then I start seeing Bullseyes on them. Of course, once you have torn down the wall and broken the tyrany of the gods, you'd have to deal with their overlord, the End Boss to end all End Bosses, Ao.

I'm sure I've heard there was a suggestion that Ao also had a higher power to answer to, but if I understand correctly he'd be easier to deal with.
It's the DM, throw cheetos at him.

But we rarely play in the FR (and when we did most recently, we ended up plane-hopping anyway), and even more rarely go anywhere near high levels, so it kind of isn't an issue.

Alleran
2012-01-23, 01:17 AM
The FR gods didn't exactly strike me as the kind of group that would be able to successfully keep a lid on the full details of the wall of the faithless and their reaction towards Kelemvor deciding it was a stupid idea.
Would you be able to refresh my memory on exactly where it's stated that the other deities forced Kelemvor to put the wall back up, presuming that's what you're referring to with the "Kelemvor deciding it was a stupid idea" part?

Alleran
2012-01-23, 01:56 AM
What exactly do you think that whole trial and finding him derelict in his duties as a god by virtue of guilt by humanity was?
Yes, but that was concluded when Kelemvor made the decision (since he had unknowingly been poaching followers from other deities, confirmed when he sent Avner to investigate death on Toril) to re-order his realm. The Avatar series (Trial of Cyric the Mad) did not, to my recollection, actually result in the Wall of the Faithless going back up.

Kelemvor changed it so that souls who were Faithless or False would not find punishment in his realm. Neither would they find joy - they would exist with souls ethically similar to themselves, nothing more and nothing less. That's basically what it was as of the end of the Avatar series:

"No longer would Lord Death's judgments be decrees of eternal bliss or unending agony. Now the dead would make of their lot what they could, just as they had in life, except that they would dwell only with others like themselves..."

"As the Usurper [Kelemvor] spoke, he opened the gates of his city. Many gods did as he asked, though Sune turned around at the mirrored gates; the reflection of her slightest flaw was enough to convince her Lord Death had done all he claimed. The others continued on, swooping down ashen streets crowded with dull-eyed residents, passing whole boroughs of drab buildings and dead trees, crossing graceless bridges that spanned still waters the colour of steel. They saw no cruelty or malice, but neither did they see joy; Lord Death's realm had become a domain of shuffling spirits and passionless shades, a place of neither punishment nor reward. And in the heart of this dismal city loomed the Crystal Spire, a soaring minaret of smoky brown topaz encircled by a line of sorrowful spirits, the False and the Faithless."

There is no mention of the Wall that I can find on looking through the novel - Kelemvor didn't put it back up in the Avatar series.

The Wall of the Faithless first appeared again after its original removal in, as far as I can tell, the 3rd edition FRCS (which stated that the Faithless are put into the Wall, while the False are simply punished according to their crimes in life, which may vary depending on what their crimes were). I know of no setting-specific sourcebook or FR novel that gives the reason for its return as being because the other gods forced Kelemvor to put it back. I don't know of any sourcebook or novel that says why it came back at all, actually.

Tyndmyr
2012-01-23, 11:08 AM
The Wall of the Faithless first appeared again after its original removal in, as far as I can tell, the 3rd edition FRCS (which stated that the Faithless are put into the Wall, while the False are simply punished according to their crimes in life, which may vary depending on what their crimes were). I know of no setting-specific sourcebook or FR novel that gives the reason for its return as being because the other gods forced Kelemvor to put it back. I don't know of any sourcebook or novel that says why it came back at all, actually.

I'm not trying to blame a specific god here...but if the wall exists, then someone put it up, and is responsible for it...and that someone is almost certainly a god. And such a major change to the disposition of souls that are not specifically bound to any god is something that basically every god would have to consider acceptable for this to continue to exist.


I think you're imposing on the fictional adventurer in question the desire to be a Faithless in the first place.

Not at all. Say you and I drink Mountain Dew. Along comes an immensely powerful individual who says that you must drink a kind of soda routinely, or he'll shoot you. Now, you and I might not be on his immediate target list, but this guy is clearly unbalanced and dangerous. Your options are to either try to avoid ever being one of his targets, and hope someone else fixes the problem, or try to fix it yourself.

And hell, you might even know people who never really bothered with the whole soda thing. That just makes it more pressing to deal with him.

Lapak
2012-01-23, 11:40 AM
Not at all. Say you and I drink Mountain Dew. Along comes an immensely powerful individual who says that you must drink a kind of soda routinely, or he'll shoot you. Now, you and I might not be on his immediate target list, but this guy is clearly unbalanced and dangerous. Your options are to either try to avoid ever being one of his targets, and hope someone else fixes the problem, or try to fix it yourself.

And hell, you might even know people who never really bothered with the whole soda thing. That just makes it more pressing to deal with him.But it's not as inconsequential as soda choice. Let's reframe the options:

You live in a city that is in the middle of a civil war. There is one potential ruler who is well-known for being a generous and fair magistrate - if they win, they will ensure that peace and prosperity are shared across the city. There is another potential ruler who openly professes a desire to be a tyrannical dictator and swears that he will reward those who serve him and crush those who oppose him. You are choosing to try to be an island of neutrality in the middle of this war, claiming that it doesn't concern you in your day-to-day life and being forced to choose a side is unfair.

From the tyrant's perspective, you are not supporting him and are thus fair game. He's not going to go out of his way to crush you, but he will when he gets around to it.

From the magistrate's perspective, you are actively ignoring the destruction and pain being inflicted by the tyrant. You're standing by as others bleed and die to secure the freedom of the city and claiming that "it's not your problem" and "I shouldn't have to be involved." You are allowing Evil to flourish through mere sloth and disinterest and people around you suffer as a result - even just declaring your support for him would increase his power-base enough to make a difference in people's lives, and you won't even do THAT. Your petty selfishness is measurably hurting other people out of all proportion to the effort it would take to prevent. That's evil-by-apathy, and he'll judge you for it.

Tyndmyr
2012-01-23, 12:05 PM
But it's not as inconsequential as soda choice. Let's reframe the options:

By reframing it, you have broken the analogy.

You see, there is no reason a wall must exist. It is not a necessary state of events, such as your example, but one that those punishing you have arbitrarily placed upon you. It is an arbitrary, imposed punishment.

Also note that, by D&D rules "evil by apathy" is considered neutral, not evil. So...your analogy rather fails on that note as well.

Lapak
2012-01-23, 12:17 PM
By reframing it, you have broken the analogy.

You see, there is no reason a wall must exist. It is not a necessary state of events, such as your example, but one that those punishing you have arbitrarily placed upon you. It is an arbitrary, imposed punishment. Huh? I gave reasons why both sides would punish you when they had the opportunity. The Wall is just the mechanism they happen to use for it. And my analogy is rather closer to the real situation: the gods literally need mortal support to accomplish their goals, and mortals who don't support any god ARE choosing to try to stand outside of an ongoing conflict.

Also note that, by D&D rules "evil by apathy" is considered neutral, not evil. So...your analogy rather fails on that note as well.I'm not sure that's true, when the effort/suffering ratio is sufficient. If a PC who had a Decanter of Endless Water decided that he'd let a lost traveler in the desert die because it was too much of a hassle to get the Decanter out of his pack, I'm pretty sure that would qualify as an Evil act.

Tyndmyr
2012-01-23, 12:48 PM
Huh? I gave reasons why both sides would punish you when they had the opportunity. The Wall is just the mechanism they happen to use for it. And my analogy is rather closer to the real situation: the gods literally need mortal support to accomplish their goals, and mortals who don't support any god ARE choosing to try to stand outside of an ongoing conflict.

But the mortals might in fact be entirely outside the conflict between deities themselves. They are not in every conflict between gods automatically, they may merely be drug into many of them indirectly for the purpose of belief*.

Still, avoiding being pressed into service in a conflict you'd rather have no part in is...quite rational. Even in your example, where two different warlords are fighting over something, why would you wish to help either? You made it "you live in a city". Physical proximity. This is the precise reason why your analogy does not work. Contributing to your own defense is entirely different than enlisting in someone else's group(without choice) to serve their ends.

See, there's no physical proximity to the gods. Their ends may not include your best interest at all(and frankly, you have little way to know that regardless...most worshippers are pretty small fry to the gods). So, we're much closer to two warlords fighting over things you may not even know or care about, drafting you into unwilling servitude under threat of a terrible fate, caused by them.

*Assuming we take the stance that belief == diefic power. This has some support, but it's not really outlined coherently in the rules anywhere.


I'm not sure that's true, when the effort/suffering ratio is sufficient. If a PC who had a Decanter of Endless Water decided that he'd let a lost traveler in the desert die because it was too much of a hassle to get the Decanter out of his pack, I'm pretty sure that would qualify as an Evil act.

Do you have a rules quote to back that up? Because the SRD says "People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others."

So, lacking the commitment to go help a lost traveler not die is still neutral. Yes, your sacrifice might be a LOT smaller than the gain to them. What of it? Not tossing a copper to a starving man is also not evil. You have not caused them to be in this situation. Continuing to stay out of it is not good, but not evil either, in D&D morality.

Lapak
2012-01-23, 01:16 PM
Rearranging this first bit just to address it together:

But the mortals might in fact be entirely outside the conflict between deities themselves. They are not in every conflict between gods automatically, they may merely be drug into many of them indirectly for the purpose of belief*.

*Assuming we take the stance that belief == diefic power. This has some support, but it's not really outlined coherently in the rules anywhere.The FR stuff does explicitly address this in the Time of Troubles books; the over-god figure ties each deity's power to their worshipers (ironically, this was intended to give them a greater investment in the individuals who serve them.)

Still, avoiding being pressed into service in a conflict you'd rather have no part in is...quite rational. Even in your example, where two different warlords are fighting over something, why would you wish to help either? You made it "you live in a city". Physical proximity. This is the precise reason why your analogy does not work. Contributing to your own defense is entirely different than enlisting in someone else's group(without choice) to serve their ends. The gods control the world you live in - how much more physical proximity do you need? Where is the rational decision-making in choosing not to support the 'I make plants grow on schedule and heal the sick' deity over the 'murder people for kicks, hohoho' deity, when your support directly and measurably makes the nice god stronger? It's practically the definition of rational self-interest and sensible self-defense.

See, there's no physical proximity to the gods. Their ends may not include your best interest at all(and frankly, you have little way to know that regardless...most worshippers are pretty small fry to the gods). So, we're much closer to two warlords fighting over things you may not even know or care about, drafting you into unwilling servitude under threat of a terrible fate, caused by them.The FR gods have pretty clear portfolios: this one has power over storms. That one has power over nature. This one presides over disease. That one supports innovation and invention. It doesn't take any particular smarts for a farmer to support Chauntea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chauntea), and she doesn't have any complications in her portfolio to make you hesitate to do so. You don't have to figure out the best possible god ever, just pick one whose goals line up with yours and you've helped yourself.

Do you have a rules quote to back that up? Because the SRD says "People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.""Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms." If you don't consider this killing, we're starting to wander into Three Laws of Robotics territory - an 'I could drop a heavy weight right above your head, as long as I know that I could catch it so you wouldn't be harmed. But once I've let go, I don't have any obligation to actually catch it. I'm not taking an action to hurt you, I'm just letting it happen.'
So, lacking the commitment to go help a lost traveler not die is still neutral. Yes, your sacrifice might be a LOT smaller than the gain to them. What of it? Not tossing a copper to a starving man is also not evil. You have not caused them to be in this situation. Continuing to stay out of it is not good, but not evil either, in D&D morality.There's no sacrifice involved in giving a dying traveler something you have an unlimited supply of. We can argue this one back and forth, but I'll just say it would qualify as an Evil act in a game if I was DMing and leave it there; there's a lot of fuzzy cases in D&D morality even though it's black and white.

Tyndmyr
2012-01-23, 03:29 PM
Rearranging this first bit just to address it together:
The FR stuff does explicitly address this in the Time of Troubles books; the over-god figure ties each deity's power to their worshipers (ironically, this was intended to give them a greater investment in the individuals who serve them.)

Yeah, but it's wonky, with dead gods granting spells, possibly, and so on. There's a lack of a mechanical outline of exactly how this works.


The gods control the world you live in - how much more physical proximity do you need? Where is the rational decision-making in choosing not to support the 'I make plants grow on schedule and heal the sick' deity over the 'murder people for kicks, hohoho' deity, when your support directly and measurably makes the nice god stronger? It's practically the definition of rational self-interest and sensible self-defense.

For various definitions of control. In D&D, gods are...powerful, but not infinitely so. More to the point, while they have domains, with some control over that...it's more of the domain giving them power than the other way around. Magic doesn't go away just because Mystra dies.

Determining who is the "nice god" in a given conflict may be highly subjective, and many conflicts may involve things that you do not care about, and may take place nowhere close to you. You're pretty far removed from that, so it's not generally a straight matter of self defense.


The FR gods have pretty clear portfolios: this one has power over storms. That one has power over nature. This one presides over disease. That one supports innovation and invention. It doesn't take any particular smarts for a farmer to support Chauntea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chauntea), and she doesn't have any complications in her portfolio to make you hesitate to do so. You don't have to figure out the best possible god ever, just pick one whose goals line up with yours and you've helped yourself.

Not really. Just because you farm doesn't mean that supporting her helps you. It helps her in some mechanically indefinable way. It only helps you because if you don't pick one of them, something terrible happens to you. Your crops grow just fine regardless.


"Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms." If you don't consider this killing, we're starting to wander into Three Laws of Robotics territory - an 'I could drop a heavy weight right above your head, as long as I know that I could catch it so you wouldn't be harmed. But once I've let go, I don't have any obligation to actually catch it. I'm not taking an action to hurt you, I'm just letting it happen.'

