Why *Dont* you like Forgotten Realms?

[Aldarc]

The fact that the GR deities were more original in initial creation is, to me, meaningless, since they've gotten no further coverage since then save to restate the same few sparse paragraphs over and over. When you go thirty years without learning something new about a character beyond that, without them doing anything during that time, then that character is one-dimensional.

Most game worlds are static snapshots of a given time and place, and most deities in pantheons do not do that much in thirty years.

The topic of divine family is fundamentally irrelevant to what we're discussing. You've given, in your example, a single sentence about Berna, which tells us exactly one fact about who she is; the rest of it is just who she's related to, which doesn't expand her character. If you consider that multi-dimensional characterization, then there's not enough commonality in our respective definitions of that term to continue this discussion.

It tells us that this deity is part of a living pantheon, in which her existence is tied into the existence of other deities. That makes it a real and organic pantheon as opposed to an artificial and synthetic pantheon. Real mythological pantheons demonstrate real human relationships. There are lineages. There are parental gods and rebellious children gods and all sorts of myths surrounding them. It makes the pantheon feel like an authentically real pantheon.

Well, yeah, if you never actually read anything about a character, I suppose they can seem like not much of a character at all. Isn't that the crux of the "uninformed opinion"?

I can read about the character outside of the novel itself.

No one's saying that all of the FR novels are good - certainly not me. I can't stand Ed Greenwood's writing (I'm getting ready to write a review of Elminster Must Die that will make it clear how much I disliked the book), nor Elaine Cunningham's, and after over a dozen books of him, I'm finally sick of R. A. Salvatore's Drizzt books too.

There are other authors, however, who're quite good at what they write, and in many cases that deals with the various deities. But even beyond that, the fact that the deities as character grow and change over the course of novels and game supplements is, by definition, characterization - now, you can say that it's good or bad characterization, and you may not find the latter interesting, but it's a hard charge to make that even bad characterization is worse than none at all.

Why should I have to read the novels to get what I should be getting out of the sourcebooks?

And "none at all" is exactly how much characterization the Greyhawk gods have gotten...how interesting is it to have virtual non-entities for gods?

Actually it can afford quite a large amount of leeway. But sometimes these "virtual non-entities" contribute to the holistic appearance of a pantheon that grows and diminishes. Many real world pantheons contain a myriad of these "virtual non-entities," but there presence is more indicative of the people who worship said pantheon, their hierarchy of cultural values. Their prominence wades and fades or they suddenly enjoy a large boost in popularity. These "virtual non-entities" may even have small cults working in the background of a campaign, relegated to insignificance in the regular cultic activity of a people, but made far more relevant by how their cult moves the campaign forward, for good or for ill.

D&D deities aren't supposed to be "philosophical questions that remain thoroughly reelvant to modern life." They're supposed to be interesting parts of a game - and in that regard, the forgotten footnotes of a pantheon are neither interesting nor fun.

This is one approach to using deities in gaming. But I do not see how you could tout this as fact. Furthermore, for players of Greyhawk, these deities are interesting and fun, as they add another dimension to the life of the setting.

Compared with someone who freely admits he hasn't read the material? I may have been unaware of a Dragon article about their origin, but I'm far and away more familiar than you are with what's been done with them since, and that's the more relevant aspect of what we're discussing.

Condescension will win you no allies and cost you a great loss of respect.

 

[Alzrius]

Most game worlds are static snapshots of a given time and place, and most deities in pantheons do not do that much in thirty years.

Well clearly that's not true, since FR hasn't been static, and their gods have done a lot in the last thirty years or so. Which is kind of my point.

It tells us that this deity is part of a living pantheon, in which her existence is tied into the existence of other deities. That makes it a real and organic pantheon as opposed to an artificial and synthetic pantheon. Real mythological pantheons demonstrate real human relationships. There are lineages. There are parental gods and rebellious children gods and all sorts of myths surrounding them. It makes the pantheon feel like an authentically real pantheon.

No, it doesn't - characters feel real when they actually do things. Noting familial relationships, as opposed to all other sorts of relationships, as somehow being indicative of characterization and multiple facets is mistaken.

Giving saying that Berna is daughter of X, wife of Y, and mother of Z doesn't tell you how she relates to them, it doesn't establish any particular myths, and it doesn't create any particular sense of authenticity. It's just a notation.

Actions, insights of character, and changes over time create fully-fledged characters. Not a dry listing of a family tree.

I can read about the character outside of the novel itself.

I wasn't talking to you in my previous post. And even if you can, reading the material instead of the CliffsNotes version is likely to serve you better.

Why should I have to read the novels to get what I should be getting out of the sourcebooks?

You don't have to read anything - I'm simply noting that novels are a good source of character development.

Actually it can afford quite a large amount of leeway. But sometimes these "virtual non-entities" contribute to the holistic appearance of a pantheon that grows and diminishes.

Grows and diminishes? What happened to them being a static snapshot?

Many real world pantheons contain a myriad of these "virtual non-entities," but there presence is more indicative of the people who worship said pantheon, their hierarchy of cultural values. Their prominence wades and fades or they suddenly enjoy a large boost in popularity. These "virtual non-entities" may even have small cults working in the background of a campaign, relegated to insignificance in the regular cultic activity of a people, but made far more relevant by how their cult moves the campaign forward, for good or for ill.

Yes, and we have better examples of all of this activity for the FR gods than the GH gods.

I'm not saying that's necessarily due to the strength of the deities themselves - there's no way to directly compare, but certainly having been in active development for years gives FR a big advantage there. However the result though, that is the result - Greyhawk's gods are given less coverage, and so are less developed as a consequence. Now, what's interesting or not is up to every individual, but I find characters more interesting when they have multiple dimensions to them. YMMV.

