AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

Dieu, here's a snip from the Timeline in the "History of Luiren" section of "Shining South."

Shining South wrote:

-102, Year of the Spiked Gauntlet: Desva, a cleric of Malar, attains a position of power among the ghostwise halflings and begins leading them into darkness and evil.

-68 Year of Discordant Destinies: The Hin Ghostwars begin in response to the evil acts of Desva and the ghostwise halflings. Chand, a strongheart hunter, becomes warchief of the Strongheart Tribe. The Strongheart and Lightfoot tribes unite against the Ghostwise Tribe and begin exterminating its members.

-65, Year of Monstrous Appetites: Chand slays Desva in battle. Almost all the ghostwise hin are either slain or driven out of the Lluirwood, and the Hin Ghostwars at last draw to a close.

In the time of the Ghostwars, the Hin people were tribal and nomadic. The three major tribes were the Ghostwise, the Lightfoot and the Strongheart. The Ghostwise were corrupted by a Malarite priest named Desva. Desva gained a level of power within the Ghostwise tribe and started corrupting the Ghostwise. They started spreading disease, poisoning the land and slaughtering mindlessly.

Eventually, the evils and wrongs of the Ghostwise became so bad that the Strongheart and Lightfoot tribes got together and went to war with the Ghostwise. They killed and drove them out of the Lluirwood, which that time was much larger and was where the Hin lived. A war chief of the Stronghearts by the name of Chand, found Desva and killed him. Chad also implimented a kill-on-sight rule about Ghostwise for those under his command.

The Lightfoots found the harshness of Chand to be distasteful, to say the least. Because of that, the Lightfoots left the Lluirwood, leaving it to the Strongheart alone. The Ghostwise, or what was left of them anyway, went to the Chondalwood. They took an oath there to never speak again until they felt they had atoned for their savagery while they were under Malars pull. They found a sense of salvation in the Hin gods Sheela Peryroyl and Urogolan. Sheela taught them to be at one with the land again. The Ghostwise also had a general sense of wanting to be worthy of Urogolans embrace upon death, so they started living by his ways also.

As time went on, the Stronghearts, being the lone tribe on the Lluirwood, decided they would cut down most of the forest and settle the land. And so modern day Luiren began to form!

Anyone know of any direction info on any particular monasteries in Solania, the 4th heaven? Looked in all the book sources, I believe, so I'm talking things like Dragon mags and particular novels.

Can characters follow non-FR gods? In particular, would it be possible to for a character to follow a god in an official expansion, such as Races of Destiny. I'm particularly interested in

Urbanus: God of Cities -- could be interpreted as an aspect of Gond
Beleghir, Kelsar, Lis, Palitra: Half-Elven Gods. They could also be interpreted as aspects of other Faeruhnian gods.

Would it be feasable for a character to follow one of these gods (whether standalone or aspects of others)?

Not reallly, no. They don't exist in the Realms, so 1) you wouldn't know about them, 2) you wouldn't have much reason to worship them and 3) they couldn't respond. The exception is planewalkers who come from a world where those gods hold domain, I suppose.

Mielikki is a typical half-elven patron, by the way.

Quick question about clerics. When they cast their divine spells, do they have to grasp their holy symbols? And when they do, does that generally make said holy symbols visible/show where they are kept? Mostly asking to find out if one can identify a cleric's deity when they cast (assuming the symbol is even required to be of their deity... I thought so but not sure)

I'm fairly sure that this is the case, just not sure if it's the same on FR/Amia for that matter.

...Oh, another small question, on a similar note. Are rangers restricted to nature deities in the same way druids are? I thought so, but reading FRCS it just says that they need a patron to cast and they -tend- to choose druid gods... but they don't have to?

Thanks.

Most divine spells require a 'divine focus' as one of the components in the casting. A divine focus is a holy symbol in most cases.

You can take a look at the list of cleric spells. Any spell that notes a divine focus, listed as DF in the components entry would require a holy symbol being used in the casting (ie, grasping it, displaying it, or otherwise involving the symbol in the casting of the spell itself.)

Edit: While mechanically, you are not required to have an actual item in your inventory that counts as a holy symbol, or any spell component aside from the IGMS and TS spells, I have always played under the assumption that material components that are not represented by actual items in game are nevertheless used in the casting of spells. So-as, to cast a fireball, my wizard would have to have a bit of bat-shit in order to do so. It would be most lore-appropriate to play a cleric in the same fashion. You can even look at the list, and see if there are any exceptions to needing to have a divine focus, to add a bit of flavor to your casting emotes, etc.

