# Torm vs. Tyr



## Abstraction (Nov 30, 2007)

As somebody who never really used WOTC gods, can you give the rundown of the similarities/differences of Torm and Tyr? What will it mean for the core game world?


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Nov 30, 2007)

Abstraction said:
			
		

> As somebody who never really used WOTC gods, can you give the rundown of the similarities/differences of Torm and Tyr? What will it mean for the core game world?




Nothing, this is an FR only thing.  Core has Bahamut.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 30, 2007)

Tyr is a real life god.


----------



## werk (Nov 30, 2007)

Torm is more good, Tyr is more law.

No clue about 4e.


----------



## PeterWeller (Nov 30, 2007)

Tyr is pretty much a generic justice god.  Torm is more specific, embodying service to justice and just lords as well as protecting the innocent.  Basically, Torm's _the_ paladin god of FR (which is not to say that he's the only god that has paladins, just that he's the god that most embodies the traditional set of paladin values and virtues.)


----------



## Aust Diamondew (Nov 30, 2007)

Tyr has one hand.

Damn wolf.


----------



## KingCrab (Nov 30, 2007)

Aust Diamondew said:
			
		

> Tyr has one hand.
> 
> Damn wolf.




Yup.  And (faiths and avatars) 2ed clerics could cast wolf jaws to turn their arm into a deadly snapping wolfhead.  Combined with the fact that they could use longswords and heavy armor and detect lie at will (big module buster) clerics of Tyr were quite powerful.  From what I recall, clerics of Torm were just average.  In 3.x it didn't matter as much.  Tyr was more justice, Torm was more protection.


----------



## amethal (Nov 30, 2007)

Aust Diamondew said:
			
		

> Tyr has one hand.
> 
> Damn wolf.



Personally, I think the wolf had good reason to be annoyed.

Blame the owner, not the pet


----------



## PeterWeller (Nov 30, 2007)

KingCrab said:
			
		

> Yup.  And (faiths and avatars) 2ed clerics could cast wolf jaws to turn their arm into a deadly snapping wolfhead.  Combined with the fact that they could use longswords and heavy armor and detect lie at will (big module buster) clerics of Tyr were quite powerful.  From what I recall, clerics of Torm were just average.  In 3.x it didn't matter as much.  Tyr was more justice, Torm was more protection.





I always hated that longsword bit, especially after the priests of Tyr made such a big hullabaloo about them at the beginning of _Pool of Radiance_.


----------



## BlackMoria (Nov 30, 2007)

The Code of Torm can be found here.

Code of Torm


----------



## Badkarmaboy (Nov 30, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Tyr is a real life god.




Athiests, Christians, and Muslims may disagree with this statement.

Sorry, I couldn't resist


----------



## eleran (Nov 30, 2007)

Badkarmaboy said:
			
		

> Athiests, Christians, and Muslims may disagree with this statement.
> 
> Sorry, I couldn't resist





But remember, there are still practicing Odinists somewhere, so the rest of that rabble would be wrong.


----------



## ferratus (Nov 30, 2007)

eleran said:
			
		

> But remember, there are still practicing Odinists somewhere, so the rest of that rabble would be wrong.




Yeah, I think you should put replace "still" with "new" if you want to be historically valid.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Nov 30, 2007)

KingCrab said:
			
		

> Yup.  And (faiths and avatars) 2ed clerics could cast wolf jaws to turn their arm into a deadly snapping wolfhead.  Combined with the fact that they could use longswords and heavy armor and detect lie at will (big module buster) clerics of Tyr were quite powerful.  From what I recall, clerics of Torm were just average.  In 3.x it didn't matter as much.  Tyr was more justice, Torm was more protection.



Actually, Tormite priests were pretty powerful too; one mustn't underestimate the value o double-duration divination and protection spells. (Massive off-topic: I was always amused by how many people missed the fact that FR specialty priests used a different XP table; they would have been somewhat overpowered using the standard cleric progression.)

Another thing to keep in mind is that Torm _serves_ Tyr; as such, he is really a representation of what to some extent is a subset of Tyr's overall justice portfolio, emphasizing duty and loyalty.


----------



## The Little Raven (Nov 30, 2007)

Abstraction said:
			
		

> As somebody who never really used WOTC gods, can you give the rundown of the similarities/differences of Torm and Tyr? What will it mean for the core game world?




Tyr is directly based on the Norse god of the same name. He has all the same basic attributes, including having lost his hand to some immortal canine. He's a perfect example of Ed taking something that already exists, sanding it down a little and dropping it in wholesale.

