Forgotten Realms Lore Questions
Grum
Member, Mobile Tester Posts: 2,100
This thread is for asking questions on D&D lore. To start off:
We all know that the Bhaalspawn are the children of Bhaal. Have any other gods or goddesses created mortal progeny before or since, and what were the results? Anyone know?
We all know that the Bhaalspawn are the children of Bhaal. Have any other gods or goddesses created mortal progeny before or since, and what were the results? Anyone know?
Post edited by Grum on
6
Comments
(You can read all about this in the History of the Chosen of Mystra book in-game)
@mashedtaters I know very little about his adventures or exploits, but I do know that Elminster (and Volo) was created by Ed Greenwood, who created the FR setting. This makes him kinda important.
Apart from that, he's also behind protecting Cormyr and many other realms more times that he could remember against the ever-reaching grasp of the Cult of the Dragon, the Shades, the Zhentarim and the Red Wizards. He trained some of the seven sisters in the Art (Laeral, Alustriel and the Symbul if I am not mistaken) and at one point he also had Vangerdahast as his apprehentice.
Hope this helps. I highly recommend reading Ed Greenwood's Elminster series to have a deeper insight on the Old Mage.
Elminster...he must be stopped!
As far as Mithral and adamantium, they are different from each other. Mithral is mined from deep within the ground, and is as hard as or harder than and lighter than steel. Adamantium is from fallen stars, and is roughly the same weight as steel, but much harder than Mithral. They have different properties. Mithral, in 3.5 pnp, reduces weight to 25% of the original without reducing AC. Adamantium provides damage reduction. I have no idea about 4e, because I couldnt stand it. I haven't played dnd next yet. I don't know whether one is more valuable as in useful than another, but adamantium is more rare and more expensive. They just have different applications. Elves and dwarves both like Mithral. adamantite golems are more powerful than Mithral golems in 3.5.
@Moradin
Thanks! That was very insightful.
Plus, a recent study published by Trust of Morandin and colleagues, reported in Flamerule's issue of the Journal of Pure and Applied Alchemy, shows that the placebo effect is higher in patients cured by bards' spells than patients treated by clerics.
http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Magic
So I guess you're right. It appears that in FR lore, healing and all other exclusively divine powers are innate powers of certain gods, or of the Force/Balance of Nature, independent of the Weave, and gifted only to the devout by those gods, or by the discipline of druids (who in some 3rd edition lore, are required to worship a Nature god to access the powers of Nature).
Still doesn't explain about bards and healing, unless maybe Oghma, the God of Bards, is doing that. Actually, that idea makes a lot of sense to me.
Game-lore wise, bardic magic is different that wizard magic. In 3e, all bard spells require a verbal component (i.e., playing, singing, reciting poetry), so the spells are different than those cast by a wizard (even if the effect is the same as a particular wizard spell). A wizard could learn bardic magic, but that would require learning a new way of casting spells (i.e. multi-classing as a bard).
A bard is not required to worship Oghma. Many of them worship Oghma's "right hand" and "left hand" associated deities, Deneir and Milil, but many worship other deities, or are even Faithless. My guess is that Oghma makes it possible for all bards to cast healing and a few other divine spells through bardic skill, regardless of whether they are direct worshipers, because the welfare of all bards is one of the main duties of his portfolio. I base that idea on 3rd edition lore, not 1st or 2nd, although, as @AstroBryGuy says, 1st edition put the divine element of the bard's skills into the D&D lore system with that strange requirement of druid levels for the original class, which was presented in the appendices of the 1st edition AD&D Player's Handbook as an optional "prestige class".
What do we know about Alorgoth besides what is depicted in Rasaad questline?
He must be quite important since you cannot kill him at anytime, much like other canon character, yet I can't find anything on him besides this:
http://www.realmshelps.net/npc/alorgoth.shtml
The items in his possession and the fact that he has a totally devoted shadow dragon servant makes me feel like he is more than the average level 19 monk (from his creature file).