Hmm, I was under the impression that any divine spells with a somatic component required grasping a holy symbol? It was like, a trade-off to avoid the more complicated arcane gestures and thus allow divine casters to cast in armour. I forgot about focus components though, so that covers my main question at least. Though now I am concerned about the possible huge lorefail I had going on about divine somatic.

Also I'm sure any self-respecting wizard carries sulphur instead of having to forage for bat crap.

serbiris wrote:

Hmm, I was under the impression that any divine spells with a somatic component required grasping a holy symbol? It was like, a trade-off to avoid the more complicated arcane gestures and thus allow divine casters to cast in armour. I forgot about focus components though, so that covers my main question at least. Though now I am concerned about the possible huge lorefail I had going on about divine somatic.

Also I'm sure any self-respecting wizard carries sulphur instead of having to forage for bat crap.

It might be explained that a cleric's somatic component, compared to a mage's, is much more simple. Raising of the hands, an upward tilt of the head, in an imploring manner, for instance; as opposed to twirling the fingers in an upward spiral of x degrees while turning forty-five degrees, while manipulating the material component with the other hand, tossing it into the air at an exact moment, etc and etc. But, I have always been under the impression that DF meant holy symbol.

But, there may be exceptions to the display of holy symbols that depends on the patron. Shar may make allowances with her symbol being displayed openly, for example.

And, fireball requires both sulfur and batshit. I am sure there are healthy markets for batshit throughout the realm. No foraging required

Ah, forgot about those crafty Sharrans. Yeah, makes more sense, at least in the case of the tricksy gods, that holy symbols aren't openly displayed on a regular basis. Or maybe they keep them in their pockets. But yeah, fair enough.

My bad about the batshit. Thought it was an "or", not and. TSR/WotC have a twisted sense of humour.

No, rangers don't need a nature patron, though it's typical. F&P says they do, but it's an error. This has been covered in more detail a handful of times before, in this topic and others. If you're interested, just search the appropriate words.

A idivine focus is almost always a holy symbol.

Anything involving turn or rebuke undead requires a holy symbol.

Not to mention 90% of clerics and druids would not hide or cover their patron's identity without explicitly grand reason. Because good ones wish to show whose mercy was their deed and whom to praise, as opposed, evil priests want to show whom you should fear and praise instead.

Also, don't forget that holy symbol can be other thing than pendant, like ring, shield, marked helm or even robes. As long as it displays insignia or marks of said deity.

Moreso thing most folk forget, recognizing holy symbol requires knowledge religion check, or in this case lore. 15 would be base dc for such with modifier like -5 to dc difficulty due to well known gods, for example, you could easily identify Lathander's symbol due to them being very common thing. Likewise, human or dwarf would get +5 on dc difficulty for elven deity symbol. There are many things like that one should consider when trying to decide would your character know the symbol or not.

I daresay most gods' symbols are well known due to the overtness of religion.

Most are, but then again, I doubt random say Ffolk commoner would recognize eye as Ghandaur's symbol or that any human would recognize other symbols of dwarven pantheon aside of Moradin. Or heck, any of common races would know orc gods besides Gruumish.

Religion is omnipresent, but pantheons are not that widespread beyond their chosen communities.

I have a two part question:

1) A PM arm can be used while shifted, is that correct?

2) And, shifted or not, if a PM uses a bone arm ability is there any way for a viewer to tell what happened?

1. I personally would think not, but that's for a DM to make a call on really.

2. If the person or people around for it are familiar with PM's, then probably yes. In order to use Undead Graft, the PM -must- use a verbal command that declares he's using it, which would pretty much give the PM away to those in the know.

TormakSaber wrote:

I daresay most gods' symbols are well known due to the overtness of religion.

Leave it to me to think of the freak-of-nature cases, but need the Holy Symbol be recognized by the god for it to be effective, or is it the conscious connection to deity that the user makes with it the defining factor?

As in, would Torm only recognize his holy gauntlet image or a shield with three arrows in it(his old symbol, I believe)? Or might one of his clerics be able to use a miniature idol of the statue from Tantras(the one he turned into his Avatar during the ToT) as one, if the cleric identifies more with that image? Perhaps as long as the symbol is created with a particular deity in mind, consecrated as one, and then called upon in the name of the same deity it works.

I swear I posted this last night

o0GuNz_N_RoSeZ0o wrote:

1. I personally would think not, but that's for a DM to make a call on really.

2. If the person or people around for it are familiar with PM's, then probably yes. In order to use Undead Graft, the PM -must- use a verbal command that declares he's using it, which would pretty much give the PM away to those in the know.