Torm, on the other hand, is a FR-only god. Known as the Loyal Fury, he's the god of duty, loyalty, obedience, paladins, and truth. He also kicked the crap out of Bane during the Time of Troubles and was restored to life by Ao because he was fulfilling the duty laid out for him. He went from being a demigod before the Troubles to a lesser god afterwards.

What this means for the core? Nada.

What this means for FR? An improvement, in my opinion. I prefer a FR-unique god to ones plucked from other sources.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 30, 2007)

Badkarmaboy said:
			
		

> Sorry, I couldn't resist





You really, really should have resisted.    

Everyone else, do resist.  This is not a way this thread should go.


----------



## MisterWhodat (Nov 30, 2007)

I worship Torm for two reasons in the Realms. One, he is the most Baller god in the Realms and Two he makes my dookie twinkle man


----------



## tomBitonti (Nov 30, 2007)

*Why is this 4e???*

Ok, I have to ask, why is this change a part of the 4e set of changes?  As far as I can tell, this has *nothing* to do with the rules changes.  I can invent an argument that says that one shakeup is better than two.  But, I can also invent an argument that this is feature creep, and two medium sized shakeups are better than one huge shakeup.  What is the mandate for the 4e update?  To provide the updates as needed to accommodate the rules changes?  Or is there a broader mandate to make other changes as well?


----------



## The Little Raven (Nov 30, 2007)

tomBitonti said:
			
		

> Ok, I have to ask, why is this change a part of the 4e set of changes?  As far as I can tell, this has *nothing* to do with the rules changes.  I can invent an argument that says that one shakeup is better than two.  But, I can also invent an argument that this is feature creep, and two medium sized shakeups are better than one huge shakeup.  What is the mandate for the 4e update?  To provide the updates as needed to accommodate the rules changes?  Or is there a broader mandate to make other changes as well?




It's not just about rules changes. The settings will be changing, some simply because of changes to the D&D core (like Eberron, which will remain almost exactly the same, with some minor tweaks because of changes), some because they tend to through in metaplot changes with each new edition (Forgotten Realms).

The Torm/Tyr change seems to be happening because enough FR fans were vocal about wanting that Norse interloper removed and replaced with a FR-only god that people have seen in action for years (Torm).


----------



## broghammerj (Nov 30, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> It's not just about rules changes. The settings will be changing, some simply because of changes to the D&D core (like Eberron, which will remain almost exactly the same, with some minor tweaks because of changes), some because they tend to through in metaplot changes with each new edition (Forgotten Realms).




I disagree with you assessment of why worlds are changing.  The problem is Eberron is relatively new and fan feedback via the internet regarding setting creep is vocal enough to remain the same.  Had it been written decades ago, it would have been jacked with a long time ago.

FR on the other hand has precedent, even though it has been poorly received, to change the setting with each new edition.

My gestalt is that Eberron fans have said don't screw up the gameworld like you did with FR.


----------



## The Little Raven (Nov 30, 2007)

broghammerj said:
			
		

> I disagree with you assessment of why worlds are changing.




So, you disagree with the fact that Eberron will only change slightly because of system changes (some elves will stay elves, and others will become eladrin), and you disagree with the fact that FR is changing because it does so with every edition (which, it does, as you pointed out by it's precedent)?

Reading your post, I don't see any real dispute between what I said and what you said. Eberron will remain the same in fluff and lore, but change because of system changes (unavoidable). Forgotten Realms will change because they always do that.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Nov 30, 2007)

Yes; the designers have definitely indicated that they wanted to make more sweeping changes to the setting, especially as involves the deities and the presence of powerful good NPCs.

I happen to dislike these changes, though I guess YMMV. They have typically been played out first in the FR novels (which I detest), and planned/scripted by people who are certainly not my favorite FR designers (those being Ed Greenwood, Steven Schend, and Eric Boyd). The stuff with the gods is especially distressing because it veers away from one of the design elements I always liked in Ed's writing: Namely, the tendency to play fast and loose with deities, cults, and the like S&S-fashion. The FR adventures and supplements reference a number of weird cults that lack the highly protagonist-style deities of, say, Troy Denning's books.


----------



## Abstraction (Nov 30, 2007)

broghammerj said:
			
		

> My gestalt is that Eberron fans have said don't screw up the gameworld like you did with FR.



Gestalt = an organized whole that is perceived as more than the sum of its parts.

Is that the word you meant? I don't understand.


