What kind of cheap rhetorical baiting is this? This is not only completely unnecessary, but also an unwarranted insult to both Celebrim and me. What purpose could this possibly serve?
So you consider being compared to Celebrim to be an unwarranted insult to you? Wow, and you called me cheap.
Seriously, it's a reasonable suspicion, since you came in at the exact same time he left, picked up where he left off in the debate, and presented the exact same arguments in the exact same way. You may not like it, but it's hardly "cheap rhetorical baiting" - though calling it that certainly is.
I do not believe that is true, as the perception for the ancient people was a world in which the gods were entirely active in the world and their lives.
But a fantasy role-playing game doesn't need to base itself off the historical perceptions of ancient people. Even if it were trying to hold itself to that level of verisimilitude it'd still be fundamentally flawed, simply because of how different the historical reality is from a world in which so many mythological aspects are real.
It is a touch of verisimilitude of real life religions that adds an extra dimension to pantheons.
Believability and internal consistency lend those dimensions - not mimicking the mythologies that people in the real world used to hold.
It makes it feel real to me and not randomly assembled. To say then that I do not like this absent quality of the FR pantheon is not unreasonable. For if it is, as you say, absent in FR then I am within my rights to dislike this aspect of FR. The pantheon does not feel real to me. While it feels real enough for you to suffice, it feels wholly artificial and lackluster to me.
You can hold whatever opinions you like; I'm certainly not telling you otherwise - if you can't get past that singular point, that's your issue and yours alone. I'm simply pointing out that holding onto that single point and discounting all others isn't a reasonable basis for making the blanket claim - as you did, that the entire pantheon is one-dimensional. You can say that all you like, of course, but a qualitative critique of something usually requires some level of justification beyond "it's not what I like."
It does not escape me, but then again, I am not arguing for one or the other, but for the presence of both. That makes it clear that I do not particularly care for either pantheon.
You weren't, in fact, arguing for both. You were arguing in favor of that which, and I quote, "suggests a larger, living mythological framework behind the notation within the religious life. And these myths should be where the character development of the gods take place and not so much the present."
That makes it pretty clear that you don't want active deities who are undertaking noteworthy deeds - just the ancient myths, or even things that suggest them, rather than anything more current.
I am not entirely sure what connotations you are referring.
See above.
I am not suggesting anywhere that "any recent and/or overt actions that gods take is automatically lesser than unspecified, ancient actions that may or may not have been undertaken." I am saying that character development is not rooted directly in the life of a setting, but rooted in the chronology of the setting itself.
And I disagree heartily - it's what the campaign setting does, not where it came from, that established its development. I'll grant you that there's certainly something to be said for having well-developed characters right out of the gate, but even that characterization needs to be shown; if not in detailed write-ups then in the burden falls to later products to make good on what's implied earlier.
But to clarify, I will correct myself by saying that these myths should be where the majority of character development of the gods should take place. The present acts as a fulcrum of character development for many gods in campaign worlds. Players may be privy to glimpses that the otherwise good god of hugs and kisses is becoming corrupt through the questionable actions of the deity and his clergy. This is a sort character development that does not require that the entire pantheon be re-written from top to bottom just because a game-setting novelist sneezes.
There is a middle ground, you know, instead of the extremes you're describing. Why can't you have a sourcebook that describes, overtly, the various facets of the god in question, instead of dropping tiny clues that are never otherwise expanded upon? Good characterization isn't limited to hints that are never explored.
In other words, you are putting words into my mouth and misconstruing my argument. And I do not appreciate it.
In fact, I was correctly restating your own words - if you don't care for them, perhaps you should ask yourself why that is.
When novels drag the game setting by the collar, they become necessary. When people have to read the novels to make out heads-or-tails of what is going on in their gaming setting, they become necessary. The DM is at the mercy of the novels (a similar problem that plagued Dark Sun and Dragonlance).
That's ridiculous - you don't need to read any of the FR novels to use the game supplements and settings; you can get along just fine without them. They're not necessary in any sense of the word.
But the novels should not be necessary for the character development of the pantheon. These should be primarily in the deity supplements.
Again, they're not necessary - they certainly help, but I agree that they shouldn't act as a substitute for the deity supplements. I just prefer that there be deity supplements that expand on the deities in question, as I've stated several times now.
What a loaded question. I also do not want you to put words in my mouth or to misleadingly frame my arguments. Deities can be "more deeply explored and fleshed out in supplements released later" without the deities actively changing or growing "over the life of a setting." These deities may have changed and grown over the timeline of the setting.
First, it wasn't a question at all. Second, it's not misleadingly framing your arguments; I'm attempting to figure out your position, which isn't easy when you take every effort on my part to do so as some sort of personal attack.
Based on your own statement here, you've made it clear that you prefer that deities not change or grow over the life of a setting, but only in the backstory of before the setting was released, and in its campaign history. I, personally, don't see the difference, but if it's so important to you that you get upset when I restate your own words, then okay.
Gods can do new things, but I prefer that these things are either behind the scenes or less overt in the world. What you described is the focus of what I want for the players and heroes, but not the gods.