1) That's kinda what I thought, but wasn't sure. Mechanically I saw it work after a Shapechange spell, but it kinda makes sense that it did (regardless of mechanics) but I don't know enough about PM abilities. But lore-wise should it? That's the question. Also, let me expand a bit:

a) In particular I am wondering if, after using the Shapechange spell, the bone arm would still work?
b) Likewise, would it work for a Druid(and Shifter)/PM (don't ask, just covering this as well) used their shifting ability would the arm work?
c) Not sure if there are other ways of shifting/shapechaning, but if there are what about them?

2) Yeah, and I figured it would come down to familiarity (ie reading up on palemaster/necromancy or being a PM) with palemasters. I am wondering if there is some sort of Lore/Knowledge/Spellcraft check that could be done to recognize it.

Anyone (especially a DM) with knowledge mind chiming in please? I'm really curious to know this (and not in a 'omg butthurt' sort of way haha).

Naivatkal wrote:

I have a two part question:

1) A PM arm can be used while shifted, is that correct?

2) And, shifted or not, if a PM uses a bone arm ability is there any way for a viewer to tell what happened?

1: No. Mechanically? Yes. Really? No. You don't have the bone arm when you shift. The only esxception would be an undead form.

2: Well, besides the obviously visual effect associated with it? No. IT's somatic only. You do need to touch them with the actual, real, physical, skeleton hand. NOT a gauntlet. NOT a glove. NOT a mitten. NOT the shield you're holding on that hand. THE HAND ITSELF.

Quote:

a) In particular I am wondering if, after using the Shapechange spell, the bone arm would still work?

No.

Quote:

b) Likewise, would it work for a Druid(and Shifter)/PM (don't ask, just covering this as well) used their shifting ability would the arm work?

No.

Quote:

c) Not sure if there are other ways of shifting/shapechaning, but if there are what about them?

No.

Thank you, that is pretty much what I thought. Wasn't sure on the second question, but on the first the only thing that I could figure was maybe the arm properties were usable since they have the graft but the shifting alters the look of it. But that is wrong, so it doesn't matter much.

Hello, I am hoping for some lore on the shadow weave. If I, as a mage, cast Shadow Conjuration: Invisibility, for example, instead of regular Invisibility, what are the effects on me? Am I committing an evil act? Can other mages with sufficient spellcraft realize I'm casting shadow weave magic, and what would be the typical reaction to such an act?

Thank you!

In before Nivo.

Day Dreaming wrote:

Hello, I am hoping for some lore on the shadow weave. If I, as a mage, cast Shadow Conjuration: Invisibility, for example, instead of regular Invisibility, what are the effects on me? Am I committing an evil act? Can other mages with sufficient spellcraft realize I'm casting shadow weave magic, and what would be the typical reaction to such an act?

Thank you!

Shadow Conjuration, Shades, etc =/= Shadow Weave magic.

Jes wrote:

In before Nivo.

>.<

Nivo wrote:

Shadow Conjuration, Shades, etc =/= Shadow Weave magic.

Ah thank you, I was misunderstood. What exactly is it then?

Last edited by Jes on Thu, Jun 09 2011, 23:45 PM, edited 1 time in total.

Aw, I expected a longer rant. But yes. Shades (and Shadow Conjuration, etc.) is just another spell. An illusion, to be precise.

Edit: Oh, and the other spells.

Jes wrote:

Aw, I expected a longer rant. But yes. Shades is just another spell. An illusion, to be precise.

So there is nothing evil about casting those spells at all?

Day Dreaming wrote:

Nivo wrote:

Shadow Conjuration, Shades, etc =/= Shadow Weave magic.

Ah thank you, I was misunderstood. What exactly is it then?

It is illusion magic, cast from the Weave. Just like shadow-shield, and so forth. Just because it says shadow in the spell title, does not make it shadow weave. To cast from the shadow weave is another bag of tricks, entirely.

There is nothing inherently evil about Shadow Conjuration, Shades, etc.

Thanks very much to you both for the lore!

Theres nothing evil about casting Shades.

But the thing summoned by Shades is evil.

MoshingChris wrote:

But the thing summoned by Shades is evil.

Oh. Yes. Shadow of the Void. Very evil. Forgot about him. But, every other use of the spell is not inherently evil. Thanks, Chris. :wink:

That Void creature is strange, though. Last I asked there wasn't any lore available IC about the Void (or even if it's in our setting) and I was told it would look like any other summoned (neutral) shadow, much like the SD shadow. So while it's evil, I don't know at what point that becomes clear IC.

Day Dreaming wrote:

Jes wrote:

Aw, I expected a longer rant. But yes. Shades is just another spell. An illusion, to be precise.

