Talk:Aerdrie Faenya

Possible Merge with Akadi
Apparently, Aerdrie Faenya is simply an aspect of the primordial Akadi. Would anybody object if we merged the articles, so long as the information here remains largely (if not completely) intact? Niirfa-sa 09:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Why should they be merged? Most people know her only as AF, thats what she is called in the novels and most stuff of the Realms. Only in some glibberish 4.Ed book is it a small aspect, that she was Akadi. I think it would be enough to mention that on both articles. I mean even Zinzerena has her own article, and she is much longer known to be an aspect of Lolth. I think it is enough to make it clear that there may be another point of view in some 4.Ed rulesbook and that's it. I think "in universe" most elves will think of her as AF too, even after some ominous wizards changed their world rules, so why change it here? Historicus 15:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Because it's factually accurate. It doesn't matter what elves think. It matters what's true, from an in-universe standpoint. It's not the job of a wiki to write rules from the perspective of any one group or race, but to write from a NPOV that is biased only towards canon over fanon or non-canonical information. It is canon that Aerdrie Faenya and Akadi are the same individual. While elves might believe otherwise that does not change the facts. I would advise the same policy towards Zinzerena, as well as the many aspects of Talos (who is himself an aspect of Gruumsh) or Mystra. I see no reason why the information located here couldn't also be located at the Akadi article. Niirfa-sa 18:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think they should be merged. Just have a note on the page.  After all, all the gods they made aspects or whatever, were real gods for thousands of years in the Realms.  Sure in 4E they got rid of a lot of the gods to make all the cry babies happy, but they were still gods.  And it's not like your gonna get and lore for this aspect stuff, 4E is all crunch.


 * Edition-bias has no place here. Canon is canon. If you have something worthwhile to say (such as Historicus) other than "4e violates my personal feelings about continuity and sucks" feel happy to make a suggestion. But don't insult 4e and use that as a justification for your argument. So far the best point has been that elves see Aerdrie as a different entity and hence we should have a different article. I don't agree with that but at least it's actually an argument and I'd be willing to concede to it if it's the consensus. Niirfa-sa 01:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that we should recognize that Aerdrie was "unveiled" as being Akadi, post-Spellplague. However, this article has a good bit of content that I'm afraid would otherwise be lost, or wouldn't do it proper justice, if we merged it with Akadi.  Aerdrie and Akadi have different holidays, rites, etc.  Trying to merge it would like result in a split-personality article. I recommend that we change the intro text of this article to mention something to the effect that "Post-spellplague, Aerdrie Faenya has been revealed as being Akadi".  06:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * While I do think you should state Aerdrie Faenya is an aspect of Akadi, merging the articales is not a good idea. You will lose too much information. Hurtzbad 00:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * People will still look up info for 3rd ED stuff, even if the coming of 4th wiped out a lot of deities/characters. All those articles should be kept, maybe moved to pages with (3rd edition) and (4th edition) and a disambiguation for the main article name. Or some such. Zeraktalk 00:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)