I want to make it clear, also, that I like the Greyhawk deities - I don't find them uninteresting; just less interesting than FR's gods, which have done things and changed across the years and editions. I wish the GH gods would get the same treatment - I'd love to have a sourcebook that details them to the extent that the FR gods got, or read some novels where they actually do things, and have their members grow, increase, and change. They just haven't gotten that, and it's a shame.

This is one approach to using deities in gaming. But I do not see how you could tout this as fact. Furthermore, for players of Greyhawk, these deities are interesting and fun, as they add another dimension to the life of the setting.

The only thing I'm touting as being factual that's under contention is that Greyhawk had archetypal (which Celebrim called "one-dimensional") deities that could be reduced to "God of M-U's" "God of Fighters" etc. If you're going to say that about the FR gods, there's no way to deny that the GR deities are just as easily typified.

Condescension will win you no allies and cost you a great loss of respect.

In which case, you should go back and edit your previous post.

 

[Primal]

Yeah, I think that's the size of it. What you see as misconceptions are I think, just different ways of looking at the same thing.

Usually I would agree with you there, but there seems to be a lot of prejudice and vitriol behind your opinions -- it's like at some point of time you decided to hate the setting, no matter what. I'm fine with people saying that they don't like FR because it's not their cup of tea; I just don't like when people claim that "Oh that setting is so broken because my DM uses Elminster all the time to humble us!" or "FR SUXXX 'cuz I don't like Drizzt" (not saying that you did say such a thing, but your points are somewhat colored by your obvious dislike).

That, and much else of what you wrote, is known to me. I am aware that Ed can't be blamed for everything that was done with his setting; however, I am also aware that much of what is worst about the FR can be laid directly at his feet. Namely, modules like Haunted Halls of Eveningstar and the 'Avatar Trilogy', supplements like Seven Sisters and The Code of the Harpers, and the Eliminster novels cannot be blamed on anyone else and in fact are the very things he likes about the setting. In my opinion these rank as some of the worst products TSR ever published. So, yes, there is a matter of opinion here in that Ed's taste in a setting is definately not mine (or apparantly yours).

That's not to say that he's not a good or even excellent DM, and I think the Icewind Dale trilogy stands up as an excellent 'story hour' (if not necessarily novels), but I don't think nearly as much of him as a setting or rules smith and honestly I think that his era contributes greatly to the decline of D&D and overall quality of writing at TSR. I congradulate him on his success, but find it somewhat baffling. As a fellow DM, I'm sure he would have much to teach, and I wouldn't mind setting at his table, but I don't think I'd ever buy any of his products (again, once bitten...).

Really? I think his writing style and ideas are a great source of inspiration (I've even snatched whole pages from 'Cormyr: A Novel' for historical hand-outs) and I honestly feel my adventures would be far more linear and, well, boring without Ed. Reading the Grey Boxed Set or Undermountain were truly enlightening experiences for me. Not to mention that I find Volo's Guides to be amazing sourcebooks for worldbuilding. I readily admit that 'Seven Sisters' was a bit boring (likely another TSR-enforced supplement) and only a marginally useful product. However, CotH was another matter altogether --I found it to be an excellent book.

You say that you're aware of what I wrote about Ed's role during the TSR era, and still you complain about his writing style and how he's to blame for X and Y; are you also aware that he did not invent (or, IIRC, even support) the whole ToT fiasco? Or that he only wrote parts of the 'Avatar Trilogy'? Or that his books were often modified (and even partly rewritten) by the editors, such as in the case of 'Spellfire'? And while we're speaking of the 'Haunted Halls of Eveningstar'... Ed submitted a full campaign book with 96 or so pages, but TSR felt it would have been a risk to print it; so they decided to cut it down to 32 pages (again, resulting in a less coherent book). Despite this I think it's still a well-written introductory module with more than enough details and maps to run a campaign in Eveningstar -- especially if you also have 'Volo's Guide to Cormyr'.

I like minutiae as much as the next guy, but I can't help but feel that things like the Volo Guides are - like for example most GURPS supplements - books that gamers like to read, rather than books gamers actually use at the game table.

Oh, I've used VGtC and VGtSC a lot, especially to add small details to local NPCs and shops, even "transplanting" them to different regions. And reading for inspiration is good for a DM, isn't it?

No, they aren't, and no they aren't. The needs of a real world religion differ dramatically from those of a game religion. If you look at real world religions, say the familiar Greek Olympians but any will do, you won't find gods of theives, magic, or even (typically) strength as being the most prominent members of the pantheon. In fact, the personifications or patrons of those things are typically very minor deities or else that role is a minor aspect of the dieties portfolio. In the real world - and for that matter fantasy worlds - most people aren't theives, fighters, or wizards. There concerns are for food, crops, seasons, money, sex, family, weather, leisure, the law and its proper establishment, and various trades necessary to the community and the pantheon will primaily feature patronage for those sorts of things. Central American pantheons often had like a half dozen corn deities. Real world dieties have complex portfolios. Hermes is the god of messangers, lawyers, and thieves and is invoked when people want to win a race. Diana is the goddess of the moon and virgins and hunting. But even that underestimates the complexity and misses the point, because real world polytheistic deities are generally about oral traditions concerning them and have hallmarks of that kind of conception. It's that that makes them sufficiently compelling to induce people to believe and worship them. The FR deities have no such hallmarks. They look like, read like, and essentially are game aids.