That's a lot of pedantic jazz that isn't at all from RAW. Causality is linked to evilness. Allowing someone to die is not the same as killing them, by 3.5 standards. Walking by the starving person isn't going to make you good and heroic, but it's not the same as deliberately taking food from an otherwise happy person to make them starve to death. That latter one is evil.

hamishspence
2012-01-23, 03:30 PM
BoVD does have an example:

killing a person who has been manipulated into committing mass murder (by pouring poison into the only available water supply) if they're just about to commit it and it's the only reliable way to stop them, is:

"not evil- standing by and doing nothing would be far more evil than preventing the poisoning"

So by implication, this is a case where "standing by" qualifies as an Evil act in itself.
__________________

Tyndmyr
2012-01-23, 03:40 PM
BoVD does have an example:

killing a person who has been manipulated into committing mass murder (by pouring poison into the only available water supply) if they're just about to commit it and it's the only reliable way to stop them, is:

"not evil- standing by and doing nothing would be far more evil than preventing the poisoning"

So by implication, this is a case where "standing by" qualifies as an Evil act in itself.
__________________

Not really. The piece is trying to justify "the lesser of two evils" as an act that is acceptable for a good person to do. Killing one innocent to save many is a old morality trope.

But...BoVD is 3.0, and as such, the newer 3.5 core definition of alignment trumps it. Alignment is somewhat contradictory if you take bits and pieces from different bits out of context, but by RAW, it's pretty clear that the newer bit wins.

hamishspence
2012-01-23, 03:48 PM
But...BoVD is 3.0, and as such, the newer 3.5 core definition of alignment trumps it. Alignment is somewhat contradictory if you take bits and pieces from different bits out of context, but by RAW, it's pretty clear that the newer bit wins.

The 3.0 text on alignment in the PHB, and 3.5 text, is word-for-word identical- since so much was reprinted.


Not really. The piece is trying to justify "the lesser of two evils" as an act that is acceptable for a good person to do. Killing one innocent to save many is a old morality trope.

a person "innocently" in the process of committing mass murder, it must be said.

Lapak
2012-01-23, 03:58 PM
Yeah, but it's wonky, with dead gods granting spells, possibly, and so on. There's a lack of a mechanical outline of exactly how this works.Which isn't necessary to answer the question of 'why do the Gods care about whether people worship them or not.' They do, explicitly, gain power from it. What exact mechanical form that power takes isn't particularly relevant to the discussion at hand.

For various definitions of control. In D&D, gods are...powerful, but not infinitely so. More to the point, while they have domains, with some control over that...it's more of the domain giving them power than the other way around. Magic doesn't go away just because Mystra dies.

Determining who is the "nice god" in a given conflict may be highly subjective, and many conflicts may involve things that you do not care about, and may take place nowhere close to you. You're pretty far removed from that, so it's not generally a straight matter of self defense. You don't have to pick a god every time two of them come into conflict; you just have to pick one once that happens to align with your profession or interests. A farmer picking Chauntea is choosing to throw his metaphysical weight behind the cause of civilized agriculture. When she does act, she acts in the interest of supporting that.

Not really. Just because you farm doesn't mean that supporting her helps you. It helps her in some mechanically indefinable way. It only helps you because if you don't pick one of them, something terrible happens to you. Your crops grow just fine regardless.A mage might worship Mystra. A bard might worship Oghma. It's not that you necessarily get immediate payback in any circumstance; it's that you've strengthened the force that has your general interests in mind. Chauntea might not help any particular farmer who worships her, but she might - and farming in general will be easier and better-supported if she is strong, and she will be more ABLE to help individual farmers if she is strong. There's at least a few upsides and no downsides to putting your support behind her if agriculture is your thing.

That's a lot of pedantic jazz that isn't at all from RAW. Causality is linked to evilness. Allowing someone to die is not the same as killing them, by 3.5 standards. Walking by the starving person isn't going to make you good and heroic, but it's not the same as deliberately taking food from an otherwise happy person to make them starve to death. That latter one is evil.I feel like we've gotten tangled in a RAW point that isn't relevant here; what matters is not whether an action is RAW evil (or Good people by definition wouldn't get the wall) but whether the people in-setting can understand the gods' justifications for punishing those who don't participate at all. The claim was that the mere existence of the Wall would inevitably lead to resistance against the gods - I'm just trying to pose a reasonable philosophical framework for why it doesn't have to, and that's based on the perceptions of the deities and people of the Realms, not on RAW.

(There's also the point that the Forgotten Realms in question are not absolutely defined as the 3.5 edition Realms. Setting and ruleset are not married; I could easily run a B/X game in the Realms under discussion.)

shaddy_24
2012-01-23, 04:31 PM
If I'm remembering my FR correctly, killing Mystra actually does get rid of magic, or at least prevent mortals from being able to use it. I don't know this for sure, but I do remember hearing that before. Gods might not be all powerful, but if they aren't around things actually break down. Depriving them of the power to keep the world working is actually a big deal. DnD worlds don't neccessarily work on the same laws of physics we have, sometimes the only thing keeping the planet in orbit is the fact that the sun god is spending time and energy to hold it there.

Prime32
2012-01-23, 05:07 PM
Psionics works fine without Mystra though.

Tyndmyr
2012-01-23, 05:35 PM
Which isn't necessary to answer the question of 'why do the Gods care about whether people worship them or not.' They do, explicitly, gain power from it. What exact mechanical form that power takes isn't particularly relevant to the discussion at hand.

Granted, but the fact that the gods are doing it for power does not make them nice. Certainly not from the perspective of the people that the gods are using.


You don't have to pick a god every time two of them come into conflict; you just have to pick one once that happens to align with your profession or interests. A farmer picking Chauntea is choosing to throw his metaphysical weight behind the cause of civilized agriculture. When she does act, she acts in the interest of supporting that.
A mage might worship Mystra. A bard might worship Oghma. It's not that you necessarily get immediate payback in any circumstance; it's that you've strengthened the force that has your general interests in mind. Chauntea might not help any particular farmer who worships her, but she might - and farming in general will be easier and better-supported if she is strong, and she will be more ABLE to help individual farmers if she is strong. There's at least a few upsides and no downsides to putting your support behind her if agriculture is your thing.

You can take such an approach, but doing so, if you are aware of the wall, is an implicit acceptance of the current order of things, and an attempt to hide instead of confronting the problem. This is a plausible outcome for a farmer who just wants to live and let live, but for an adventurer who literally makes a career out of confronting and righting wrongs? Such a person is not likely to yield to such a terrible setup unless he or she literally has no other choice.

[quote[I feel like we've gotten tangled in a RAW point that isn't relevant here; what matters is not whether an action is RAW evil (or Good people by definition wouldn't get the wall) but whether the people in-setting can understand the gods' justifications for punishing those who don't participate at all. The claim was that the mere existence of the Wall would inevitably lead to resistance against the gods - I'm just trying to pose a reasonable philosophical framework for why it doesn't have to, and that's based on the perceptions of the deities and people of the Realms, not on RAW.

(There's also the point that the Forgotten Realms in question are not absolutely defined as the 3.5 edition Realms. Setting and ruleset are not married; I could easily run a B/X game in the Realms under discussion.)[/QUOTE]

*shrug* Yes, it punishes the good and evil alike. While I'm aware that you *could* run a setting under anything, the setting is mostly defined by it's rules. And 3.5 did have the most FR stuff published for it, it's arguably the most complete period of description for it. I'm aware stuff that has happened to it in other editions is also canon, but choosing to oppose the wall is pretty clearly not something that locks you into an evil alignment, nor is it intended to do so.

horseboy
2012-01-23, 05:59 PM
For various definitions of control. In D&D, gods are...powerful, but not infinitely so. More to the point, while they have domains, with some control over that...it's more of the domain giving them power than the other way around. Magic doesn't go away just because Mystra dies. When Mystra was "unseated" as a god, magic became highly dangerous and unpredictable. If she hadn't sealed away some of her power in Midnight's necklace, if she died it might have stopped all together.


Not really. Just because you farm doesn't mean that supporting her helps you. It helps her in some mechanically indefinable way. It only helps you because if you don't pick one of them, something terrible happens to you. Your crops grow just fine regardless.
1) That's an assumption on your part. For as much as anyone in the Realms knows, seeds won't germinate without proper prayers,
2) Agriculture is rarely "just fine regardless." Blight might come. The rains come too early and drown the seeds, or too late and the grain doesn't make. Molds, vermin, or insects can destroy them. When you're constantly busting your butt to scrape by and the guy at the other end of the valley regularly does 10-20 bushels better than you and the only difference seems to be the festivals he holds at planting and harvesting, eventually you have to be contractually genre blind to not think there's something there.

As to the original thread, I used FR a lot back in 1st/2nd edition. It used to be my favorite fantasy setting, until Barsaive came out. FR has just enough structure that you've got plenty of good character hooks, but open enough you can just drop in cities where ever your story needs them. Yeah, Dark Sun was technically cooler, but D&D's mechanics have never done it justice in any edition, so all the cool ideas were gimped by bad mechanics.

Morithias
2012-01-23, 06:16 PM
1) That's an assumption on your part. For as much as anyone in the Realms knows, seeds won't germinate without proper prayers,
2) Agriculture is rarely "just fine regardless." Blight might come. The rains come too early and drown the seeds, or too late and the grain doesn't make. Molds, vermin, or insects can destroy them. When you're constantly busting your butt to scrape by and the guy at the other end of the valley regularly does 10-20 bushels better than you and the only difference seems to be the festivals he holds at planting and harvesting, eventually you have to be contractually genre blind to not think there's something there.

As to the original thread, I used FR a lot back in 1st/2nd edition. It used to be my favorite fantasy setting, until Barsaive came out. FR has just enough structure that you've got plenty of good character hooks, but open enough you can just drop in cities where ever your story needs them. Yeah, Dark Sun was technically cooler, but D&D's mechanics have never done it justice in any edition, so all the cool ideas were gimped by bad mechanics.

I would like to point out that the "random events" for farms and other businesses in the DMG2 is based around only 3 things.

1. How big of city your business is in
2. How famous you are
3. How the business is currently doing

I don't see on that table any bonuses or penalties for not worshiping a deity.

And don't tell me that table and those rules don't apply in Faerun, I reference you to the merchant prince class from power of faerun whose whole point is to use these rules.

Diamondeye
2012-01-23, 06:44 PM
Not at all. Say you and I drink Mountain Dew. Along comes an immensely powerful individual who says that you must drink a kind of soda routinely, or he'll shoot you. Now, you and I might not be on his immediate target list, but this guy is clearly unbalanced and dangerous. Your options are to either try to avoid ever being one of his targets, and hope someone else fixes the problem, or try to fix it yourself.

And hell, you might even know people who never really bothered with the whole soda thing. That just makes it more pressing to deal with him.

This analogy doesn't work, however:
1) The immensely powerful being in question also doesn't state what "routinely" is; it might be once a month, and probably is if that being is an FR diety; it might even be only once a year in some cases.
2) That immensely powerful being will, if I devote myself to drinking Mountain Dew once a day or so, maybe even 2 or 3 a day, grant me immense magical powers which will only grow as long as I keep drinking mountain dew daily. These powers allow me to do quite useful things at the beginning; for example if one of my children were critically wounded in a car wreck or contracted rabies, I would have the power to save them with a touch of my hand and a brief supplication for the price of a couple cans of pop each day. Even if I only wanted to drink once a month, I could petition a more avid mountain dew drinker to help me out.
3) If I don't like mountain dew, your mountain dew diety must necessarily also be accompanied by a coke diety, aand a pepsi diety and a dr. pepper diety and a root beer diety and a few dozen other dietes of various soft drinks so I can pick one of my choosing. Otherwise your analogy falls apart in view of the variety of FR dieties.
4) If you DO consume the pop according to the minimal demand, and then eventually die, you get to go be with your favored pop diety. Granted, in FR this means if you're evil you may be in for it anyhow, but that's your own damn fault. In our fictional pop pantheon, you at least get unlimited pop.

In other words, this guy is not "Clearly" unbalanced or dangerous at all. He's offering quite a bit, not just to me, but to the world in general, and for what's, at worst, a minor inconvenience. I also don't even have to pick his soda pop; I can pick whatever soda pop I want (again, without that choice your analogy falls apart) and even if I couldn't; it's still a trivial inconvenience.

Not only that, but having worshippers benefits gods in FR, so in order again for your analogy to work, this mountain dew diety must somehow derive benefit from me doing so, and again if I like coke better, I can decide to drink coke and benefit the coke diety.

Moreover, the shooting part of your analogy doesn't work anyhow; dieties do not hunt down and kill Faithless people. They simply allow them to end up in the Wall (if that's even still accurate) after they die of whatever other cause.

In other words, your fictious soft drink pantheon is offering the world access to truely miraculous magic through whoever wants to devoutely drink a few cans or bottles daily, and is only really claiming they'll punish those who refuse all soft drinks after they die of whatever cause anyhow.

Really, if someone offered clerical magic with the capabilities of D&D divine magic to the world, and demanded only an occasionaly soda pop consumption in return, and would also be so good as to only punish those who refused pop entirely after they died of whatever else they were going to die of anyhow, quite frankly, it's simply pointless contrarianism to not simply consume your monthly pop, accept the magic, and be assured you can have an afterlife of, if nothing else, all the pop you want.

Your argument focuses entirely on the possibility of ending up in the wall, as if that possibility exists in a vaccuum and the gods do absolutely nothing of any benefit to anyone. This is clearly not the case in FR, and there is no good reason to attempt to impose this as the necessary end of any adventurer's thought process. It smacks strongly of attempting to impose real-world baggage on the setting.

horseboy
2012-01-23, 06:49 PM
I would like to point out that the "random events" for farms and other businesses in the DMG2 is based around only 3 things.

1. How big of city your business is in
2. How famous you are
3. How the business is currently doing

I don't see on that table any bonuses or penalties for not worshiping a deity.

