Talk:Talos

Merge Suggestion
Since Talos and Gruumsh are the same god, would anybody object if the information here were simply moved to Gruumsh and Talos redirected to Gruumsh#Talos Aspect? Niirfa-sa 09:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be wrong to merge the articles. Talos is a major, greater power with tons and tons of Realmslore that covers several editions. You might be able to fill up one paragraph of lore about Gruumsh, and it's not like we will see any 4E lore. I know they put out a D&D like game and some of the books even say Forgotten Realms on them, but they have no relation. The classic Realms has nothing to do with the new, cool, hip, easy realms. Maybe like the spells you can put a little 4E box way at the bottom of the page that says 'Oh yea in 4E they said and did this and that'. (Bloodtide 23:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC))
 * Edition-bias has no place here. Canon is canon. Niirfa-sa


 * I guess canon=something you like, right?. I wonder why you 4E people did not just make your own Wiki.  After all the 5,000 some articles here are useless to the 4E person.  (Bloodtide 02:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC))
 * I'm not a "4e person." I enjoyed 3e and 3.5 as well. However, canon is canon, and that includes not just new 4e material but old OD&D, AD&D, 2e, 3e, and 3.5 material as well. Elminster still became the Chosen of Mystra and became a famed archmage living in Shadowdale. Drizzt still left the Underdark to become a ranger of Mielikki. The Bhaalspawn Crisis still occured. None of those events didn't happen. However, just like 3e and 2e retconned certain things considered canon, so has 4e, and the wiki should reflect that. Whining about it isn't going to help anyone. Niirfa-sa 02:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a serious question, not whining. When a 1E,2E or 3E person comes to the Wiki, all the information in an article can be used.  But 4E all the stuff is 100 years out of date.  Sure, you can read the history, but that has nothing to do with the Realms of the 1400's.  To a 4E person, Drizzit was a drow ranger that did some stuff 120 years ago, and died years past.  Same way only a 1/2/3E person will care about Talos, as he is a greater god.  To a 4E person he is less then nothing, an aspect of an orc god?  The greater god Talos has nothing to do with Gruumsh, and it's hard to how they are related.  (Bloodtide 02:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC))
 * Both have one eye. Both are chaotic evil. Both are gods of savage warriors. Gruumsh is simply focused around orcs, while Talos is more of a take-all god. Frankly, it's a little surprising that Talos wasn't chosen as the canonical name but my guess is that the developers wanted a strong orcish pantheon to counterbalance the fey one.
 * Also, Drizzt is still alive. As is Elminster. Shall we start a vote? So far we have 1 for merge, 2 against. I wouldn't mind hearing more opinions. Niirfa-sa 06:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm opposed to merging/revamping such big changes from 3ed-4ed. People will still use the wiki to look up info on 3rd edition. Either move this artcile to Talos (3rd edition), or create a Talos (4th edition) page instead. Zeraktalk 18:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Zerak and Niirfa-sa. History should be included, as should 4e information.

I think Gruumsh and Talos are distinct enough aspects of the deity that they merit separate articles. Both have a considerable amount (not merely "one paragraph") of lore built around them, and I worry that a combined article would be overly long and chaotic, and necessitate the editor to make assumptions about exactly how they sync together that aren't necessarily reflected in the canon (for example: which aspect came first? Is Talos an interloper god or a Realms native?). Separate articles for 3rd and 4th edition Talos would be senseless, since the only difference (in the Talos aspect) is game statistics, and this wiki isn't supposed to include game statistics.

There are several good parallel examples. Lolth subsumed the aspects of Zinzerena and Moander, so both deities - while technically part of Lolth - are viewed as being other than Lolth by their followers, and thus merit separate treatments. Isis incorporated Ishtar's aspect as well, but they were viewed as separate deities and deserve separate treatments as well. The Earthmother is sometimes said to be an aspect of Chauntea, but originally she wasn't, and current 4e canon has her a separate entity again, so that's an example of how canon can flip back and forth on an issue like this. Then, of course, there's the whole Angharradh issue, definitely supposed to be an aspect of three other goddesses, yet she gets her own entry. -- Rowan Earthwood 17:24, December 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe Outermost_ToeGot a question? 07:43, December 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * The same principle could apply, though, if the general guideline is that aspects of deities should be merged with their primary names. Akadi, Sune, and Selûne could each have "Angharradh aspect" subsections. I think a better guideline, though, is that if a deity's aspect is important enough to get a separate entry in one of the official books, it deserves a separate entry on this wiki. And that applies as much to Talos, Aerdrie Faenya, Sehanine Moonbow, and Hanali Celanil, who are definitely given their own entries in many books. For the most part, this is for pragmatic reasons; it helps avoid the question (unresolved in canon) of whether or not Talos and Gruumsh should have their lists of allies, enemies, holy days, vestaments, priestly titles, and so on combined or listed separately in every subsection. -- Rowan Earthwood 23:28, December 19, 2010 (UTC)