Outside of that, I don't like gods as they fail to provide an explanation for the origin of existence.
Why does it matter? Flumphs don't provide an explanation for the origin of existence, but that doesn't mean they aren't rad. I understand in our universe why this is may be an issue given certain theological arguments. But in our gaming realms, the gods often interact more directly in the world and the evidence of their existence is often more tangible. There are many appreciably aspects of their existence beyond explaining the origin of the universe or any other phenomena.
I like clerics because they give tangible gaming mechanics. Beyond that, gods will be rad or not and will interact directly in the world or not to any extent a DM chooses. Other than that they mainly just give further detail to backstory and potential to deny power if, according to a set of values, you're naughty.
I asked you why it matters that the gods don't provide an explanation for the origin of existence. Your reply does not answer that question. While each campaign is different, the OP seems to be referencing source material. In the source material, there are gods. Not liking any of them because they don't explain the origin of existence is, of course, your prerogative, but to me it's a bit like not liking my microwave because it doesn't play DVDs.
Thank you and, as per "I don't like gods as they fail to provide an explanation for the origin of existence", that's exactly my position.
Gods, in real-world belief, are frequently synonymous with origin. If your DVD player came with the inference that it could, for instance, explain the question of existence when it failed to live up to expectations that might add to my reasons to prefer alternate options to access parallel content such as hard drives.
But not the origin of existence itself, which is to say why there is something rather than nothing. That is not something any god really does or likely even can do. There is always some presupposition of a force or phenomenon that calls all other existence, shape and form into being. The gods in 5e source material do, in many cases, explain origins of various phenomena, just as gods in general often do, but they don't tackle the seemingly paradoxical inquiry into why there is existence in the first place.
Exactly. 5e gods are presented as great powers that are worshipped and adored, yet they fail to provide answers to ultimate questions.
I don't like the idea of entities gaining control of aspects of mortal affairs as their portfolios and demanding/entreating worship. I prefer the idea that "... there's no fate but what we make for ourselves" and that characters can be in more direct control.
Outside of that, I don't like gods as they fail to provide an explanation for the origin of existence.
Why does it matter? Flumphs don't provide an explanation for the origin of existence, but that doesn't mean they aren't rad. I understand in our universe why this is may be an issue given certain theological arguments. But in our gaming realms, the gods often interact more directly in the world and the evidence of their existence is often more tangible. There are many appreciably aspects of their existence beyond explaining the origin of the universe or any other phenomena.
I like clerics because they give tangible gaming mechanics. Beyond that, gods will be rad or not and will interact directly in the world or not to any extent a DM chooses. Other than that they mainly just give further detail to backstory and potential to deny power if, according to a set of values, you're naughty.
I asked you why it matters that the gods don't provide an explanation for the origin of existence. Your reply does not answer that question. While each campaign is different, the OP seems to be referencing source material. In the source material, there are gods. Not liking any of them because they don't explain the origin of existence is, of course, your prerogative, but to me it's a bit like not liking my microwave because it doesn't play DVDs.
Thank you and, as per "I don't like gods as they fail to provide an explanation for the origin of existence", that's exactly my position.
Gods, in real-world belief, are frequently synonymous with origin. If your DVD player came with the inference that it could, for instance, explain the question of existence when it failed to live up to expectations that might add to my reasons to prefer alternate options to access parallel content such as hard drives.
But not the origin of existence itself, which is to say why there is something rather than nothing. That is not something any god really does or likely even can do. There is always some presupposition of a force or phenomenon that calls all other existence, shape and form into being. The gods in 5e source material do, in many cases, explain origins of various phenomena, just as gods in general often do, but they don't tackle the seemingly paradoxical inquiry into why there is existence in the first place.
Exactly. 5e gods are presented as great powers that are worshipped and adored, yet they fail to provide answers to ultimate questions.