And don't tell me that table and those rules don't apply in Faerun, I reference you to the merchant prince class from power of faerun whose whole point is to use these rules.
And it also says you can drown someone into living, stupid rules are stupid.

Diamondeye
2012-01-23, 06:49 PM
Granted, but the fact that the gods are doing it for power does not make them nice. Certainly not from the perspective of the people that the gods are using.

According to your perspective. That is not necessarily the perspective of the people in question.


You can take such an approach, but doing so, if you are aware of the wall, is an implicit acceptance of the current order of things, and an attempt to hide instead of confronting the problem. This is a plausible outcome for a farmer who just wants to live and let live, but for an adventurer who literally makes a career out of confronting and righting wrongs? Such a person is not likely to yield to such a terrible setup unless he or she literally has no other choice.


You have not demonstrated why the wall is a problem. Again, given what the gods provide, regardless of their motives, it is very hard to argue that some sort of punishment for those who obstinately refuse ALL of the gods is somehow out of line.

Diamondeye
2012-01-23, 06:50 PM
I would like to point out that the "random events" for farms and other businesses in the DMG2 is based around only 3 things.

1. How big of city your business is in
2. How famous you are
3. How the business is currently doing

I don't see on that table any bonuses or penalties for not worshiping a deity.

And don't tell me that table and those rules don't apply in Faerun, I reference you to the merchant prince class from power of faerun whose whole point is to use these rules.

Those are random events. Not only can clerical magic help with random events, it's quite useful in dealing with events imposed by FR setting authors and/or the DM.

Kurald Galain
2012-01-23, 06:58 PM
And the solution: find a deity whose religious holidays are FUN (http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20050523). I think that Sune qualifies.

Morithias
2012-01-23, 07:53 PM
Those are random events. Not only can clerical magic help with random events, it's quite useful in dealing with events imposed by FR setting authors and/or the DM.

What I meant was the claim that plagues and insects and such are just going to ignore the person who worships the deity, while attacking those who do not is just RAW wrong.

Hell I'd almost argue you're better off with something else, I believe I was once told something like this.

Deity: I will aid you in a way that is completely identical to random chance to the casual observer.

Devil: Cash or Cheque?

At least if you sell your soul to Asmodeus you won't end up in the wall. Who knows you might even be able to do what Bel did some day.

Tiki Snakes
2012-01-23, 08:33 PM
You have not demonstrated why the wall is a problem. Again, given what the gods provide, regardless of their motives, it is very hard to argue that some sort of punishment for those who obstinately refuse ALL of the gods is somehow out of line.

"Serve us, serve any of us and we will not condem you to eternal suffering in the Bog of Eternal StenchWall. Behold, are we not magnanimous in our Mercy?"

The Wall is a problem because it's an Cosmic Horror of a scale that has few rivals. It's nightmare inducing, and the fact that the establishment proclaims that it is necessary simply tars them all with the same brush.

I like the idea that an endless existence in a purposefully bleak, grey, unending misery is somehow anything other than torture, too, but at least that was a replacement for the wall at the point where that was originated, as someone stated earlier.

My personal attitude is that, with all that they get up to and cause, with all that they represent and uphold, with all that they demand, what gives the Gods of Faerun the right? It's not a problem in 99% of cases and characters, but if I personally am playing a character in Forgotten Realms who has the capability to even dream about doing something about it and has the cognitive capability to percieve the issue, then I am very likely to get my teeth into that issue.

Though I wouldn't say it's an inevitable position, by a long-shot, given how simple it is to avoid such a fate in theory.

Belril Duskwalk
2012-01-23, 08:53 PM
I would like to point out that the "random events" for farms and other businesses in the DMG2 is based around only 3 things.

1. How big of city your business is in
2. How famous you are
3. How the business is currently doing

I don't see on that table any bonuses or penalties for not worshiping a deity.

And don't tell me that table and those rules don't apply in Faerun, I reference you to the merchant prince class from power of faerun whose whole point is to use these rules.

I will deny none of that. However, I will counter with a simple 2nd level spells available to Clerics of Chauntea (the agriculture goddess)*. The Favor of the Goddess spell causes 2 plants per level to double their yield, or to take the same number of plants that are sickly and dying and restore them to maximum fertility and health. Now if a farmer that worships Chauntea can get a few castings of that spell free, I can assure you he's better off than the farmer down the road that doesn't follow Chauntea. And that's just a 2nd level spell, there's a 3rd level spell available to the clerics that can plow a furrow over a hundred feet long in a under minute.

*Under the 2nd Edition ruleset.

Yora
2012-01-23, 08:53 PM
Just saying, such reasons for worship had been used in real life. Fiction isn't really going further than reality did.

tbok1992
2012-01-23, 09:03 PM
I used to find The Realms rather dull, but now I hate them on principle since Neverwinter took away WotC time that could've been spent revamping Spelljammer or another, better setting. I mean, seriously, why do so many people prefer "Generic Fantasy Setting #1138" over "D&D IN SPACE"!

What I'm saying is that if they neglect Spelljammer for another Realms rehash like in 4e, Imma gonna have to choke a bitch.

(Seriously though, while I am sorta okay with the Realms, I still want my Spelljammer back dammit)

Yora
2012-01-23, 09:15 PM
Well, I guess lots of people have expectations what a fantasy setting is, and want those expectations be met. Everything else is special interest.

You do make generic fantasy quite well, and I think FR does that.

Alleran
2012-01-23, 10:35 PM
I'm not trying to blame a specific god here...but if the wall exists, then someone put it up, and is responsible for it...and that someone is almost certainly a god. And such a major change to the disposition of souls that are not specifically bound to any god is something that basically every god would have to consider acceptable for this to continue to exist.

My personal attitude is that, with all that they get up to and cause, with all that they represent and uphold, with all that they demand, what gives the Gods of Faerun the right? It's not a problem in 99% of cases and characters, but if I personally am playing a character in Forgotten Realms who has the capability to even dream about doing something about it and has the cognitive capability to percieve the issue, then I am very likely to get my teeth into that issue.
The province of judging the Faithless and False is Kelemvor's. The other gods don't get any say in it unless they think he's messing up the Balance (which, as of Crucible, they do not). However, as I said, I do not know why the Wall came back at all, and until the 3rd edition FRCS there is no mention of the Wall being put back that I have been able to unearth.

People are saying that the gods put it back up for X reason, some saying that the gods forced Kelemvor to put it back, and occasionally using that as why they don't like the cosmology.

So I would like to know which gods and/or why they supposedly forced Kelemvor to put it back, because I certainly can't find any evidence for either statement. The only thing I've been able to find is that the Wall magically appeared again in defiance of what had gone before when the 3rd edition FRCS was released. Where are the arguments coming from?

Belril Duskwalk
2012-01-23, 11:01 PM
The province of judging the Faithless and False is Kelemvor's. The other gods don't get any say in it unless they think he's messing up the Balance (which, as of Crucible, they do not). However, as I said, I do not know why the Wall came back at all, and until the 3rd edition FRCS there is no mention of the Wall being put back that I have been able to unearth.

People are saying that the gods put it back up for X reason, some saying that the gods forced Kelemvor to put it back, and occasionally using that as why they don't like the cosmology.

So I would like to know which gods and/or why they supposedly forced Kelemvor to put it back, because I certainly can't find any evidence for either statement. The only thing I've been able to find is that the Wall magically appeared again in defiance of what had gone before when the 3rd edition FRCS was released. Where are the arguments coming from?

I am having similar difficulties. Everything I can find says:
1) Kelemvor abolished The Wall and began treating The Faithless as he felt their alignments deserved (Good People went to the Good parts of The City of the Dead, Evil People went to the Bad parts).
2) The gods objected strenuously, because less people were worshiping them and it caused all kinds of crazy in the Material Plane
3) Kelemvor abandoned his vestiges of humanity. He made The City of the Dead neither reward nor punishment, it simply became dull, dreary, bleak. The other gods were satisfied as their worshipers returned and things went back to normal in the Material.
4) ???
5) 3rd edition is published, The Wall is back.

Baka Nikujaga
2012-01-23, 11:01 PM
http://i54.tinypic.com/2nsz4av.jpg
I believe that one side of the argument is "how can other gods claim they are good when they benefit from a threat concerning existence" while the other is "to be complacent is to be complicit." But, regardless, the very fact that the wall continues to exist (at least within the source book for third edition) means that there is a division between the canon of the fiction and the canon of the campaign setting. Yes, there are those who will be willing to replace or remove parts of the information contained within the source book (such as the desire to keep pace with the fiction) and they are free to do so. But it does not solve the issue of the wall existing within the primary material and for a number of players this can be considered an issue of consternation.

[Minor Editing: I really need to get better at writing.]

bloodtide
2012-01-24, 01:38 AM
1) Kelemvor abolished The Wall and began treating The Faithless as he felt their alignments deserved (Good People went to the Good parts of The City of the Dead, Evil People went to the Bad parts).

So when and where did this happen? Nothing in Crucible says anything about Kelemvor abolishing the wall. It does say he changed the way False and Faithless were judged, but says nothing about getting rid of the wall.

Faiths and Avatars(2e) says that Kelemvor puts the Faithless in the wall.

Alleran
2012-01-24, 06:16 AM
So when and where did this happen? Nothing in Crucible says anything about Kelemvor abolishing the wall. It does say he changed the way False and Faithless were judged, but says nothing about getting rid of the wall.
Kelemvor originally removed it when he first became the God of the Dead, sending Faithless and False to specific places within his city depending on how they had acted in life (not using the Wall), rather than based on whether they were Faithless or False. It was later on that he set his city up to be simply dull and lifeless, and he pointed out to Mystra at one point in Trial that the Wall would need to be put back, because his actions had been disrupting mortal life and accidentally poaching followers of other deities.

And then, in the 4E FRCS, the Wall went away again as if had never existed (since as a Greater God Kelemvor's realm survived the Sellplague intact, the Wall shouldn't have been affected), and it's right back to the dull-and-bleak arrangement from the end of the Avatar series.

It's like WotC just can't make up their minds about what they actually want. If the 2E Faiths and Avatars says that the Wall is there, then that's another misstep.

horseboy
2012-01-24, 06:33 AM
What I meant was the claim that plagues and insects and such are just going to ignore the person who worships the deity, while attacking those who do not is just RAW wrong.
Guidance, level 0 orisons. Add +1 to your Profession: Farmer roll. Fluff it how you like.


I believe that one side of the argument is "how can other gods claim they are good when they benefit from a threat concerning existence" while the other is "to be complacent is to be complicit." Why should the Gods override free will? "Pick a team so you can go somewhere when you die. If you don't then you're going to end up in the god of death's domain and to keep you out from underfoot he's going to put you to work gluing together Ur-priests and clerics who touched alter boys." It's FR. Every being on Faerun knows this is deal. Someone who CHOOSES to be faithless has CHOSEN this deal. It's really that simple.

Seharvepernfan
2012-01-24, 06:53 AM
I love the realms.

I haven't really played in them (except video games), but I've been reading about them for more than a decade now. I think the core setting is pretty good, you can always ignore the tacked on stuff. The north, western heartlands/swordcoast, aglarond, lands of intrigue, heartlands, underdark, and I guess Thay and Evermeet are the "main" areas.

I think the characters tend to be too high level, but thats how Ed pictures things, I tend more towards Eberrons' view of levels. As for all the high level casters running around sitting on their duffs, they're just there to keep the setting intact. That's it. Play in the realms, don't destroy them.
If you are really, really devoted to bringing one of them down, it can be done.

I also don't like how adventurer's are a dime a dozen, but it doesn't take much to get around that. I do love the existence of so many ruins from so many fallen empires and what not, and I love all the portals. I'm also personally in love with how chaotic good is "the" good guy alignment, and LE the bad one, thanks to Bob and Ed.

It's a fun setting if like playing casters, and to a lesser extent, skillmonkeys, but its not designed for warrior types. Look how isolated and niche drizzt and artemis are, and they're pretty much the baddest swordswingers out there.

Ending statement: the (pre 4th) realms have my love.