----------



## broghammerj (Nov 30, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Reading your post, I don't see any real dispute between what I said and what you said. Eberron will remain the same in fluff and lore, but change because of system changes (unavoidable). Forgotten Realms will change because they always do that.




Perhaps, I had drawn some inferences that did not exist in your post regarding change (or lack thereof) being implicit to each setting.  Hence my use of the term disagreement.   I read into your post that FR has a natural progression with each new edition.  I think they have changed FR due to historical precedent but was not intrinsically implied with the original setting.  Eberron has remained static due to fan outcry not really a planned or implied stasis.


----------



## broghammerj (Nov 30, 2007)

Abstraction said:
			
		

> Gestalt = an organized whole that is perceived as more than the sum of its parts.
> 
> Is that the word you meant? I don't understand.




If you take fan opinion of changing gameworlds with new editions, advancing metaplots based on published novels, proliferation of a campaign setting with supplement creep(sum of the parts), it appears the overall thought (organized whole) is the setting should be left relatively alone.

Perhaps I have used the word incorrectly.  I am always amazed by my ability to come up with clear and concise thought patterns and utterly fail to convey them via the internet!


----------



## med stud (Nov 30, 2007)

KingCrab said:
			
		

> Yup.  And (faiths and avatars) 2ed clerics could cast wolf jaws to turn their arm into a deadly snapping wolfhead.  Combined with the fact that they could use longswords and heavy armor and detect lie at will (big module buster) clerics of Tyr were quite powerful.  From what I recall, clerics of Torm were just average.  In 3.x it didn't matter as much.  Tyr was more justice, Torm was more protection.




That's the reason why I don't want gods from the real world in D&D; they mangle them completely (Tyr with a wolf hand?!?).


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 30, 2007)

The most significant thing from this news is that a fan emailed them, they listed to his arguments, and changed the game a as a result of that email.


----------



## Lord Fyre (Nov 30, 2007)

I shed a Tyr when I heard about this descision.


----------



## The Little Raven (Nov 30, 2007)

Lord Fyre said:
			
		

> I shed a Tyr when I heard about this descision.




...

...

A pun calls for only one response: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/04/10



			
				Penny Arcade said:
			
		

> Don't say another goddamn word. Up until now, I've been polite. If you say *anything* else - word _one_ - I will kill myself. And when my tainted spirit finds its destination, I will topple the master of that dark place. From my black throne, I will lash together a machine of bone and blood, and fueled by my hatred for you this *fear engine* will bore a hole between this world and that one.
> 
> When it begins, you will hear the sound of children screaming - as though from a great distance. A smoking orb of *nothing* will grow above your bed, and from it will emerge a thousand starving crows. As I slip through the widening maw in my new form, you will catch only a glimpse of my radiant form before you are incinerated. Then, as tears of bubbling pitch steam down my face, my dark work will begin.
> 
> I will open one of my six mouths, and I will sing the song that ends the Earth.


----------



## Ogrork the Mighty (Nov 30, 2007)

I intensely dislike how it seems like a lot of 4E decisions are simply being based on nothing more than, "Huh? Yeah, that's a great idea. Let's implement it!"

Barely any thought put into it beyond an interesting concept.  :\


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 30, 2007)

Ogrork the Mighty said:
			
		

> I intensely dislike how it seems like a lot of 4E decisions are simply being based on nothing more than, "Huh? Yeah, that's a great idea. Let's implement it!"
> 
> Barely any thought put into it beyond an interesting concept.  :\




Was it ever otherwise?


----------



## The Little Raven (Nov 30, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Was it ever otherwise?




Well, with some of the things that came out during 2nd Edition, I'm sure that some people had the philosophy "This is a horrible idea! FIRE UP THE PRINTING PRESS!"


----------



## Stogoe (Dec 1, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Well, with some of the things that came out during 2nd Edition, I'm sure that some people had the philosophy "This is a horrible idea! FIRE UP THE PRINTING PRESS!"



 I love it!


----------



## ascendance (Dec 1, 2007)

Now that Tyr is going out, is the Mulhorandi pantheon (and whatever the faux-Assyrian one was called) going to join him too?


----------



## Torm (Dec 1, 2007)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> Another thing to keep in mind is that Torm _serves_ Tyr



An excellent point, and one that is giving Me pause about this whole matter of promoting Me to Greater Deity status - can someone tell Me how, exactly, they are supposed to justify that I will no longer be in the service of Tyr, and how I'm supposed to be God of Paladins when the abandonment of My own Duty as a Paladin of Tyr would leave Me in need of atonement for Myself?!