Well, color me confused... Alzrius alreadt dealt with this more eloquently than I could have, but let me add this: this *is* a RPG setting we're talking about, so I don't think we could ever reach the same depth in details about rituals, saints, customs, etcetera as RW religions do. We *are* talking about "game aids", right? Besides, I think there *has* to be middle-ground to how complex deities you're writing for a RPG setting (Harn, Rolemaster or RuneQuest are another matter, because they're pretty complex "simulationist" systems played by people who probably want more "realistic" religions); it's pretty tough for players and DMs alike to roleplay followers of such characters, especially if you're new to the hobby or, well, yet inexperienced in the ways of the world. Yet FR religions -- if Ed had had free reign over what to write and publish -- probably would be far more detailed and complex as they are; he's said a couple of times that TSR felt uncomfortable with publishing additional info on religious practises like rituals and worship habits. And that is likely why deity descriptions were kept pretty short until the three "Deity Books" came out.

As a religion, the FR deities fall absolutely flat. They exist only to provide patrons for adventurers. So you have Mystra the goddess of M-U's, Meilikki the goddess of Rangers, Silvanus the god of Druids, Torm the god of Paladins, Mask the God of Theives, Helm the God of fighters, Oghma the God of Bards and so on and so forth. And (jokingly) you have Lathlander the God of Clerics. This is OotS sort of breaking of the fourth wall, and the thing is not only is it not meant to be funny, but OotS is actually more complex and mature in its conceptions despite being about breaking the 4th wall.

I tend to avoid strong expressions, but here you're just plain wrong. Azuth (not Mystra) is, indeed, the God of Wizards, but he's one of the rare gods who directly associate to a character class. Helm is actually the God of Guardians, Protection and Protectors (Tempus is the God of War, Battle and Warriors). And Torm, to use another example, is the Deity of Duty, Loyalty and Obedience (and yes, paladins, but that's a "secondary" portfolio for him as he does not automatically gain all paladins as followers). We could just as well mention Talos, who's the God of Storms, Destruction, Rebellion, Conflagrations, Earthshaking and Vortices. Selune, on the other hand, is the Goddess of Moon, Stars, Navigation, Navigators, Wanderers, Seekers and Good and Neutral Lycanthropes.

And pray tell me how Greyhawk or Eberron deities, for example, are so much more complex or interesting -- especially as most FR deities have pretty much direct analogies in the Greyhawk Pantheon? Isn't Olidammara the God of Bards? Kurell the Deity of Thieves? Kord the God of Strength, War and Warriors? Nerull the Deity of Death and Undead? And if you ask me, how is Pelor (the "default" god in core 3E and 4E, by the way) any different from Lathander as a Sun Deity? If anything, I think Lathander (God of Spring, Dawn, Birth, Renewal, Creativity, Youth, Vitality, Self-Perfection and Athletics) as part of the "Tripartite Sun" (Amaunator-Myrkul-Lathander) is a more novel idea than a pretty run-of-the-mill Sun God.

The thing is, this is a fantasy RPG setting; *of course* Deities of War, Death, Magic, Thieves, Sun etcetera play a big role in it -- and in large part because those deities are more or less likely to play a more prominent part in the lives of adventurers. But there are still Deities of Hunting (several deities in fact), Acriculture, Sex, Community, Commerce, Seas, Crafts (and so on) who are worshipped by the common folk.

The thing is, you can't blame me for this perception. This is how the dieties were described in their first introduction and they are largely still described in those terms. Some complications arose as they were detailed to a greater degree, but there obvious first inspiration is as class patrons. Anything else about them was added on tangentally to their primary role, rather than figuring out from the primary role what mercenary trades might esteem the deity. You have to get way out into the fringes of the pantheon to even find dieties that remotely seem to be archetypes and which makes some sense as dieties. The pantheon is almost entirely backwards. What makes this particularly bad is that many of the dieties are just directly stolen from the 1st edition Deities and Demigods (Finnish, Celtic, and Greek pantheons particularly) and generally have about as much depth not as the real world deity, but of that books monster entry.

True, but apart from a handful of them the original source may not be that transparent (and MOST of the RW deities were shoehorned into FR by TSR). Besides, how many truly original goddesses of love or war have you seen in RPGs? Again, I can surely roleplay and improvise ritual practises and daily chores for, say, a God of Darkness and Death, but I'd be completely lost with something like God of Raindrops and Moisture or Goddess of Midwives, Birth, and Infants.

I adventured with a Paladin of the original Mystra (DM ruled that Paladins could chose a patron up to one step removed from LG) for like 4 real life years. This isn't misconceptions. This is different perceptions of the same thing. If you want to see what I like and admire in an invented polytheist pantheon read 'The Book of the Righteous' or in literature Bujold's 'Curse of Chalion'. Those excellently conceived dieties I can imagine people piously worshiping. The Greyhawk pantheon(s) are also much better concieved than the FR.

You know, I loved 'Curse of Chalion', but I tend to think it did not portray religion in a particularly innovative way. And I prefer deities to have a "real" name (preferably even several names and aspects) over 'The Mother' or 'The Bastard'.

His role in modules and Ed's obvious attachment and even self-identification with the wizard argues against that assessment. Many of the early FR modules are strict railroads where you watch more important characters than you do thier thing while you are essentially unable to alter the outcome. They feature text walls not merely of descriptions, but of events you are to witness.

Ed has repeatedly said that Elminster is not his alter ego; and you yourself noted that you're aware that TSR -- not Ed -- chose Elminster as the "figurehead" for the Realms.

Which adventures are you referring to? Because those written by Ed tended to be pretty open-ended dungeon crawls. If you're referring to the Avatar Series, I don't think Ed would have written them at all, if he had had a choice.

There are two problems there (at least). First of all, this isn't 'fantasy fiction' we are talking about. This is gaming material. Gaming material has different standards than generic literature or novels because its meant to be related to in a different way. And second of all, the FR model was not the norm in gaming material. It marked different to see 30th level characters who had divine gifts that separated them from mere mortals being not only the foils of the party that they were meant to overcome (because no one else could) but the actual movers and shakers among the forces of good. Compare with for example Greyhawk, where most of the big names were in effect actual player characters (or their enemies). For FR, you could basically say that only of Drizzt.