Alleran
2012-01-24, 07:08 AM
Look how isolated and niche drizzt and artemis are, and they're pretty much the baddest swordswingers out there.
Drizzt is ranked 6th. Somebody asked Greenwood about who the very best in FR were just last year or so, and he provided the following (his list was just the humans, but he clarified it by adding in nonhumans where appropriate, and I've summarised their limited statblocks and some descriptions):

1. Harmel Artru, Saerloon, Sembia

(2E) (NE human Fighter 9 / Rogue 7; DEX 17, CHA 16, is darkly handsome, agile, glib-tongued, and a lady-charming merchant seacaptain and sometime pirate, exact style of combat unknown)

2. Maethrammar Aerasume, Silverymoon, Silver Marches (male half-elf)

(2E) (LG half-elf Fighter 14 / Wizard 12; commander of the armies of Luruar, half-elf son of Alustriel, exact style of combat unknown)

3. Loaros Hammarandar, Narubel, Thindol (only a whisker behind Harmel)

(2E) (LN human Fighter 14; STR 17, DEX 17, can throw prodigious strength around like an acrobat, is an ever-wary-of-treachery mercenary warmaster, exact style of combat unknown)

4. Ember Tsartaera, Furthinghome, Aglarond (human female)

(2E) (LG human Fighter 15; STR 16, DEX 18, weapons master, crafts masterwork swords when not using them, always alert and anticipating trouble, and has an acrobatic fighting style that allows her to catch hurled daggers and arrows in flight, likely favours the sword)

5. Skoalam Marlgrask, Chessenta (close behind Loaros)

(2E) (CN human Fighter 18; DEX 17, CON 17, professional duelist, polite, saturnine, nondescript of look, seemingly able to sense danger such as crossbow snipers before it can reach out for him, exact style of combat unknown)

6. Drizzt Do'Urden, Mithral Hall, Silver Marches (male drow, only just behind Marlgrask)

(3E) (CG male drow Fighter 10 / Ranger 5 / Barbarian 1; wields two scimitars, Twinkle and Icingdeath, favours a two-weapon style of combat and has the Hunter and/or Warrior Incarnate instinctual personalities within)

7. Lyaunthra Aldegal, Waterdeep AND Silverymoon AND Neverwinter AND Secomber (human female)

(2E) (CG human Fighter 17; CON 17, superb maker of bladed weapons and tools who can resharpen and balance almost any fragment of a mistreated item, able to withstand great pain, exact style of combat unknown)

8. Sraece Telthorn, Yhaunn, Sembia AND Waterdeep (close behind Loaros, just behind Skoalam)

(2E) (CN human Fighter 16 / Rogue 7; DEX 18, CHA 16, is a smallish, agile, almost feminine man who can dance, tumble, balance and spring with a skill and precision matched only by the greatest of acrobats, able to leap off a parapet to land perfectly balanced on a sloping and protruding flagstaff far below, or leap over the slashing swords of opponents in battle, favours the sword and dagger in a two-weapon style that combines either two swords or two daggers or sword and dagger, adept at fighting in darkness or near-darkness, can correctly interpret the sounds of stealth to know if he's being snuck up on, is a brilliant fencer but is not personally interested in fair fights and so avoids open battle by using the surroundings to his advantage)

9. Artemis Entreri, Calimport, Calimshan (below Sraece, but in the same skill bracket as Ulmaer and Aka)

(3E) (LE human Rogue 4 / Fighter 12 / Ranger 1 / Assassin 1; wields Charon's Claw [saber, artifact blade] and jeweled dagger, favours two-weapon style of combat)

10. Ulmaer Rivrymm, Sheirtalar, Lapaliiya

(2E) (LG human Fighter 14; STR 16, DEX 18, has lightning-swift reflexes and keen sight, can juggle scimitars to entertain, may favour the scimitar but exact combat style unknown)

11. Aka 'The Questmaster', Sword Coast North

(NDA)
You could probably dig up the original reply with Google. Of note is that because each of these individuals is so extremely close to their rivals, the rankings can shift literally from one day to another, based on the smallest of differences in environment and the like that might spring up.

Seharvepernfan
2012-01-24, 07:47 AM
That list looks almost backwards...

hamlet
2012-01-24, 08:38 AM
Going back to the original post, I have a love/hate relationship with the Realms.

On the one hand, there are some very interesting things in it. I LOVE the North. The whole idea of the fronteir and the brutal weather of the tundra really speaks to me, plus Icewind Dale way up there and the Ten Towns. Essentially anywhere north of Waterdeep and west of the Anaurach. The Heartlands and Dalelands are interesting, though probably well overplayed. Everybody has had a campaign there. Or six. Thay is nifty, and some of the other locations as well.

My problems, though, are manifold.

1. Primarily, my problem is with the simple volume of stuff and the popularity of the Realms. There's just so much stuff, so much meta-plot, so very much info, that unless you draw a hard line around what you're using and what you're not, it's absurd. And it leads to a major problem I've experienced where players assume that everything they've read in the novels or various supplements is accurate and then start in on the DM "correcting" things as they go along: "well no, actually, according to <insert FR novel here>, such and such place is actually like this rather than that . . ." It's a far cry from the original greybox which was more like Greyhawk: kind of a Schrodinger's Campaign Setting in some ways. Broad strokes that the DM gets to fill in. Eventually, it became so filled in that there was no room to breath.

2.High Level NPC's. They don't bother me as much as some, but they still irk me. Yes, other CS's had their high level uber-NPC's leaking out the edges (Dragonlance notorious among them), but for some inexplicable reason, they seem more . . . present . . . here. I don't quite know how to explain it, but they always seemed as if they were more there than they were in Greyhawk or Dark Sun or any of the other published settings. Not quite sure why, but it might be the Star Wars Effect in a way in that the setting, on some level, gets defined around these personalities rather than simply including them. I'm not sure that's fair, but it's my impression.

3. The incessant Realms Changing Events! I loathe these. Despise them as much or more as I despise meta-plot in settings. If I ever get a chance to run a FR campaign, it will be from the original Greybox with some of the 2nd edition Greybox added in for the extra tidbits it provides. No idiotic Spell Plague, no Avatar War, no nothing of that. And good riddance to them.

4. The occasional, what I call, non-sequiter details. Hellgate Keep (I think that's it) in the North is one of them. In the midst of a really cool and workable campaign region . . . there's a giant castle filled with devils! Huh? It really is a full stop "what?" moment for me. It's kind of like a missing tooth in a way, or maybe more accurate to say an obvious extra tooth in a smile. It sticks way the heck out of everything around it and I puzzle as to why it's there. I mean, yeah, I can "fix" it in my own campaign . . . but still . . . TSR published whole accessories of this stuff at least once or twice. The Great Glacier stands out among them as one of the worst books in the setting. Even the die hardest of die hards of FR look askance at that book.

5. The level of magic, frequently, got WAY to high. Too much magic just leaking out of every pore it felt like. But that's a problem with D&D in general as it progressed along the track, not just FR. It just seems that FR (and one or two others to be honest) were particularly guilty of.

6. The adventure modules were just atrocious at times. The Avatar modules in particular (which I played through as a player) felt like spectator events rather than adventures. Might have been a bad DM, but it felt like our characters were simply dragged from one location to the next to merely witness the cool stuff rather than take part. At least in Dragonlances ham fisted holy plot modules, you at least got to DO the cool stuff.

7. Kind of an overlap with its popularity, but more akin to TSR's and later WOTC's directive to make it the campaign setting of all time . . . it seemed that everyything got crammed into the Realms no matter if it actually fit or not. Just jam it on in there like a tumor. It's got the Forgotten Realms name on it so they'll lvoe it and buy it and we'll be rich!

I realize that, in the end, half this stuff can be equally applicable to any other setting, it's just that FR seems to exemplify them to some degree. When it comes down to it, if I can get the right group of players (i.e., not ultrafans) and take the time to apply the surgical hatchet to things, the Forgotten Realms is really a very utilizable and interesting setting. But it cannot be just taken in one giant lump in my mind. It's like trying to swallow an entire turkey in one gulp. You're better off carving off chunks of it that you really want and enjoying those on their own.

Lapak
2012-01-24, 09:03 AM
Going back to the original post, I have a love/hate relationship with the Realms.

On the one hand, there are some very interesting things in it. I LOVE the North. The whole idea of the fronteir and the brutal weather of the tundra really speaks to me, plus Icewind Dale way up there and the Ten Towns. Essentially anywhere north of Waterdeep and west of the Anaurach. The Heartlands and Dalelands are interesting, though probably well overplayed. Everybody has had a campaign there. Or six. Thay is nifty, and some of the other locations as well.

My problems, though, are manifold.I cut your specific list to make a recommendation: track down a copy of the original campaign setting (http://www.amazon.com/Forgotten-Campaign-Fantasy-Roleplaying-HexGrid/dp/0880384727/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1327413428&sr=8-2). There's relatively little in the way of stat-blocks in there, it's mostly descriptive, so it's still entirely usable with more recent editions. The flip side of that being that you obviously have to fill in the stat-blocks yourself.

The thing about FR is that yes, it's been massively expanded-upon and altered (the Wall is a good example of things that are there, and gone, and there, and gone, but there are others) but at the start it was a setting that was designed more around inspiration than hammered-down details. Instead of trying to swallow the whole turkey, go back to when it was an egg and make an amazing omelet out of it. It'll be familiar enough to your players that they can get into but at the same time so much has changed that it will feel new; heck, if you have veteran 3E Realms players you can spin it as an opportunity to change history and take things in a different direction. :smallsmile: Stick in only what you want, focus on the areas that matter to you, and ignore whatever official events you don't like because they haven't happened yet!

hamlet
2012-01-24, 09:09 AM
I cut your specific list to make a recommendation: track down a copy of the original campaign setting (http://www.amazon.com/Forgotten-Campaign-Fantasy-Roleplaying-HexGrid/dp/0880384727/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1327413428&sr=8-2). There's relatively little in the way of stat-blocks in there, it's mostly descriptive, so it's still entirely usable with more recent editions. The flip side of that being that you obviously have to fill in the stat-blocks yourself.

The thing about FR is that yes, it's been massively expanded-upon and altered (the Wall is a good example of things that are there, and gone, and there, and gone, but there are others) but at the start it was a setting that was designed more around inspiration than hammered-down details. Instead of trying to swallow the whole turkey, go back to when it was an egg and make an amazing omelet out of it. It'll be familiar enough to your players that they can get into but at the same time so much has changed that it will feel new; heck, if you have veteran 3E Realms players you can spin it as an opportunity to change history and take things in a different direction. :smallsmile: Stick in only what you want, focus on the areas that matter to you, and ignore whatever official events you don't like because they haven't happened yet!

I already have the original Greybox. And the 2nd edition version. I like them both, though the former more than the later simply because even by 2nd edition, the writers/editors seemed to fetishize statting out everything and nailing things down.

I also have the 3e setting book, and one or two of those supplements, from back in the time when I thought I could get into 3rd edition (that's another story, actually) and I'm not quite sure how I feel about it, but my general opinion of it is fairly low.

And, it's like I said, a lot of my complaints, even the massive expansion pack nature of it, can be applied to many if not most published settings. It's just that Forgotten Realms seemed to be the poster child for it for a long time. It turned into some frightening Frankenstinian, stiched together horror of a thing rather than the fairly simple, spare, and inspiring version it was born as.

Baka Nikujaga
2012-01-24, 02:19 PM
Why should the Gods override free will? "Pick a team so you can go somewhere when you die. If you don't then you're going to end up in the god of death's domain and to keep you out from underfoot he's going to put you to work gluing together Ur-priests and clerics who touched alter boys." It's FR. Every being on Faerun knows this is deal. Someone who CHOOSES to be faithless has CHOSEN this deal. It's really that simple.

It is a form of "coercion." By effectively stating that you must either believe or face annihilation (putting it "kindly"), it is a breach of both free will and much of the concept of "Good." But, ignoring that, the clerics you've mentioned will most likely go on to the realm of their deity (as they are faithfuL) while Ur-Priests may either go to the Wall of the Faithless or be tortured for all eternity for daring to challenge the gods (it really depends on their approach).

erikun
2012-01-24, 02:51 PM
On the one hand, Forgotten Realms is nice because, with nearly any general idea you have, you can find a place for it somewhere. Every place in the Realms is already thought-out and detailed, and so no matter where you start out, there will already be stuff about the area to work with.

On the other hand, Forgotten Realms is annoying because, with a very specific idea, you cannot find a place for it anywhere. Every place in the Realms is already thought-out and detailed, and so no matter where you start out, there will already be stuff about the area to work around.

horseboy
2012-01-24, 03:28 PM
It is a form of "coercion." By effectively stating that you must either believe or face annihilation (putting it "kindly"), it is a breach of both free will and much of the concept of "Good." But, ignoring that, the clerics you've mentioned will most likely go on to the realm of their deity (as they are faithfuL) while Ur-Priests may either go to the Wall of the Faithless or be tortured for all eternity for daring to challenge the gods (it really depends on their approach).That's a HUGE stretch trying to call it coercion. You have the choice. You have something that has obvious, long term benefits vs something bad. It's like trying to claim food is coercing you into eating it. And yes, unless the god's portfolio involves molestation or treachery then that's going to make someone an ex-cleric and thereby part of the wall.

Balain
2012-01-24, 03:40 PM
A) Overall I think FR is a fine campaign setting. I don't know much about it personally. It's seems to be a large setting which is good.

B) I have run very few campaigns in FR. I have played many though.

C) I can't think of a worst time I played in FR. Nothing sticks out as "This sucks I'm never playing a FR campaign again." The best is me running my current 4th campaign I guess. FR changed so much and some of the players like FR so I used FR but added in my own stuff.

Tanuki Tales
2012-01-24, 03:52 PM
It's like trying to claim food is coercing you into eating it.

Food isn't sentient or sapient. Food doesn't have a say over the fact that you need to eat it in order to go on living and that's just the way the world works. Food doesn't get a tangible, personal benefit because you eat it. Food doesn't punish you severely if you choose not to eat it any of the current items offered or if you find an alternative to consuming it.

Gods do.

I think it's a huge stretch to claim that the Good gods of Faerun are anything but an example of Light is Not Good (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LightIsNotGood) or Jerkass Gods (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JerkassGods).

When Ao cast all the gods down to the material plane and tied their power directly to faith, the "Good" Gods weren't in anyway exempt.

INDYSTAR188
2012-01-24, 04:02 PM
The only think that I have a problem with in Forgotten Realms is that sometimes when I'm running the game, one of my players will say something like:

"Hey that's not how it is in the 14th Drizzt book."

or

"Cadderly built the Spirit Soaring here not there."

or

"You have to do X to get into Candlekeep not Y."

Usually, I just say that in my version of the Realms this is how it is. You can't let all the official canon get in the way of your fun. In my opinion you just have to use it as a backdrop and a suggestion for things to do in the region you pick to play in.

Kurald Galain
2012-01-24, 04:16 PM
"Hey that's not how it is in the 14th Drizzt book."

The proper answer to that is that Drizzt lied to his autobiographer :smalltongue:

horseboy
2012-01-24, 04:17 PM
Food isn't sentient or sapient. Food doesn't have a say over the fact that you need to eat it in order to go on living and that's just the way the world works. Food doesn't get a tangible, personal benefit because you eat it. Food doesn't punish you severely if you choose not to eat it any of the current items offered or if you find an alternative to consuming it.

Gods do.

I think it's a huge stretch to claim that the Good gods of Faerun are anything but an example of Light is Not Good (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LightIsNotGood) or Jerkass Gods (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JerkassGods).

When Ao cast all the gods down to the material plane and tied their power directly to faith, the "Good" Gods weren't in anyway exempt.