----------



## The Little Raven (Dec 1, 2007)

Torm said:
			
		

> An excellent point, and one that is giving Me pause about this whole matter of promoting Me to Greater Deity status - can someone tell Me how, exactly, they are supposed to justify that I will no longer be in the service of Tyr, and how I'm supposed to be God of Paladins when the abandonment of My own Duty as a Paladin of Tyr would leave Me in need of atonement for Myself?!




Because by slaying Helm, your lord forsook Justice for Vengeance, and he is no longer fit to be your lord.


----------



## Green Knight (Dec 1, 2007)

There're a couple of scenarios under which Torm can take Tyr's place and still stay true to his ethos. Take the inevitable loss of worshippers that Tyr is bound to see as a result of this. Remember, Helm lost a ton of worshippers for far less (Maztica, which he didn't even order, and the Time of Troubles, where he was just following his ethos), whereas Tyr's actions were horrid and petty. So he's bound to suffer losses that would make the losses the Helmite Church suffered pale in comparison. That kind of loss could be enough to dip him into Intermediate God status (After all, who can trust Tyr's judgment anymore? Especially after misjudging his own friend so horribly that he killed him). 

Then there's the enmity that'll be directed at his church from numerous sources, including natural allies. Ilmater and Siamorphe, formerly his servants, abandoned the House of the Triad. And their worshippers probably look at Tyr with antipathy now. Tymora's worshippers are doubtlessly less then thrilled with him, either. And of course, Ex-Helm worshippers must despise Tyr. And then there're those who worship the Triad as a whole. With the loss of Ilmater, there's no more Triad. And it isn't Ilmater who's going to be catching the blame from the likes of the Triadic Knights. 

So not only has Tyr weakened his own position, but he's also burned half-a-dozen bridges, mostly with people who were and should be his allies. So one can see several results spinning off from that. 

1) Tyr realizes that he's thrown the Balance all out of whack, and that the dislike that people have for him personally will keep it damaged. So being the staunch supporter of maintaining the Balance that he is, he gives up his position, passing it to Torm, and moves on to other worlds. 

2) Ao punishes Tyr for doing a poor job. After all, Tyr's the one and only LG Greater God. It wouldn't do anything for the Balance if he were to drop down to Intermediate God status, or for him to be fracturing the Lawful side of the Balance when he can be replaced by someone who isn't so divisive. 

There's also having Tyr simply leaving Faerun in shame and guilt over what he did to his friend Helm. Just a couple thoughts as to how Tyr can make an exit from Faerun.


----------



## Faraer (Dec 1, 2007)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> The stuff with the gods is especially distressing because it veers away from one of the design elements I always liked in Ed's writing: Namely, the tendency to play fast and loose with deities, cults, and the like S&S-fashion. The FR adventures and supplements reference a number of weird cults that lack the highly protagonist-style deities of, say, Troy Denning's books.



In the new _Grand History_ events and novels like the Lady Penitent series, Wizards is presenting Realms gods as they were in the Avatar novels: definite, knowable characters with humanlike motivations who exist and act in linear time -- quite unlike how the rest of Realmslore shows them.

And the new pantheon seems to be putting schematic, minimalist top-down worldbuilding in place of the emergent, as-if-real, something-new-round-each-corner plenitude the Realms was built on. In the new divine classification, only (a reduced number of) greater and lesser gods are worshipped, thus -- as you say -- losing the fast-and-loose cults, and a great amount of richness, unless the remaining priesthoods are covered in new and compensating depth, which would defeat another of the new design goals.

These design principles are fine, but they aren't the Realms'.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Dec 1, 2007)

Faraer said:
			
		

> In the new _Grand History_ events and novels like the Lady Penitent series, Wizards is presenting Realms gods as they were in the Avatar novels: definite, knowable characters with humanlike motivations who exist and act in linear time -- quite unlike how the rest of Realmslore shows them.



In general that I like, they're making them gods rather than Gods.  Powerful entities not something stuck between the transcendant and the knowable.  More like I've always had deities, only thing that could bring it more in line is to have them frequent the material plane in person where they have concentrations of worshipers.



			
				Faraer said:
			
		

> And the new pantheon seems to be putting schematic, minimalist top-down worldbuilding in place of the emergent, as-if-real, something-new-round-each-corner plenitude the Realms was built on. In the new divine classification, only (a reduced number of) greater and lesser gods are worshipped, thus -- as you say -- losing the fast-and-loose cults, and a great amount of richness, unless the remaining priesthoods are covered in new and compensating depth, which would defeat another of the new design goals.



