Talk:Amaunator

Lathander and Amaunator are now one and the same (neither died - they were simply different names for the same god). I suggested a merging. Since it's most recent, Amaunator should probably be the main article, with Lathander linking here. I'm open to the idea of the reverse though. Niirfa-sa 09:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would recomend a at the top so that people are able to see the change, rather than a merge. I do it so you can see Hurtzbad 10:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

New Artical proposal
After some consideration, I think we should create 3 articals all linked To reflect the changes in each of the versions of D&D and also so we keep track of the history and so we don't lose detail. I also think we may have to do this with quite a bit of the differences between all the version. Hurtzbad 10:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Amaunator (Netheril god)
 * 2) Lathander (Greater god)
 * 3) Amaunator (Greater god)
 * That's not actually a bad idea. Mystra, after all, occupies two different articles (Mystra and Mystryl) though in many ways she's technically three different deities. If there's a consensus we could either create another article (as you've suggested) or simply continue Amaunator's history after "death" from the Spellplague here, with a brief mention of how Amaunator took on the identity of Lathander (including a link that perhaps says "main article: Lathander"). Niirfa-sa 17:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that having the separate articles better reflects the nature of the changes that the deity has undergone. Fw190a8 21:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I also agree that separate articles are better. Just looking at the statistics for this article and the Lathander article, you can see that both have totally different cleric alignments. I'm sure that the new Amanunator is going to be different to the pre-Lathander Amanunator, so I think that three articles is a better way to do things. (However, I think it is important to have something close to the top that links them all. I'm not sure what, buty it should be something like a disambiguation text block.) David Shepheard 12:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with this proposal -I think we've been a bit too rash with just overwriting good articles about 3(.5)ed topics, just because they no longer hold true in 4th ed. And I think having articles about 3rd ed stuff would be a good thing - I think a lot of people will still use that 'ruleset/setting' as opposed to 4th. Zeraktalk 20:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Why stop at 3rd edition? Forgotten Realms has been around since 1st edition AD&D, so there are some rules (like clerical spheres) that applied to the deities back then, but stopped applying during 3rd edition. It is also possible that some FR suppliments gave speciality priests (as they were called back then) deity specific powers or unique spells, that may be of interest to fans (especially if people want to see how a deity has evolved over several editions). And if you don't routinely include 2nd and 1st edition content, you can't easily include things like the Maztican Deities (because templates won't fit). This should be a wiki about everything in the FR universe and should really be edition neutral. David Shepheard 01:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I only have one major objection to this and that's this - Amaunator (Netheril god), Lathander, and 4e Amaunator are all the same god. If we want to create separate articles for them, that's fine - but only if we follow suit with all the other deities. That means splitting Mystra into two articles (since, after all, Mystra before and after the ToT are at least as different as Lathander and Amaunator, and arguably more so since they're actually differernt entities of different alignments) as well as creating separate articles for each and every manifestation of each and every deity.


 * Preferably, I still say we merge them, and here's why - there's no reason equal attention can't be given to each and every version of Amaunator within the article. Hell, three deity template could even be used for each section. My point is - I see no truly strong reason why the articles should remain separate, or, for that matter, why merging them is 4e-favoritism. I just don't. However, I'll be willing to go through with it all if we carry this policy on to the other articles for consistency.Niirfa-sa 06:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)