For starters fruit itself was created as a means to entice animals to come over and take the seeds and spread them around, thereby ensuring the continued survival of the species. Food does get a tangible benefit from being eaten. As to punish, well there's scurvy, rickets, and all the other disorders caused by malnutirition up to and including cancer, depending on which research you're reading. The only difference between a Faerun god and food is the sentience.

Baka Nikujaga
2012-01-24, 05:22 PM
http://i54.tinypic.com/200whs1.jpg
Are we running on a variation of Pascal's Wager...?

And yes, unless the god's portfolio involves molestation or treachery then that's going to make someone an ex-cleric and thereby part of the wall.

Said Cleric would be judged False instead and spend some "companionship" time with the the spited Ur-Priest if the Cleric's faith specifically contains lines against such things. Otherwise, even if a god's portfolio does not include molestation or treachery there is no guarantee any which way.



For starters fruit itself was created as a means to entice animals to come over and take the seeds and spread them around, thereby ensuring the continued survival of the species. Food does get a tangible benefit from being eaten. As to punish, well there's scurvy, rickets, and all the other disorders caused by malnutirition up to and including cancer, depending on which research you're reading. The only difference between a Faerun god and food is the sentience.

The logic is a bit faulty since if we switch all instances of "fruit" with "meat" we come up a bit short. The death of a particular animal may mean that the rest of the herd is capable of surviving and propagating (and that the death of sickly individual may cull the heard of weakness), but it provides no actual benefits to the chosen individual. Further, as punishment for eating particular types of meat those partaking can suffer from sickness, disease, and, on occasion, die.

It's understandable to make the statement that "the gods of Faerun aren't human and thus aren't bound by human standards," but that seems to conflict with the alignment system (which is).

[Edit]
And in that same vein...I do not believe that discussing "food" will really help us in resolving the matter.

SoC175
2012-01-24, 05:28 PM
because the fact that the gods are little more than powerful spirits or demons with more restrictive guidelinesActually there is plenty of evidence that the deities are directly responsible for the correct handling of their portfolios and thus mortal life as a whole.

During the interregnum between the deities of death no mortal could die (much to the chagrin of some caught in very painful "deadly" situations), when Lathander was disturbing Chauntea and accidenly burned some ground in her realm, it meant a bad harvest for some poor nation).

Basically the deities do work all around the clock to keep the mortal world going.

Not really. Just because you farm doesn't mean that supporting her helps you. It helps her in some mechanically indefinable way. It only helps you because if you don't pick one of them, something terrible happens to you. Your crops grow just fine regardless. Unless she runs out of power which then causes to world to die. Nothing grows anymore on the barren rock it becomes and that includes your crops.


If I'm remembering my FR correctly, killing Mystra actually does get rid of magic, or at least prevent mortals from being able to use it. I don't know this for sure, but I do remember hearing that before. Gods might not be all powerful, but if they aren't around things actually break down. Depriving them of the power to keep the world working is actually a big deal. DnD worlds don't neccessarily work on the same laws of physics we have, sometimes the only thing keeping the planet in orbit is the fact that the sun god is spending time and energy to hold it there.Correct. The 2e FRCS even stated that one needs to remember that Toril's laws of physic are slightly out of touch with ours and stuff brought from Earth to Toril (back then Earth was just another crystal sphere in the larger D&D multiverse and could be visited if you know the right spelljammer course or the right hidden portals) would not be guaranteed to work.

The thing with magic was that in the past the raw magic of Toril was simply to powerful for mortals to directly tap into. Trying to use a cantrip to light a candle would just immolate yourself. The weave, of which Mystra was the deity, was a filter through which mortals could safely tap into magic.

Since mortals now work magic without a weave since the spellplage, it stands to reason that the spellplague dimished Torils raw magic, thus now it's safe to access without having to be a deity or a filter inbetween.


A good analogy about the wall would be living in a modern nation, using all the infrastructure set up with tax payers money, but never paying any taxes yourself. When you are discovered you are send to jail. Same happens in the FR, sure the sentence might be more extreme, however the consequences of not paying your "taxes" are also more extreme than just the local library getting no new books




Kelemvor originally removed it when he first became the God of the Dead, sending Faithless and False to specific places within his city depending on how they had acted in life (not using the Wall), Not using the wall for any new arrivals is not the same as tearing it down. I am not sure whether he actually ever removed it.


And then, in the 4E FRCS, the Wall went away again as if had never existed (since as a Greater God Kelemvor's realm survived the Sellplague intact, the Wall shouldn't have been affected) Actually the state is that unless something is explictly removed, it's unchanged from before. Thus not mentioning the wall means it's still up, only if the 4e supplements had explicitly told that wall is no longer there would it be gone.


If the 2E Faiths and Avatars says that the Wall is there, then that's another misstep.Well, source books trump novels in a direct disagreement.

However there is not necessarily a disagreement: There are two types of souls under Kel's permanent responsibility: false and faithless. False always went to the city to be punished eternally and only faithless went to the wall.

Thus his new "grey and neither joy and pain" city could describe only how he deals with the false (as opposed to his predecessors who tortured them much more) while the faithless still go to the wall.

Baka Nikujaga
2012-01-24, 05:39 PM
During the interregnum between the deities of death no mortal could die (much to the chagrin of some caught in very painful "deadly" situations), when Lathander was disturbing Chauntea and accidenly burned some ground in her realm, it meant a bad harvest for some poor nation).

I've been wondering...how did that work out in regards to the Time of Troubles? I haven't been able to read the book series (I think?) personally, so I've been curious about how issues regarding any conflict of a concept a god or goddess governs were resolved in that period of time.

SoC175
2012-01-24, 05:50 PM
I've been wondering...how did that work out in regards to the Time of Troubles? I haven't been able to read the book series (I think?) personally, so I've been curious about how issues regarding any conflict of a concept a god or goddess governs were resolved in that period of time.While the deities were not dead (well, except for the ones that were eventually killed), their portfolios still worked, but went wild and behaved in chaotic ways.

That there was no period of dead magic like after Mystryl's dead was later explained with Mystra having never been completely absent like during the short period after Mystryl's death. First she survived as some sort of magic elemental (that Elminster later called forth against Bane) and then had hidden enough of her essence in Midnight.

However since neither of these forms allowed her to properly govern the weave spells went wild all over the place, often with lethal consequences for the casters.

But in general, the ToT was a very wonky time beside "only" having the avatar run around the world. Nature, magic and basically everything else went wild without the deities in their realms actively steering their portfolios

Yora
2012-01-24, 05:53 PM
"Cadderly built the Spirit Soaring here not there."
Actually I've seen some official maps from different editions that place the mountains and forests of the region in very different positions. Though it does all take place in one of the blank spots of the setting that never gets mentioned anywhere else.

Baka Nikujaga
2012-01-24, 05:54 PM
But things such as trade (commerce), animal and plant growth cycles (various nature things), and death were all still possible, right?

SoC175
2012-01-24, 06:42 PM
But things such as trade (commerce), animal and plant growth cycles (various nature things), and death were all still possible, right?Yes, since the deities were not dead, just not properly governing their portfolios.

On a related note, the ending text of the Scales of War adventure part for 4e, which ends with slaying Tiamat, deity of greed describes how her death created a world where people simply do not feel greed anymore


4. The occasional, what I call, non-sequiter details. Hellgate Keep (I think that's it) in the North is one of them. In the midst of a really cool and workable campaign region . . . there's a giant castle filled with devils! Huh? It really is a full stop "what?" moment for me. It's kind of like a missing tooth in a way, or maybe more accurate to say an obvious extra tooth in a smile. It sticks way the heck out of everything around it and I puzzle as to why it's there. Well, eventually Hellgate Keep's nature was explained. That's one of the things that can't please everyone. People complain that there is too much strange mystery around and then other people complain that there is not enough strange mystery around anymore whenever a previous one gets explained.


The Great Glacier stands out among them as one of the worst books in the setting. What's wrong with the glacier supplement? I admit I haven't read it, but since the glacier itself is not a natural phenomena it wouldn't surprise me if strange things are related to it

Baka Nikujaga
2012-01-24, 06:52 PM
Yes, since the deities were not dead, just not properly governing their portfolios.

http://i54.tinypic.com/200whs1.jpg
Hold on...does the portfolio becomes temporarily "inactive" if the host god dies? Or is it that the portfolio (concept) ceases to exist as well and needs to be replaced in its entirety?

bloodtide
2012-01-24, 07:22 PM
But things such as trade (commerce), animal and plant growth cycles (various nature things), and death were all still possible, right?

The basic idea was that things still worked, more or less, but without the gods in control things did not work perfectly. The idea was that each god spends a lot of time making everything work(the way we think of everything working by the laws of nature/physics).

Nature for example when wild, plants animated, animals were transformed and weather was disrupted(4 suns rose on some days).

People still died, but their 'soul' was not pulled to the underworld. The idea was that the god of the dead pulled a soul down quickly to get it out of the living realms. Otherwise a soul might linger around for quite a while.

Tanuki Tales
2012-01-24, 07:56 PM
For starters fruit itself was created as a means to entice animals to come over and take the seeds and spread them around, thereby ensuring the continued survival of the species. Food does get a tangible benefit from being eaten. As to punish, well there's scurvy, rickets, and all the other disorders caused by malnutirition up to and including cancer, depending on which research you're reading. The only difference between a Faerun god and food is the sentience.

No.

No on the grounds that none of that has anything to do with food itself (or fruit) but on how evolution as a process shaped life. And since most spirituality (and by extension anyone who worships deities) attributes these things to gods, we're back to food not being like gods.

Alleran
2012-01-24, 08:57 PM
Actually the state is that unless something is explictly removed, it's unchanged from before. Thus not mentioning the wall means it's still up, only if the 4e supplements had explicitly told that wall is no longer there would it be gone.
It isn't there. What happens is outlined, and the Wall is not part of it. Faithless souls simply waste away on the Fugue Plain. False ones IIRC live in Kelemvor's very dull city and are punished.

Baka Nikujaga
2012-01-25, 12:35 AM
http://i54.tinypic.com/2nsz4av.jpg
However, it is in the source book for the campaign setting, which means that it is present by default for third edition.

[Edit]
Can someone provide a quote from 4E specifically describing the removal of the wall and in what year?

hamlet
2012-01-25, 08:29 AM
Yora: Between editions, they actually altered the map, is my understanding. It got shrunk, or fidgeted, or something. Places moved, dissapeared, or just appeared out of thin air, all explained by the Time of Troubles shenanigans. So, yes, the original maps are not the current maps.


Well, eventually Hellgate Keep's nature was explained. That's one of the things that can't please everyone. People complain that there is too much strange mystery around and then other people complain that there is not enough strange mystery around anymore whenever a previous one gets explained.

I remember there was a module about it, but I don't think I ever read it.

It's not that I don't like unexplained mystery. It's that I don't like that type of unexplained mystery. It stuck out like a sore thumb where it was. It was handled so hamfistedly that I felt like I had a black eye after reading about it. Instead of "it's a fallen keep once used by refugees fleeing a war that was destroyed from within, some say by diabolic forces . . ." they flat out said "there's a pit fiend inside with a bunch of other devils at his beck and call and he just sits there patiently on his throne waiting for heros to come along . . ."

It's cloddy. It tries too hard for the "cool factor" when I've never found uber powerful monsters everywhere to be, de fact, cool. A better tack would have been to flesh it out without detail, but only in inuendo and rumor. Let the DM decide what the truth of the rumors is and what the true nature of the place is.



What's wrong with the glacier supplement? I admit I haven't read it, but since the glacier itself is not a natural phenomena it wouldn't surprise me if strange things are related to it

It was just objectively bad. No, really bad. There's an excellent review of it over on Dragonsfoot forums that I can't link to here at work (firewall and all) that's fairly accurate in summing up its deficiencies.

Yora
2012-01-25, 11:41 AM
"Go inside and look at it yourself" is not an unexplained mystery. It's just not telling what can easily be explained by people in the setting. But it is one of the main reasons I've lost interest in the setting. Everything is explained somewhere. I much favor Eberrons (original) approach of "People just don't know!". Having to deal with the fact that at the end of an adventure, some things you've encountered are not fully explained makes a setting much more interesting.

Tyndmyr
2012-01-25, 12:01 PM
For starters fruit itself was created as a means to entice animals to come over and take the seeds and spread them around, thereby ensuring the continued survival of the species. Food does get a tangible benefit from being eaten. As to punish, well there's scurvy, rickets, and all the other disorders caused by malnutirition up to and including cancer, depending on which research you're reading. The only difference between a Faerun god and food is the sentience.

Food did not create the penalty of starvation to force you to eat it.

INDYSTAR188
2012-01-25, 12:26 PM
It's pretty interesting to see a theological debate about a pantheon of made up deities. I've always felt that because there is the 'universal order' to be considered, the gods would respect the fact that you need certain institutions. You need Law, Good, Evil, and Chaotic aspects in the universe and in order to protect their own standing and stability the gods would at least function on the assumption that they all need each other to a certain degree. I think that's why the FR's gods work covertly through their mortal followers. If Torm needs to stop Bane from getting a certain artifact that would dominate the multiverse, then what he's really doing is charging his followers to stop Bane's followers. I think with that idea in mind that's why, as long as the gods still get their worshipers they don't care about Khelemvors wall. They enforce their pantheons on mortals, not other gods.

Tyndmyr
2012-01-25, 12:29 PM
Oh heck, I'd be satisfied by a "oppose the followers of this evil god because he supports the wall". That would be sufficient to make a god appear good, because at least then they are taking what action they can. Instead...it's just a non issue. None of them are concerned about it. That's unsatisfying.

Tanuki Tales
2012-01-25, 01:41 PM
Food did not create the penalty of starvation to force you to eat it.

