D&D 5E Orcus vs Raven Queen: The saga

[dave2008]

Note that in 4e lore the demon princes are all former primordials corrupted by the Abyss

I mentioned that as well (post #24); however, not all of the demon princes are corrupted primordials. There are demon princes such as Pazuzu and Dagon that existed before the Abyss and some manifest from the Abyss itself.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I mentioned that as well (post #24); however, not all of the demon princes are corrupted primordials. There are demon princes such as Pazuzu and Dagon that existed before the Abyss and some manifest from the Abyss itself.

Not to mention Grazzt, who was a devil first still in 4e, IIRC.

 

[dave2008]

Not to mention Grazzt, who was a devil first still in 4e, IIRC.

I thought that was a good call, he didn't really fit in with the look of most of the demon lords, definitely a more devilish vibe.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I thought that was a good call, he didn't really fit in with the look of most of the demon lords, definitely a more devilish vibe.

yeah, though on the other hand, I would have kinda preferred for the divide to be less perfectly clean. The thing I like least about dnd cosmology is how perfectly categorised it all tends to be.

 

[Marandahir]

That is because Exandria is based on the Dawn War pantheon from 4e. It doesn't really apply to the rest of 5e, but I don't use "official" lore anyway. I suggest we all just use what works for us, "official" lore has little to no impact on your game.

That said, the 4e Pantheon was, and has been in 5e from December 2014 onward - it was included in the Dungeon Master's Guide as an example pantheon of how you can put together your own pantheon using inspiration from various other pantheons included in the 5e PHB. This was always an implicit suggestion of "here it is if you want to keep playing games in your 4e Points of Light setting but don't know how we'd translate that with 5e's Cleric Domains."

The Raven Queen of Exandria and the Dungeon Master's Guide are inherently different from the Raven Queen of Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes, since that book is setting-specific when it's describing it's conflicts. Mordenkainen may be a Greyhawk entity, but the core rules and their expansions all assume you're playing in the Forgotten Realms as a baseline. This is the FR Raven Queen, and her Elven Shadar-Kai, rather than the Raven Queen and the Human-descended Shadar-Kai as they appeared in the Nerath setting. It might work with Greyhawk even, since we never knew what the RQ was in Greyhawk as she didn't exist as an entity before 4e, but it's incompatible with other D&D settings that included her 4e incarnation (like Exandria). Notably, Greyhawk had shadow-fey Shadar-Kai, so it's more likely that this portrayal is trying to bring her in-ine story-wise with that earlier incarnation of the Shadar-Kai. But in Nerath, she is the patron deity of the titulous nation of Humans. The capital of Nerath is Nera, which in tradition is a name of the non-Elven Raven Queen (though likely not her real name either, as it's clearly a distaff counterpart name to her former consort Nerull who she overthrew and took the portfolio of).

It's also worth noting that in 4e Realmslore, Shadar-kai are a relatively new creation of the Shades of Netheril. It's unclear if that bit of lore survived through to 5e, and how they'd reconcile that with the new elven Shadar-kai, but it's likely that those Shadar-kai are just going to be called Netherese Shades and any distinction between the two races (Shade was a 4e race too) will be lost as irrelevant lore to the current game.

Not to mention Grazzt, who was a devil first still in 4e, IIRC.

That wasn't in the Fiendish Codex, first? I really need to review those 3.5e era books; so much of the 4e Demon and Devil lore comes from those books, but some particulars weren't carried over due to the changes to the cosmology in 4e and the merging of Yugoloths with demons.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That wasn't in the Fiendish Codex, first? I really need to review those 3.5e era books; so much of the 4e Demon and Devil lore comes from those books, but some particulars weren't carried over due to the changes to the cosmology in 4e and the merging of Yugoloths with demons.

I don't recall, tbh, where it came up first. I also just don't like the fiends as DnD presents them, anyway. I think I've always just ignored Yugoloths and whatever other type of fiend exists, and in my worlds, there's just fiends, and there is no distinction between demons and devils. They're all just fiends, or demons, or whatever else a culture calls them.