May never have used the Realms much but I always liked the plentitude of deities and imitated it wherever my campaigns were set.  Moreover the FR pantheons were chock full of gods to give a makeover, new name, and throw into your own settings.  I know I've done that fairly often.


----------



## The Little Raven (Dec 1, 2007)

Faraer said:
			
		

> These design principles are fine, but they aren't the Realms'.




I'd argue that these principles are far superior, since they aren't "steal everything that's not nailed down," which is how the Realms have always appeared to me, previously.


----------



## Brian Compton (Dec 1, 2007)

While I don't have a problem with Torm replacing Tyr, per se, as I've always liked Torm more than Tyr (not that you couldn't guess that from my avatar  ), it's another detail that has to be explained away.  If they're trying to get rid of any and all "interloper deities," that would also get rid of Oghma (Celtic), Silvanus (Roman/Celtic), Mielikki and Loviatar (Finnish), and maybe Tymora and Beshaba (aspects of Tyche, a Greek goddess).  Likewise, his followers have to go somewhere, as do Helm's.  Now I can see part of why they said converting 3.5E characters won't be happening. 

Fortunately, unlike such a decision in the Marvel or DC universes, DM's can simply ignore this and do their own thing.  Especially if they want to keep the idea of the Triad.

And for those who think FR has useless gods, at least all the gods have some major area of importance.  It could be like the Romans, who had the god Sterculinus (god of manure-spreading), Strucinator (god of weeding) and Cardea (goddess of door hinges).  Not to mention the deities of every single part of a stalk of grain and every single stage of its development (like Nodutus, god of the joints and knots in the stems of grains).


----------



## Uzzy (Dec 1, 2007)

Sigh. First Tyr gets stuck doing a fair few out of character actions, then gets demoted/removed/killed. Frankly, it seems that the only thing that the current FR designers know how to do is remove big parts of what makes the Realms the Realms. 

We could always remove Tymora too. I mean, she performed quite a few actions contrary to her ethos, such as agreeing to an arranged marriage. And hey, she's the daughter of an interloper deity!


----------



## The Little Raven (Dec 1, 2007)

Brian Compton said:
			
		

> Now I can see part of why they said converting 3.5E characters won't be happening.




To me, this is because of how much of a failure the 2e->3e conversion document was, since it severely altered the utility and power-level of most multi-classed characters. No point in putting out another document that is rubbish when it comes to accuracy.


----------



## Henry (Dec 1, 2007)

Green Knight said:
			
		

> 1) Tyr realizes that he's thrown the Balance all out of whack, and that the dislike that people have for him personally will keep it damaged. So being the staunch supporter of maintaining the Balance that he is, he gives up his position, passing it to Torm, and moves on to other worlds.




I don't understand the talk of balance; Tyr is a being of law and good, and would rather the balance tip toward MORE lawful than less. Unless by "balance" you mean "established order," which I could see. Tyr would likely be all about lawful transition, and killing someone in the heat of affrontery would be upsetting to him, I would think.


----------



## The Little Raven (Dec 1, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> Tyr would likely be all about lawful transition, and killing someone in the heat of affrontery would be upsetting to him, I would think.




It depends on the circumstances.

If I'm the God of Justice, and I send my servant, the God of Guardians, to bargain for my bride, I expect him to do me honor and complete the task. If I discover that he is seeking to gain my bride for himself, I would feel a grave injustice has been done. As my portfolio demands, I would seek justice for such a betrayal, and when dealing with divinities death is usually the only form of justice I can deliver. So, I would challenge my traitorous servant to a duel and slay him, as honor and justice demand.

And Cyric would have a party because he just used Tyr's on portfolio against him, in order to reduce his allies and power.


----------



## The Little Raven (Dec 1, 2007)

Uzzy said:
			
		

> Frankly, it seems that the only thing that the current FR designers know how to do is remove big parts of what makes the Realms the Realms.




This seems to reinforce my belief that "acquiring" things from other works (real-world mythology and other settings) is what makes the Realms the Realms.


----------



## KingCrab (Dec 1, 2007)

So what do we actually know is going on with Tyr and Torm in 4ed?

Added: Anything other than Torm in Tyr out?


----------



## The Little Raven (Dec 1, 2007)

KingCrab said:
			
		

> So what do we actually know is going on with Tyr and Torm in 4ed?




It is very likely that Tyr will exit, stage left, and Torm will take his place as a Greater God.