Exactly what I said. :smallbiggrin:

Seharvepernfan
2012-01-25, 03:58 PM
It's cloddy. It tries too hard for the "cool factor" when I've never found uber powerful monsters everywhere to be, de fact, cool. A better tack would have been to flesh it out without detail, but only in inuendo and rumor. Let the DM decide what the truth of the rumors is and what the true nature of the place is.

It's for the DM, not the players. Now the DM knows that, according to the setting, there is a pit fiend in there with a bunch of lesser devils who follow him. The PCs might only know that "...it was rumored to have fallen to diabolic forces..."

Ed likes to give out a few details about a given peice of information for the DM to build off of, instead of just leaving them to build everything except the map and a few people names.

Yora
2012-01-25, 04:25 PM
Which gets us to the classic adventures that players can only learn about most settings by reading GM material.

Instead of having "Players Guides" that actually only contain character options, campaign settings should come with a "Game Masters Guide" that goes into detail for all the things that players are not supposed to know.

kalkyrie
2012-01-25, 06:37 PM
One of the most interesting campaigns I've been in was in the Forgotten Realms.

Namely an 'Evil' campaign.
However we broke the first rule of evil campaigns, in that our characters never backstabbed each other, because we were far too annoyed with the setting.

By the end of the campaign, our characters had flooded most coastal regions (Waterdeep was now a very literal name), wrecked the ecosystem with abyssal parasites, accidently let the quori invade, and were designing and mass-producing new races in order to shortcut themselves into godhood.

And after all that, I still think our characters were far more 'good' that the greater powers of the Forgotten Realms. The Wall of the Faithless is *that* stupid.

CapnVan
2012-01-26, 02:19 AM
By the end of the campaign, our characters had flooded most coastal regions (Waterdeep was now a very literal name), wrecked the ecosystem with abyssal parasites, accidently let the quori invade, and were designing and mass-producing new races in order to shortcut themselves into godhood

Well, at least you couldn't complain about all of those over-powerful NPCs hanging around every street corner.

Morithias
2012-01-26, 03:04 AM
One of the most interesting campaigns I've been in was in the Forgotten Realms.

Namely an 'Evil' campaign.
However we broke the first rule of evil campaigns, in that our characters never backstabbed each other, because we were far too annoyed with the setting.
.

Marry me. You get a free evil cookie.

Prime32
2012-01-26, 03:12 PM
Forgotten Realms
accidently let the quori invade

Now that's impressive. :smalltongue:

kalkyrie
2012-01-26, 08:51 PM
Now that's impressive. :smalltongue:

It seemed like a good idea at the time.

----
For reference: The quori linked in with the entire 'design a new race to shortcut to godhood' idea.
To cut a long story short, the quori managed to pass a single book across dimensions/planes (with the help of a badly worded wish bartered from a demon from our end. Because that always ends well).
The book was a reference document on Warforged written by House Cannith (altered by the quori), with enough information in it to make a Creation Forge. Half the campaign later, and we were in a position to try it.

...However the quori correctly guessed that as an Evil party we would cut corners. Where by "cut corners", I mean "throw people into the forge to save on raw materials".

Anyway, gross evil acts + souls being thrown into the forge = Warforged who were ideal vessels for Quori to possess.

The party failed their Sense Motive rolls, and kept making new quoriforged, for several in-game years. Until the quoriforged took over the Creation Forge.
And it all got worse from there.

----

As people can tell, the campaign was designed to be 'interesting'. The DM was curious what would happen if you removed the Wealth By Level guidelines for PCs, and allowed the PCs to set up businesses.

If handled well it's actually a great twist on the game- combat becomes something to be avoided. This is because you don't need XP to improve your character, and characters being weaker in combat overall (due to GP being invested, not spent on magic items; and skill points/non-combat abilities being prioritized). The game was feeling like Shadowrun at times!

stainboy
2012-01-27, 08:29 AM
Oh heck, I'd be satisfied by a "oppose the followers of this evil god because he supports the wall". That would be sufficient to make a god appear good, because at least then they are taking what action they can. Instead...it's just a non issue. None of them are concerned about it. That's unsatisfying.

Yeah, that's the problem. The whole thing is pretty grimdark and the canon doesn't acknowledge it. Values dissonance, and so on. The Wall of Souls would fit right in some White Wolf universe where even the "good" uber-NPCs are morally bankrupt. I'm pretty sure Wraith already has a Wall of Souls.

Different writers have used the FR pantheon for contradictory themes. Some writers wanted the good gods to have your back. Others wanted the entire pantheon to be an oppressive regime of squabbling teenagers. I could deal with either, I just wish they'd picked one theme and stuck with it.

Diamondeye
2012-01-28, 12:33 PM
Food isn't sentient or sapient. Food doesn't have a say over the fact that you need to eat it in order to go on living and that's just the way the world works. Food doesn't get a tangible, personal benefit because you eat it. Food doesn't punish you severely if you choose not to eat it any of the current items offered or if you find an alternative to consuming it.

Gods do.

I think it's a huge stretch to claim that the Good gods of Faerun are anything but an example of Light is Not Good (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LightIsNotGood) or Jerkass Gods (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JerkassGods).

When Ao cast all the gods down to the material plane and tied their power directly to faith, the "Good" Gods weren't in anyway exempt.

The basic problem with this entire position is that there's nothing particularly wrong, evil, or jerkass about the gos in Faerun not giving you a consequence-free choice to not believe in them.

Unbelief in FR is not like unbelief in the real world. In FR, if you choose not to believe in the gods, you are doing one of two things:

A) Being a complete idiot. There is overwhelming evidence that the Gods exist, from daily use of divine magic, to them showing up in Faerun during the 1E-2E shift/Avatar trilogy/Godswar/whatever you want to call it. If you're trying to claim they don't exist, you're well beyond "completely full of it." If you want to insist they're "not gods" but rather some exceedingly powerful divine being, you might be able to make a very stretched case for that is you claim Ao is the "only true god" or something like that, but event then all you're really doing is saying Ao's own definition of "gods" is wrong and trying to impose your own for no other reason than that you don't like the word Gods being applied to these entities.

B) You acknowledge that they exist, but simply don't want to be a follower of/worship/pay lip service to any of them. It isn't a matter of whether you want to believe; as has been pointed out there is no question of believing in the gods or not; they exist. Not only is it right there in front of the character, it's right there in the manual as well, and numerous books.

This one, B, is a problem only if you've decided for some reason that it's "good" to have the freedom not to follow any of the gods of FR. Unfortunately, freedom of choice is a chaotic value, not a good one.

Essentially, there's not a lot of reason for an otherwise good person to not want to worship any gods except for being pissed off at the existence of the Wall in the first place. It basically comes down to wanting to be able to not worship or follow any deity for no other reason than that you're being told you don't have the option not to (and really, you do, you just end up in the wall, and that's only really a problem if the person in question is).

While it's certainly possible for a particular character to take issue with the wall in that fashion, and it's a legitimate belief especially for a high-level character, it is A) not the logical default position of adventurers, nor the logical endpoint of all FR campaigns and B) does not mean there's anything wrong with the good gods.

It's important to note that in deciding how the world is run, the gods have to compromise. They are not omnipotent in the face of the desires of other dieties. Even assuming they disagree with the wall, good gods and/or chaotic ones cannot just decide it's unacceptable and get rid of it. There are all kinds of compromises they're forced to engage in, such as the pacts that created Asmodeus and the devils as detailed in Tyrants of the Nine Hells. One also must make allowances for the fact that they're written by human authors and controlled by human DMs and simulating deity-level wisdom and foresight is not exactly easy for real people.

Note: It may not be "good" to not have freedom of choice of who you're going to worship in terms of our real-world values in most western countries, but you have to put that aside when evaluating good and evil in D&D, and for that matter, law and chaos as well. There's a simple reason: not everyone agrees on what's good and evil (or lawful/chaotic) in the real world, and if you'd rather other people not do it to you, don't do it to them.

Toofey
2012-01-29, 03:00 AM
I love the forgotten realms, I'm still playing 2nd ed, and I've only recently learned the history past the year of the harp unstrung. I think my next set of campaigns is going to be related to preventing all of that from happening.

Samy
2012-01-29, 09:36 PM
I love the realms. It's far from perfect, but it does give me that nice "going back to the hometown where I grew up" warm fuzzy feeling. The Realms gave me a lot of good times when I was a teenager and I think I will always love them on some level.

I think it's a little silly to get so worked up about having to take a god as a patron. I don't gnash my teeth every day about having to pay taxes to the government; that's a similar kind of arrangement. I have to do something for them, in order for them to look after me. Is the only sane conclusion to real life that you have to blow up Congress and assassinate the President because you don't want to pay your dues? That's how this god-protesting sounds like to me. You're so fiercely individualistic and so fiercely opposed to having to give anyone *anything*, that the only possible way your life can end up is having to go kill the guys providing a service in return for that something. It sounds pretty extreme to me. I would like to think that 99% of people can just live with the fact that they have to pay up a little bit of tax in order to live within the system, and not have to go all Guy Fawkes about it.

Baka Nikujaga
2012-01-30, 12:10 AM
I think it's a little silly to get so worked up about having to take a god as a patron. I don't gnash my teeth every day about having to pay taxes to the government; that's a similar kind of arrangement. I have to do something for them, in order for them to look after me. Is the only sane conclusion to real life that you have to blow up Congress and assassinate the President because you don't want to pay your dues? That's how this god-protesting sounds like to me. You're so fiercely individualistic and so fiercely opposed to having to give anyone *anything*, that the only possible way your life can end up is having to go kill the guys providing a service in return for that something. It sounds pretty extreme to me. I would like to think that 99% of people can just live with the fact that they have to pay up a little bit of tax in order to live within the system, and not have to go all Guy Fawkes about it.

Choosing whether or not to obey the will of a government is not found on the Good or Evil axis as the concept of civilization and the state of nature tends to fall upon the Lawful and Chaotic axis. By agreeing to enter a social contract with a government, you are agreeing to play by the rules of that government in exchange for the conveniences and benefits that society provides. Similarly, one can choose not to agree with this contract and leave a society in search of a more favorable environment. For us, in developed countries, this means that we can decide, by our own free will, whether or not to be a citizen of any one particular civilization or another - the state cannot force us to remain citizens of their government for all eternity and neither can it punish us solely for our wish to leave.

But that is a tangent and does not truly apply to the discussion as it neither proves good gods are Good, nor address the primary points - the continued existence of the Wall of the Faithless (a device created by Myrkul during his reign) and the evident torture of souls kept within it. By virtue of the Wall's description and their own alignment definition, all of the good gods of Faerun should be opposed to the Wall. Yet, like the evil gods, they are not. Rather, they allow this (http://lparchive.org/Neverwinter-Nights-2-Mask-of-the-Betrayer/Update%2025/55-lpmotb_ch025_048.jpg) fate to be carried out upon the Faithless regardless of what the individual may have done in life.

Morithias
2012-01-30, 01:23 AM
Exactly as Azazer says...in all fluff and detailing of the wall the wall is described as torture. I could see a good god not minding the wall or the city if it was neutral, like the outlands or mechanus.

But when it's blatantly torture, and the good gods are suppose to be against torture BY THEIR OWN RULES, it stops being just fluff and becomes hypocritical.

Now one can argue maybe there's blue and orange morality going on here, but at the same time, i'm going to quote this from the tyrants of the nine hell books. Page 15 under "Tending Damnation's Garden"

"Exemptions for Rulers: The rules are meant for everyone except figures of high authority, who are by definition so important that their actions cannot be contained in a rules set."

The wall is Lawful Evil, and the good gods claiming that they are above being called out on it being torture is also lawful evil. At least with the existence of Baator one can make the argument that only evil people are going there, but with the wall you could literally be a bloody saint, but because you don't go "HIEL THE GODS" you get sent to the wall.

Edit: and before anyone asks, yes the "hiel" part is not a typo. I hold any deity to higher standards than any mortal, the more powerful you are in terms of making the rules the more you better standby them. When you literally define what "good" is, you better damn well be the most good aligned thing in existence.

Samy
2012-01-30, 02:13 AM
By agreeing to enter a social contract with a government, you are agreeing to play by the rules of that government in exchange for the conveniences and benefits that society provides.Like by agreeing to follow a certain deity, you are agreeing to patronize them in exchange for the conveniences and benefits said deity provides - one of which is not being screwed after death. It's analogous. You do something mildly distasteful in exchange for benefits.


Similarly, one can choose not to agree with this contract and leave a society in search of a more favorable environment.Which would be analogous to choosing not to follow a deity. In the real world, these people are few, and thus it makes sense to me that they are also few in the Realms.

Morithias
2012-01-30, 02:25 AM
Like by agreeing to follow a certain deity, you are agreeing to patronize them in exchange for the conveniences and benefits said deity provides - one of which is not being screwed after death. It's analogous. You do something mildly distasteful in exchange for benefits.

Which would be analogous to choosing not to follow a deity. In the real world, these people are few, and thus it makes sense to me that they are also few in the Realms.

Maybe "not live in society" is a bad example. Maybe "Move to another country" if I don't like that women get tortured and abused with no rights in one country, I can always flee or move to another.

In Faerun there is no option. It's either you worship or you suffer. It's a brutal tyranny that is under the false idea that it's good or at least neutral. The gods are Miko, end of story.

Baka Nikujaga
2012-01-30, 03:03 AM
Like by agreeing to follow a certain deity, you are agreeing to patronize them in exchange for the conveniences and benefits said deity provides - one of which is not being screwed after death. It's analogous. You do something mildly distasteful in exchange for benefits.
http://i54.tinypic.com/2nsz4av.jpg
Without deific interference the souls of the dead simply wander around the Fugue Plane until they either discorporate naturally or are stolen away by demons (or devils). With interference the souls of non-believers are sent to an unnatural Wall of the Faithless that was created by Myrkul because the faithless were not championed by any particular deity and this cycle has been perpetuated ever since. If one looks at this situation purely from the perspective of Law and Chaos, then by not following a god (and thus choosing the state of nature in this particular case), the non-believer has chosen to eventually become part of the Fugue Plane rather than consigning to becoming part of a deity in exchange for particular favors (and, even then, the interference of a deity should be seen as "infringing" upon the natural cycle as they hold no particular claim to them either). But, once again, that does not address either Good or Evil but Law and Chaos. All you have proven is that the gods of Faerun are far more likely to be lawful whenever a situation attests to their needs rather than chaotic.