Is he some favored of Shar or something?
PS - The bard did appear for OD&D in TSR's "The Strategic Review" - a predecessor to Dragon magazine. It was the "jack-of-all-trades" combination of fighter-thief-magic user with lore and song abilities we are familiar with. The 2nd edition Bard appears to be based on this bard rather than Gygax's 1E AD&D triple-class fighter->thief->druid. (Although the OD&D bard does have some clear Celtic/Norse flair)
http://annarchive.com/files/Strv201.pdf
http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1513
See page 250 of the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting for 3rd Edition (NOT the Campaign *Guide*).
He always has access to divine fire from Mystra, and that is a very very powerful spell that seems to go through most if not all spell protections. Also heals the caster.
Sometimes Mystra grants him extra power, at least in the books, not a reliable source of power perhaps, but nonetheless.
All in all I would put him slightly above the rest of the contenders for the title "most powerful archmage" in the FR setting. He might not act like it though. Most of the others have more often than not lots of powerful underlings that makes them even more dangerous. Larloch and Tanthul are both mentioned in the books more than a few times, read for yourself what happens. The Srinshee is way more ancient than Elminster and complicated, I'll leave it at that. Szass Tam is no slouch either, and the ruler of a powerful nation as well, also imho a contender. Elminster seems to have a knack for making people dislike him, thus more often than not he is alone or part of a small group. Might be due to a low charisma score because of the very statheavy dualclasses he has, he is a fighter/thief/cleric/wizard after all.
The bard's most useful asset rests in his ability to convince you that he is a very useful asset. That is done through his charisma, but also by showing off to each class the things that they aren't specifically good at.
A wizard might say, "Well, that guy doesn't really know that much about the arcane, but he's pretty good with a lockpick and a few heal spells."
Meanwhile, the thief is thinking, "Good with a lockpick! Are you crazy?? Well at least he got that ogre off my back...maybe we should keep him around."
Then the cleric says, "My good Elminster-wannabe, you are certainly right about the lockpicking, but his healing skills leave much to be desired. I am the man you should come to whenever you are in DIRE straights."
Then the dwarf fighter pipes up, "Well he ain't much for fightin'. But he did blast them guys with his magic missiles. I say we keep him around."
And the whole time the bard is just dreaming of his chance to one day be the new lead singer for Nirvana.
If you think about the bard as if he were a strategist, then you're doing it the wrong way - a bard is much more likely to cast a fantastic color spray rather than blindness, for example.
As for the bard, I feel like some spells make little sense for a bard to have. As @DJKajuru pointed out, it is in the usually flamboyant nature of the bard itself to use certain spells rather than others. I really do not see bards as healers really, they should probably consider removing the "cure" spells from the bards' list altogether and add some "inspire toughness" or something like that to make up for those lost spells. I'm thinking rather than curing lost HPs, the bard's presence would actually inspire other PCs to clench their teeth and continue fighting through the pain (with no penalties at negative HPs, or something similar).
Also, I don't see why "a bard is much more likely to cast a fantastic color spray rather than blindness". Not every bard is going to be in the mold of a court jester or entertaining illusionist, i.e., uses primarily flashy spells. Some bards will be flashy, but others would have a more subdued take on their profession, i.e. preferring stirring oration to smokepowder antics. Celtic bards and Norse skalds would have great knowledge of history and warfare, which could make them keenly aware of good vs poor battle tactics.
As for the spells, both are useful, depending on the situation. It is true that color spray can affect more enemies, but it is a short-range spell. It would be useful for disabling a group of melee foes, but it does require the bard get up on the front lines to maximize effectiveness (which, under 2E rules, probably means not wearing armor unless the bard is so lucky as to own elven chain mail). Also, its range may not reach the enemies' back line. Blindness only affects a single enemy, but it has a longer range, so it is useful for disabling a major back-line threat, like an enemy mage.
EDIT: I misread the point of DJKajuru's post.