 

[dave2008]

..., but the core rules and their expansions all assume you're playing in the Forgotten Realms as a baseline.

I disagree with this. The core rules are setting neutral. There is nothing that ties them to FR. Now, since the 5e version of the RQ was introduced in an expansion, I think that it is a bit up for debate about what that version is supposed to represent. However, if you are new to D&D and noticed the Dawn War Pantheon in the core rules, and then read about the Raven Queen in whatever supplement she is in, you would have a different impression of her than if you came from 4e. I do think that is relevant.

 

[Marandahir]

I don't recall, tbh, where it came up first. I also just don't like the fiends as DnD presents them, anyway. I think I've always just ignored Yugoloths and whatever other type of fiend exists, and in my worlds, there's just fiends, and there is no distinction between demons and devils. They're all just fiends, or demons, or whatever else a culture calls them.

That's what I like to do for my setting, too. It also came up most recently in D&D canon with Theros.

I disagree with this. The core rules are setting neutral. There is nothing that ties them to FR. Now, since the 5e version of the RQ was introduced in an expansion, I think that it is a bit up for debate about what that version is supposed to represent. However, if you are new to D&D and noticed the Dawn War Pantheon in the core rules, and then read about the Raven Queen in whatever supplement she is in, you would have a different impression of her than if you came from 4e. I do think that is relevant.

Relevant, sure. A new DM might notice that she's in the DMG hidden away in a section suggesting how to make your own pantheon. And they might then correlate her with the entity of the same name in the MTF. But the MTF entity is explicitely not a deity, but rather a potential Warlock patron, while the one in the PHB is explicitly a deity. A new player would presumably have no context of her outside of the Hexblade Patron option for Warlocks in XGE or whatever the DM throws their way.

While the core rules are applicable to many settings, they go out of their way to fit around the Realms as a core setting, to the point that they suggest names for Humans from the various Realms cultures specifically. In addition, the "race" entries were written with Realmslore in mind, so very little of those descriptors are applicable if you're playing, say, in Eberron or Dark Sun or Krynn. They MIGHT be useful, and there are a few throw-away lines to other settings in the various options (especially for Cleric Domains, Warlock Patrons, and "races") but these are adjunct to the Realms-FIRST model of 5e. This stands in contrast to the Realms-SECOND approach of both 3e (Greyhawk-FIRST) and 4e (Nerath-FIRST).

Any particular flavour text, unless said otherwise, is to be assumed to be true for the core assumed setting of the Forgotten Realms. They would not include something that contradicts Realmslore if they didn't intend to do so (see: Firbolg depiction in VGM).

 

[dave2008]

While the core rules are applicable to many settings, they go out of their way to fit around the Realms as a core setting, to the point that they suggest names for Humans from the various Realms cultures specifically. In addition, the "race" entries were written with Realmslore in mind, so very little of those descriptors are applicable if you're playing, say, in Eberron or Dark Sun or Krynn. They MIGHT be useful, and there are a few throw-away lines to other settings in the various options (especially for Cleric Domains, Warlock Patrons, and "races") but these are adjunct to the Realms-FIRST model of 5e. This stands in contrast to the Realms-SECOND approach of both 3e (Greyhawk-FIRST) and 4e (Nerath-FIRST).

Any particular flavour text, unless said otherwise, is to be assumed to be true for the core assumed setting of the Forgotten Realms. They would not include something that contradicts Realmslore if they didn't intend to do so (see: Firbolg depiction in VGM).

That could be true, I don't really know as I don't know Realms lore in any great detail and I don't use published settings. My point would be that all the core content can be used complete outside the realms without any changes. For example, you mentioned racial names. When I look at the suggested names, there is nothing that says dwarves form this region of FR have names like... It just looks like:

For me, there is nothing tying that to FR that I have to change. Similarly, Clerics don't have to worship FR gods and warlock pacts are not tied to Fr entities. It is generic. So from my perspective, and the perspective of most first time players it is setting neutral. I think that is important. I haven't it in detail, but I understand that is not the same with the PF2 core rulebook.