[Edit]
Here, I'll include an excerpt on Alignment.

Good Vs. Evil
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

kalkyrie
2012-01-30, 12:33 PM
Which would be analogous to choosing not to follow a deity. In the real world, these people are few, and thus it makes sense to me that they are also few in the Realms.

The percentage of people who follow a deity varies wildly from area to area.
In the UK, it seems that about 50% of the population believes in a deity.
In the USA, that figure is probably closer to 80-90%, with wild variations between locations.
In Sweden, the figure is closer to 25%.

I'll not comment further on the real world, in case it moves into politics or RL religion. But I thought you might be interested in the information.

(Btw, I agree that rates of 'not following a deity' in any D&D setting would be much lower, for obvious reasons. I'd also like to poke anyone reading in the direction of the Planescape campaign setting. Again, people with strong opinions on the Wall may find aspects of the setting interesting).


Reference; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/wtwtgod/3518375.stm

You could also look at wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism#cite_note-UK_secular-9 . It seems well referenced for wikipedia.

Samy
2012-01-30, 11:26 PM
The percentage of people who follow a deity varies wildly from area to area. In the UK, it seems that about 50% of the population believes in a deity.Maybe I was unclear. The analogy was:

FR non-deity-following people = RL non-tax-paying people

That's the relation I was talking about when I said, "In the real world, these people (i.e. non-tax-paying people) are few, and thus it makes sense to me that they (i.e. non-deity-following people) are also few in the Realms."

CapnVan
2012-01-31, 05:12 AM
http://i54.tinypic.com/2nsz4av.jpg
[COLOR="RoyalBlue"]Without deific interference the souls of the dead simply wander around the Fugue Plane until they either discorporate naturally or are stolen away by demons (or devils). With interference the souls of non-believers are sent to an unnatural Wall of the Faithless that was created by Myrkul because the faithless were not championed by any particular deity and this cycle has been perpetuated ever since. If one looks at this situation purely from the perspective of Law and Chaos, then by not following a god (and thus choosing the state of nature in this particular case), the non-believer has chosen to eventually become part of the Fugue Plane rather than consigning to becoming part of a deity in exchange for particular favors (and, even then, the interference of a deity should be seen as "infringing" upon the natural cycle as they hold no particular claim to them either). But, once again, that does not address either Good or Evil but Law and Chaos. All you have proven is that the gods of Faerun are far more likely to be lawful whenever a situation attests to their needs rather than chaotic.


Except that you're making a serious philosophical mistake: You're presuming that the gods aren't part of the natural order. Which, in fact, they are. They're "built-in", just as much as the Fugue Plane itself is. So anything that they do, is per se, "natural."

Tyndmyr
2012-01-31, 12:15 PM
Except that you're making a serious philosophical mistake: You're presuming that the gods aren't part of the natural order. Which, in fact, they are. They're "built-in", just as much as the Fugue Plane itself is. So anything that they do, is per se, "natural."

If that's the case, humans are natural too, and the word natural is basically meaningless.

Note that plenty of the gods literally are ascended humans, so you can't really get natural dieties without assuming humans being natural.

kalkyrie
2012-01-31, 12:58 PM
Maybe I was unclear. The analogy was:

FR non-deity-following people = RL non-tax-paying people

That's the relation I was talking about when I said, "In the real world, these people (i.e. non-tax-paying people) are few, and thus it makes sense to me that they (i.e. non-deity-following people) are also few in the Realms."


Ah, that makes sense. Considering things that way also ties in well with the 'Law v Chaos' comments of Azazer.

CapnVan
2012-01-31, 01:37 PM
If that's the case, humans are natural too, and the word natural is basically meaningless.

Note that plenty of the gods literally are ascended humans, so you can't really get natural dieties without assuming humans being natural.

Umm, that would all certainly be true. The idea that humans aren't part of the natural order is something that has very little basis in, well, much of anything, not even in the real world.

Moreover, it's even harder to use the ideas of "artificial" or "infringement" when predestination is an accepted part of the Realms. Alaundo's (and others') prophecies have and do come true — at the very least certain events are and have been pre-determined. Which is also part of the natural order.

Baka Nikujaga
2012-01-31, 02:24 PM
http://i54.tinypic.com/2nsz4av.jpg
The idea that humans (and, humanoids really) aren't a part of nature is taken from various real world religious beliefs and transfered by writers to the fantasy worlds they create. Simply by reading through the creation myth of a few humanoid races you'll find, more often than not, a god in their pantheon responsible for their coming into being. Similarly, I'll raise you predestination by different legendary heroes.

[Note]
Is speaking this far into generalities acceptable? Or, am I overstepping the rules? I can't quite tell...

CapnVan
2012-01-31, 02:28 PM
Is speaking this far into generalities acceptable? Or, am I overstepping the rules? I can't quite tell...

If your argument is that the good Realmsian gods are acting like "jerks" or otherwise negatively "interfering", probably.

Baka Nikujaga
2012-01-31, 02:29 PM
I meant the forum rules.

CapnVan
2012-01-31, 03:55 PM
Then I have no idea where you're going.

Daisuke1133
2012-01-31, 04:05 PM
Pretty certain the forum rules only pertain to discussions of real world religions.

Baka Nikujaga
2012-01-31, 04:51 PM
http://i54.tinypic.com/200whs1.jpg
My apprehension stems from the "single comment, references, or posts" line and whether or not glancing dialogue (my reference to authors porting what they know) counts. But if there's no problems then I'll just drop the subject regarding it.

SoC175
2012-02-01, 03:47 PM
Maybe "not live in society" is a bad example. Maybe "Move to another country" if I don't like that women get tortured and abused with no rights in one country, I can always flee or move to another.

In Faerun there is no option. It's either you worship or you suffer. It's a brutal tyranny that is under the false idea that it's good or at least neutral. The gods are Miko, end of story.Technically you could leave Toril and go to live on Oerth or in Sigil or somewhere else.

Yes, that takes some effort and many people can not do that, but most people living in countries they don't want to live in don't have the means to just change that either.

hamlet
2012-02-01, 04:17 PM
You know, just a thought on this lengthy and (in my eye, absurd) theological discussion: is it at all possible that it's being WAY overthought? Can't it just become a matter of NAMGT (not at my game table)?

Morithias
2012-02-01, 04:24 PM
You know, just a thought on this lengthy and (in my eye, absurd) theological discussion: is it at all possible that it's being WAY overthought? Can't it just become a matter of NAMGT (not at my game table)?

...You're not familiar with how Geeks work are you?

Baka Nikujaga
2012-02-01, 05:34 PM
Technically you could leave Toril and go to live on Oerth or in Sigil or somewhere else.

Yes, that takes some effort and many people can not do that, but most people living in countries they don't want to live in don't have the means to just change that either.

That's called "not playing in Faerun" which fails to address whether or not the good gods are Good.

Libertad
2012-02-01, 11:57 PM
My thoughts on Forgotten Realms (no experience with 4th Edition):

I overall like the setting, specifically in how it combines a bunch of fantasy aspects into one huge world. I like the frontier feel of the Silver Marches, a fledgling new nation beset by all manner of problems.

I rarely run or play games in the setting, but when I do it's in the Silver Marches or Sword Coast North.

Mechanically, a lot of the most powerful builds come from FR material (Pun Pun, Incantatrix, etc.). The game has a lot of high-level NPCs all over the place. With the powers and exploits of spellcasters at those levels, you get the feeling that they either don't do much to change things or that they're all selfish and cut off from world events.

Best experience: The 3rd Edition Campaign Setting Sourcebook and the Silver Marches sourcebook. I got these books way back in middle school, and I freaking loved them! I have nostalgic thoughts about the setting and how it felt like I could have endless amounts of gaming sessions in that one setting.

Worst experience: Ao and the Wall of the Faithless. The idea that the lives of mortals are worthless in comparison to the deities is incredibly abhorrent. The fact that it was not a natural function of the universe but a creation of an evil god of death paints Ao as a tyrant. It's basically saying that the Gods are all that matter, nothing else.

CapnVan
2012-02-02, 05:23 AM
Ao and the Wall of the Faithless. The idea that the lives of mortals are worthless in comparison to the deities is incredibly abhorrent. The fact that it was not a natural function of the universe but a creation of an evil god of death paints Ao as a tyrant. It's basically saying that the Gods are all that matter, nothing else.

This is an interesting thesis, but it's not an actual argument.

How can the lives of mortals be "worthless in comparison to the deities" when we have at least seven examples of mortals replacing deities? Or when the deities' power is directly proportional to the worship they receive from mortals?

Wouldn't it be more apt to say that mortals are less important in a setting where there is no real relation between mortals and deific power? Zeus' position as a greater power doesn't depend in the slightest on the number of mortals worshipping him. In fact, he apparently feels quite comfortable raping mortal women on a regular basis, treating them in the most "abhorrent" way.

And what would be your basis for suggesting that the creation of the Wall was "unnatural"? As I've pointed out, in a setting where predestination does exist, suggesting that anything is not a part of the natural order is, at the very least, fraught with peril.

stainboy
2012-02-02, 08:29 AM
Note that plenty of the gods literally are ascended humans, so you can't really get natural dieties without assuming humans being natural.

In particular Kelemvor, the god most directly connected to the Wall of Souls, is some chucklehead adventurer from a novel.

I don't know get why it matters if the gods are part of the "natural order," as if FR had some immutable natural order. We're talking about the setting where the authors kill Mystra every time they need to sell new books. If the authors can the world at a whim for no established in-world reason, surely they can change the world to remove some values dissonance.

hamlet
2012-02-02, 09:29 AM
...You're not familiar with how Geeks work are you?

Oh yes I am. I can just hold out hope that there are reasonable folks amongst us.

Nerd rage, while entertaining, gets old fast.

Yora
2012-02-02, 09:45 AM
There are, but it takes only two idiots to fan each others flames.

Libertad
2012-02-02, 03:52 PM
This is an interesting thesis, but it's not an actual argument.

How can the lives of mortals be "worthless in comparison to the deities" when we have at least seven examples of mortals replacing deities? Or when the deities' power is directly proportional to the worship they receive from mortals?

Wouldn't it be more apt to say that mortals are less important in a setting where there is no real relation between mortals and deific power? Zeus' position as a greater power doesn't depend in the slightest on the number of mortals worshipping him. In fact, he apparently feels quite comfortable raping mortal women on a regular basis, treating them in the most "abhorrent" way.

And what would be your basis for suggesting that the creation of the Wall was "unnatural"? As I've pointed out, in a setting where predestination does exist, suggesting that anything is not a part of the natural order is, at the very least, fraught with peril.

I misspoke about the Wall being "unnatural."

I meant that it was a recent creation as opposed to being something immutable and unchanging that existed since time immemorial.

The Wall just felt like something Ao did to punish people who don't have patron deities.

Tiki Snakes
2012-02-02, 04:16 PM
I misspoke about the Wall being "unnatural."

I meant that it was a recent creation as opposed to being something immutable and unchanging that existed since time immemorial.

The Wall just felt like something Ao did to punish people who don't have patron deities.

Or the unspoken threat that is such an integral part of any good Protection racket.

"Lovely shop you have here. Wouldn't want anything to happen to it."
The Realms are like a neighborhood with a dozen conflicting gangs. Doesn't matter which one if any you actually like, you still have to choose one to pay protection money to, because otherwise bad things happen. But hey, they'll keep you safe from those other jerks.
It's a service, really.

hamishspence
2012-02-02, 04:18 PM
While it's like that in FRCS 3.0, in the slightly later 3.0 version of Deities and Demigods, it takes more than "not having a patron deity" for a person to end up in the Wall- they have to actively "oppose the worship of the gods".

CapnVan
2012-02-03, 07:10 AM
The Wall just felt like something Ao did to punish people who don't have patron deities.

That's a much more arguable point, although, as hamishspence points out, not totally correct.

But, as far as I can make out, much of the argument in this thread is that the gods of the Faerunian pantheon, even the ones of good alignment, aren't acting in a "good" way by allowing the Wall to exist.

To address that, you have to look at Faiths & Pantheons, where Ao isn't even included in the pantheon (p.222). Ao isn't a "god" in the proper sense of what we'd expect from Faerun — he doesn't require mortal worship to maintain his power; if anything, he actively eschews the worship of his cult. Moreover, even in Faiths & Avatars, in which he does appear, he is the only power listed without an alignment. He is, in a sense, beyond alignment, which is something that, in the D&D world, isn't really possible. :small confused:

His only concern then, is the "Balance", something which, even from a metagame POV, is basically inscrutable. Not to mention that even Ao reports to a higher power.

In other words, understanding Ao's motivations as "punishment" or anything else, is essentially impossible. You can say, "It just seems douchey," but without any information on the motivations or rationale behind it, it's an unanswerable question.

But (and this isn't aimed at you), "Ao is essentially the god of the deities of Faerun"" (3E FRCS). Suggesting that the powers of the actual Faerunian pantheon are acting in anything other than an appropriate manner in obeying the dictates of their god is fairly ridiculous.

Yora
2012-02-03, 07:18 AM
Two weeks later you are still arguing about this?

Kurald Galain
2012-02-03, 07:45 AM
Two weeks later you are still arguing about this?

Oh please :smalltongue: I registered to these forums in 2007, and one of the first things I remember seeing was a monk debate. It's now five years later and people are still arguing about the same issue.

Murdim
2012-02-03, 10:03 AM
But, as far as I can make out, much of the argument in this thread is that the gods of the Faerunian pantheon, even the ones of good alignment, aren't acting in a "good" way by allowing the Wall to exist.