I don't like the idea of entities gaining control of aspects of mortal affairs as their portfolios and demanding/entreating worship. I prefer the idea that "... there's no fate but what we make for ourselves" and that characters can be in more direct control. It's a personal preference.
Genesis 1:1 “God created the heavens and the Earth” the first verse in the Bible disproves your statement. In DnD, God is replaced with Ao, they are one in the same, and both give evidence for the creation of existence, we have been saying this the entire time.
Outside of that, I don't like gods as they fail to provide an explanation for the origin of existence.
Why does it matter? Flumphs don't provide an explanation for the origin of existence, but that doesn't mean they aren't rad. I understand in our universe why this is may be an issue given certain theological arguments. But in our gaming realms, the gods often interact more directly in the world and the evidence of their existence is often more tangible. There are many appreciably aspects of their existence beyond explaining the origin of the universe or any other phenomena.
I like clerics because they give tangible gaming mechanics. Beyond that, gods will be rad or not and will interact directly in the world or not to any extent a DM chooses. Other than that they mainly just give further detail to backstory and potential to deny power if, according to a set of values, you're naughty.
I asked you why it matters that the gods don't provide an explanation for the origin of existence. Your reply does not answer that question. While each campaign is different, the OP seems to be referencing source material. In the source material, there are gods. Not liking any of them because they don't explain the origin of existence is, of course, your prerogative, but to me it's a bit like not liking my microwave because it doesn't play DVDs.
Thank you and, as per "I don't like gods as they fail to provide an explanation for the origin of existence", that's exactly my position.
Gods, in real-world belief, are frequently synonymous with origin. If your DVD player came with the inference that it could, for instance, explain the question of existence when it failed to live up to expectations that might add to my reasons to prefer alternate options to access parallel content such as hard drives.
But not the origin of existence itself, which is to say why there is something rather than nothing. That is not something any god really does or likely even can do. There is always some presupposition of a force or phenomenon that calls all other existence, shape and form into being. The gods in 5e source material do, in many cases, explain origins of various phenomena, just as gods in general often do, but they don't tackle the seemingly paradoxical inquiry into why there is existence in the first place.
Exactly. 5e gods are presented as great powers that are worshipped and adored, yet they fail to provide answers to ultimate questions.
I don't like the idea of entities gaining control of aspects of mortal affairs as their portfolios and demanding/entreating worship. I prefer the idea that "... there's no fate but what we make for ourselves" and that characters can be in more direct control.
Outside of that, I don't like gods as they fail to provide an explanation for the origin of existence.
Why does it matter? Flumphs don't provide an explanation for the origin of existence, but that doesn't mean they aren't rad. I understand in our universe why this is may be an issue given certain theological arguments. But in our gaming realms, the gods often interact more directly in the world and the evidence of their existence is often more tangible. There are many appreciably aspects of their existence beyond explaining the origin of the universe or any other phenomena.
I like clerics because they give tangible gaming mechanics. Beyond that, gods will be rad or not and will interact directly in the world or not to any extent a DM chooses. Other than that they mainly just give further detail to backstory and potential to deny power if, according to a set of values, you're naughty.
I asked you why it matters that the gods don't provide an explanation for the origin of existence. Your reply does not answer that question. While each campaign is different, the OP seems to be referencing source material. In the source material, there are gods. Not liking any of them because they don't explain the origin of existence is, of course, your prerogative, but to me it's a bit like not liking my microwave because it doesn't play DVDs.
Thank you and, as per "I don't like gods as they fail to provide an explanation for the origin of existence", that's exactly my position.
Gods, in real-world belief, are frequently synonymous with origin. If your DVD player came with the inference that it could, for instance, explain the question of existence when it failed to live up to expectations that might add to my reasons to prefer alternate options to access parallel content such as hard drives.
But not the origin of existence itself, which is to say why there is something rather than nothing. That is not something any god really does or likely even can do. There is always some presupposition of a force or phenomenon that calls all other existence, shape and form into being. The gods in 5e source material do, in many cases, explain origins of various phenomena, just as gods in general often do, but they don't tackle the seemingly paradoxical inquiry into why there is existence in the first place.