Well, you *did* chastise me for pointing out that we're talking about gaming material and not RW issues.

Anyway, you don't need to preach to the choir; I've said multiple times on this board that D&D (and de facto RPGs in general) don't model fiction very well. However, fantasy RPGs are based on and inspired by -- along with other types of oral and written tradition -- fantasy fiction. And fantasy has certain tropes and cliches that it is associated with; for example, a player understands that a high magic world probably has lots of powerful wizards and magical items. If it doesn't, he might feel that the world is inconsistent with the traits and the image related to high/epic fantasy. Even though the standards are a bit different from fiction, fantasy RPGs (and the settings) are still "enslaved" by the genre. I also don't see any problem with Greyhawk having only a few high-level NPCs and lots of mid-level NPCs; it's a bit grittier than FR, and set between low and high fantasy (closer to high fantasy, though). FR is another beast; it *did* feature far less archmages (and other high level NPCs) originally, but I guess TSR wanted to radically distinguish it from Greyhawk (and yet I think my original point about 'high level characters vs. low level threats' still stands).

Look, I'm a librarian specialized in speculative fiction (and I also dealt with the relationship between literature and RPGs in my thesis), so you don't need to lecture me on this subject.

BTW, quite many FR NPCs were originally PCs; for example, all of the Knights of Myth Drannor and The Company of the Crazed Venturers. Drizzt, however, was never a PC (Salvatore invented him for the Dark Elf series).

Then you didn't actually play much published FR material either.

Oh, but I did; I've romped through Undermountain several times, and apart from the awful Marco Volo series and the 3E era adventures, I think we've played every published FR adventure. Furthermore, I think we (my group) own almost every FR product released before year 2000.

I'm aware of what probably was the initial compelling reason behind it. You act like we DMs haven't all experienced that. But not all of us felt compelled to adopt an Ultima style model where the shop keepers and gaurds were some of the most powerful monsters in the game. There are other approaches than "Pretty soon my games, too, featured several 10-15 level retired adventurers even in the smallest backwoods hamlets."

Oh, certainly; I think this is a case when something was lost in translation (English is not my native language). I didn't mean to imply that this problem would have been "unique" to my or Ed's campaigns; rather, I wanted to emphasize that I can relate to the problem. Anyway, I know it wasn't probably the best possible approach; however, I felt that my hands were more or less tied and I was too young to try a more diplomatic or reasonable solution (such as discussing it with the players).

 

[Swedish Chef]

I was thinking on my way home about some of the points brought up by many here, and I'd like to touch on them a bit.

Some have mentioned that they don't like all the "Good" or "Evil" organizations that seem to be all over the place. They feel there are just too many of said organizations for the PCs to have any real effect on the game.

Well, I posit this to you: I live near Toronto, in the Province of Ontario, in the country of Canada. Let's parallel that to the city of Suzail in the country of Cormyr.

Toronto has a police force. Suzail has the Town Guard. The province of Ontario has the Ontario Provincial Police. Suzail is not part of a province (if it is, I don't know the name), so does not have an analogous force. Canada has the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Cormyr has the Purple Knights. Canada also has the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. Cormyr has some Harpers, and whatever spies employed by the King.

Add to that the various local, provincial and federal governmental agencies created specifically to aid certain individuals (welfare, charities, homeless, jobless, etc, etc, etc) and you have quite a number of forces of "good" in my little corner of the world. And that doesn't even include the various groups that aid others that are founded by individuals. Cormyr and Faerun has several other organizations made up of good individuals.

Now, just like in the real world, many of these organizations do not share information, resources or anything else. Many of them are striving towards the same or similar goals, yet may wind up working against each other to make use of the limited resources available.

Now let's look at the Evil side of things. There are somewhere along the lines of 30-40 active gangs in the city of Toronto, distributing drugs, running prostitution and fighting over territory. Add to that the larger gangs from the US that are making headway up here for drugs and weapons, including the Bloods, Crips, Hell's Angels and others. Then there are the Jamaican and South American gangs, and some gangs from China, Vietnam and Japan. And let's not forget the Mafia. It gets to the point that the various law enforcement agencies have small groups focused on individual gangs just to keep themselves from being overwhelmed by the sheer weight of it all.

So, personally, I don't have an issue with all the different forces of Good and Evil in the Realms. Why hasn't any one of them wiped out the other side? For the same reason that it doesn't happen in the real world - not enough resources, man power, etc to get the job done. Most days you're just happy for the stalemate. Sure, one group may temporarily gain some advantage over one or more on the other side, but invariably something happens (temporary alliances, weird acts of luck, etc) that knocks that group back into an even playing field, so to speak.

Now, let's look at the "Realms Shattering Events". Let's face it, the big ones all ushered in the new rules for the gaming system. That is not a fault of the setting. Greyhawk had the Greyhawk Wars, and the end of 2ed saw "Die, Vecna, Die", the "Apocalypse Stone" and one other "end of the world as we know it" module that was designed to allow DMs to rebuild their version of Greyhawk under the new ruleset. Yet, for some reason, although fans hate those individual modules (or boxed set, as for the Wars), the whole setting has not been tainted by them.

I won't comment on the deities, as there is already quite the back and forth subthread going on here about that already.

The final point I guess I would make would be about the fiction. I agree, I don't like how the fiction has become canon, for the most part. However, I don't have an issue with the characters in the fiction being "uber powerful" for two reasons.