But whether or not their actions are overt or not - from the in-game perspective, I mean - isn't a consideration in regards to whether they're fully-developed characters or not. If it's made explicit in the various supplements about them (and yes, in novels too), then that's what counts.
So why do you act as if only your opinion regarding the worth of FR is valid? People are clearly expressing their opinions regarding aspects they dislike about FR. Philosopher made a healthy distinction between opinions.
I don't act like that - you're interpreting my statements that way, which is you putting words in my mouth, despite claiming having been victimized in the same way, which is very disingenuous.
Then you can have it, but do not disparage me when that detracts from the setting. The primary problem for me, and others have aired similar opinions in this thread, is not that the pantheon grows and diminishes, but of how rapidly it does so. It does not just grow and diminish; it practically becomes a different pantheon entirely over the course of a few decades. It is a wonder that people worship gods at all when they come flavored as "God of the Month Club." There is little time for character growth when they come and go as the tides. Growing and diminishing pantheons does not equate to character development. This is just another form of notation and book-keeping.
Okay, a lot to deal with in this paragraph.
1) I'm not disparaging you just because I don't agree with your opinions. Please stop claiming victimhood, and lets just stick to the nature of the debate.
2) Over-dramatically stating that the FR pantheon changes so much that it inhibits character growth isn't true. Firstly because characters can become well-developed over any length of time (even immediately, since sourcebooks generally don't advance a campaign timeline, but can still present a holistic snapshot of a deity).
3) Growing and diminishing pantheons isn't character development, certainly. But the circumstances give us a chance to showcase different aspects of a character. Is that necessary? No, but it's still a good opportunity to do so.
Of course, but for me the perception remains the same. The pantheon looks haphazardly assembled. Even individuals have family relationships and lineages. These are not contradictory ideas.
I'm not saying they are - I'm saying that simply having those does not, unto itself, make divine characters well-developed.
Well thank goodness then that I do not care about GH deities vs. the FR deities, but simply what I dislike about the FR pantheon. But I will say that "no coverage and exposure" could just as easily mean, "privy to the interpretive freedom of the DM." I honestly do not expect all deities to receive equal doses of character development. This certainly holds true in the history of religions.
Citing the history of real religions hasn't helped your position before, and it doesn't now. Real religions have nothing at all to do with fantasy religions.
That said, equating a lack of development as freedom for the DM to develop material is a false analogy - the DM is
always free to change and develop any aspect of the campaign world as they see fit. What we're discussing is the nature of the characters as presented in the written material.
(Also, at my own piqued interest, it turns out that Berna has more of a description than simply what Celebrim posted. She even has several myths surrounding her.)
Cool. Where can I read more about them?
As I told you, in my text that you quoted no less, this is a red herring. I do not care about Greyhawk. Talking about how this is insufficient in Greyhawk is utterly beside the point. I did not say that I liked Greyhawk. I did not say that Greyhawk exemplified the traits that I like either. Book of the Righteous exemplifies traits that I like in more active pantheons. The Sovereign Host exemplifies traits that I like in more ambiguously-existing pantheons. And the Diamond Throne and Dark Sun exemplify traits of pantheons that I like in most of my settings: remote or dead, but either way inconsequential.
Actually (unless they've changed it in 4E) Dark Sun has no pantheons at all, and never did. Or did you mean the Sorcerer-Kings?
I quite agree with the last paragraph, but my vexation is primarily with the mercurial composition of the pantheon. It leaves little room, in my esteem, for developing those gods over time or in the present. The changes do not seem to be the result of character growth or development, but by the whims of the developers and the system. A constant state of flux of the deities does not naturally beget character development. This is an absolutely fallacious assertion. The lack of mythology is unreasonable considering the enormous length of the timeline.
I understand that you don't like the pantheon's composition, but saying that the lack of relationships or myths about the gods makes them poorly-developed ignores the material that does, in fact, develop them. Divine "shake-ups" don't necessarily beget development, but they create good circumstances to portray it - that's when circumstances are called upon at all, and they're not simply showcased in sourcebooks. In fact, both are used for quite a few members of the FR pantheon.
More is quantitative, but more is not always qualitatively better.
Certainly. But more material gives more opportunities for qualitative development; less does not.
I was not the one that boldly flaunted in a patronizing manner that I know more than someone else about a particular subject. That per the definition is condescension.
Incorrect. To say that I know more about a particular subject than someone else - when I've read the material and they've freely admitted that they have not - isn't patronizing; it's a statement of fact.
Now I have explained aspects regarding Forgotten Realms that I personally dislike. These are opinions which I hold and do not necessarily expect others, like yourself and other FR apologetics in this thread, to equally hold as true. So why, Alzrius, do you take all of this so personally? Are people not allowed to dislike the Forgotten Realms?
You do realize that this entire last paragraph is engaging in the very tactics you accused me of using, right? Using insulting terms like "apologetics," falsely painting me as taking this debate "personally," and the loaded question at the end are all examples of attitudes you wrongly said I was bringing to bear on you. I'll overlook it this time, since I want this to remain a civil debate, but I'd like you not to engage in this sort of thing again as we continue.