So there is nothing evil about casting those spells at all?

Nothing innately evil, no. The spells are just using the "stuff" of the Shadow Plane as a substitute medium for creating the spells, rather than the Weave completely.

And Moshie face means that Shadows, Shadow Fiends, and Shadow Lords are innately evil. But pretty much anything else you cast, is just like the regular spell, except it is using the Plane of Shadow as an ingredient. It has nothing to do with the Shadow Weave.

And Jes, I'd like to believe the theory that they're illusions (the ones in PnP are), but they just use the regular saves, instead of Will. Which lends to the idea that they're just substitutes, but not illusions.

Jes wrote:

That Void creature is strange, though. Last I asked there wasn't any lore available IC about the Void (or even if it's in our setting) and I was told it would look like any other summoned (neutral) shadow, much like the SD shadow. So while it's evil, I don't know at what point that becomes clear.

Ew. Lore-less summons are fail. I was under the impression it could be recognized as a very evil summon made out of pure entropic forces. If you're right, I stand corrected. >>

But anyway! Good point to raise in this thread.

Thanks very much for the many answers, this is just what I was hoping to learn.

Jes wrote:

That Void creature is strange, though. Last I asked there wasn't any lore available IC about the Void (or even if it's in our setting) and I was told it would look like any other summoned (neutral) shadow, much like the SD shadow. So while it's evil, I don't know at what point that becomes clear IC.

They'd become apparently evil when they kill something, and then it rises up as an icy, undead slave. >_> http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters ... heVoid.htm

That, and they're on fire, IC. I imagine that's supposed to be the representation of their Blightfire. So the fire probably looks unnatural or shadowy, I'd imagine.

The problem isn't whether the creature is evil, though. The problem was whether The Void even exists and if that's what the creature even is. I don't remember who it was who said The Void isn't something that exists in FR, which is why I shall wait for someone more knowing of that (and of the summon) to answer!

For example, the page on the DnD Wiki comes up as being in the Homebrew section.

I want to say its in the Epic Level Handbook. And I think it's a name more than anything else, "the Void" isn't a specific place in any cosmology that I can think off the top of my head. Though it could be an alternate name for the Negative Energy plane, as it is literally a plane of absence and draining of all things.

Well, that makes it easy, then. I have the Epic Level Handbook. >.>

Seems it is just a name. It's also an evil Undead. Good to know!

TormakSaber wrote:

2: Well, besides the obviously visual effect associated with it? No. IT's somatic only. You do need to touch them with the actual, real, physical, skeleton hand. NOT a gauntlet. NOT a glove. NOT a mitten. NOT the shield you're holding on that hand. THE HAND ITSELF.

Libris Mortis implies pretty heavily that there's a verbal component to the use of the graft.

Libris Mortis, pg.48 wrote:

The character must declare that he is using this ability before making the attack roll...

All that means is that you must declare use before making the roll. I expect that it is a typo because all other instances say "the player must declare" etc. Obviously a character is not ICly "making an attack roll", a player is doing that. RAI vs RAW. It must be declared by the player before use because a miss expends a charge, and you can't retroactively turn a hit into a graft hit.

::nods slowly, pretending to understand D&D mechanics talk::

o0GuNz_N_RoSeZ0o wrote:

::nods slowly, pretending to understand D&D mechanics talk::

It just means that you can't roll to determine whether or not an attack hits, and then once you've learned the success or failure of the roll, go back and retroactively declare that you were adding a special ability to the attack.

o0GuNz_N_RoSeZ0o wrote:

::nods slowly, pretending to understand D&D mechanics talk::

tl;dr: It's a typo and should say "player", not "Character", implying that the declaration is OOC. In game this is represented by you clicking the ability then choosing a target.

There can't be any shifter pms anyways. Shifter require druid, and PM requires bard/wiz/sor. So that combo couldn't exist anyways.

And if shapechange means you lose said abilities how does one explain how a mage in dragonform could still use it? Or the immunity to crits?

They can't use the graft. I just said that. Pay attention.

I know, I got it. The talks about rolls and whatever "RAI vs RAW" means kinda fuzzed mu' brain, but I re read it.

RAI vs RAW =
Rules As Intended vs Rules As Written.

Spirit of the law vs word of the law.

Gotcha. Thought it was some sort of weird mechanical stuff. Any talks about mathematical things beyond the very basics automatically makes my brain hurt. It's something my mind does to defend itself or something, hah! I have to read it over -- and over and over even, sometimes! >.>

I suck at mathematics...

The Lore Question Thread

Who is online