1) The hero in fantasy fiction is supposed to be above all others. Conan kicked everyone's ass. Bilbo successfully steals from the baddest dragon in Middle Earth. Luke defeats the Emperor. That's why we like heroes - they do what no one else can. As has been stated by others, this rarely translates well into actual game mechanics.
2) Most of the fiction put out for the game is analogous to Harlequin romance for women. It's trite, not very well written, and tends to follow a template. Ex. Create hero with strange background or emotional flaw. Introduce hero to various "sidekicks" to flesh out the party. One should be for comedy, one should be dark and brooding but with a golden heart. Maybe throw in a love interest, and possibly someone who will betray the group later, becoming the BBEG or BBEG JR. Have some nasty event occur that requires the group to travel great distances to find some lost artifact that will save the world, battling various monsters along the way. Find artifact, possibly losing a party member in a poignant way. Party nearly fractures, but rediscovers loyalty and unity in time to defeat BBEG and save the world.

Basically, if gamers didn't buy the fiction, WotC wouldn't produce it. Again, don't blame the setting for this, blame the marketing department and the hacks that write it.

Well, I think I've bored you long enough with my wandering diatribe. To sum things up - I like the Realms, I respect others who don't, but I don't think I'll ever understand those that hate the Realms. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

[Aldarc]

Well clearly that's not true, since FR hasn't been static, and their gods have done a lot in the last thirty years or so. Which is kind of my point.

Most.

No, it doesn't - characters feel real when they actually do things. Noting familial relationships, as opposed to all other sorts of relationships, as somehow being indicative of characterization and multiple facets is mistaken.

Giving saying that Berna is daughter of X, wife of Y, and mother of Z doesn't tell you how she relates to them, it doesn't establish any particular myths, and it doesn't create any particular sense of authenticity. It's just a notation.

Actions, insights of character, and changes over time create fully-fledged characters. Not a dry listing of a family tree.

I cannot attest as to whether there is more or less to that description of the Greyhawk deity so there may be more. While you may think that this notation is insignificant, the vast weight of religious writings of pantheons runs contra to your assertion. The notations of lineages are highly important to religions. Looking through the important religious texts and myths of ancient societies reveals their importance. The Babylonian Enuma Elish and Hesiod's Theogeny contains an important stress on how the gods were born and the relations they developed with other gods. While modern audiences may find the "Begots" boring in the various portions of the Hebrew Bible and New Testament, they show the pre-modern prominence of family lineage. The FR pantheon lacks this vital element that makes it feel like an actual pantheon rather than an odd collection of variously assembled deities.

You are right, "saying that Berna is daughter of X, wife of Y, and mother of Z doesn't tell you how she relates to them, it doesn't establish any particular myths, and it doesn't create any particular sense of authenticity. It's just a notation." But the notation is just that, a notation that 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. The character development of the present is for the heroes, the players.

I wasn't talking to you in my previous post. And even if you can, reading the material instead of the CliffsNotes version is likely to serve you better.

That would be true if our focus was on literature, but not on a gaming world setting. A gaming world should not require novels to create a developed world or pantheon. These should be present in the setting from the get-go. A god's character development should not be from Year X of the game world launch to the present, but from Year 0 of the game world to the Year X of the game world launch.

You don't have to read anything - I'm simply noting that novels are a good source of character development.

Novels of questionable worth. They are a potential source of good development, but most fantasy novels - and especially those written for D&D - are abysmal failures of character development.

Grows and diminishes? What happened to them being a static snapshot?

Nothing, as these are not contradictory ideas. The campaign setting is a static snapshot of a particular time and place within a world of history. A monarch or tribal lord may raise an insignificant minor god to greater prominence and thereby slowly replace the central veneration of the previous high god. For example, Tyr was likely the high god of the Norse pantheon before gradually being dwarfed in prominence by Odin.

Yes, and we have better examples of all of this activity for the FR gods than the GH gods.

Not really, as they again feel haphazardly slapped onto the pantheon rather than a natural outgrowth of a particular culture's change in values.

I'm not saying that's necessarily due to the strength of the deities themselves - there's no way to directly compare, but certainly having been in active development for years gives FR a big advantage there. However the result though, that is the result - Greyhawk's gods are given less coverage, and so are less developed as a consequence. Now, what's interesting or not is up to every individual, but I find characters more interesting when they have multiple dimensions to them. YMMV.

Less coverage and exposure != less developed. This cannot be emphasized enough. Deities in FR barely seem to have time to develop as they are constantly shuffled around, killed off, or some new upstart mortal in a novel ascends to godhood. They do not seem to have any mythologies to their name. I am not here to talk about what they do in Greyhawk. That is a red herring for me. I am here to talk about the problem with the FR pantheon.

I want to make it clear, also, that I like the Greyhawk deities - I don't find them uninteresting; just less interesting than FR's gods, which have done things and changed across the years and editions. I wish the GH gods would get the same treatment - I'd love to have a sourcebook that details them to the extent that the FR gods got, or read some novels where they actually do things, and have their members grow, increase, and change. They just haven't gotten that, and it's a shame.

I do not know much about Greyhawk. It is before my time. But I was under the impression that it does change over time, just not drastically every time a new novel or updated game system comes out. I would not expect deities to do that much in the span of thirty-years or for pantheons to be repeatedly shaken up so much in such a (relatively) short amount of time. This mercurial make-up of the FR pantheon frustrates me about the setting. I do not want these pantheon developments in novels that become required reading.

The only thing I'm touting as being factual that's under contention is that Greyhawk had archetypal (which Celebrim called "one-dimensional") deities that could be reduced to "God of M-U's" "God of Fighters" etc. If you're going to say that about the FR gods, there's no way to deny that the GR deities are just as easily typified.

You clearly are supporting a particular use of deities in games above all others, namely that "[D&D deities are] supposed to be interesting parts of a game - and in that regard, the forgotten footnotes of a pantheon are neither interesting nor fun."