Exactly. 5e gods are presented as great powers that are worshipped and adored, yet they fail to provide answers to ultimate questions.
I don't like the idea of entities gaining control of aspects of mortal affairs as their portfolios and demanding/entreating worship. I prefer the idea that "... there's no fate but what we make for ourselves" and that characters can be in more direct control. It's a personal preference.
Genesis 1:1 “God created the heavens and the Earth” the first verse in the Bible disproves your statement. In DnD, God is replaced with Ao, they are one in the same, and both give evidence for the creation of existence, we have been saying this the entire time.
The gods in 5e source material do, in many cases, explain origins of various phenomena, just as gods in general often do, but they don't tackle the seemingly paradoxical inquiry into why there is existence in the first place.
Exactly. 5e gods are presented as great powers that are worshipped and adored, yet they fail to provide answers to ultimate questions.
That's a bit of a non-sequitur. I am not saying that 5e gods don't do that. I am saying that is not a thing gods do, period. It's a bizarre criterion for evaluating gods. That singular point of inquiry is the DVD to the microwave. That said, as much as I love tangents, this is becoming a derail, so I guess I'm out. I appreciate your responses.
I'm happily sequituring all the way following my personal statement that "I don't like gods as they fail to provide an explanation for the origin of existence." Gods are used to explain existence but ultimately fail to do so. They are an explanation that then requires a higher level of explanation. I don't like that.
The gods in 5e source material do, in many cases, explain origins of various phenomena, just as gods in general often do, but they don't tackle the seemingly paradoxical inquiry into why there is existence in the first place.
Exactly. 5e gods are presented as great powers that are worshipped and adored, yet they fail to provide answers to ultimate questions.
That's a bit of a non-sequitur. I am not saying that 5e gods don't do that. I am saying that is not a thing gods do, period. It's a bizarre criterion for evaluating gods. That singular point of inquiry is the DVD to the microwave. That said, as much as I love tangents, this is becoming a derail, so I guess I'm out. I appreciate your responses.
I'm happily sequituring all the way following my personal statement that "I don't like gods as they fail to provide an explanation for the origin of existence." Gods are used to explain existence but ultimately fail to do so. They are an explanation that then requires a higher level of explanation. I don't like that.
To be honest I keep my own belief system out of DnD because otherwise I would only accept Fighters and Rogues at my table.
The gods in 5e source material do, in many cases, explain origins of various phenomena, just as gods in general often do, but they don't tackle the seemingly paradoxical inquiry into why there is existence in the first place.
Exactly. 5e gods are presented as great powers that are worshipped and adored, yet they fail to provide answers to ultimate questions.
That's a bit of a non-sequitur. I am not saying that 5e gods don't do that. I am saying that is not a thing gods do, period. It's a bizarre criterion for evaluating gods. That singular point of inquiry is the DVD to the microwave. That said, as much as I love tangents, this is becoming a derail, so I guess I'm out. I appreciate your responses.
I'm happily sequituring all the way following my personal statement that "I don't like gods as they fail to provide an explanation for the origin of existence." Gods are used to explain existence but ultimately fail to do so. They are an explanation that then requires a higher level of explanation. I don't like that.
To be honest I keep my own belief system out of DnD because otherwise I would only accept Fighters and Rogues at my table.
To be honest I take any of my likes into any situation I choose. "I don't like gods..." Simple.
The gods in 5e source material do, in many cases, explain origins of various phenomena, just as gods in general often do, but they don't tackle the seemingly paradoxical inquiry into why there is existence in the first place.
Exactly. 5e gods are presented as great powers that are worshipped and adored, yet they fail to provide answers to ultimate questions.