----------



## KingCrab (Dec 1, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> It is very likely that Tyr will exit, stage left, and Torm will take his place as a Greater God.




Too bad, I never much cared for Torm.


----------



## The Little Raven (Dec 1, 2007)

KingCrab said:
			
		

> Too bad, I never much cared for Torm.




I prefer original creations to ones that are *ahem* borrowed, wholesale, from other sources.


----------



## Uzzy (Dec 1, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> This seems to reinforce my belief that "acquiring" things from other works (real-world mythology and other settings) is what makes the Realms the Realms.




Shame that's a false belief then, isn't it?


----------



## Torm (Dec 1, 2007)

KingCrab said:
			
		

> Too bad, I never much cared for Torm.



Why? What'd I ever do to you?


----------



## The Little Raven (Dec 1, 2007)

Uzzy said:
			
		

> Shame that's a false belief then, isn't it?




So, Ed was lying in all those articles where he talked about taking gods from real-world mythologies and only sometimes renaming them? So, a god that loses a hand to an immortal canine while his brethren are chaining it... and he happens to share the exact same name as the real-world god... that isn't an indication of taking from other sources? Oghma, a god of knowledge, isn't anything like the inventive Ogma, whose name was modified to name an alphabet (ogham)? No link there? Loviatar, maiden of agony and pain, is nothing like Loviatar, youngest of the god of death, and called the worst of her brethren? A goddess of luck named Tyche has no connection to the Greek goddess of fortune and destiny... also named Tyche? Corellon, Moradin, Garl, Lolth, and their ilk aren't based on the same exact gods from Greyhawk?


----------



## grimslade (Dec 1, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> So, Ed was lying in all those articles where he talked about taking gods from real-world mythologies and only sometimes renaming them? So, a god that loses a hand to an immortal canine while his brethren are chaining it... and he happens to share the exact same name as the real-world god... that isn't an indication of taking from other sources? Oghma, a god of knowledge, isn't anything like the inventive Ogma, whose name was modified to name an alphabet (ogham)? No link there? Loviatar, maiden of agony and pain, is nothing like Loviatar, youngest of the god of death, and called the worst of her brethren? A goddess of luck named Tyche has no connection to the Greek goddess of fortune and destiny... also named Tyche? Corellon, Moradin, Garl, Lolth, and their ilk aren't based on the same exact gods from Greyhawk?




I'm not following. Don't beat around the bush; spit it out! ;P

Torm ascending after the Tyr-Tymora-Helm debacle is making lemonade from lemons. The love triangle was forced. It needed a lot of setup to get to that payoff and 2 paragraphs in the GHotR could not do it justice. The Torm ascendancy needs to be treated in a better way.


----------



## Green Knight (Dec 1, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> I don't understand the talk of balance; Tyr is a being of law and good, and would rather the balance tip toward MORE lawful than less. Unless by "balance" you mean "established order," which I could see. Tyr would likely be all about lawful transition, and killing someone in the heat of affrontery would be upsetting to him, I would think.




Well, when I talk about him supporting the Balance, I'm thinking of the novel Crucible, here, in which Cyric, Mystra, and Kelemvor were put on trial for failing in their godly duties. Tyr was ready to convict all three, despite the fact that their continued existence was for the good (Mystra and Kelemvor were favoring good over evil, and Cyric's incompetence was helping good, which wouldn't be the case if a more competent god were to take his place). But as a god, he had to set aside his personal opinion and do what was best for the Balance. And what the Balance needed was a god of Magic and Death who did their jobs without bias, rather then favoring the good over the evil.


----------



## Mortellan (Dec 1, 2007)

I read Green Knights email to Rich Baker and I have to say, even as a DM who doesn't run FR I was still thoroughly impressed with his arguement. Torm's character development deserves to move forward as he stated. This is one of the few pleasing things I have read development-wise since Gencon. Kudos!


----------



## Moonshade (Dec 1, 2007)

The posts by Green Knight that seem to have impressed the designers can be found here and here (also, Rich Baker's reply). I'm quoting the first in full because I think it will help explain things very well.