In which case, you should go back and edit your previous post.

I do not see what good editing my posts would do for rectifying your condescension.

Well, color me confused... Alzrius alreadt dealt with this more eloquently than I could have, but let me add this: this *is* a RPG setting we're talking about, so I don't think we could ever reach the same depth in details about rituals, saints, customs, etcetera as RW religions do. We *are* talking about "game aids", right? Besides, I think there *has* to be middle-ground to how complex deities you're writing for a RPG setting (Harn, Rolemaster or RuneQuest are another matter, because they're pretty complex "simulationist" systems played by people who probably want more "realistic" religions); it's pretty tough for players and DMs alike to roleplay followers of such characters, especially if you're new to the hobby or, well, yet inexperienced in the ways of the world.

If you need an ideal model for creating a living pantheon, I would whole-heartily recommend the Book of the Righteous.

Yet FR religions -- if Ed had had free reign over what to write and publish -- probably would be far more detailed and complex as they are; he's said a couple of times that TSR felt uncomfortable with publishing additional info on religious practises like rituals and worship habits. And that is likely why deity descriptions were kept pretty short until the three "Deity Books" came out.

But talking about what could have been in this case or that is a fruitless exercise, as we are talking about what is.

 

[Silverblade The Ench]

yeah that does it, what really bugs me is the flipping double-be-damned, stupid TIME OF TROUBLES!!

great setting, screwed over by a stupid need to match 1st to 2nd ed AD&D...WHY?!?! WHY!???!
did they invent a new dice for 2nd ed or something that would TOTALLY SNAFU everything up without re-doign the Entire world? 2nd ed didn't hit us with ninja-kobolds, ya know.
"The official TSR D-THAC0 dice needs a nuclear apocalypse to be comaptible with YOUR world!", hm?

and they did it AGAIN!! 3rd to 4th all the spellcasters got a Staff of the Magi shoved up their Ring of Wizardry and exploded for 20d6 force and spicy curry damage!

I mean throw me a frikkin' bone here, stop doing this ot the damn casters! make the fighter's swords turn into...oh, I dunno..."man-thingies of Cythonic Doom" like Japanese comics do, instead of always blaming the damn finger-wrigglers for catastophies.
So instead of the Spellplague we could have the..."Swordwangplague",eh?!

and then, worst of ALL, they get rid of three awesomely badass gods and put in place a complete TOSS POT nincomppoop!! and he goes and causes the Spellplague and like exactly how the hell did he manage to kill Mystra when he was an cowardly insane INCPOMPETANT NOTHING in his mortal life, hm? Cyric is the only perosn in the entire Realms who could lose an ass-kicking competition with a BEHOLDER, for crying out loud.

plenty of great NPCs could have taken Myrkhuul, Bane and Bhaal's portoflios, but oh no, they give to the Ricki Gervais of deities, WHY?!?!?
"Oh I am the Dark Sun!! I even pinch other folks CAMPAIGN names 'cause I am such a talentless looooser!"



BAH! HUMBUG!!

 

[Philosopher]

I cannot attest as to whether there is more or less to that description of the Greyhawk deity so there may be more. While you may think that this notation is insignificant, the vast weight of religious writings of pantheons runs contra to your assertion. The notations of lineages are highly important to religions. Looking through the important religious texts and myths of ancient societies reveals their importance. The Babylonian Enuma Elish and Hesiod's Theogeny contains an important stress on how the gods were born and the relations they developed with other gods. While modern audiences may find the "Begots" boring in the various portions of the Hebrew Bible and New Testament, they show the pre-modern prominence of family lineage. The FR pantheon lacks this vital element that makes it feel like an actual pantheon rather than an odd collection of variously assembled deities.

I don't understand why people keep coming back to this idea that deities should have familial relations in order to be fleshed out. Yes, these relations had much significance for real world religions. But step back for a moment. The deities described in these religions are not real. They were inventions (if not conscious ones). Of course they're going to reflect the needs and interests of tribal societies (which, among other things, cared about familial relations). But why would the deities of the Realms, who are not supposed to be the inventions of mortals, reflect the same interests? Sure, the deities, if they're reliant on worshippers, have to serve their worshippers in some capacity, but their relationships are completely separate from that.

One mistake lots of DMs make (and I think this is an issue with the vast amounts of material published about the Realms) is in assuming that the players will care about all the details he puts into his setting. Do you really think that most players will care about which deities are related to which deities? How does that make my game any better? There are better things to focus on if you want your fantasy belief systems to come to life around the table. The assumption that the beings who direct the cosmos have the same day-to-day dramas that we do is so provincial.

(Having said that, I've never been impressed with the FR deities as directors of the cosmos. They come across as incredibly petty. Dragonlance has largely the same problem. This post isn't so much a defense of the FR deities as it is a criticism of the criteria being used by others to criticize the FR deities.)

 

[Alzrius]

I cannot attest as to whether there is more or less to that description of the Greyhawk deity so there may be more. While you may think that this notation is insignificant, the vast weight of religious writings of pantheons runs contra to your assertion. The notations of lineages are highly important to religions. Looking through the important religious texts and myths of ancient societies reveals their importance. The Babylonian Enuma Elish and Hesiod's Theogeny contains an important stress on how the gods were born and the relations they developed with other gods. While modern audiences may find the "Begots" boring in the various portions of the Hebrew Bible and New Testament, they show the pre-modern prominence of family lineage. The FR pantheon lacks this vital element that makes it feel like an actual pantheon rather than an odd collection of variously assembled deities.

This is the exact same missing-the-point assertion that Celebrim made - in fact, it's so similar that it makes me wonder if you're him under a different username.