That's a bit of a non-sequitur. I am not saying that 5e gods don't do that. I am saying that is not a thing gods do, period. It's a bizarre criterion for evaluating gods. That singular point of inquiry is the DVD to the microwave. That said, as much as I love tangents, this is becoming a derail, so I guess I'm out. I appreciate your responses.
I'm happily sequituring all the way following my personal statement that "I don't like gods as they fail to provide an explanation for the origin of existence." Gods are used to explain existence but ultimately fail to do so. They are an explanation that then requires a higher level of explanation. I don't like that.
To be honest I keep my own belief system out of DnD because otherwise I would only accept Fighters and Rogues at my table.
To be honest I take any of my likes into any situation I choose. "I don't like gods..." Simple.
Don't play a game with make belief gods and magic then. Cyberpunk is a thing as an rpg. I think there are even medieval settings with no magic.
Outside of that, I don't like gods as they fail to provide an explanation for the origin of existence.
Why does it matter? Flumphs don't provide an explanation for the origin of existence, but that doesn't mean they aren't rad. I understand in our universe why this is may be an issue given certain theological arguments. But in our gaming realms, the gods often interact more directly in the world and the evidence of their existence is often more tangible. There are many appreciably aspects of their existence beyond explaining the origin of the universe or any other phenomena.
I like clerics because they give tangible gaming mechanics. Beyond that, gods will be rad or not and will interact directly in the world or not to any extent a DM chooses. Other than that they mainly just give further detail to backstory and potential to deny power if, according to a set of values, you're naughty.
I asked you why it matters that the gods don't provide an explanation for the origin of existence. Your reply does not answer that question. While each campaign is different, the OP seems to be referencing source material. In the source material, there are gods. Not liking any of them because they don't explain the origin of existence is, of course, your prerogative, but to me it's a bit like not liking my microwave because it doesn't play DVDs.
Thank you and, as per "I don't like gods as they fail to provide an explanation for the origin of existence", that's exactly my position.
Gods, in real-world belief, are frequently synonymous with origin. If your DVD player came with the inference that it could, for instance, explain the question of existence when it failed to live up to expectations that might add to my reasons to prefer alternate options to access parallel content such as hard drives.
But not the origin of existence itself, which is to say why there is something rather than nothing. That is not something any god really does or likely even can do. There is always some presupposition of a force or phenomenon that calls all other existence, shape and form into being. The gods in 5e source material do, in many cases, explain origins of various phenomena, just as gods in general often do, but they don't tackle the seemingly paradoxical inquiry into why there is existence in the first place.
Exactly. 5e gods are presented as great powers that are worshipped and adored, yet they fail to provide answers to ultimate questions.
I don't like the idea of entities gaining control of aspects of mortal affairs as their portfolios and demanding/entreating worship. I prefer the idea that "... there's no fate but what we make for ourselves" and that characters can be in more direct control.
Outside of that, I don't like gods as they fail to provide an explanation for the origin of existence.
Why does it matter? Flumphs don't provide an explanation for the origin of existence, but that doesn't mean they aren't rad. I understand in our universe why this is may be an issue given certain theological arguments. But in our gaming realms, the gods often interact more directly in the world and the evidence of their existence is often more tangible. There are many appreciably aspects of their existence beyond explaining the origin of the universe or any other phenomena.
I like clerics because they give tangible gaming mechanics. Beyond that, gods will be rad or not and will interact directly in the world or not to any extent a DM chooses. Other than that they mainly just give further detail to backstory and potential to deny power if, according to a set of values, you're naughty.
I asked you why it matters that the gods don't provide an explanation for the origin of existence. Your reply does not answer that question. While each campaign is different, the OP seems to be referencing source material. In the source material, there are gods. Not liking any of them because they don't explain the origin of existence is, of course, your prerogative, but to me it's a bit like not liking my microwave because it doesn't play DVDs.
Thank you and, as per "I don't like gods as they fail to provide an explanation for the origin of existence", that's exactly my position.