> I don't know about anyone else, Rich, but after this whole debacle with Helm and Tyr, I'd just like to see Tyr gone and have Torm replace him and become the new God of Justice. Yeah, he was a servant in life and a servant as a god, but I think it's time for Torm to step up to the big leagues. Let him pass on the Portfolios of Duty, Loyalty, and Obedience to another servitor deity (Possibly Nobanion or even Bahamut. Or better yet, create a new god who was once a mortal follower of Torm, a Paladin, who discovered the location of Chalsembyr, and who was rewarded by being elevated to Demigod status) while he claims the Portfolios of Justice, Guardians, Protection, Protectors, and Paladins. I think there're numerous good reasons to do so:
> 
> 1) Tyr killing Helm has left a bad taste in a lot of peoples mouths. Maybe I've got a limited imagination , but I imagine that the number of Realms players who like that plotline don't even reach into the double digits, percentage wise. It's probably a stretch to say that 2-3% of Realms fans like that story. Point is, Tyr's now inextricably linked to a story which has left a bad taste in the mouths of a lot of Realms fans, and his continued presence will only serve as a constant reminder of that story. So what's the value of keeping him around? He doesn't bring anything to the Realms, but instead detracts from it. Hell, he did so even before that whole debacle, as I'll illustrate below.
> 
> ...




I agree with everything said in this post but would not have been able to express it as well. Green Knight, thank you for arguing so eloquently in favour of this change! And it's also good to know that designers are willing to listen if they're presented with a respectful but persuasive argument.

The whole love triangle was a big mess (the God of Justice screwing up in a major way, the God of Guardians dying a pretty sad death, the Goddess of Good Luck agreeing to an arranged marriage that made her miserable). But since it had been done, all indications seemed to be that Realms fans were going to be stuck with it in 4E. The elevation of Torm saves what can be saved of the story by paying attention to its logical consequences (people's loss of faith in Tyr and his judgment). While I like the big FR pantheon, in this case I think it's better to remove a god than to ignore what the storyline would do to his worshippers in the Realms and his credibility/popularity among players.

I always saw Tyr as the worst of the interlopers. The name, the Fenris story; overall he felt much more intrusive than even someone like Silvanus, who's still not one of the first names to come to mind when people think of the Roman pantheon.


----------



## PeterWeller (Dec 1, 2007)

First off, I want to say that I'm in the thin minority that actually likes the whole love triangle story.  I'm all about the petty manipulative and manipulated FR gods as presented in the Avatar Trilogy and its sequels.  That being said, goldang! does Green Knight make a brilliant argument as to how to salvage that story with the fan-base and give a deity the bump he so definitely deserves.  I support Torm for FR LG Greater Deity '08.


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Dec 1, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> I prefer original creations to ones that are *ahem* borrowed, wholesale, from other sources.



I agree; in my personal FR, for example, the Mulhorandi and Chessentans do not worship Egyptian deities, but rather the elemental powers, with celestial / genasi bloodlines among the ruling elite. (And as a Finnish gamer, the inclusion of Mielikki and Loviatar tends to bring up SoD difficulties whenever they're mentioned.  )

Anyway, I'm all for Torm rising in power and replacing Tyr. It's, well, _just_, and makes for an interesting dynamic between Bane and Torm.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Dec 1, 2007)

I'm not normally a Realms player or DM; I don't hate it, but once I heard it described as 'wet cardboard fantasy*' I figured out why I didn't like it.

But 4e Realms? Torm and Bane staring at each other across the metaphysical chessboard - and now Bane has paladins of his own? I just might be in for that.

Hell, Bane was one of three published gods I've ever wanted to include in a homebrew (the other two being Annam the giant god and the hobgoblin god from Warlords - sword and axe, religious revolution, stake-burnings, all that good stuff).

* For the record: A formless, flavorless beige mass that fails to stimulate or satisfy and collapses under the slightest pressure.


----------



## Mirtek (Dec 1, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Tyr is directly based on the Norse god of the same name. He has all the same basic attributes, including having lost his hand to some immortal canine.



That is because FR Tyr IS the same as the norse good. _On hallowed grounds_ explains why  he chose to expand his influence to the faerunian pantheon (because other warlike deities in the norse pantheon expanded upon his worshipper base and he felt that he was slowly pushed out of the norse pantheon).


----------



## Uzzy (Dec 1, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> So, Ed was lying in all those articles where he talked about taking gods from real-world mythologies and only sometimes renaming them? So, a god that loses a hand to an immortal canine while his brethren are chaining it... and he happens to share the exact same name as the real-world god... that isn't an indication of taking from other sources? Oghma, a god of knowledge, isn't anything like the inventive Ogma, whose name was modified to name an alphabet (ogham)? No link there? Loviatar, maiden of agony and pain, is nothing like Loviatar, youngest of the god of death, and called the worst of her brethren? A goddess of luck named Tyche has no connection to the Greek goddess of fortune and destiny... also named Tyche? Corellon, Moradin, Garl, Lolth, and their ilk aren't based on the same exact gods from Greyhawk?