The point you're making is regarding real-world religions, and as such is wholly inapplicable here. The things that were important to ancient real-world religions are as important to a fantasy pantheon as real-world blacksmithing techniques are to fantasy combat.

Saying that GH deities are more multifaceted because they note who's related to who is, to me, one of those areas where a qualitative judgment sits on the border of moving from a matter of opinion to one of fact. Such a small series of references is, unto itself, utterly without meaning.

Does it completely escape you that the pantheons you refer to are remembered for the stories about the gods themselves, and not just for their relationships? While their relatives may have been starting points for their myths, it was the myths about the deeds of the deities themselves that made them so well-remembered. The gods of Greyhawk have the relationships but not the deeds, the gods of the Forgotten Realms have the deeds, and while they may not have familial relationships, they do have working ones.

To me, that makes it clear which pantheon has more multifaceted characters.

You are right, "saying that Berna is daughter of X, wife of Y, and mother of Z doesn't tell you how she relates to them, it doesn't establish any particular myths, and it doesn't create any particular sense of authenticity. It's just a notation." But the notation is just that, a notation that 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. The character development of the present is for the heroes, the players.

I heartily disagree - firstly because ANY such notation, in regards to anything, carries the connotations you're describing. Secondly, because saying that "these myths should be where the character development of the gods take place and not so much the present" means that you're saying 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.

In other words, you find the implications of two sentences saying that Berna's a wife, mother, and daughter to someone tell you more about her than a page describing Cyric's relationships with Mystra, Kelemvor, Mask, Leira, and others (to say nothing of a novel wherein we see those relationships in action).

That's taking "less is more" to an extreme.

That would be true if our focus was on literature, but not on a gaming world setting. A gaming world should not require novels to create a developed world or pantheon.

Novels are part of a fantasy world's setting. They're not necessary to gaming in it, certainly, but they are a part of it - and thus relevant to the focus of what we're talking about.

These should be present in the setting from the get-go. A god's character development should not be from Year X of the game world launch to the present, but from Year 0 of the game world to the Year X of the game world launch.

So in other words, you actively don't want the deities to change or grow over the life of a setting, not be more deeply explored and fleshed out in supplements released later.

Wow do I disagree with that. I like it when new things happen - either the characters evolve, or we're simply told/shown more about them. Three paragraphs about a deity isn't enough, in my opinion.

Novels of questionable worth. They are a potential source of good development, but most fantasy novels - and especially those written for D&D - are abysmal failures of character development.

That's you're opinion; you may have noticed that other people don't share it. And even overlooking that point, I'd venture that even character development that you don't care for is still development at all. I don't like Elminster, but at least I have a good idea of who he is as a character.

Nothing, as these are not contradictory ideas. The campaign setting is a static snapshot of a particular time and place within a world of history. A monarch or tribal lord may raise an insignificant minor god to greater prominence and thereby slowly replace the central veneration of the previous high god. For example, Tyr was likely the high god of the Norse pantheon before gradually being dwarfed in prominence by Odin.

The difference is that you want the appearance of a pantheon that grows and diminishes - I want it to actually do that.

Or, at least, tell us more about its constituent members in the meantime.

Not really, as they again feel haphazardly slapped onto the pantheon rather than a natural outgrowth of a particular culture's change in values.

Not really, as they're the result of the gods being their own individuals rather than just slowly and gradually changing in response to their culture's change in values.

Less coverage and exposure != less developed. This cannot be emphasized enough.

But, no coverage and exposure = no possibility for development.

I'll admit that in some cases, a truly superb but concise piece of material can still be better than a much longer one of lesser quality.

That, however, is most definitely not the case in regards to the GH deities vs. the FR deities.

Deities in FR barely seem to have time to develop as they are constantly shuffled around, killed off, or some new upstart mortal in a novel ascends to godhood. They do not seem to have any mythologies to their name. I am not here to talk about what they do in Greyhawk. That is a red herring for me. I am here to talk about the problem with the FR pantheon.

It's a bit late for you to be say you don't care to talk about Greyhawk as exemplifying the traits you like, as you've already made that point multiple times.

Even saying that, it's still a useful point of comparison - the GH deities have no such mythologies either; you're simply interpreting their interpersonal relationships to be suggestive of the mythologies you'd like to see, despite them not having actually been written.

And the fact that the FR gods are constantly in a state of flux showcases their dynamic nature, which naturally begets development. The lack of a mythology seems inconsequential when they're actually doing things now.

I do not know much about Greyhawk. It is before my time. But I was under the impression that it does change over time, just not drastically every time a new novel or updated game system comes out. I would not expect deities to do that much in the span of thirty-years or for pantheons to be repeatedly shaken up so much in such a (relatively) short amount of time. This mercurial make-up of the FR pantheon frustrates me about the setting. I do not want these pantheon developments in novels that become required reading.

It bears repeating that novels - or, for that matter, game materials that change things - aren't the only way to establish development for gods as characters. You can just as easily do that with an expansive article/book about the gods as they are now. That's why the Faiths & Avatars books are so lauded. They establish the gods very well, as they exist at that time.

You clearly are supporting a particular use of deities in games above all others, namely that "[D&D deities are] supposed to be interesting parts of a game - and in that regard, the forgotten footnotes of a pantheon are neither interesting nor fun."

I'm saying that less is not more; more is more. You don't seem to think so.

I do not see what good editing my posts would do for rectifying your condescension.

I have no condescension to rectify; the same cannot be said for you.

 

[Aldarc]

I don't understand why people keep coming back to this idea that deities should have familial relations in order to be fleshed out. Yes, these relations had much significance for real world religions. But step back for a moment. The deities described in these religions are not real. They were inventions (if not conscious ones). Of course they're going to reflect the needs and interests of tribal societies (which, among other things, cared about familial relations). But why would the deities of the Realms, who are not supposed to be the inventions of mortals, reflect the same interests? Sure, the deities, if they're reliant on worshippers, have to serve their worshippers in some capacity, but their relationships are completely separate from that.