Gods, in real-world belief, are frequently synonymous with origin. If your DVD player came with the inference that it could, for instance, explain the question of existence when it failed to live up to expectations that might add to my reasons to prefer alternate options to access parallel content such as hard drives.
But not the origin of existence itself, which is to say why there is something rather than nothing. That is not something any god really does or likely even can do. There is always some presupposition of a force or phenomenon that calls all other existence, shape and form into being. The gods in 5e source material do, in many cases, explain origins of various phenomena, just as gods in general often do, but they don't tackle the seemingly paradoxical inquiry into why there is existence in the first place.
Exactly. 5e gods are presented as great powers that are worshipped and adored, yet they fail to provide answers to ultimate questions.
I don't like the idea of entities gaining control of aspects of mortal affairs as their portfolios and demanding/entreating worship. I prefer the idea that "... there's no fate but what we make for ourselves" and that characters can be in more direct control. It's a personal preference.
Genesis 1:1 “God created the heavens and the Earth” the first verse in the Bible disproves your statement. In DnD, God is replaced with Ao, they are one in the same, and both give evidence for the creation of existence, we have been saying this the entire time.
I think Ao is just an inuniverse way of breaking the fourth wall, and that his master seems to imply to be the GM at the table. Ao can do anything he wants, but he is still bound to the will of the GM.
— — — — — — —
Oh yeah, as for the topic, I would not say I have any favorites. However, I find Eilistraee to be the most intriguing out of all the deities I know. Ilmater would be a close second since he kind of reminds me of Jesus.
I like Hecate, in mythology she is represented with 3 faces sometimes because she has many aspects. She is the god of crossroads invoked by travelers and representing destiny, she is the queen of ghosts guiding lost spirits back to their final rest, she is also depicted as the goddess of magic.
Back in the day we used to represent Primus as the “one above all” in our campaign, we did not involve FR much so he was the equivalent of AO. The one and the prime…
I think Ao is just an inuniverse way of breaking the fourth wall, and that his master seems to imply to be the GM at the table. Ao can do anything he wants, but he is still bound to the will of the GM.
— — — — — — —
Oh yeah, as for the topic, I would not say I have any favorites. However, I find Eilistraee to be the most intriguing out of all the deities I know. Ilmater would be a close second since he kind of reminds me of Jesus.
I would like to know more about Ilmater, if you could elaborate.
I think Ao is just an inuniverse way of breaking the fourth wall, and that his master seems to imply to be the GM at the table. Ao can do anything he wants, but he is still bound to the will of the GM.
— — — — — — —
Oh yeah, as for the topic, I would not say I have any favorites. However, I find Eilistraee to be the most intriguing out of all the deities I know. Ilmater would be a close second since he kind of reminds me of Jesus.
I would like to know more about Ilmater, if you could elaborate.
Wi1dbi11 posted a good link for more information about him, but to summarize, I find him interesting because his divine portfolio is basically ending suffering. He takes the high moral high ground whenever possible and is also non violent, so he is basically a turn-the-other-cheek kind of guy instead of an eye-for-an-eye kind of guy. He goes on the offense only when it is absolutely necessary to protect others. If he was a mortal, he would probably volunteer to die in the place of a death row inmate if the criminal shows remorse and is willing to reform.
I think Ao is just an inuniverse way of breaking the fourth wall, and that his master seems to imply to be the GM at the table. Ao can do anything he wants, but he is still bound to the will of the GM.
— — — — — — —
Oh yeah, as for the topic, I would not say I have any favorites. However, I find Eilistraee to be the most intriguing out of all the deities I know. Ilmater would be a close second since he kind of reminds me of Jesus.
I would like to know more about Ilmater, if you could elaborate.
