Search results

There's this passage, which paraphrases what Ed Greenwood said about her That said, of course, in your campaign you have complete freedom to do what you wish.

That sounds like the info from MToF. Keep in mind that the book omits a lot of info about Eilistraee (that has been created over multiple editions)--then again, it's Mordenkainen's PoV and his knowledge of how things are in Toril may not be that precise. For example, it's true that Eilistraee is...

It is, but they (especially the Menzoberranyr) are always described as such religious fanatics that someone worshipping Eilistraee in the open would always be shut down and target of major persecution (and it takes nothing to just stab a doomsayer). Like, there was an episode when a secret...

They wouldn't last long. Even only speaking Eilistraee's name in Menzo is grounds for being exiled or killed. The idea is cool--it *is* Lolth's fault--but it would need to be some secret, underground thing, more than a doomsayer (also because doomsaying is not very fitting for this goddess).

A very immediate, but also very fitting way, would be having Eilistraee and her followers help all who are endangered by Lolth's plan that unleashed the Demon Princes in the Underdark, and Demogorgon in Menzoberranzan itself. A first step could be organizing expeditions to grab people who are...

3e FRCS + SCAG to see what's changed, and Elminster's Forgotten Realms for additional, edition-neutral lore. The 3e guide is closer to 5e than the 4e one is anyway.

No, no longer at least. Lathander and Amaunator used to be aspects of the same deity until after the Second Sundering, when Amaunator took a life on his own, according to Sernett.

MTOF, like other 5e books, refer to the current state of things. With Sharess not being mentioned in 5e, but Bast being in the SCAG, and with other deities having been separated again (Horuse and Re, for example), it's very likely that Zandilar is back, and Sharess is Bast again. Not that it...

My favorite goddess lies outside the human pantheon, but within it, it's a toss up among Selune, Mystra, and Lliira. I feel that these 3 goddesses best capture the hopeful and magical spirit of the Realms in the human pantheon.

She's back to Bast, though, since Zandilar's back.

The narrative of D&D is a joke now, nothing in the current canon really makes sense. They can just pull out a random mac guffing and justify GH remaining basically the same even after a century. Or they won't even bother with that and just state that it hasn't changed.

By not adding any significant change to GH? It's fiction, they decide whether a world changes or not.

Because people didn't like the setting? I don't know Kingdoms of Kalamar, but it's pretty obvious that if you don't like a setting, no matter how detailed it is, you still won't like it. My puzzlement was more about aversion to details (something that I have seen quite a lot recently), which are...

That's very similar to what I suggested in my previous post (publish a complete setting book, then also sell the overview or street level view sections of that book as separate pdf or print on demand books, to avoid extra production costs). This kind of presentation would erase the information...

I understand that you were giving me an explanation, my point was that I still fail to understand aversion to detail because the problem doesn't seem to be with the details themselves (which, in the end, are options), but with the presentation. A different approach could very easily avoid the "I...

That isn't a detailed setting, that's a presentation of a detailed setting that could be improved. Older editions have done this by providing a DM-oriented Campaign Setting and a player-oriented Player Guide. An easy solution would be following that model and splitting the various regions or...

I don't understand why many people are against detailed settings. It's almost like preferring to pay more and get less. Generic campaign ideas can be found aplenty on the web, no need to spend $50 for them.

How does it alienate people? You're just showing them how things are. For example, the way a common shop-owner addresses a noble customer, or describing a festival specific to a certain culture. Stuff like that. You're merely telling people what they see so that they can picture it in their...

Until I hit this thread, my knowledge was that "canon" was just another word for "official", unrelatedly to the level of detail. But yes, it seems that people use "canon" in a different way (which puzzles me, because "canon" is a thing for all kinds of fiction, and it merely means official).

To me, it seems that you're misunderstanding what I mean by details. I don't mean giving info about the world to players in an indirect (and stupid) way, like the dwarf saying "ofc, that's how we dwarves do things", nor I mean spelling out the trivial things during a session. I mean, for...