Because the deities of the Forgotten Realms were also crafted by as much of an imagination as possessed by our ancient ancestors who saw the gods as being as just as real as the gods of the Realms.

One mistake lots of DMs make (and I think this is an issue with the vast amounts of material published about the Realms) is in assuming that the players will care about all the details he puts into his setting. Do you really think that most players will care about which deities are related to which deities? How does that make my game any better? There are better things to focus on if you want your fantasy belief systems to come to life around the table. The assumption that the beings who direct the cosmos have the same day-to-day dramas that we do is so provincial.

When gods war and play against each other, those relationships matter. Will these details be used? Not always, but they are there for when they are relevant, namely in how it affects the clergy and lay person.

This is the exact same missing-the-point assertion that Celebrim made - in fact, it's so similar that it makes me wonder if you're him under a different username.

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?

The point you're making is regarding real-world religions, and as such is wholly inapplicable here. The things that were important to ancient real-world religions are as important to a fantasy pantheon as real-world blacksmithing techniques are to fantasy combat.

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.

Saying that GH deities are more multifaceted because they note who's related to who is, to me, one of those areas where a qualitative judgment sits on the border of moving from a matter of opinion to one of fact. Such a small series of references is, unto itself, utterly without meaning.

It is a touch of verisimilitude of real life religions that adds an extra dimension to pantheons. 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.

Does it completely escape you that the pantheons you refer to are remembered for the stories about the gods themselves, and not just for their relationships? While their relatives may have been starting points for their myths, it was the myths about the deeds of the deities themselves that made them so well-remembered. The gods of Greyhawk have the relationships but not the deeds, the gods of the Forgotten Realms have the deeds, and while they may not have familial relationships, they do have working ones.

To me, that makes it clear which pantheon has more multifaceted characters.

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.

I heartily disagree - firstly because ANY such notation, in regards to anything, carries the connotations you're describing. Secondly, because saying that "these myths should be where the character development of the gods take place and not so much the present" means that you're saying 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 not entirely sure what connotations you are referring. 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.

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.

In other words, you find the implications of two sentences saying that Berna's a wife, mother, and daughter to someone tell you more about her than a page describing Cyric's relationships with Mystra, Kelemvor, Mask, Leira, and others (to say nothing of a novel wherein we see those relationships in action).

That's taking "less is more" to an extreme.

In other words, you are putting words into my mouth and misconstruing my argument. And I do not appreciate it.

Novels are part of a fantasy world's setting. They're not necessary to gaming in it, certainly, but they are a part of it - and thus relevant to the focus of what we're talking about.

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). But the novels should not be necessary for the character development of the pantheon. These should be primarily in the deity supplements.

So in other words, you actively don't want the deities to change or grow over the life of a setting, not be more deeply explored and fleshed out in supplements released later.

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.

Wow do I disagree with that. I like it when new things happen - either the characters evolve, or we're simply told/shown more about them. Three paragraphs about a deity isn't enough, in my opinion.

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.

That's you're opinion; you may have noticed that other people don't share it. And even overlooking that point, I'd venture that even character development that you don't care for is still development at all. I don't like Elminster, but at least I have a good idea of who he is as a character.

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.

The difference is that you want the appearance of a pantheon that grows and diminishes - I want it to actually do that.

Or, at least, tell us more about its constituent members in the meantime.

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.

Not really, as they're the result of the gods being their own individuals rather than just slowly and gradually changing in response to their culture's change in values.

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.

But, no coverage and exposure = no possibility for development.

I'll admit that in some cases, a truly superb but concise piece of material can still be better than a much longer one of lesser quality.

That, however, is most definitely not the case in regards to the GH deities vs. the FR deities.

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.

(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.)

It's a bit late for you to be say you don't care to talk about Greyhawk as exemplifying the traits you like, as you've already made that point multiple times.

Even saying that, it's still a useful point of comparison - the GH deities have no such mythologies either; you're simply interpreting their interpersonal relationships to be suggestive of the mythologies you'd like to see, despite them not having actually been written.

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.

And the fact that the FR gods are constantly in a state of flux showcases their dynamic nature, which naturally begets development. The lack of a mythology seems inconsequential when they're actually doing things now.

It bears repeating that novels - or, for that matter, game materials that change things - aren't the only way to establish development for gods as characters. You can just as easily do that with an expansive article/book about the gods as they are now. That's why the Faiths & Avatars books are so lauded. They establish the gods very well, as they exist at that time.

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'm saying that less is not more; more is more. You don't seem to think so.

More is quantitative, but more is not always qualitatively better.

I have no condescension to rectify; the same cannot be said for you.

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.

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?

 

[the Jester]

Since everyone is getting all riled up about the divine family concept and whether it is important or adds anything to the pantheon, I thought I'd throw in my 2 coppers worth.

Since I don't have any GH stuff handy and I haven't used it as my campaign in around 15 years, I don't really remember who is related to who so well, so I'm not going to be able to throw out GH-specific examples, but just noting that god A is the father of god B and god C actually does suggest a lot- given the other information you have.

Generally, you'll know the deity's status (greater, intermediate, lesser, demi-); alignment; and portfolio, at a minimum.

If you look at these in the context of familial relationships they can often be quite suggestive. They can really flesh out the relationship between those deities, which naturally fleshes out the way their priesthoods interact. That's the thing about details like this: even if the pcs don't care about them, they can still have an in-game effect. Plot hooks hang thick from the divine families.

One good example is if the parent deity is of lesser status than the child; there's something going on there. Another is close relatives of strongly opposed alignments.

IMHO and all that.