Wi1dbi11 posted a good link for more information about him, but to summarize, I find him interesting because his divine portfolio is basically ending suffering. He takes the high moral high ground whenever possible and is also non violent, so he is basically a turn-the-other-cheek kind of guy instead of an eye-for-an-eye kind of guy. He goes on the offense only when it is absolutely necessary to protect others. If he was a mortal, he would probably volunteer to die in the place of a death row inmate if the criminal shows remorse and is willing to reform.
Outside of that, I don't like gods as they fail to provide an explanation for the origin of existence.
Why does it matter? Flumphs don't provide an explanation for the origin of existence, but that doesn't mean they aren't rad. I understand in our universe why this is may be an issue given certain theological arguments. But in our gaming realms, the gods often interact more directly in the world and the evidence of their existence is often more tangible. There are many appreciably aspects of their existence beyond explaining the origin of the universe or any other phenomena.
I like clerics because they give tangible gaming mechanics. Beyond that, gods will be rad or not and will interact directly in the world or not to any extent a DM chooses. Other than that they mainly just give further detail to backstory and potential to deny power if, according to a set of values, you're naughty.
I asked you why it matters that the gods don't provide an explanation for the origin of existence. Your reply does not answer that question. While each campaign is different, the OP seems to be referencing source material. In the source material, there are gods. Not liking any of them because they don't explain the origin of existence is, of course, your prerogative, but to me it's a bit like not liking my microwave because it doesn't play DVDs.
Thank you and, as per "I don't like gods as they fail to provide an explanation for the origin of existence", that's exactly my position.
Gods, in real-world belief, are frequently synonymous with origin. If your DVD player came with the inference that it could, for instance, explain the question of existence when it failed to live up to expectations that might add to my reasons to prefer alternate options to access parallel content such as hard drives.
But not the origin of existence itself, which is to say why there is something rather than nothing. That is not something any god really does or likely even can do. There is always some presupposition of a force or phenomenon that calls all other existence, shape and form into being. The gods in 5e source material do, in many cases, explain origins of various phenomena, just as gods in general often do, but they don't tackle the seemingly paradoxical inquiry into why there is existence in the first place.
Exactly. 5e gods are presented as great powers that are worshipped and adored, yet they fail to provide answers to ultimate questions.
I don't like the idea of entities gaining control of aspects of mortal affairs as their portfolios and demanding/entreating worship. I prefer the idea that "... there's no fate but what we make for ourselves" and that characters can be in more direct control.
Outside of that, I don't like gods as they fail to provide an explanation for the origin of existence.
Why does it matter? Flumphs don't provide an explanation for the origin of existence, but that doesn't mean they aren't rad. I understand in our universe why this is may be an issue given certain theological arguments. But in our gaming realms, the gods often interact more directly in the world and the evidence of their existence is often more tangible. There are many appreciably aspects of their existence beyond explaining the origin of the universe or any other phenomena.
I like clerics because they give tangible gaming mechanics. Beyond that, gods will be rad or not and will interact directly in the world or not to any extent a DM chooses. Other than that they mainly just give further detail to backstory and potential to deny power if, according to a set of values, you're naughty.
I asked you why it matters that the gods don't provide an explanation for the origin of existence. Your reply does not answer that question. While each campaign is different, the OP seems to be referencing source material. In the source material, there are gods. Not liking any of them because they don't explain the origin of existence is, of course, your prerogative, but to me it's a bit like not liking my microwave because it doesn't play DVDs.
Thank you and, as per "I don't like gods as they fail to provide an explanation for the origin of existence", that's exactly my position.
Gods, in real-world belief, are frequently synonymous with origin. If your DVD player came with the inference that it could, for instance, explain the question of existence when it failed to live up to expectations that might add to my reasons to prefer alternate options to access parallel content such as hard drives.
But not the origin of existence itself, which is to say why there is something rather than nothing. That is not something any god really does or likely even can do. There is always some presupposition of a force or phenomenon that calls all other existence, shape and form into being. The gods in 5e source material do, in many cases, explain origins of various phenomena, just as gods in general often do, but they don't tackle the seemingly paradoxical inquiry into why there is existence in the first place.