As was pointed out to you over on the WoTC boards, there are a fair few differences between the Norse Tyr and the Realmsian Tyr. However, I am not denying that the inspiration for such gods is taken from other places. I am also not putting forward the argument that that is what makes the Realms the Realms. Don't go Strawman on me now.


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (Dec 1, 2007)

*But what I really want to know is...*

...when is Elminster going to become Major God of Deus-ex-Machina and Railroading??

I mean, that's the role he always plays, isn't it?

(The above is a joke, please don't flame me)


----------



## Ty (Dec 1, 2007)

Meh, go ahead and kill him off / exit stage left / be absorbed by Torm.


----------



## jester47 (Dec 1, 2007)

Wow, so Torm just fired Tyr...

AND TOOK HIS STUFF


----------



## jester47 (Dec 1, 2007)

Amphimir Míriel said:
			
		

> ...when is Elminster going to become Major God of Deus-ex-Machina and Railroading??
> 
> I mean, that's the role he always plays, isn't it?
> 
> (The above is a joke, please don't flame me)




I am actually really wondering: Why isn't he the God of Magic in the realms yet?  I think its time for him to man up, stop messing with the sexy Goddess of Magic and bug out to being a greater God.  Best way for the Elmunchkins to have their cake and eat it too, and the rest of us get rid of the minster and can ignore him because he is now a greater God who does not interfere with this campaign.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 2, 2007)

When it comes to FR, I always liked Helm more. He seemed like a decent guy.

Problem with Helm is that it's your duty to protect and breaking away from that for an emergency doesn't really work. (I.e. if you, a Helm-worshiper, are charged with protecting a site or a person, if there's some unrelated evil afoot over There, you can't really leave your post to go take care of it).


----------



## ruleslawyer (Dec 2, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> So, Ed was lying in all those articles where he talked about taking gods from real-world mythologies and only sometimes renaming them? So, a god that loses a hand to an immortal canine while his brethren are chaining it... and he happens to share the exact same name as the real-world god... that isn't an indication of taking from other sources? Oghma, a god of knowledge, isn't anything like the inventive Ogma, whose name was modified to name an alphabet (ogham)? No link there? Loviatar, maiden of agony and pain, is nothing like Loviatar, youngest of the god of death, and called the worst of her brethren? A goddess of luck named Tyche has no connection to the Greek goddess of fortune and destiny... also named Tyche? Corellon, Moradin, Garl, Lolth, and their ilk aren't based on the same exact gods from Greyhawk?



Of course Ed took gods from RW mythologies, although I fail to see how that qualifies as "steal[ing] everything that's not nailed down." The gods are pretty much where the stealing cuts off, for Ed at least; the RW analogues presented in the Realms (Maztica, pseudo-African Chult, Egyptian/Assyrian/Greek Old Empires, etc.) were done by other writers who veered pretty far out of the Realms' "core aesthetic." 

[FWIW, I have no problem with stealing for campaign worlds anyway. I may not want to read novels that are ripped from elsewhere, but kitchen-sink gameworlds are how I like to play.]
Incidentally, talking about stealing the nonhuman gods from Greyhawk's a bit unfair. Those gods are "core" deities, not GH ones. They showed up first in Roger Moore's articles in Dragon and then in Unearthed Arcana (two years before the first FR boxed set), with no GH labels on them in either case.


----------



## PeterWeller (Dec 2, 2007)

Ty said:
			
		

> I thought about writing an actual, well-thought out post as to why this is a bad idea.  Then I remembered that this is 4th Edition and if we don't embrace the changes, we're grognards who don't have anything to contribute to the discussion.
> 
> Meh, go ahead and kill him off / exit stage left / be absorbed by Torm.  You're the designers and it's your game; not mine.




That's too bad.  Even though I agree with this, I would've liked to see a solid argument against it.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 2, 2007)

Ty said:
			
		

> I thought about writing an actual, well-thought out post as to why this is a bad idea.  Then I remembered that this is 4th Edition and if we don't embrace the changes, we're grognards who don't have anything to contribute to the discussion.





You know, this sort of thing doesn't help in the slightest.

In the future, if all you have to add is a negative over-generalization that folks are likely to take as an insult, go read a book, take a walk, or something.  Don't post.  We need more of this sort of negativity about our fellow posters about as much as we need a database crash.


----------

