Talk:Portal:Deities

I could really use some help if someone wants to write the Portal:Deities/Pantheons box. It's one of my weakest areas of Realms knowledge. Feel free to add any other boxes to the portal if they would help introduce the topic of deities. Fw190a8 16:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I know there are at least a few other Halfling and Gnome deities included in non-FR specific sourcebooks, appearing in the ambiguous 3.5 supplemental books. Would they be included as well because they are D&D deities but, at least im pretty sure, arent unique to campaign setting. Johnnyriot999 02:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I suppose the relevant question would be, "are they mentioned in any Realms source material?" Even if it's just a passing mention, it's enough to confirm that the deity is considered canon in the Realms. Fw190a8 03:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

So this is one of the pages most affected by 4rth edition. I see that so far we are keeping it rooted in about 1374. Selvetarm & Vhaeraun not listed as Dead Gods. This page will look near completely different for 1485. How to cope? Dual (dueling) sections? (Theoretically could be more than two, could make portals for different timeframes, but would suggest 1374 and 1485 would like be the two most relevant for now.) Many of us will be still working in 3.5 edition timeframe (like me for example, set in 1375). - Barfubaz 13:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think a divided portal is perhaps the best way to do it. One side with the arrangement of deities circa 1375, and the other side with the arrangement in the Year of the Ageless One. However we should only keep one entry per deity and just update with canon material available and allow users to use the information most suited to their campaign. I'll start work on the portal arranged as per 1479 - I think I might do it by divine dominion so people get a visual overview of relationships instead of just power level.
 * I will also start working on a revised deity template. I'm not really sure things like cleric alignments, domains or favoured weapons should be in there as these constitute "crunch" to a certain degree; although something like a favoured weapon should be mentioned in appearance and personality sections of the text. I'll leave it in for now, but will probably at least adjust text to emphasise edition specificity.
 * Additionally I suggest categorisation occurs through things like moral alignment (good, neutral or unaligned, evil), unless we're going to start making sorted by both 3.5 alignment and 4.0 alignment. Any opinions on appropriate categories? Chezcaliente 02:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * On Crunch, I actually disagree about Domains and Favoured Weapons. You would see these sort of things in a novel. eg Kevin of Helm, drew his Bastard Sword, favoured weapon of Helm, and slew the foul beast or Kevin knew Helm (holder of the Law) would would look on him with disfavour if he didn't do that which was required and let the guards arrest him. Worshipers Alinement, yes this is crunch IMHO. My evidence is the concept of Alinement changed slightly in 4th CORE. Hurtzbad 04:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)