Exactly. 5e gods are presented as great powers that are worshipped and adored, yet they fail to provide answers to ultimate questions.
I don't like the idea of entities gaining control of aspects of mortal affairs as their portfolios and demanding/entreating worship. I prefer the idea that "... there's no fate but what we make for ourselves" and that characters can be in more direct control. It's a personal preference.
Genesis 1:1 “God created the heavens and the Earth” the first verse in the Bible disproves your statement. In DnD, God is replaced with Ao, they are one in the same, and both give evidence for the creation of existence, we have been saying this the entire time.
Again, no Ao has superiors.
Then who are they, for I would like to meet them
"Ao exists beyond the concept of alignment or worship. He serves no one, and no one serves him. Instead he watches all, sees all, and judges all."
But, in the Avatar´s Trilogy, more precisely Waterdeep, the end of the epilogue has a passage that says:
"A luminous presence greeted him, enveloping his energies within its own. It was both a warm and a cold entity, for-giving and harsh. "And how does your cosmos fare, Ao?" The voice was at once both gentle and admonishing. "They have restored the Balance, Master. The Realms are once again secure."
Genesis 1:1 “God created the heavens and the Earth” the first verse in the Bible disproves your statement. In DnD, God is replaced with Ao, they are one in the same, and both give evidence for the creation of existence, we have been saying this the entire time.
Again, no Ao has superiors.
I'm happily sequituring all the way following my personal statement that "I don't like gods as they fail to provide an explanation for the origin of existence."
Gods are used to explain existence but ultimately fail to do so. They are an explanation that then requires a higher level of explanation. I don't like that.
To be honest I keep my own belief system out of DnD because otherwise I would only accept Fighters and Rogues at my table.
To be honest I take any of my likes into any situation I choose. "I don't like gods..." Simple.
Don't play a game with make belief gods and magic then. Cyberpunk is a thing as an rpg. I think there are even medieval settings with no magic.
Then who are they, for I would like to meet them
I think Ao is just an inuniverse way of breaking the fourth wall, and that his master seems to imply to be the GM at the table. Ao can do anything he wants, but he is still bound to the will of the GM.
— — — — — — —
Oh yeah, as for the topic, I would not say I have any favorites. However, I find Eilistraee to be the most intriguing out of all the deities I know. Ilmater would be a close second since he kind of reminds me of Jesus.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
Y’all are getting way off topic.
I like Hecate, in mythology she is represented with 3 faces sometimes because she has many aspects. She is the god of crossroads invoked by travelers and representing destiny, she is the queen of ghosts guiding lost spirits back to their final rest, she is also depicted as the goddess of magic.
Back in the day we used to represent Primus as the “one above all” in our campaign, we did not involve FR much so he was the equivalent of AO. The one and the prime…
I would like to know more about Ilmater, if you could elaborate.
Here is the link to ilmater :
https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Ilmater
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Wi1dbi11 posted a good link for more information about him, but to summarize, I find him interesting because his divine portfolio is basically ending suffering. He takes the high moral high ground whenever possible and is also non violent, so he is basically a turn-the-other-cheek kind of guy instead of an eye-for-an-eye kind of guy. He goes on the offense only when it is absolutely necessary to protect others. If he was a mortal, he would probably volunteer to die in the place of a death row inmate if the criminal shows remorse and is willing to reform.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
That’s really cool.
"Ao exists beyond the concept of alignment or worship.
He serves no one, and no one serves him. Instead
he watches all, sees all, and judges all."
But, in the Avatar´s Trilogy, more precisely Waterdeep, the end of the epilogue has a passage that says:
"A luminous presence greeted him, enveloping his energies within its own. It was both a warm and a cold entity, for-giving and harsh. "And how does your cosmos fare, Ao?" The voice was at once both gentle and admonishing.
"They have restored the Balance, Master. The Realms are once again secure."
https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Luminous_being