To address that, you have to look at Faiths & Pantheons, where Ao isn't even included in the pantheon (p.222). Ao isn't a "god" in the proper sense of what we'd expect from Faerun — he doesn't require mortal worship to maintain his power; if anything, he actively eschews the worship of his cult. Moreover, even in Faiths & Avatars, in which he does appear, he is the only power listed without an alignment. He is, in a sense, beyond alignment, which is something that, in the D&D world, isn't really possible. :small confused:

His only concern then, is the "Balance", something which, even from a metagame POV, is basically inscrutable. Not to mention that even Ao reports to a higher power.

In other words, understanding Ao's motivations as "punishment" or anything else, is essentially impossible. You can say, "It just seems douchey," but without any information on the motivations or rationale behind it, it's an unanswerable question.

But (and this isn't aimed at you), "Ao is essentially the god of the deities of Faerun"" (3E FRCS). Suggesting that the powers of the actual Faerunian pantheon are acting in anything other than an appropriate manner in obeying the dictates of their god is fairly ridiculous.
:smallconfused: You're moving the goalposts here. The question isn't whether the "Good" gods are good followers of Ao, but whether they are Good in the alignment sense. I don't think that deliberate acts of torture and extortion are made in any way "altruistic, respectful of life, and concerned for the dignity of sentient beings" when they are done in the name of a literally amoral higher power.

Kansaschaser
2012-02-03, 10:29 AM
I personally love Forgotten Realms. I think it's a place where anything is possible. In certain other settings, there are restrictions on classes, spells, races, and/or feats. I'm not fond of being restricted. Granted, I love some other settings, such as Dragonlance, but I don't like playing in that setting due to the restrictions.

Ah, I remember reading a bunch of stuff about AO. The funniest thing I remember is that Clerics of AO don't get any granted powers or spells. If they somehow gained enough levels to cast 9th level spells, they would burst into flame and die. So I guess the only granted ability AO gives is spontaneous self combustion. :smallbiggrin:

CapnVan
2012-02-03, 11:36 AM
:smallconfused: You're moving the goalposts here. The question isn't whether the "Good" gods are good followers of Ao, but whether they are Good in the alignment sense. I don't think that deliberate acts of torture and extortion are made in any way "altruistic, respectful of life, and concerned for the dignity of sentient beings" when they are done in the name of a literally amoral higher power.

I'm moving the goalposts? Where are the "deliberate acts of torture and extortion"?

No god sends his worshippers into the Wall. Moreover, they make it quite clear in their teachings — if you reject the gods, that's where you go.

If there's anything in this equation that can be described as "deliberate", it's the mortal's choice to renounce or reject the power of the gods, despite, not just the evidence of their existence, but their actual existence.

And what would be the "extortion", out of curiosity? If you worship a good god, you go to a good place after death. For eternity. Far from being extortionate, that's a hell of a bargain! (Pardon the pun)

Tyndmyr
2012-02-03, 11:41 AM
I'm moving the goalposts? Where are the "deliberate acts of torture and extortion"?

No god sends his worshippers into the Wall. Moreover, they make it quite clear in their teachings — if you reject the gods, that's where you go.

If there's anything in this equation that can be described as "deliberate", it's the mortal's choice to renounce or reject the power of the gods, despite, not just the evidence of their existence, but their actual existence.

And what would be the "extortion", out of curiosity? If you worship a good god, you go to a good place after death. For eternity. Far from being extortionate, that's a hell of a bargain! (Pardon the pun)

If the penalty is one imposed by you or your group, then yes, it's extortion.

That is exactly the relationship of the gods to the wall.

CapnVan
2012-02-03, 01:18 PM
If the penalty is one imposed by you or your group, then yes, it's extortion.

That is exactly the relationship of the gods to the wall.

That, unfortunately, isn't English.

How's about you try to come up with a thesis statement, and then follow it up with some kind of evidence.

And try to bring some kind of evidence of "extortion", eh?

Helldog
2012-02-03, 01:52 PM
Didn't Kelemvor, the god that's in charge of dead, want get rid of the wall right after he ascended? And he's LN! The wall is still there just because Ao ordered it. I'm pretty certain that other, Good and some of the Neutral, gods would rather see the wall destroyed. They can't do anything with the wall itself, so they do the other best thing, warn their followers. And it doesn't even help them that much, because the mortals that are "forced" into following a god can as well go and worship an Evil deity.

Baka Nikujaga
2012-02-03, 06:05 PM
Two weeks later you are still arguing about this?

To be fair, it's a bit better than another forum in which anything on-topic automatically becomes an off-topic discussion regarding one character from one specific game for some arbitrary reason.


Didn't Kelemvor, the god that's in charge of dead, want get rid of the wall right after he ascended? And he's LN! The wall is still there just because Ao ordered it. I'm pretty certain that other, Good and some of the Neutral, gods would rather see the wall destroyed. They can't do anything with the wall itself, so they do the other best thing, warn their followers. And it doesn't even help them that much, because the mortals that are "forced" into following a god can as well go and worship an Evil deity.
Kelemvor maintained the wall but felt that it was unjust to send any but the worst individuals to be imprisoned within it. The outcome of this incident proved the transient nature of "faith" and "belief" in regards to Faerun and its gods, as well caused Ao to reprimand Kelemvor. In any case, the discussion doesn't concern Kelemvor's alignment as Kelemvor is not a good aligned god.


And try to bring some kind of evidence of "extortion", eh?

Certainly the Mafia does not "extort" either, it simply "convinces" people that it's worth purchasing their protection. But, regardless of your view concerning that, the primary points of contention were summarized in post ninety-six.

As to Hamishspence...that particular piece of information did not save a follower of Torm from being placed into the wall because he was not pious enough.

Libertad
2012-02-03, 06:36 PM
Didn't Kelemvor, the god that's in charge of dead, want get rid of the wall right after he ascended? And he's LN! The wall is still there just because Ao ordered it. I'm pretty certain that other, Good and some of the Neutral, gods would rather see the wall destroyed. They can't do anything with the wall itself, so they do the other best thing, warn their followers. And it doesn't even help them that much, because the mortals that are "forced" into following a god can as well go and worship an Evil deity.

That's why I think that the Gods aren't all Evil. Ao is a being of supreme power, and even threatened to give Kelemvor's portfolio to an even worse and more Evil God. I'm sure that many of the Gods are uncomfortable with the Wall, but their inability to move against it doesn't make them heartless or bad.

They may think that moving against Ao would lead to worse things down the road. Also, the use of devils overseeing the Wall probably did not endear Ao to the Good and Chaotic deities at all. It would fair to use impartial observers instead of beings with a tyrannical agenda.

I hope I didn't just derail the thread with the Gods debate.

For what it's worth, I heard that the Wall ceased to exist post-Spellplague, around the time of 4th Edition.

Morty
2012-02-03, 07:03 PM
You know, just a thought on this lengthy and (in my eye, absurd) theological discussion: is it at all possible that it's being WAY overthought? Can't it just become a matter of NAMGT (not at my game table)?

I was going to ask the same question... I do wonder if we can have a FR thread where we actually discuss the setting instead of arguing back and forth about that wall.

Morithias
2012-02-04, 01:54 AM
I was going to ask the same question... I do wonder if we can have a FR thread where we actually discuss the setting instead of arguing back and forth about that wall.

So you want to discuss the setting while blatantly ignoring what many people consider to be the setting's greatest flaw? That's like covering the history of the USA and not talking about the civil war/slavery. (Hey at least I didn't say Germany).

Kurald Galain
2012-02-04, 05:54 AM
So you want to discuss the setting while blatantly ignoring what many people consider to be the setting's greatest flaw?

Considering I've been playing LFR for years and hadn't ever heard of this "greatest flaw" until this thread started, I think you're overestimating how many people are really bothered by it.

Usually when I hear someone bothered by the FR, it's either about the fact that every barkeep happens to be a 12th level ex-adventurer, or the presence of blatant Mary Sue characters like Elmy and Drizz'l.

Tiki Snakes
2012-02-04, 08:12 AM
Considering I've been playing LFR for years and hadn't ever heard of this "greatest flaw" until this thread started, I think you're overestimating how many people are really bothered by it.

Usually when I hear someone bothered by the FR, it's either about the fact that every barkeep happens to be a 12th level ex-adventurer, or the presence of blatant Mary Sue characters like Elmy and Drizz'l.

Eh, there are different types of flaws. The 12th level barkeep issue is a very different kind of problem for me than the whole divine-protection-racket thing.
Maybe because I'm quite happy to ignore the existence of tie-in-fiction derived content and characters (Generally, not specifically FR ones) that I don't view that as quite the same issue. Though, 4th Ed's cleaning out of such ubermenches is certainly a positive thing because it lessens the issue.

The existence of the wall, and associated pseudo-philosophical issues relating to the Gods are more fundamental, but also less likely to ruin day-to-day play in the setting, leading to claims like the one that started this tangent; That it is a desirable late-game goal to take on the Gods for their crimes.

Morithias
2012-02-04, 08:40 PM
To be fair the "level 12 barkeep thing" is kinda justified by how much money it costs to actually start a bar. Not to mention a tavern is high risk so that's a -4 to your profit check right there. All it takes to be a good bartender is to place ranks in profession which is a skill almost every class gets.

Let me check my books and I'll come back and tell you how much it costs to start a bar in a metropolis.

Ok a tavern is a medium capital, medium resource business. So in a metropolis you would need a 5000 gp building, a 32000 capital. So 37k.

City is 21k, town is 13k, rural is 9k, and in the wild is 7k.

And don't tell me that these rules aren't canon in faerun. "Power of Faerun" has a bloody prestige class that revolves around running businesses, the "Merchant Prince".

Gorgon_Heap
2012-02-04, 11:41 PM
I'm not sure if I'm posting at the right time or the wrong time.

I read the first page and skipped to the seventh, and I actually want to talk about my thoughts on the setting rather than griping about the gods or whatever.

While it's not perfect for every adventure, I love it's depth of history and its accessibilty. It's not rife with wholly original concepts, but its a melange of all the stuff we need to play a great basic D&D game with tons of source material to back us up.

A few years ago I ran Keep on the Borderlands set in eastern Cormyr during the war with Shadovar. It ran from levels 1-7 and only stopped because of real life crap.

It was great fun. The overall objective had nothing to do with the war or Weave or politics, really, but the PCs did see firsthand the problems going on in the world becuse of the war and did deal with certain secret organizations that were causing problems. They also had allies and some backing from churches and nobles. But what was going on with them and their mission was on them and their locality.

Say I'm a physicist (wizard) and I know of and admire Stephen Hawking (Elminster). If I get into some sort of trouble with an ongoing project, do I expect Hawking to come swooping down to my rescue on his Flying Throne of Awesome? No, no not really.

The scale of events was such that the PCs knew there were huge events (but even then events not world-spanning) that were effecting their lives without being all-encompassing.

And best of all, from my DM perspective, is that so much was readily available on the kingdom, the Hullack Forrest, Arabel, the mountains, the Dales and the whole history of the war that I was able to just let them perform their important adventure while letting them just sort of feel how it was helping or harming what they wanted to accomplish.

That all may have gotten away from me, but I tend to think the setting helps a lot more than it hurts.

Lord Raziere
2012-02-05, 12:12 AM
Forgotten Realms…..

its not the best setting. its not the worst either. it has some unfortunate implications, but it is also home to my favorite two drow, Drizzt and Jarlaxle, who of course are in the book series which pointed out the flaws of the setting.

and it does have its charm in a way, and I particularly like how the Spellplague shook things up.

nyarlathotep
2012-02-05, 12:53 AM
Eh, there are different types of flaws. The 12th level barkeep issue is a very different kind of problem for me than the whole divine-protection-racket thing.
Maybe because I'm quite happy to ignore the existence of tie-in-fiction derived content and characters (Generally, not specifically FR ones) that I don't view that as quite the same issue. Though, 4th Ed's cleaning out of such ubermenches is certainly a positive thing because it lessens the issue.

The existence of the wall, and associated pseudo-philosophical issues relating to the Gods are more fundamental, but also less likely to ruin day-to-day play in the setting, leading to claims like the one that started this tangent; That it is a desirable late-game goal to take on the Gods for their crimes.

To me at least fighting the heavens would make for an entertaining Epic-level game.

hamishspence
2012-02-05, 08:58 AM
As to Hamishspence...that particular piece of information did not save a follower of Torm from being placed into the wall because he was not pious enough.

That was at the height of Cyric's reign though- if it's Gwydion in Prince of Lies you're referring to- and the thing about Cyric is, he breaks the rules. Gwydion is technically one of the False rather than the Faithless- someone who had a patron, but paid little heed to that patron's dictates:

p31 Prince of Lies:

As soon as the prisoner left the room, Cyric waved a hand, idly dismissing. Torm "Go on, report his punishment to the Circle. I know perfectly well that the Wall is reserved for the Faithless. I put the worm there for one reason: I want you to know for the rest of eternity that you made things worse for him by sticking your square jaw where it didn't belong."

"The law that governs-"

"My whim is law in the City of Strife," Cyric snapped.

p80 Prince of Lies:

"So how do we recognize Kelemvor when we find him?"

With two leaps, Perdix hopped over the mound. "Oh, we'll know him alright. There are only three sorts of beings in the City of Strife: denizens, the False, and the Faithless. All the denizens- souls like me and Af here, who used to worship Cyric- are transformed when we arrive here into forms that'll be more useful in our new line of work." The yellow skinned denizen flapped his wings proudly. "Makes it easy to tell the jailers from the inmates, too."

"Anyone stupid enough not to believe in the gods is stuffed into the Wall of the Faithless," he continued, "so we know where that lot can be found." Perdix folded his wings again and sighed. "That just leaves slugs like you- the False, the people who didn't make the list for any god's eternal reward."